Deputy Barnes is in possession and she has seven minutes to conclude.
Private Members' Business. - Irish Shipping Limited: Motion (Resumed)
The following motion was moved by Deputy Wilson on Tuesday, 25 June 1985:
That Dáil Éireann, in view of the loyal service given by employees of Irish Shipping to the people of Ireland until the liquidation of that company in November 1984 calls on the Government to:
(i) pay adequate compensation to the staff of Irish Shipping of six weeks salary per year of service; and
(ii) restore the pensions of all former Irish Shipping staff to their pre-liquidation level;
and further calls on the Government to recognise the strategic and economic necessity for a national deep sea merchant shipping fleet and to provide for the reconstitution of such a fleet.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éir-eann" and substitute the following:—
notes the action taken by the Minister for Communications to deal with the problems arising in the aftermath of the liquidation of Irish Shipping Ltd.
—(Minister for Communications.)
We are sharing our time so that as many Government Deputies as possible can express their concern once again about this tragic situation. I want to reiterate what I and many of my colleagues said on the last occasion this subject was debated.
I welcome the Minister's decision to establish a committee on strategic shipping requirements and the fact that he will be announcing the composition of the committee very shortly. I want to emphasise the words "very shortly" because we are all aware that there is a need to urgently tackle this problem which is affecting so many families. It is eight months since Irish Shipping went into liquidation and that is a very long period for the families who suffered this shock and now suffer a sense of insecurity, and even fear for the future. I know the Minister and his Minister of State are aware of how the families of these employees are affected.
The Minister said last night that the employees of Irish Shipping were a model for all workers and that their conduct in the area of industrial relations had been exemplary. That is true but we must be loyal to them in turn. When the Minister says he is constrained from taking further action, I ask him to look at every angle so that when we vote tonight we will be voting on action being taken. Let us reach a decision as soon as possible to put an end to this sense of insecurity being suffered by the families. Many of these families are starting to recover from this trauma and will soon be facing the practical expenses of living.
This sense of insecurity does not apply only to ex-employees of Irish Shipping. It has a rippling effect on all members of their families. We are not just talking about the ex-employees. We are discussing the implications the closing of Irish Shipping will have on the security and happiness of all these families. Again I beg the Minister to give every consideration to our suggestions.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Doyle, you have until 7.18 p.m.
The role of a Government backbencher this evening is an extremely unhappy lot. Many of us are already on record in support of pensioners and ex-employees of Irish Shipping in their difficulties that have arisen over the past number of months. I speak tonight not only for myself but for others who will not have time to speak in the debate — Deputy Manning, Deputy Skelly, Deputy Coveney and many others whose opinions are already on the record.
As is our wont I will be going into the lobbies at 8.30 p.m. supporting the Government's amendment. The wording of the amendment is fairly innocuous given the issue before us, but I am extremely unhappy at the state of play. I urge the Minister, the Department and the Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, to ensure — I will go further and insist and again I am speaking on behalf of my Fine Gael colleagues on the backbenches — that the Government continue to look at every possible avenue to help both the ex-employees and the pensioners of Irish Shipping in the plight they find themselves in today.
There is no need for me to document the details of the tragedies, the numbers involved, the costs and the appalling pension scheme which had to be topped up with ex gratia payments. There is no need for me to go over the tragic area of pension funds in the State sector generally. The saga of Irish Shipping is but the tip of the iceberg. God know what is before us in the future. I know the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues accept the moral obligation, but I ask him to go to the Cabinet and find a solution to help the people concerned.
Legal opinion has been quoted at us. The area of precedent and the various dangers have been referred to. I suggest these people look again, because legal opinion appears to differ very much on whether these issues can be resolved. Severance payment apparently is the thornier of the two issues on the agenda this evening in relation to the ex-employees. There is apparently a major problem — and Government legal opinion supports this — that the area of precedent could cause difficulties in the years ahead, indeed perhaps the months and weeks ahead.
All we are asking is for the ex gratia payment to be paid to the other workers.
I am delighted that Deputy Wilson is surrounded by so many colleagues tonight. On 23 May when this issue was discussed we provided both Opposition and Government.
The Deputy is playing to the gallery.
(Interruptions.)
I spoke for over an hour.
You are all hypocrites.
I urge the Minister to take back to the Cabinet the issue of topping up the ex gratia payments to the pensioners of Irish Shipping.
Where is Deputy Skelly now? The electors copped him on and are getting rid of him gradually.
We did what was necessary by the 23 pensioners involved in World War II service.
I will show Deputy Wilson in a few minutes who is the hypocrite.
We have looked after those pensioners, or their spouses.
Acting Chairman
I should inform all Deputies that their time is very limited and I want no more interruptions in the House. Everybody will get the opportunity to speak.
How are they going to vote?
The appeal to keep the door open comes from all the backbenchers of Fine Gael. I ask the Minister to try to salvage whatever is possible from the tragedy of the liquidation of Irish Shipping. It is a tragedy for people who had no hand, act or part in the decision which had to be made and who had many years' service. There were absolutely no industrial problems of any description. Yet, these people are here today almost begging the Government to look after them. We accept the moral responsibility. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the Cabinet find the mechanism to look after these people.
