asked the Taoiseach if he will describe the part played by himself personally in negotiations on the future of the Talbot motor assembly plant last year.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Talbot Motor Assembly Plant.
1.
The closure of the Talbot motor assembly plant last year gave rise to the most serious and controversial industrial relations issue of recent years.
This culminated in a commital order being issued by the High Court against the district secretary of the main trade union concerned. The reaction of the trade union movement to what they saw as a serious restriction on trade union activity indicated that unless the dispute were resolved there was the risk of grave disruption to the economy.
The general acceptance of the seriousness of this issue is evident from the fact that the last Government's programme contained an undertaking to amend the law to give protection to ICTU arrangements for all-out pickets.
Because of the seriousness of the matter, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions made proposals to resolve the dispute roughly on the lines of the agreement ultimately reached. My part in the negotiations was to urge the various parties to seek to arrive at a peaceful settlement of the dispute on the lines suggested by Congress in the interests of the economy and to safeguard a £17½ million tyre contract for Dunlops, Cork, and over 500 jobs in the Talbot company and its agents, all of which were dependent on an agreement being reached.
Would the Taoiseach tell the House whether before the terms, which were finally agreed, were put to the workers, they were placed before and fully discussed and agreed by the Government as a collective authority?
We have on a number of occasions made it clear that how the Government do their business in these matters is a matter for the Government.
I could draw an inference from that which the Taoiseach would be able to refrain from rebutting. Is the Taoiseach's answer to be taken to mean that from now on any Taoiseach could ride out ahead of the Government, not consult them or listen to anything any members might have to say and make whatever dispositions he wished in any area or any Department he chose and subsequently shelter behind the excuse that the Government and the way they do their business do not bear investigation in the House?
The Deputy keeps persisting in this line of attack on me personally. I, as Taoiseach, this Government and the previous Government conduct our affairs in accordance with well-established procedures and traditions of an Irish Government and Cabinet. Perhaps I can contrast that with the rather extraordinary situation which prevailed in the time of the last Coalition Government when a complete outsider, under the guise of a special adviser, participated in Government meetings. It ill behoves Deputy Kelly as a member of Fine Gael and that Government to criticise me for my behaviour as Taoiseach in charge of Government affairs when he participated in that other arrangement.
During those nine months the present Taoiseach on frequent occasions asked questions and made reference to the situation he is now complaining about. He had his innings when in Opposition.
I will have them again.
I am having mine now. Apart from the question which the Taoiseach refused to answer and which leaves me entitled to draw my own conclusions, which was whether the Government was consulted about, considered and agreed to the terms arrived at, I should like to ask him if there are any precedents in the industrial history of the country or any arrangements remotely approaching this one in its openendedness and incalculable burden on public revenue?
Yes, there are countless precedents. I could go back to the Government under W.T. Cosgrave which made an agreement of a similar kind, but the most recent example is when the Coalition, of which Deputy Kelly was a distinguished member, carried on the agreement which my Government made with ICTU.
That was a consequence, not a precedent.
I wish to raise a number of points. Was any legal advice taken with the Attorney General before entering into this agreement?
No. but the Government of which Deputy FitzGerald was Taoiseach took legal advice.
Yes.
In the light of the legal advice they received they proceeded to implement the agreement and carry it on after its terms had expired.
Is the Minister aware that the legal advice we got was that the agreement was entered into improperly without due care and consideration but in such a way that it bound the Government, without their having been consulted, to pay indefinitely to these workers their full pay and that we have no alternative but to carry that through because of the manner in which the Taoiseach mismanaged it?
Deputy FitzGerald as Taoiseach received advice from the Attorney General to the effect that the Attorney General was not certain whether the agreement was binding, but despite that advice and clearly compelled by the same considerations which compelled our Government, they decided of their own volition and free will to extend the agreement which expired last December.
The advice we got was that the way the Taoiseach entered into the agreement was such that it would be difficult for us to be sure that a court would uphold our testing of it. The issue involved was a complex legal one and because of the way in which the Taoiseach acted it would be unwise for us to repudiate the agreement. Would the Taoiseach accept that he took no legal advice and that the agreement entered into involved the assumption that an industry would be available when there was no adequate indication that such an alternative industry was available and that there was an exchange of so-called letters which were written by civil servants to the firm which had the effect of leaving the State with liability to pay these workers indefinitely unless an industry was found and installed in the factory? Would the Taoiseach accept the correctness of that?
I am not too sure what is the point of these questions——
The rest of us are.
