Will the Taoiseach detail his Government's plans to deal with the displacement of 543 workers by Irish Ferries Limited? He should have a note of it because he will remember this was a significant company which served the strategic interests of this country well before it was sold off to friends of Fianna Fáil by the then Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan. Having gotten away with it in the case of the displacement of workers on the MV Normandy, the company now proposes to make redundant the entire crew and to register the vessel in the Bahamas under a flag of convenience. As a result, 543 workers are displaced.

I read in the newspapers that it is proposed to give them €6 million in taxpayers' money as a contribution towards the redundancy fund. The unions and wider economic interests want to know what action the Government intends to take. What are the implications of this for social partnership? This is a race to the bottom. We have seldom seen anything so blatant as dismissing an entire workforce in order to employ slave labour from outside the State at €3.60 per hour.

The Taoiseach has often told us how expert he is in industrial relations, which he is. I always thought that, in order to be redundant, the job could not be filled. However, these 543 jobs are being filled. Is the Government satisfied that they are eligible for redundancy and that the taxpayers' money which is proposed to be paid into the fund is appropriate? Has advice been taken from the Attorney General on that particular issue?

I am as concerned as the Deputy about the particular point he has made whether the former workers are legally entitled to redundancy if the jobs are going to be filled again. I am seeking advice on that issue. I am not satisfied about this within the normal terms that I would consider it but we are taking legal advice. In the context of the international situation of workers on the sea and the flag of convenience, the jobs will be replaced. There is no doubt that is what the company is about. Given the ramifications for social partnership, a meeting of the national implementation body under Sustaining Progress is taking place today. However, I do not wish to prejudice its outcome. The Government discussed the matter this morning, as it has done in recent days.

A number of public policy matters arise in the context of the situation that has developed. The Government has invested significantly in the support and training of the Irish maritime sector, as befits an island nation. The reported decision of Irish Ferries to reflag its vessels operating on the central corridor of the Irish Sea is a blow to the national interest. That is how I see this issue. Irish Ferries has benefited significantly from the overall development of the economy and the increase in both passenger and freight traffic which it has generated.

While acknowledging the competitive pressure from other carriers and modes of travel the Government's view is that Irish Ferries is an integral part of the Irish economy and has benefited significantly from its development. That has been significantly aided by times of stability and managed change which has characterised the overall approach to industrial relations for many years. The company's decision to step outside the Irish labour market to employ staff, reputedly below the minimum wage — I cannot prove that but I have been informed that is what the company is at — is inconsistent with its relationship with the economy. I make that point strongly.

I do not consider the company to be some Fianna Fáil company, as the Deputy derogatorily said. I do not know who is involved, except that I know the name of the chief executive.

While criticism may rightly be made of the approach of the unions in the company in the past, the manner in which this matter has been conducted by the company in recent days is deplorable. I would not defend for one second the manner in which the company has acted. It has told its staff of more than 500 the terms, that if they do not get out, they will lose their benefits and God knows what will happen to them, and that when they are out the door in a few days the jobs will be filled by non-nationals from God knows where and on conditions that nobody knows. That is what the company is at. It is sharp practice which is totally unacceptable in the Irish labour context and is using the flag of convenience. Perhaps many of the workers will see the package as a good one but I do not know the position on that.

I have written to the chief executive of the company today pointing out most of those points to him and saying I do not accept the way the company has acted in this matter. Whether we can stop it other than on the issue of redundancies is a matter we are examining.

I welcome the Taoiseach's forthright condemnation of what is going on. If the Taoiseach maintains this approach for the rest of the term, we could have useful exchanges here. At the end of all that, what does he intend to do about the issue? The last time the national implementation body met, Irish Ferries did not even attend. If the Taoiseach does not know any of the people in Irish Ferries, perhaps he would ask Gerry Hickey who knows all about it, although in fairness it did not happen while he was in the company. He will brief the Taoiseach on the pedigree of the people making these decisions.

On the question of displacement, is the Taoiseach concerned about the implications for social partnership and what will happen elsewhere? While I welcome migrant labour here, what will happen when the building industry winds down a little and when it seeks to displace workers in permanent jobs on trade union rates? What will happen if Aer Lingus wants to follow this example?

Whereas the Taoiseach is quite forthright in saying this is sharp practice and is unacceptable, I note that IBEC made a very forthright statement, to my surprise, supporting the disgraceful decision of Irish Ferries which was accidentally exposed during the summer as having employed a Filipino hairdresser at €1 per hour. One would not find such conditions in any slave factory in Dickens's time. It is utterly unacceptable. If this were to become the pattern of even a small number of other companies with the blessing of IBEC and the helplessness of the Government, it would be outrageous.

When is the advice from the Attorney General likely to be forthcoming? It would be an appalling scenario if it turns out that the men in Irish Ferries, and they are largely men, who believe in good faith that they will get redundancy after many years of service are not eligible. That matter needs to be clarified before Mr. Rothwell is allowed to go his merry way in establishing this disgraceful precedent in Irish industrial relations.

For those who may not know Gerry Hickey, and I thought there was a rule that we do not mention people who are not present in the House, he is my adviser who worked with the company ten years ago.

I mentioned him favourably.

I accept that, but he worked with the company ten years ago and what influence he would have on Mr. Rothwell or any of his colleagues now is irrelevant.

The company states that it has a serious problem with its cost base. It is in all our interests that be addressed urgently. I urge the company, as I would any company that has a problem with its cost base, to work with the unions, to engage realistically over a period of weeks with the support of the industrial relations machinery of the State and agree on measures to protect the company's interests while honouring the terms of Sustaining Progress.

I do not have an issue what Deputy Rabbitte said. Where I do have an issue is if one is a member of IBEC and negotiates Sustaining Progress, which has been dramatically successful in preventing strikes in recent years, the minute one has a problem one tears up the agreement, ignores the normal industrial relations channel and does not turn up at the Labour Court. The reason I have not called——

What is the Taoiseach doing about it?

I am answering Deputy Rabbitte, and speaking to the company at the same time if I can do that, which it is perhaps useful to do. We have a collective industrial relations system and it is not done by diktat or Government enforcement. It is and has been done since 1946 on the basis of people coming together and it has worked fairly well for almost 60 years. That is what happens.

On the question of redundancy, I hope we can have an answer on that matter. This is a real issue. The basis for redundancy is that a job is gone and the State pays a contribution. In this case it is clear the company is using the flag of convenience to let a workforce go and replace it with non-nationals who will be paid wages which fall far below the statutory national minimum wage. This is not acceptable to the Labour Court, the national implementation body or whatever way we engage with IBEC. We are endeavouring to get the company to see there is another way of resolving the issue. If it refuses to go to the Labour Court and to the national implementation body, we must look at the redundancy issue. It is sad that a large company, a member of the national employers group which is part of the agreement, adopts such an attitude. Without stating it any more strongly, I would be very disappointed if a serious company did that.