How is the Deputy going to vote?
I have said that, if Deputy Haughey was listening.
She is speaking pure hypocrisy.
Deputy Haughey must not play the political game.
I should like to say a few words. The real debate on this subject took place in May, when there was no opposition or support from Fianna Fáil. As a matter of fact, over the last few months any garnishing——
Will the Deputy try to learn to read the record?
——or support came from this side of the House. Perhaps the Irish Shipping employees are not too happy with what is being done on this side of the House and have been led up the garden path by the Opposition in trying to force the issue through a Private Members' debate. I think they will find that it is probably not the best course of action which they could have taken.
The Coalition Government liquidated Irish Shipping.
Of course, Fianna Fáil can tell these people that when they get into Government they will pick up the tab for this.
Who liquidated them? Who liquidated Deputy Skelly?
They can tell them that they will buy the Irish Spruce. Does the Leader of the Opposition not want us to buy the Great Blasket? That is only going to cost £1 million.
Stop the trash.
They could buy the Irish Spruce and ply it between the Great Blasket and Inishvickillane.
Cheap, cheap.
Can he think about the consequences of taking such an action?
On a point of order, I resent all these personalised attacks on me by this hypocritical Deputy who is responsible, along with everybody else in the Fine Gael Party, for the liquidation of Irish Shipping.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Let him take his medicine and not be acting the hypocrite here tonight.
Is the Leader of the Opposition saying that he does not want the Great Blasket to be bought?
Acting Chairman
Please confine yourself to the subject, rather than inviting interruptions.
Is the Leader of the Opposition not promising to pick up the tab for Irish Shipping?
I may start talking about the Deputy's business and how would he like that?
Acting Chairman
I want no personal attacks on anyone in the House. Please confine yourself to the subject matter of Irish Shipping.
The Members on this side of the House made the position very clear in the debate in May, when there was very little or no opposition from the far side of the House.
The Deputy cannot even read. He is talking though his bonnet.
Rubbish.
(Interruptions.)
We put forward the facts about Irish Shipping and it has been looked at very carefully by means of the Members on this side of the House bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister and the examination which has taken place in the Department of Communications and further meetings with us. This issue is being examined in every detail. A Private Members' debate at this stage does not help if it is forcing the issue when a means is being sought by the Minister and the Government to resolve the situation. We must take into consideration the consequences which might ensue, bearing in mind other semi-State bodies, as a result of a precedent being set here. The Members on this side of the House have pressed the Minister on this. They have expressed their support to the employees of Irish Shipping. They have aligned themselves with the one or two Members on the far side of the House who designed to show up at at the last debate. The Minister stated very clearly last night what the position is. However, we continue to press and to challenge the legal arguments which have been put forward. We continue to hold out hope on behalf of Irish Shipping employees and to believe that there is a moral obligation on the Government and the State to pay out in these circumstances. Because of this, we have not given up hope.
What way is the Deputy going to vote? Will he vote to make the Minister do that?
It is more difficult for us, without the back-up that the Minister has in his Department, to challenge the legal opinions. Nevertheless, in the short space of time that has elapsed since the last debate we have been doing that. We will continue to give genuine support to Irish Shipping, without making political play out of it.
Vote.
I am very pleased to take a few minutes to enter on to the record my support for a number of the sentiments expressed from this side of the House. It is interesting to note, when one hears the heckling coming from Fianna Fáil, that they appear to have only just discovered the plight of Irish Shipping workers.
The Deputy is too intelligent for that crap.
It is something for which we on this side of the House in the back benches, along with the Minister, have been trying very hard to find a solution, to help these people who are carrying the can for something for which they are not responsible. I join with the other Members on this——
This hypocrisy is growing like a fungus.
The Deputy cannot take it. Will he look at the record of the last debate? Deputies Wilson and Ahern were the only two Fianna Fáil Members who spoke. The whole debate was held by the Fine Gael backbenchers. Where were Deputy Wilson's Fianna Fáil people showing their concern at the Estimates debate?
How is the Deputy going to vote?
I hope the Chair will allow me to continue with what I have to say.
I spoke for one and a half hours and lifted the Minister out of it, to no avail.
Acting Chairman
Deputy, would you please confine yourself to the subject matter. Otherwise you are running into very rough seas if you are inviting interruptions.
Like Irish Shipping.
I want to put on the record of this House my disappointment that to date we have not found a mechanism to assist the ex-workers of Irish Shipping. I can assure the House that I will be pressing for this, along with the other Deputies here who showed their concern during the Estimates debate. There was still a list of people waiting to speak on that debate — Deputies Manning, Barnes, Avril Doyle, Skelly. Many backbenchers have been pressing the Government to try to find that mechanism. I am confident that the concern of our Ministers will produce some way of assisting these people. We are hampered by legal restraints.
What are they?
Fianna Fáil can shout all they want. If they want to break the law, then that is their business.
This is the place to make the law.