——but I want to reiterate that my Government's wish was to co-operate with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in endeavouring to resolve what could have been a catastrophic industrial relations situation. We succeeded in doing that and I am reinforced in my view that what we did was right by the fact that the Government over which Deputy FitzGerald presided — of its own free will and volition and after the agreement which we had entered into expired — renewed that agreement. It ill behoves Deputy FitzGerald to attempt to criticise the arrangement I entered into in the interests of industrial relations and industrial peace in this country, when his Government and he extended that agreement themselves.
I have already pointed out that the advice given to us did not leave us much alternative in the matter in view of the manner in which this affair had been mishandled by the Taoiseach when in office. May I ask the Taoiseach whether he stands over the sending of a letter, as Leader of the Opposition, purporting to interpret the agreement as involving not merely an obligation to pay to the workers their full pay indefinitely — whether or not they ever worked again — but also the payment of supplementary benefit during the period of dispute?
The Deputy can take it that I stand over any letters I issued in my name. I hope the same applies for himself particularly in relation to certain constitutional issues.
The Taoiseach therefore accepts that in opposition he intervened in this matter with a view to giving as his view that supplementary benefit was payable as well, even though no such obligation in fact had been contemplated at the time the agreement was entered into, and thereby sought to add to the burden on the State over and above the contractual obligations of the agreement.
The Deputy is misinterpreting the position. I was asked by a very respected and responsible trade union leader——
Mickey Mullin, a personal friend.
——if I confirmed his view — no, as a matter of fact it was not the General Secretary of the ITGWU — if I could confirm that his view of what has been agreed was correct and I gladly did so. I did that as Leader of the Opposition, not as Taoiseach.
Knowing that no such obligation had been entered into and by so doing he was seeking to add to the burden he had already imposed indefinitely on this State.
That is not correct.
May I ask the Taoiseach finally whether he is aware of the damage done to the survival of the vehicle assembly industry in this country by virtue of this derogation of the arrangements made and of the concern, indeed consternation, felt among the managers of vehicle assemby industries here at the weakening of their bargaining position vis-á-vis their parent multinational companies in regard to the installation in this country of industries to take the place of vehicle assembly?
The Deputy is completely misleading the House and misinterpreting the position. I met the management of the international——
Which multinational?
The Talbot Group.
I am not talking of that; I am talking of some other companies.
I met the leaders of that international group as part of very long, painstaking and arduous negotiations. My motivation in all of this was to avoid a catastrophic industrial relations situation, to keep trade union leaders and workers out of jail. I succeeded in doing that. I make no apologies to anybody for that agreement and I believe it was in the best interests of everybody concerned.
May I ask the Taoiseach is it not a fact that the civil servants begged the Taoiseach and the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, to consider the implications of his proposal, that the civil servants disagreed so strongly that they required written instructions from the Minister for Finance before they would sign? Could the Taoiseach give us any indication of the cost to date and the cost implications for the future?
What the Deputy says is not correct. In fact the negotiations in regard to the agreement were not conducted by me personally at all but rather at civil service level.
Where? In Kinsealy?
I feel I am entitled to make my statement in this House without these sorts of savage interruptions. I am saying that the negotiations were conducted at civil service level. I am quite satisfied that the civil servants concerned acted properly and correctly. I am particularly reinforced in that opinion — and I must come back to this — because, when the Government over which Deputy FitzGerald presided came to look at this situation they took exactly the same action as I had and continued the agreement even though they could have taken other action in the circumstances.
The Taoiseach has answered half of the question only. The most important part of the question was whether he could give any indication of the cost to date and the costing implications for the future.
If the Deputy puts down a question about that I should answer that.
How many tens of millions?
A final supplementary from Deputy B. Desmond.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the unprecedented directions issued by him to the civil servants concerned in relation to the negotiations and the signing of this agreement would warrant a committee of inquiry? Would the Taoiseach be prepared to set up a committee of inquiry, more particularly since the contents of the agreement bound future Governments in this country, with no expiry date, to an extent which was unique in the history of industrial relations in Europe?
That is a complete misconstruction of the situation. First of all, the only committee of inquiry with which we are concerned is this House. I am here today prepared to answer fully for entering into that agreement, to explain that the reason we entered into that agreement was in response to an approach by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, who put proposals to me and to the Government to avoid what looked like being a totally catastrophic industrial relations confrontation. I succeeded — and that is probably what is bothering the Opposition parties — by patient, arduous and difficult negotiation, in avoiding that appallingly possible situation, keeping trade union leaders and decent ordinary Irish workers out of jail. The very fact that we succeeded in doing that is justification in itself for the agreement entered into, and there was nothing particularly unprecedented about that agreement.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Kelly.
