asked the Minister for Social Welfare if in June 1964 representations were made to him by a deputation from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions asking him to introduce a compromise amendment concerning trade disputes disqualifications in relation to unemployment benefit; and if his Department undertook to examine further this proposed solution.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Trade Disputes: Unemployment Benefit Payments.
36.
As I indicated in my reply of 29th June, 1966, to another Question on this matter, the position is that at the conclusion of a meeting on 18th June, 1964, between the Standing Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and officials of my Department it was agreed that the Trade Union side should make a written submission to my Department in support of their views. This submission was to illustrate by examples the effect of their most recent proposals, as suggested at the meeting, for a modification of the existing trade dispute disqualification for unemployment benefit.
I have now received a communication dated 30th June, 1966, from the Congress which indicates that there has been a misunderstanding as to what was agreed at the meeting. This communication is now being examined.
Am I to understand the Minister denies there was a compromise amendment suggested at the conference referred to?
No. These discussions had been going on for some time and various suggestions had been made and at this meeting it was agreed that a further submission expanding their proposals and explaining them would be submitted by the Congress.
Could the Minister say what decision, if any, was taken in relation to the compromise amendment suggested by Congress?
No decision has been taken.
It is a fact that there was such an amendment submitted. It is terribly important.
Would the Minister now withdraw the statement made by him on two occasions that Congress had not written a letter to him following the June, 1964, meeting?
There was no question of a letter in June, 1964. The statement made by me on two occasions is repeated in reply to this question and it is correct.
Is the Minister now repeating the statement he made that in fact the ball was in the Congress court and not in his? That statement was made by the Minister.
That statement was made by the Deputy.
Congress made a compromise proposal to the Minister's officials and that was never dealt with, and it is the Minister and his officials who were responsible for the delay and not Congress.
The position after the June, 1964, meeting was that Congress was to submit a memorandum of the proposals put forward in that discussion.
That is not true.
That is the understanding I have. On last Friday I received a letter from the Congress indicating for the first time that there was a misunderstanding as to what was the result of that discussion.
Did Congress use the word "misunderstanding".
I do not know. I have the letter, as I suppose the Deputy also has. The letter indicates that there was a misunderstanding.
Would the Minister read the passage if the Ceann Comhairle will allow it?
I shall read the whole letter if the Deputy likes.
It is unusual to have quotations at Question Time. I do not think I can allow it as it might create an undesirable precedent.
In view of the fact that a very serious charge was made by the Minister against the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in this House——
There was no charge whatever made and it is only since the last occasion that it was raised that there was any suggestion of a misunderstanding.
There was a planted question by the Minister's colleague.
There was no planted question. Deputy Molloy asked a question as he is entitled to do. Four months ago this was mentioned in the House and Deputy Tully referred to it. Since then, there was no denial or suggestion that there was any misunderstanding until last week. It is only since last week that Deputy Tully has——
When this matter was raised before, I told the Minister it was untrue. He agreed that he would have the matter further considered.
Deputy Tully never told me it was untrue.
This is becoming a debate.
Could I make this one point? The Minister now says that we are raising the matter because of a reply given last week. He did not give a reply last week. He made an accusation and did not get away with it.
This is a matter of great importance. I wish to give notice that I intend to raise the subject matter of this question on the Adjournment this evening.
The Deputy did not tell me it was untrue. He said the ball was in the other court and that it was a long time coming back. There is no denial there.
The Minister accused me last week of denying it.
I did not. I said Deputy Tully never denied it.
It is denied now and it was denied before.
After four months, not before.
By the time this is finished, the public will know the Minister is not telling the truth.
I was telling the truth. That was the understanding arrived at at the meeting and this rule is there with Labour Party approval.
Misunderstanding.
I am calling Question No. 37.
The fact is that the decision was made by the Labour Party.
It was not, but it will be, the next time.