The country will show them what they will do. We are trying to find a way to help these workers. I will be pressing our Ministers to find some way of assisting these people.
The Deputy has got the brief on it.
We should be examining the proposals put by the workers for some form of co-operative. This is a mechanism which, if properly examined, will be able to be used to compensate the workers and get them back to work, to use their expertise to run a ship and a shipping company. I do not think that the Minister has closed the door on that. He indicated — certainly to me in my communications with him — that discussions were still going on. This House should be able to deal with the issue in a non-political way. No side has a monopoly with regard to concern for the people involved. It is not in the best interests of the workers or of this Parliament that we shout at one another. I hope that between us we will be able to find some solution and that we will be able to compensate these people who have borne the brunt of bad management and bad decisions.
This whole debacle highlights the need for a serious look at pension funds that have not sufficient money to meet the demand when people go out on pension. This matter affects many companies. Pension funds should be kept topped up so that people can feel secure in their old age that their pensions will not disappear if their company disappears. I hope that out of this very sad situation some good will come and that others will not suffer the way the employees of Irish Shipping have suffered.
I am angry and disappointed that as yet we have not found a mechanism to help these people. I hope at the end of the day we will be able to help them within the constraints of legality. We are legislators; we cannot break the law. I am confident, given the goodwill and the commitment of the Government and backbenchers, that a solution will be found.
I ask Fianna Fáil to accept that we are just as concerned about this matter as they are. We are not the hard-hearted people they are trying to imply——
The Government have the power to do something.
Many of my colleagues have met these people. We have been talking to them for months, not just yesterday. I am confident that at the end of the day we will find some way out of this debacle.
I support the motion that the Government pay adequate compensation to the staff of Irish Shipping of six weeks salary per year of service and that they restore the pension of the former Irish Shipping staff to pre-liquidation levels. As the wife of a man who spent his working life in the service of this nation, I can identify very readily with the women and families of these unfortunate men who are now facing a most bleak future. These families are the innocent victims of gross maladministration at every level. The men concerned have a working record that is second to none because they were part of a disciplined service, as are the Army and the Garda.
There are many unanswered questions about Irish Shipping and what went wrong. I believe it would have taken a judicial inquiry to unravel precisely what went wrong. Recently we spent £1 million on the so-called Kerry babies inquiry which was set up at the behest of many hysterical females and the media, all of it intended only to humiliate the Garda. I suggest the taxpayers' money would have been better spent if it had been used to find out precisely what went wrong in Irish Shipping, if it had been used to prevent making fall guys out of the unfortunate men who served the shipping line most loyally.
As an island nation we need that kind of service. It goes very hard for me and for others to see that one of the ships — I think it was the Irish Rowan— was sold recently for £2.2 million. That is tantamount to madness because somewhere along the line we will have to have some kind of service that will give us the protection we will need.
It is very hard to justify talking about a just society when we have from the President downwards to backbenchers who have served a few years here getting a multiplicity of pensions. This is disgraceful when many of them are still serving here. We are talking about a just society while that is happening. On the other hand, the employees of Irish Shipping who have served the nation loyally are treated differently. Some people who were captains of their ships with 31 years' service were let go with a sum of £3,700 and had to go on the dole. In God's name, can any State that would condone that kind of treatment have the nerve to call itself a just society? I say it cannot.
I know there are difficulties with regard to the matter. I have spoken to the Minister and he has told me there are technical and other difficulties in coming to terms with this problem. There is great sympathy in the House at all levels for the people concerned, but sympathy will not put bread on the table. In the course of my canvass I met a young man who had 12 years' service with Irish Shipping. He has to pay a mortgage of £220 per month. This man has a three months old baby. What good is sympathy to him? What good is sympathy to people who have to pay their mortgages and school fees and who have to provide the bare necessities of life?
What has happened in this case is an outrage. Quite frankly, I do not give two hoots what kind of machinations we have to go through in order to see that justice is done to these people. The Minister has assured me he has explored many avenues. I am asking him to go to the Attorney General. He is paying him to come up with answers. He should tell him to find an answer within the law so that justice can be done to these people.
In my short contribution I will deal with a few points which I did not discuss during the debate last May. While I am not going to get into a row about who spoke or did not speak, I would point out for the benefit of people in the public gallery, if not for Members on the Government benches, that we had a debate on the liquidation of Irish Shipping last November. Shortly after that we had a Private Members' motion. We had a debate on the introduction of legislation for those who served during the War and we had a debate on the Estimate. On all of those occasions there were many contributors from this side of the House. Deputy Wilson and I, as well as a number of our colleagues, have been consistent in our contributions on this matter since last November.
