andMr. Treacy asked the Minister for Labour if he will consider favourably the payment of ex-gratia redundancy compensation to the employees of Messrs Rawson Limited, Dundalk, County Louth, in line with the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Bill, 1967, in view of the workers' long years of service and the extreme hardships caused by the closure of the firm.

37.

asked the Minister for Labour if he will make arrangements so that the redundant workers heretofore employed by Messrs Rawson Limited, Dundalk, County Louth will enjoy redundancy payments similar to those that would be extended to them after the coming into operation of the Redundancy Payments Bill, 1967.

I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 36 and 37 together.

The Government are very concerned about the hardship being caused to workers and their families in Dundalk as a result of the destruction by fire of Rawson's factory. They are considering whether this could be regarded as a special case in view of the fact that the workers lost their jobs as a result of an unforeseen disaster, and whether some measures might be taken to alleviate the hardships for the workers. An announcement will be made as soon as possible of any action which the Government may find it practicable to take in the exceptional circumstances of this case.

Is the Minister indicating some positive hope, therefore, of meeting the wishes expressed in the question?

I do not think I should add to or substract one word from what I have said.

There is no purpose in pressing the Minister, then.

Nevertheless, I should be grateful if the Minister told the House are there any grounds for the belief that a member of the Government has informed the employees of Rawson's that it is the intention of the Government to provide the employees who have been displaced by this fire with the benefits of the Redundancy Bill which has just passed through the House, and that they intend to take measures to give them these benefits, albeit that the Bill will not operate retrospectively?

The Deputy is saying that a member of the Government said this?

Yes.

Does the Deputy know which member?

He is not here. He is out on the hustings.

He does not lose his place in the Government on that account.

I shall tell the Minister: it is Deputy Faulkner.

He is not a member of the Government.

Oh, well, is he not a Parliamentary Secretary?

Deputy Faulkner said what I have just said in answer to the question.

Will the Minister tell us if it is the intention of the Government——

I am not in a position to add to what I have said in reply to the question, which is exactly what Deputy Faulkner passed on.

I suggest that the reasonable procedure should be that if you intend to do something, do not spoil the ship for the halfpenny worth of tar. Bring these 500 workers ad hoc, by a special Bill if necessary, into the benefit of the Redundancy Bill which would have covered them if the fire had not occurred until later. The Minister might as well take the plunge, seeing that these unfortunate people are full of anxiety, most of them being family individuals, and it would be of immense comfort to them——

There will not be a minute's delay in letting these people know the Government's decision and the Deputy is not helping the particular area one bit. It is difficult to make a special case for one area.

I know, but if 500 people lose their jobs——

Would the Deputy say how he proposes to divide the halfpenny worth of tar among 500 people?

Without the rude interruption by a senior Deputy—I said "senior Deputy," I did not imply another adjective—we might have had information on whether the Minister intends to do something. Anything he does will be ad hoc and exceptional. Is it not sensible to say now that the Government mean to give these people the benefits of the Redundancy Bill?

I have already told Deputy Faulkner that my sympathy lies in doing something here. I have to find a way to do it, and as Deputy Faulkner has already informed the trade union concerned that the sympathy of the Government lies——

Sympathy will not pay for groceries.

The Deputy wants to spoil it. It is not as easy as that.

Why are you always sneering when people are trying to help?

You are not helping very much.

Arising from the original reply, could the Minister say, no matter what the decision of the Government will be, that it will be made known——

Yes, and quickly.

——and if they are to get payments in any way equivalent to what they would get under the Redundancy Bill, they will appreciate it.

That is the proper attitude, not to be always the same, sneering at everything.

I do not want any lectures from the Minister for Health. I always behave myself.

Crawthumper.

It is not the Minister for Health.

The Minister for Education.

You never have your facts right.

You made a right one——

I know what the Deputy is talking about and any mistakes I made in my lifetime I paid for them, you hypocritical crawthumper.

If the Minister was able to do anything down in Limerick, he would be there, not here.

You are in a rage now. You will not be picked to be Leas-Cheann Comhairle. You will not be the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Is that what is up with you?

I am not in this House looking for favours to fall from anybody's table. I do my stint there any time I am asked to do it, and if the Minister for Health did as much for the country, he would be doing well.

Minister for Health, again.

The Minister for Education should not be allowed to make stupid remarks.

Will Deputies cease making these statements and return to the question?

Go in and light a candle.

On this point, the fact is that I go to Mass and apparently it is something that annoys the Minister for Education. Is he making a comment on that? I make no apology to the Minister for Education or to anybody else.

A very edifying spectacle.