Deputy Desmond has received permission to raise on the adjournment the question of Talbot motor assembly. The Deputy has 15 minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - Talbot Motor Assembly.
Today at Question Time the subject matter of the Talbot agreement was raised by Deputy Kelly and there were a number of supplementary questions asked by that Deputy, Deputy FitzGerald and myself. The subject matter was the agreement which was entered into between the Government, Talbot Ireland, the ATGWU and the ICTU in regard to 90 assembly workers. The agreement is dated — Members will know the significance of the date — 10 June 1981. The agreement, which I propose to put on the record of the House as it is the basic issue in dispute, is signed on behalf of the Taoiseach by Noel Whelan and Padraig Ó hUiginn and by a representative on behalf of the company whose precise signature I cannot decipher. It is signed on behalf of the ICTU by Tom McGrath, on behalf of ATGWU by Dan Browne and on behalf of the ITGWU by somebody called Halpenny.
The agreement between the Government, Talbot Ireland, ATGWU and ICTU in regard to the 90 assembly workers is as follows:
1. The Government are fully confident that the IDA who are actively engaged in finding a suitable viable project or projects to provide alternative employment for the 90 assembly workers, will be able to set up such a project within a period of six months. The type of employment will be comparable in nature to the existing assembly employment; the wages and conditions will be negotiated by the trade unions on the terms appropriate to the new employment. In the event of redundancy occurring in the new company the Government will ensure that the statutory redundancy payments will be related to the number of years' service of the men during their employment in Talbot.
2. The Company have agreed to sell or lease all or parts of their Dublin factory for the proposed project and the necessary negotiations and valuations are in progress. In the event of the factory not proving suitable for a new project, it will be the intention to locate the project in suitable premises in the area e.g. the Airways Estate.
3. (a) During the interim period to 16 October 1981, the workers will be given training appropriate to the employment mentioned in paragraph 1 and receive AnCO training allowances and pay-related benefits as from the entering into force of this agreement. AnCO will arrange for credited social welfare contributions during the training period and holiday leave at the rate of 1½ days per month will be provided.
(b) During this period to 16 October 1981, the Company will make up the difference between the AnCO basic training allowances and the pay-related benefits to the value of the average take home pay of the workers during the period 1 November 1980 to 31 January 1981.
(c) During this interim period to 16 October 1981, payments will ensure that the take home pay of workers in the interim period from 17 April 1981 will be maintained. 4. If by 16 October an IDA funded project as referred to in paragraph 1 has not provided employment the Government will arrange to continue until such time as this employment has been provided and until the AnCO training has been completed to make up the basic training grants and pay-related benefits to the value of the average earnings as calculated in 3 (b) above subject to any increases as a result of adjustments to wage levels arising from increases granted under National Pay Policies. When the training has been completed and if the employment referred to in paragraph 1 has not yet been provided, the Government will continue to maintain the average earnings defined in the previous sentence.
5. (a) The Company undertakes that each of the 90 workers shall be paid two full weeks pay for each year of service plus a sum in lieu of notice. The total amount will be paid by 17 June. For this payment only, service will be calculated up to October 16 1981. Twenty-six weeks service or over will be counted as one full year.
(b) The company will also pay an ex-gratia sum calculated on the basis of 17½ days leave to each worker.
(c) The Company and Trade Union will jointly review the pension and insurance schemes with a view to the transfer to the workers of the entire benefits and rights of the schemes, if the Trust Deed so permits.