We understand clearly the arguments put forward by the Minister. He has consistently said he will not do anything. He is not really interested in any suggestions we put forward. In our view he is totally responsible for the liquidation of Irish Shipping. He has the powers and the means to deal with the matter but he did not do so. In a letter dated 20 December 1984 to Mr. William A. Attley, General Secretary of the Federated Workers' Union of Ireland — the same letter was sent to everybody else who wrote to him — the Taoiseach stated the following:
The Government very much regret the circumstances which lead to the Liquidation of Irish Shipping Limited. The company and its workforce have served the country well and it is a most tragic consequence of the events which led to the liquidation that the employees and their families are the innocent victims of the situation. The financial problems of Irish Shipping Limited stem mainly from the decision to charter-in nine vessels without the knowledge or approval of the Government or even of the Ministers directly concerned——
That has been refuted several times in this House. It was the responsibility of three people. The Government had certain knowledge of it. It was in the reports of the company in earlier years. We have consistently asked the Minister not to allow these employees to be treated in this way.
The liquidation was on 14 November. A few days before on 5 November a letter issued from the Minister for Communications to the chairman of Irish Shipping. This is the same Minister who is now refusing to give severance pay or extra redundancy pay to these people. The letter states:
Dear Chairman,
You will recall that I wrote to you earlier this year about the criteria to be taken into account when approaching negotiations on pay claims in your organisation. The Government has now issued its National Plan —"Building on Reality 1985-1987"—in which the principle underlying the determination of pay and employment in the period ahead are stated. It is now opportune to update the arrangements which will apply to the treatment of claims in your organisation.
As with the existing standing arrangement, all claims, on both pay and conditions, are to be notified, on receipt, to my Department. Before any discussions on the claims take place with staff interests, advance consultations are to be held with my officials. No offers or commitments (conditional or otherwise) are to be made without prior clearance from my Department. In addition, it will also be necessary to give full details of the financial implications of any proposed offer or commitment — how the costs could be funded and from what source.
I would welcome confirmation that your Board and management will co-operate fully with my Department in the foregoing measures.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Mitchell, T. D., Minister for Communications.
A few days later the Minister liquidated the company and put those people out of work. For six months he said he had no responsibility in the matter. How can he justify that? What logic is he following when one day he wants to know everything that is happening and all about the pay negotiations, and the next day he strikes the workers off the public service payroll and says he has no responsibility in the matter? Some of these people served the State for 35 years and worked in very difficult times. When Seán Lemass was Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave said no one would object to giving permanent effect to emergency legislation under which the State had a shipping service of its own. The people realised the benefit they derived from Irish Shipping Limited. Liam Cosgrave was quite willing to back Seán Lemass in 1941 and 1947 and in later years.
What have this Government done? Letters have been sent from the Taoiseach and the Minister. There have been special debates, adjournment debates and statements made in the House but each time the Minister says he cannot do anything. To add insult to injury, not only did he fire the people but look at how the pensioners were treated. Captain Granville had £268.66 per month pre-liquidation but post-liquidation he receives £40.33 per month. To maintain the pensions would have cost £75,000 per year and there would have been a claw-back to the State through taxation and so on.
Deputy Glenn said it was a disgrace and a shame. I am glad the Minister has come into the House. He failed to come into the House on 22 May. Is it fair to deal with State employees in this way? In the 1947 Act they were stated to be public servants. Only 12 months ago in this House we passed the Irish Shipping Limited (Amendment) Act, 1984. The paragraph on superannuation stated:
Any alteration in the terms or conditions, in force at the commencement of this Act, governing the grant of pensions, gratuities, allowances or other payments on resignation, retirement or death, to or in respect of a member of the staff of the Company, including its chief officer, or any other arrangement to provide for benefits on resignation, retirement or death, additional to those aforesaid, shall not take effect unless the said alteration or arrangement has the approval of the Minister for Communications given with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service.
It is on record that the Minister was responsible. Just because three people made bad management decisions in a company which made a profit for 15 years, the Minister took it out on the faithful employees. If he stood over that I would say he was honest, but he continually says that he would like to do more for them and that he is concerned. We are talking about people who saved the country time and again. They have come into the House tonight and on other nights and forced the Government backbenchers to say they support them. For £75,000 per year the Minister has said "no". The Minister refuses to recognise the fact that they cannot get jobs in this country and that because of there expertise they will have to seek jobs in foreign countries. They will lose their social welfare and other benefits in this State. Some 40 per cent of the workers gave over 35 years' service to Irish Shipping.
The Minister was once interested in industrial relations. What company had a better record in the State than this one? It was an arm of the public service where there were no strikes. The workers were disciplined and never lost an hour through industrial relations. They worked under the Irish flag. For the sake of £75,000 a year the Minister took away their pensions. If the Minister says they were ex gratia payments, he failed to implement the Irish Shipping Limited (Amendment) Act. That will not wash with the employees.
Deputy Wilson and I have met their trade union on almost a fortnightly basis for the past six months. They have told us of their frustration and of the way they have been almost resented for continuing to fight for their rights. They have disputed the figures given by the Department. Where is the justice when people who served the State for many years can lose their small pension rights? People who held small jobs in the company were struck off by the pen of the liquidator with no protection from the Minister. The Minister was not here when I said that a week before he signed a letter.
I heard the Deputy. I was listening outside.
