Batt O'Keeffe
Question:8 Mr. B. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if he intends to meet the ex-workers of Irish Steel to discuss re-adaptation aid. [6840/97]
Other Questions. - Re-adaptation Aid.
I had a meeting with the committee representing the former Irish Steel workers on 11 March 1997 to discuss re-adaptation aid. Since then I have carefully considered the issue and I have recently been in correspondence with the chairman of the committee on the matter.
I am satisfied that the EU re-adaptation aid approved by the EU Commission — 627,000 ECU for 209 former Irish Steel workers — represents the best possible aid available and is a significant improvement on the original offer from the EU Commission in terms of the amount available, the conditions of payment and the number of workers eligible. I am also satisfied that the extra statutory redundancy payments received by the former Irish Steel workers constitute the matching funding requirement. This concurs with the EU Commission's position and with the position which pertained in 1985-86 when former Irish Steel workers also received re-adaptation aid. In these circumstances, the question of additional matching funding does not arise.
The re-adaptation aid funding was recently received by my Department from the European Commission and arrangements are being finalised to make the payments to the 209 eligible former workers immediately. Each former worker will receive 3,000 ECU which, using the appropriate exchange rate, amounts to £2,175.80.
The Minister said he met the committee representing the Irish Steel workers. I also met the committee on that occasion and on a previous occasion. Is the Minister aware the workers are dissatisfied with his decision?
The committee put its views on the matter to me. I assessed those views and have satisfied myself that these are the maximum terms available. Under the 1991 agreement between the European Commission and the Irish Government, the maximum re-adaptation aid payable is 3,000 ECU and the maximum amount is being paid in this case. That is a considerable improvement on the original EU Commission offer of 2,000 ECU per worker. It is also an improvement in that it is paid in a lump sum rather than over a 15 to 18 month period. The Deputy will be aware there was a dispute about the matching funding. However, the precedent is clear and the extra statutory redundancy paid in 1985-86 was the matching funding. That is the approach that was adopted in this case.
The Minister and the Minister of State met the group on an earlier occasion. The workers are dissatisfied with how both the Minister and the Minister of State have handled the matter. Did the Minister's Department make ongoing representations to Europe which had the result of the good case submitted to Europe by the group being turned down?
Our representations to Europe succeeded in increasing the offer——
No, the final offer.
——from 2,000 ECU to 3,000 ECU. That was a significant increase in terms of total funding. We also succeeded in increasing the number of workers eligible. We increased the total funding from 376,000 ECU to 627,000 ECU. Considerable progress was made in negotiations with the EU under this agreement and we secured the maximum possible payments under the scheme.
Is the Minister satisfied that all commitments made to the workers at the time of privatisation have been honoured? I met the workers recently and they are of the view that they have not been honoured.
I am satisfied the commitments and arrangements for the transfers have been honoured in the way agreed at the outset.