(d) It is intended to submit this Agreement to the Labour Court for registration as a Registered Employment Agreement under Section 25 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
It was then signed by the signatories I mentioned earlier in my contribution. The net effect is that average earnings are guaranteed to the 90 workers concerned for life. The cost to the State in 1982, as provided for in the Book of Estimates and as elaborated on in a reply by the Taoiseach to me on 3 June last, will be £475,000 in the Vote of the Department of Industry and Energy. A sum of £186,496 has been expended to date and of the original 90 workers involved who ceased employment at present the provisions of the agreement are being applied to 88 men. On a very crude calculation I would say that the men concerned will obtain for the rest of their lifetime payments of approximately £20 million. They are so guaranteed under this agreement, without question. No matter how it is examined by the Attorney General of the current Government, of the immediate past Government or of the Government of the day up to 10 June 1981 the men concerned are guaranteed for their lifetime on the assumption — and I think it is a reasonable assumption — that it is highly unlikely that a suitable viable project will be set up providing the type of employment for the men concerned, and here I quote "will be comparable in nature to the existing assembly employment". There are a number of basic questions to be asked. The date of the agreement was 10 June 1981, as I recall, the day before the general election. Who authorised this agreement? Was it the Government? Was it the Taoiseach? Was it the Minister for Finance — who presumably was involved — and who issued the directions to the public servants concerned who have signed this agreement, men of senior status within the Department of the Taoiseach who presumably signed, and it is clearly stated here in the agreement, on behalf of the Taoiseach? Why was such an agreement entered into? These are questions which I consider — and I made the point here earlier today when I used the term committee of inquiry — warrant a tribunal of inquiry. In fact I shall go further and say that an agreement of this nature, a unique one in the history of this State, indeed in the history of industrial relations in Europe, because I cannot find a comparable agreement anywhere in western Europe, warrants a tribunal of inquiry into the circumstances under which it was signed. It must be remembered that in next year's vote and for the vote every year thereafter so long as the assembly workers concerned remain unemployed, they will be paid average earnings topped up by the State over and above any normal, statutory redundancy payments, over and above any pay-related benefits in addition to basic, statutory social welfare entitlements and any holiday moneys or anything of that sort.
I know that Deputy FitzGerald who raised the matter earlier wishes to raise some questions also in relation to the matter. I think it warrants elaborate explanation on the part of the Taoiseach at least. Most certainly these men had their absolute entitlements. But the question now arises that every other worker on say £19,000 a year declared redundant, whether it be those in Fieldcrest or anywhere else will be seeking the same entitlement. It is a fundamental question at the very root of Irish politics and at the root of what we have been saying here, of people entering into agreements for political purposes a day before a general election.
This matter came to my attention as Taoiseach about three weeks after the Government changed, when it was drawn to my attention that a serious industrial dispute could arise unless holiday pay were paid to the men concerned. I asked to see the agreement under which this provision was made. I was given a copy of the agreement, together with the Opinion of the Attorney General on it. The Attorney General expressed astonishment that any responsible Government or public servants could have entered into an agreement of this character. I immediately asked to see the civil servants concerned with a view to establishing how such an agreement — which involves the commitment of the State to pay a sum of the order of £30 million or upwards to 90 people over their working life — could have been entered into. My recollection of that discussion is that two points were made to me: first, that the agreement was entered into on the direction of the Taoiseach and they had no alternative but to accept his direction; secondly, that the agreement did not in fact, as appears on the face of it, involve a definite commitment for the lifetime of the workers concerned to pay them because it had been varied by what was described to me as an exchange of letters.
I asked to see the exchange of letters. There were produced to me two letters one written to the union, one to the firm involved. There was no reply to the letters. I asked: where was the exchange of letters? I was told that this was the exchange of letters. I asked: why was there no reply from the trade union to a letter which purported to vary the agreement by limiting the period over which this payment could be made and my recollection is that I was told that no reply had been expected or sought. That was the exchange of letters purporting to limit this agreement. I was sufficiently disturbed as to the appropriateness of the payment to say that payment of holiday money could be made only if the accounting officer of the Department of Finance took personal responsibility for the payment as being legally authorised whatever about its justification in terms of the national interest. I understand the money was paid. I take it that the accounting officer of the Department of Finance took responsibility for the payment being legally authorised.
I found the whole matter astonishing but I found, I have to say, in the months that followed, it was but one example of many ways in which matters had been handled during the previous 18 months. I should add that the agreement itself not only states that the Government are fully confident that the IDA, who are actively engaged in finding a suitable viable project or projects will be able to set up such a project within a period of six months, but requires that if the factory is not suitable for the new project it will be located in suitable premises in the area. I was advised that this involved a legal commitment to provide employment in a factory in the area and that if it were offered anywhere else then it would not fulfil the requirements of the agreement and the £30 million odd would have to be paid out over the lifetime of the workers concerned. The area concerned is, of course, the constituency of the Taoiseach.