People with a pension of £75 ended up with nothing. Those with £925 have £140. People with over £200 now have under £30 and those who had £100 now have under £10. Where is the justice in that? This is the fifth or sixth debate we have had. Will someone from the Government side explain the justice in the Minister's decision? We did not want to make this an issue of party politics, but surely it is our job to fight for people who were public servants and who were bound by national agreements and every cutback that was ever introduced. When a public service agreement was cancelled or delayed, a letter similar to the one I quoted from was issued to the company. It was signed by the Minister of the day.
How could this company be liquidated? We hope the Minister can be forced to change his mind by the vote in the House tonight with the support of his concerned colleagues and the members of the Labour Party who have pledged their support to Mr. Attley and other senior trade union leaders. The Minister could say that he will change his mind and out of the billions of pounds which are wasted in certain areas, perhaps he could find £75,000 per year to support the Irish Shipping staff who are still unemployed. Is it too much to admit that it was a mistake and that they were public service employees? They gave all for the State and perhaps at this late stage in the debate the Minister would indicate that he will go back to the Cabinet and try to reverse the decision.
The Taoiseach has written letters indicating his sadness at the closure of the company but this is of no benefit to those who are unemployed and who only received the statutory redundancy payments. These people were public servants who worked for the State. The company were set up by legislation. The pension funds were enshrined in legislation and were supported by pension schemes. It was the responsibility of the State to ensure that those pensions were paid. The workers deserve much better than. this Government have given them. I appeal to the Minister to declare before this debate concludes that the Government have some concern for the workers because so far there has been no evidence of any such concern.
Having been in the chair of the all-party committee on State sponsored bodies on and off for the past couple of months when we were dealing with Irish Shipping, all I can say is that the whole matter is somewhat like an episode of Dallas. Unfortunately, the outcome has been one of disgrace, ignominy and humiliation. Hundreds of Irish citizens have been let down, not by some rogue company or rogue directors, or by some fancy firm of professionals, but by the Irish Government.
Our committee made it clear that the company made some mistakes but I wish to emphasise this evening that it is clear also that the Government panicked in regard to Irish Shipping and took a legalistic rather than a commercial view of the whole matter. Instead of rushing to their commercial advisers, they rushing to their legal advisers and, instead of coming out of the difficulty with a sensible solution which a commercial approach would have provided, they emerged with nothing but `ifs' and `buts' from the lawyers and the collapse of Irish Shipping leaving the excellent workers of the company in a dreadful situation.
We all know that the long term charters, especially from 1979 onwards, were a major error of judgement. They were totally disproportionate to the size of the company. We know also that the board of the company have to be indicated for their failure to maintain control over some senior executives of the company who apparently acted without authority and independently of the board. We know the litany of errors of judgement that were made and we know also that for some time before the collapse of the company, the profits were coming not so much from shipping but from the associated companies. In the past eight or nine years, some 60 per cent of the profits came from the associated companies. There is not enough time at my disposal to enable me to open up the whole ICI debate, the relationship with Ocean Bank, the connection between the diretors of Irish Shipping and Ocean Bank and the Insurance Corporation of Ireland. I should like to open up, too, the whole nest of wasps in this regard.
Perhaps the House will afford me this opportunity by providing time to debate the all-party committee report which has been before the House for some months. For the moment, suffice it to say that many difficulties have been uncovered. that there is a lot of unfinished business, and that there are many questions to be asked about the behaviour of people in the Irish Shipping organisation and about the lack of control within the company. After being involved in examining the matter for some months, I find that there are many questions as yet unanswered which I should like to see answered on the Floor of the House.
There is a new system emerging in this House whereby when a liquidator or a receiver or administrator is appointed or when the ICI system is set up, this House closes down as it were and we cannot then ask any further questions about the matter, whether the issue relates to B & I or to some other company. We are not allowed to ascertain what is happening to Irish people and to Irish money as a result of a blanket of legality being thrown over the issue. While the Ministers concerned look responsible, they tell us that there is a legal or technical difficulty involved. This House is the place in which to change the law.
The Minister should introduce legislation that would enable us to get to the root of what happened in Irish Shipping instead of telling us continuously that this is the business of the liquidator. This is the business of the Minister, and of the Irish people and of this Parliament. There is no justification for such a veil of secrecy in regard to such matters as the appointment of a liquidator to any State company, whether that relates to the Zeus management in B & I or to any other company. We must devise a way of surmounting this veil of legality. Public representatives demand to know what is happening in these companies and we shall not be cut off because of the appointment of some legal or quasi-legal person to administer the affairs of a company. Undoubtedly the Government panicked in regard to Irish Shipping. They were not facing an immediate loss.
That is absurd.
The Government were facing a potential loss. They were facing a loss that might have accrued if the contract in question struck and they failed to renegotiate on a commercial basis.
That is not true.
Even after the liquidation, when some gentlemen from Hong Kong arrived here, the Minister's lawyers advised him that he should not meet these men because to do so would involve him in trying to solve the problem. The Minister should have met them, not after the liquidation but months before then, and told them that the contracts could not be continued and that he had the full authority of the Cabinet to dispose of the contracts if necessary. At least the contracts should have been renegotiated. Instead the Minister took the advice of the lawyers, panicked and ran for the liquidators. This got him off the hook.