In view of the fact that the Government Press Officer — if I am correctly describing him — both under this and other Governments, on frequent occasions has been authorised to tell the press that a particular matter was discussed by the Government on a particular day and a particular decision taken, would the Taoiseach not agree that it is not very outlandish, therefore, to ask him whether he will now tell us whether in respect of these negotiations — conducted with a high personal profile by himself in the week before an election — the Government were in fact consulted and had in fact assented to the final terms before they were put to the other side? Were they or were they not consulted and did they or did they not agree?
The Deputy can take it that the agreement entered into was fully in accordance with the collective responsibility of the Government and myself and the Minister immediately and directly concerned.
(Interruptions.)
May I ask the Taoiseach two questions. Is he prepared to put a copy of the agreement in the Oireachtas Library——
And the accompanying letters.
——for Members of the Oireachtas to peruse? Secondly, was the agreement entered into at that time with the consent of the Minister for Finance prior to its signature?
Of course, it was. Secondly, I shall have to consider whether the agreement can be put on the Table of the House. I would be disposed towards doing so, but I shall just have to consider that aspect.
We have already spent 20 minutes on this question. A final supplementary from Deputy FitzGerald.
Arising from something that the Taoiseach said, will he confirm that the discussions in relation to this took place in Kinsealy?
Not at all. One meeting between myself, the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time and representatives of the international company concerned was held in my house in Kinsealy for the convenience of those international representatives, because they were flying in and out again at very short notice. From that point of view it was much more convenient to meet them and discuss the situation in my house in Kinsealy, but that was the only meeting in this connection which was held there. I do not for one moment apologise to the House for holding meetings in Kinsealy. It is a very pleasant place to hold a meeting. I will continue to hold meetings in Kinsealy, any meeting I feel like and as often as I feel like. As for this nit picking type of questioning, I do not think the Opposition are doing themselves any good.
The reason I asked this question was that the Taoiseach made the allegation against civil servants that they negotiated the agreement. I wish to establish that the agreement was in fact negotiated at Kinsealy by the Taoiseach and that the slur on civil servants that they negotiated it should be withdrawn. When I came into office and discussed it with the civil servants concerned they made it clear that only under pressure from the Taoiseach had they signed such an agreement. Would the Taoiseach withdraw the suggestion that civil servants were responsible for negotiating an agreement of such gross incompetence?
That is a statement.
That is a very mean thing for the Leader of the Opposition to say. I made no slur on civil servants. I am in this House accepting full responsibility for the agreement. I have already stated I make no apology for the agreement and I am glad we made the agreement. Therefore, in those circumstances it is ridiculous to suggest that I am casting any slur on any civil servant.
The Taoiseach suggested that they were responsible for the negligence in regard to the phrasing.
The Deputy is a very rude person.
Could we have a little courtesy in the House.
I always endeavour to be courteous and I would like to have some courtesy by way of reply. I am saying that the actual negotiations and drafting of the agreement were done by civil servants on my instructions and under my general aegis with their appropriate opposite numbers in the trade union movement. I want to repeat again that the Opposition can keep at this as long as they wish; but I, the Minister at the time and everybody concerned in the trade union movement and elsewhere were motivated by avoiding what might have been a catastrophic industrial relations confrontation with people in jail. We succeeded in doing that. I went to enormous personal painstaking trouble and I spent a great deal of my time in using my influence to ensure that this difficult matter would be settled. It was settled and I am glad Deputy FitzGerald's Government had the common sense to continue on of their own free volition with the agreement I entered into.
Ceist a 2.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Taoiseach accept that the civil servants disclaim any responsibility for the wording of the agreement, which they said was imposed on them by the Taoiseach, and they would not accept they were responsible for signing an agreement so deficient in its wording and so dangerous to the interests of the State? Will the Taoiseach withdraw the imputation that they were responsible for the wording which the Taoiseach himself was responsible for?
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order——
I submit there is no precedent for points of order at Question Time.
I checked on that and there is.
Would the Taoiseach read the counter implications? Will he give an assurance now that he will answer it?
That is not a point of order. Question No. 2.
I wish to give notice, in view of the utterly unsatisfactory nature of the Taoiseach's reply to this question, that I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.