I also raised the question of what industry was contemplated that the IDA were so certain would be provided that the Government entered into a commitment they were so certain would never arise and were willing to risk £30 million of the State's money for this purpose. I failed to obtain from the civil servants concerned any indication of any IDA industry there was any likelihood or probability of being established. I can only conclude from the investigations I made that there was no serious prospect of an industry and that that clause was put in without any real belief that an industry would exist.
There was a provision in the agreement also for training. It was provided that up to 16 October 1981 the workers would be given training appropriate to the employment mentioned in paragraph 1. As there is in fact no employment mentioned in paragraph 1 because no such industry existed and was not seriously contemplated, the workers were trained for no particular purpose during this period and were paid for their training during that period.
Subsequently, it transpired that the Taoiseach had written a letter to the general secretary of the union saying that the workers, in addition to being entitled to this money, were entitled to supplementary benefit during the period of the dispute, something not contemplated by the agreement and, I understand, not contemplated by the discussions nor anticipated by the trade union or by the workers. By that mischievous act of sending that letter the Taoiseach added to the burden the State had to carry in this particular matter.
Those are the facts so far as I can recall them accurately. I hope I am doing so. I have done everything I can to jog my memory of the matter in respect of the discussion, which I found traumatic at the time. It was indeed one of the traumatic experiences I had on entering Government to discover that this State had been run in this manner during the previous 18 months.
I have, in my time in this House, witnessed some exercises in hypocrisy but this one takes the biscuit.
Deputy FitzGerald's cloak of self-righteousness surrounds him but the simple fact of the matter is that he had an opportunity when in government, as Taoiseach, to deal with this agreement as he saw fit.
The record is quite clear that in December last, when the payment from the employment guarantee fund ended under the agreement the Government of the day, under Deputy FitzGerald, sought the advice of the Attorney General. He told them he was doubtful whether the agreement was legally binding. Deputy FitzGerald's Government took a decision to end the agreement and, within three hours changed their mind and decided to go ahead with it.
The Taoiseach did not read the text of the Attorney General's advice.
I did not interrupt Deputy FitzGerald.
The Taoiseach, please, without interruption.
The Taoiseach of the day carried on the agreement exactly as we had made it with the trade union congress.
Because I was advised there was no alternative.
The facts are there. Why is the Deputy only raising it now?
The exchange of letters did not exist.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
I do not mind the Deputy having a politically hypocritical approach to this matter but he should at least have good manners. I did not interrupt Deputy FitzGerald when he was speaking.
The Taoiseach cannot afford to in this particular case.
The fact that Deputy L'Estrange has to come in here barracking proves that my points are getting home. As I explained today we agreed to the proposals put forward by the trade union congress in order to obviate one of the most serious confrontations in industrial relations the country has ever seen. The fact that it was so serious is evidenced by the fact that the Coalition Government programme specifically included a statement to the effect that "Recent legal decisions have placed the status of picketing procedure in doubt. Full legal protection will be given to ICTU arrangements for all our pickets."
That was included in the Coalition Government's programme underlining what I am saying that this was a very serious development in industrial relations. By painstaking negotiations and by securing commonsense all round we avoided that confrontation and the agreement emerged.
The simple fact of the matter is that the Coalition Government maintained the agreement even though their Attorney General advised them that it was not legally binding on them because they saw, as we did, that the alternative was industrial chaos.
I can only conclude from the fact that Deputy Desmond and Deputy FitzGerald are raising this matter now that they are doing so just to try to extract some miniscule political advantage from this situation and that the end product of their arguments is that we should have let trade union leaders and decent ordinary Irish workers go to jail.
Fianna Fáil did it with the farmers as well as the ESB workers.
If our Government had not intervened the way we did that is what would have happened. That is what would have happened last December under the Coalition Government but they saw the danger and they followed exactly the same path we followed. It is nothing but an exercise in political hypocrisy to raise this matter here in this way tonight.
The Taoiseach did not deal with the alleged exchange of letters.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 17 June 1982.