Clearly Fianna Fáil did not take any legal advice before making this contribution.
That was not the proper approach. The action taken was the same as the action the Government are taking on the financial side, that is, a total bookkeeping approach as opposed to a commercial approach.
As I have been saying for months in regard to this company, a commercial approach on the part of the Minister to the Hong Kong people telling them that the contracts could not be continued would have met with the desired result. Was I not proved right when these people arrived here after the announcement of the liquidation, keen and ready to negotiate the best price possible.
That is not true.
What else were they doing in Dublin? The Minister did not meet them whereas, if he had met them before then, a deal could have been worked out and the company put back on their feet. In addition to so many workers being left without jobs, the Government brought the State, which has proudly carried the Irish flag throughout the world, to disgrace and ignominy. Any Irish person visiting a foreign country from now on will bow his head in shame in the knowledge that an Irish Government closed one of their own companies, put the workers out of jobs and failed to meet their due debts. I could continue for many hours in this way but the Minister knows it all only too well.
The Minister told the House that the total cost of keeping Irish Shipping in operation for a further five years would have been £144 million but in replies to questions tabled by me, it transpired that the cost of closing Irish Shipping would be almost £60 million. When the Irish Spruce is included there is a difference of about £27 million. In other words, for an expenditure of £27 million, Irish Shipping and Irish workers could have been given one more chance. I suggest that that amount will be used up in a few short years by the disgrace that has been brought on the country and by our lack of credibility abroad. I should like the Minister to confirm that Irish Shipping put two proposals to him, that one was to inject into the company an additional £27 million and that the other was to close the company. The Minister opted for the latter on legal grounds.
There is a lot of unfinished business in regard to this company. The committee should be given additional powers to subpoena witnesses. There should be no great difficulty in that regard if there is the will on the part of the Government to do so. We should find out what is going on in Ocean Bank and reform the law to allow the Dáil to monitor the liquidation of the company instead of allowing a veil of legality to be thrown over all our inquiries. We should consider some form of repurchase from the liquidator and particularly we should wait for the High Court report. The terms of reference in that respect include the phrase, "having a very close look at whether there was fraud involved in the running of the company". We should be able to monitor the whole future of Irish Continental Lines.
After that long litany of errors, most of which emanated from this Government, in that they failed to act commercially rather than legally, they should do the decent thing and respond to the appeal of Deputies B. Ahern and Wilson to pay the compensation required to their own employees. The Minister cannot introduce a Bill in this House, as he is proposing to do soon, to weed out rogue directors, to weed out directors who run away from their responsibilities while he and his Government run away from their responsibilities in that regard. I appeal to the Minister to listen to Deputies B. Ahern and Wilson and compensate the people involved who were employees of this State and who served us all proudly for many years. I appeal to the Minister to live up to his responsibilities and pay these Irish public servants the funds due to them.
I have made it crystal clear that the major mistake made was on the part of the board of the company in that they failed to keep control of the senior executives who landed the company in the difficulty in which it found itself. But that was compounded by the panic of the Government, leading up to 14 November 1984, in which the Government had a number of options open to them but got bogged down completely in the legal approaches to the problem. As I pointed out to the committee, and here time and time again, the Minister had an option. I honestly believe that had the Minister sent for the Hong King people involved, on a commercial basis, and said to them: "You have two choices: you renegotiate these contracts now with a responsible Irish Government or else you walk out of here, I liquidate the company and you get, which is very little if anything at all". In those circumstances what decision does the Minister think the Hong Kong people would have taken?
They had that opportunity with the provisional liquidator but they did not take it.
They would have taken one decision only and they made that clear when they came here.
The Deputy is talking through his hat.
I will tell the Minister how I am talking through my hat. He could have considered the appointment of an administrator, of a receiver, he could have considered the appointment of the Zeus management type of people that he found for B & I——
After liquidation.
The Minister could have considered all of those options.
We did.
Instead he chose the legally expedient option of closing down Irish Shipping Limited overnight. For example why did the Minister not appoint a receiver?
Because it is not legally possible. The Deputy knows nothing about it. Does the Deputy know how a receiver is appointed or by whom? I told the Deputy before that that was not possible.
Because there was no debenture. It was not legally possible; that is the point I am trying to make, not legally possible. I have got out of the Minister what I wanted to get.
The Deputy does not know how a receiver is appointed, how it is done.
The whole Government are bogged down with the legality of the operation. This House is here to change the laws, it is here to amend the laws.
The Deputy does not have a clue of what he is talking about.
Why could the Minister not have brought in a Bill to change the laws in regard to receiverships? Why could not the Minister have brought in a Bill to appoint an administrator, or to appoint Zeus management consultants to run the company? Why did the Minister not change the laws?
We considered all of those points.
Instead they decided to fall back on the existing laws which was the easy, expedient thing to do. The Minister made a major mistake, he listened to the lawyers——
Obviously the Deputy did not.
The Minister should have listened to his commercial advisers. Had he done so Irish Shipping Limited would not be in this mess today, those people would have their hard earned money and we would not be disgraced the length and breadth of the world.
