asked the Taoiseach if it is his intention to meet a delegation from the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions from Northern Ireland with a view to promoting cross-Border economic co-operation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions . Oral Answers . - Cross-Border Economic Co-operation .
1.
: In the course of a letter I sent on 11 March to Mr. Colin Lowry, President of the Northern Ireland District Committee of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, I indicated that I should be glad to meet a delegation from the confederation to hear their views on how North-South economic co-operation, to which the Government are strongly committed, can best be developed. A response was recently received from the Harland and Wolff Shipbuilding Sub-Committee of the Northern Ireland District Committee indicating that they are anxious for a meeting. I hope that it will be possible to fix a mutually convenient date for a meeting with a confederation delegation next month.
In my letter to Mr. Lowry, I also said that both I and the Minister for Industry and Energy were strongly in favour of closer North-South co-operation where engineering companies in Northern Ireland have the capacity to supply needs in this part of the country. I indicated that in regard to business of interest to Harland and Wolff, it was intended to maintain contacts that had taken place with Mr. Parker, the new chairman and chief executive. This has been done. Appropriate preparations are also in hand, with Departments and agencies concerned, for the proposed meeting with the trade union delegation and, more generally, to provide a basis for co-ordinated implementation of the Government's policy in this area.
: I welcome the Taoiseach's decision to meet this delegation and support the principle of promoting North-South economic co-operation in this way. When the Taoiseach meets this delegation will he be in a position to explain to them why he permitted the ESB principally to set at naught the efforts which I and my Government had made to ensure very beneficial co-operation whereby Harland and Wolff, Irish Shipping and the ESB would combine together to provide the necessary bulk carrier for the new generating station at Moneypoint, County Clare?
: That seems to be a separate question.
: Contrary to suggestions in some Northern newspaper reports, clearly based on Opposition briefing that the deal was all but sewn up when the change of Government occurred, very many questions remained unanswered at that time and it was far from clear that any shipping company would be prepared, especially when they had to stand over contract terms, to order a ship in Belfast other than on foot of conditions that would be unacceptable by compelling the ESB to put too many eggs into one basket. In that connection, the best way of summing up the situation as it was when we took over is to read to the House the concluding paragraph of a letter written by my predecessor to Mr. Colin Lowry on 10 December. He said:
The question that must now be decided by the Government here is whether in the light of the facts available it would be justified in pursuing the project and entering into serious inter-governmental negotiations or whether this project should be postponed for some years when hopefully more favourable circumstances will obtain.
I would like you to understand that the Government have been motivated throughout by a wish to place, if possible, a major order with Harland and Wolff. We have pursued this project in good faith and with diligence and have brought it to a point where a decision can be made even if it has to be an unfavourable one.
A gentle let down.
Although the meeting between the Belfast unions and the former Taoiseach took place on 5 April 1982, the ESB went to tender on 14 April 1982. As a result of the failure of the former Taoiseach to arrange for any contact with the ESB, the body in whose authority and competence it lay to award the contracts, they were not required to go to tender on the basis of taking account of the Belfast option. Had the matter been pursued in the normal departmental and inter-departmental manner, it probably would have been possible to arrange that the ESB go to tender on two alternative bases, with and without the Belfast option, and the matter could have been pursued in July-August 1982 on the basis of firm quotations over which tendering firms would have had to stand. The lack of contact with the ESB continued for a lengthy period, with the ESB apparently being brought directly into the matter only on 30 July, although they might possibly have inferred from inquiries in mid-July, three-and-a-half months after the meeting between the Taoiseach and the Belfast unions, that some follow-up to Deputy Haughey's meeting was afoot. There was a failure to pursue the matter in April, May and June 1980 too.
This is the background against which the matter had to be considered following my Government's assumption of office. With a view to seeing whether the position as it then stood could be retrieved, the Minister for Industry and Energy gave the matter detailed attention and there were further contacts from and with various interested parties, including the responsible British Minister and the new managing director of Harland and Wolff. I regret that ultimately the view had to be taken, foreshadowed by my predecessor's letter, that even following these contacts, the potential financial penalties at that stage — in view of the way the matter had been handled in placing a contract on the basis of a ship order in Belfast— appeared too high.
: It is quite clear that the Taoiseach is, in this instance, resorting to a tactic which is now standard with him, that is to try to obscure all important issues and spread confusion by misrepresenting the situation. Would the Taoiseach not agree that every effort was made by my Government to bring this matter to a successful conclusion and, further, that if he puts all the papers before the House they will disclose that the ESB were prevented by my Government from sabotaging this project as long as we were in office, and that they succeeded immediately we left office in going ahead and placing an order for this ship in Japan at an enormous cost to our Exchequer without any benefit whatsoever? Whatever gloss the Taoiseach may endeavour to put on it he will find when the time comes that as far as the hardheaded work force in Harland and Wolff are concerned, they do trust the Fianna Fáil Government more on this issue than his pathetic attempts in this regard.
: I cannot agree that every effort was made by my predecessor's Government. The simple fact is that no effort was made between 5 April 1982 and mid-July to take any action in the matter, vis-à-vis the ESB.
: The Taoiseach is beginning to lie——
: Will the Deputy withdraw the word "lie"?
: I withdraw the word "lie", but that is all I withdraw.
: I reiterate that lack of contact with the ESB continued well into July. The former Taoiseach's letter, as I read it to the House, is clearly a gentle let down. Because the thing had been muffed, we tried to retrieve it, but the damage had been done and it was too late.
: Fabrication. Shame on you.