I cannot even hear the Deputy, but I want to make my speech in my own way in the time available to me. There was another inaccuracy, before we get to the nub of the matter. He asked why have I not called in the GSO—the implication being that I have not. The implication is untrue and the Deputy ought to be more responsible, even if he is new in the House, than to make implications which are untrue when he could find out the truth by asking, because, of course, the GSO have been and are involved.
One could go on with these things. But let me talk about the facts because, on 23rd October, I met representatives of Avoca. First of all, let me dispose of what happened last night. Let me be absolutely clear about the reasons and the circumstances. I have had a fairly large number of visits on the matter of Avoca. I have been continuously involved in the matter of Avoca; indeed, it would be closed by now and I have a letter of thanks from Mr. Kilgour, the general manager, but for my interventions since mid-October. I have had requests from the trade union involved to meet me. I indicated in a letter to Mr. John Carroll that I would meet him. I said, "at an appropriate time". What I meant by that was that I wanted to have the results of the decision of the Minister for Finance in regard to the extra £160,000. I wanted to have the results of the investigation of the alleged 47 million tons of ore from the GSO before I could have a fruitful discussion. I had a letter back on 23rd January, from Mr. John Carroll, acknowledging that I had made that offer. On the following day I got a picket outside the Dáil from the Avoca workers. It is entirely their right to picket; it is anybody's right to picket. I wanted to talk with them about the situation in the mine. When the local representatives asked me to talk to them I was happy to accede to that request and they came in. If one reads the text of what Deputy Ciaran Murphy says, one will see he suggested they were instantly put out. In fact, I have three foolscap pages of notes of a calm and reasonable exchange of views we were in the course of having.
I am shocked that Deputy Murphy should uphold the action in the way he has done. I do not think a Minister would do it who has had the experience of having to try to govern. When talking to the people who visited me I tried to get a clear answer from one of them, from a spokesman, as to why they had picketed. They did not say it was to raise the matter of the future of Avoca mines, as was suggested by Deputy Ciaran Murphy. The answer I got was they put the picket on to get in to see me. Now their union had a letter the day before the picket went on saying that I would see them, and that was an acknowledged letter, "at an appropriate time". The day after the picket went on, not to make a protest—which is every worker's right and to which I have absolutely no objection—but to get in to see a Minister they put on a picket. That is what I was told. And the whole point of the issue, not an action in anger, not an action lightly taken, is that if we are to have pickets, 24 hours after letters acknowledging the right of access to Ministers from organisations to get in immediately to see Ministers, then the normal rights of deciding these things in a normal, courteous way, disappear and the whole principle of picketing disappears. After a reasonable and courteous exchange of views—I emphasise "reasonable"; Deputy Murphy was there—I am then told, to my total amazement, that the purpose of the picket was to get an appointment. Deputy Brennan has been a Minister and he knows that no Minister can yield to that sort of pressure for the sake of an appointment, for the sake of making a point; for the sake of getting an appointment at a certain time. No, that is no way in which we could carry on governing. But when it was made absolutely explicit that the purpose of the picket was to get in immediately for an interview, then I had to say there was no way they could have an interview on that basis. I am, of course, happy to have conversations at the appropriate time, when I have the details I want, with the relevant people, as I have had at every stage—an exchange of telephone conversations, contacts with senior officials. We have had an amicable situation about this. I have Mr. Kilgour, the general manager, on record recognising that.
The whole point of my feeling that I had to leave was to uphold the principle that a picket may not be used to force admission to a Minister at very short notice, especially in circumstances where I had an acknowledgment already that I had offered them access when appropriate and, "when appropriate" meant when the major financial decision was taken— because there is not much use my talking before that; that is not taken in my Department but in another— when I have some idea of the real validity of this claimed 47 million tons of ore, about which very active work is going on at present. It would be appropriate to talk then. It would not be appropriate to talk before that, that fact recognised in a letter from John Carroll of the Transport Union. Then the next day we had a picket just to open a door. I regret the incident but that is not an admissible principle. No man who was ever a Minister, who has to try to get through busy days and weeks, could admit that principle. I am upholding the principle not merely for this Government or for myself but for all Governments at all times. I hope Deputy Brennan will recognise that, because we could not run a Government in that way. I regret the incident. But that is the reason and it seems to me to be a good one. It seems to me to be an overwhelming reason. However, we are off the real issue——