I shall not detain the House very long. Leaving aside for a moment the odour of political expediency about this motion I have to say that I support the thrust of what it says. The House and Government have a moral obligation to the people affected by this disaster to ensure that some degree of recognition is made to them. That recognition must be one which is financial in nature, which at least does the minimum to try to ensure that the debt that the State has to these blameless employees is paid.
Weak politicians will give reasons things cannot happen but real leaders should be able to create a situation in which the right thing is done. Unquestionably the right thing in this case is to ensure that the employees, who have been shabbily treated and continue to be shabbily treated, are given proper standards of respect, that we pay them at least a sum of money which would be some clear token that this State means what it says when it pays them the lip service it has been doing on all sides of this House over the last number of weeks in complimenting them on their unstinted loyalty to the State over the years.
In the course of his remarks the Minister said:
Of course, this whole House is united in sympathy with the former employees of Irish Shipping Limited who are the innocent victims of outrageous and irresponsible decisions taken by the company...
In that context there should be no circumstances in which any semi-State organisation can be accused, probably rightly, of irresponsible decisions or behaviour without somebody being held accountable. It is no longer good enough for semi-State employees, squandering and wasting millions of pounds of taxpayer's money to be able, in some cases, to glibly walk away having received a golden handshake. That is not good enough. The taxpayers say it is not good enough and those of us who are concerned about it in this House say it is not good enough. If people have been responsible for outrageous and irresponsible decisions they should face the full rigours of the law, if that is possible. When the heat of this case. debate has died down I trust the Minister will ensure that that happens in this case. If a constituent in my lowly constituency was guilty of an outrageous or irresponsible decision I know what would happen to him or her. The same standards should apply in so-called high places. The fact that they do not is one of the reasons this House and the whole system are being discredited, as they are.
No company occupies the same niche in the national psyche that Irish Shipping Limited has done. No company deserves the admiration and respect of the Irish people because of its unstinted loyalty, because of its unblemished record of service, as does this one. In the past ways have been found to ensure, for less worthy reasons, that people who might not be technically entitled under the law to certain financial benefits received them. It is not the job of this House to work that one out. We have sufficient paid officialdom of a statutory and in some cases of an advisory or non-statutory nature to work it out. Undoubtedly it is the will of all sides of this House to ensure that this debt of respect is paid.
I have great sympathy with the Minister who must face the difficulties of creating the mechanics of a system to ensure that it is done but, with respect to him and his colleagues, that it their problem, that is what Governments are about. I have no doubt whatever but that if there is a will, a way will be found.
I am not going to recount the harrowing stories I have heard from individual employees of this company but there is something extraordinary and unique about Irish Shipping Limited. I hope we shall hear in due course that aspects of the company or parts of the company can be, if the House will pardon the very bad pun, salvaged or restored to some degree of pride of place in our national economy or landscape. Nevertheless I hope we will do the decent thing in this case.
The two arguments likely to be advanced for us not doing so will be, first, that some form of precedent may be established. There are precedents established already, admittedly in some cases with different permutations. For example, I remember the extraordinary decision in the case of the Irish Trust Bank, I remember the Verolme incident, I remember the Talbot workers, a totally private company where there was no moral obligation on anybody, but the State managed to turn upside down its whole recruitment and public sector employment policy in pursuit of a specific objective, the Government took a political decision to do a certain thing and to see it through. Therefore, precedent does not arise. If the Government say clearly and unequivocally that they have decided to reconsider, that in this case they feel in duty morally obliged to do something about the case and that it is not to be a precedent, then it will not be a precedent. Each individual case deserves to be treated and considered on its merits.
Second, I have no doubt but that in the labyrinthine corridors of bureaucracy there is someone somewhere who believes that there is some technical reason this should not be done. Such bureaucracy is the curse of this country. It ties down imagination and vision and has held us back for generations.
All of us know that these men deserve better than they are getting and the State and everyone in this House, on all sides, demand that they get adequate and fair treatment. I appeal to the Minister — whom I know from my discussions to be sympathetic — if at all possible to do something, to go back, look again, and as long as is necessary until he ensures that some modicum of decency and justice is granted in this case.
I have no doubt that if that is done good will come from it. Unfortunately, I admit that this debate may be to some extent bedevilled by political expediency, but the kernel of the case is just and deserves consideration. I hope that in due course good will emerge and that we will do the right thing by these employees and their families and that we will do what is right and just by those who have created this incredible mess and I hope we are conscious of the other messes that unfortunately are possibly lining up to be dealt with in due course. I hope that a similar situation will not be allowed to arise and that there will be proper accountability by semi-State organisations who will be the cornerstones of future fiscal and economic policy in this country.
I thank the Minister of State and Deputy Keating for making a few minutes available to me. I will stay away from the politics and the commercial nature of the original decision and will confine myself to the area which has concerned me since the liquidation of Irish Shipping — the position in which the workers have found themselves. On two or three occasions in this House I asked the Minister to consider acceding to the substance of certain sections of this motion in relation to pensions. I would also ask the Minister for Labour to consider whether it is possible to alleviate the blow which Irish Shipping workers have suffered by providing some form of employment for them in other elements of the public service. In response to all of these requests, and to continued requests from the backbenchers in Fine Gael in direct correspondence with the Minister, it has not been possible to proceed further on this than the commitment made to pensioners who had served during the World War II period.
While we welcome that development I strongly believe that this has not gone far enough and the Minister should continue to seek until he finds a means of honouring the pensions which have been lost to Irish Shipping workers as a result of the liquidation. I entirely accept that there is not a statutory obligation on the Government, but there is a moral obligation on us to do what we can. There is no doubt that a person who goes to work in a public company goes into it with certain expectations of a permanent pensionable job. A situation which is unique, certainly in my political life, demands unique action by the Government. These workers cannot be compared with any other body of workers who suffer redundancy as a result a commercial liquidation, because in the nature of the commercial world there is a certain instability and people going into that world are aware of it. Those who go into the public service go into it with a certain expectation and understanding. While these are difficult times, people who have given 30 or 40 years of service and who are at the loss of pensions have found that their whole future is devastated. For them there has been a great deal of personal trauma leading in some cases to hospitalisation for psychiatric problems. We must not ignore our responsibilities and I would urge the Minister to do all he can to find a way round the legal and technical difficulties so as to soften the blow for these people. Priority should be given to some method of honouring the pension entitlements and we should acknowledge in some way the years of service given by many of the workers.
The Minister of State has 15 minutes.
We all readily acknowledge the distressing situation in which the former employees of Irish Shipping Limited now find themselves through no fault of their own. In the course of this debate many tributes have been paid to them, to their loyalty to their company, to their impeccable industrial relations record and, indeed, to their service to the country. I add my voice to these tributes.
Nevertheless, I have to dissent from the motion put down by the Opposition. It does not take account of the reality of the situation, harsh and all as that may be. We cannot ignore the constraints of a very real practical nature which inhibit the Government and Ministers concerned in alleviating the position of the former employees of Irish Shipping Limited. We would all wish that it were possible to wave a magic wand and find a ready solution to these problems, but unfortunately there is no ready solution.
Deputy Ahern, in the course of his speech, said that it was normal when a company went into liquidation that a decent redundancy payment was made. This is surely not the case when a company goes into liquidation in an insolvent situation. Irish Shipping Limited were insolvent. They did not even have the cash to meet the statutory redundancy payments to the company's employees and the Minister for Labour was obliged to pay the redundancy lump sum in full to the employees from the Redundancy Fund. Irish Shipping Limited did not have enough assets to meet their liabilities and, in consequence, there are many creditors of the company who have lost a great deal of money. I must repeat, therefore, what the Minister for Communications said earlier in this debate, that it would be improper in these circumstances to seek to give preferential treatment to the former employees of the company.
Why?
Deputy Vincent Brady accused the Government of acting hastily in the lead up to the liquidation of Irish Shipping Limited. This is not in accordance with the facts. On the contrary, every possible option in relation to the future of the company was identified and examined in considerable detail before the Government took the decision not to provide additional finance for the company. It is not true to say that the Government appointed a liquidator to Irish Shipping Limited. The fact is that the liquidator was appointed by the High Court at the request of the board when they were informed that the Government could not provide additional finance for the company.
Deputy Brady also suggested that the proposals by the board of the company did not recommend liquidation. The Minister for Communications has already made it clear in this House that the board of Irish Shipping Limited put forward two options for consideration by the Government: the immediate winding-up of the company; or an attempt at a final re-negotiation with the foreign shipowners with Government support.
The Board expressed the view that, before proceeding to make a final re-negotiation attempt, they were only prepared to contemplate this re-negotiation attempt, first, if the Government agreed in advance to finance commitments, including the cost of a possible settlement with the foreign interests concerned, of £74.5 million; and, secondly, if the desired result could not be achieved within the financial limit specified — and this, the board said, was a very real possibility — the winding-up of Irish Shipping would have to follow immediately.
The board of Irish Shipping Limited were clearly pessimistic about the outcome of their re-negotiation proposal. The Government have carefully considered all the options and made their decision. In the light of proposals made by the foreign interests concerned to the liquidator after he was appointed, it is clear that re-negotiation of the charters on the basis of the cost figures envisaged by the board of Irish Shipping Limited in their report to the Minister for Communications could not possibly have succeeded. In this regard the judgement of the Government was more than vindicated.
There is no doubt that the decision to liquidate Irish Shipping was the correct one. Far from improving in recent months, the fact is that world freight markets have declined. Even the horrendous losses which were projected by the company in last year's report to the Minister for Communications would have been surpassed if they had continued trading. The taxpayer would have been expected to pick up the bill for decisions which were taken without reference to the Government or the responsible Ministers. I have no doubt that the taxpayer would rightly have protested that he should not be expected to meet these bills. World shipping is going through probably the worst recession in memory and there is no sign of an improvement. There could be no justification for giving support to Irish Shipping Limited.
In his speech the Minister for Communications discussed in great detail the question of the need for a strategic fleet. There are many elements to this question, many considerations to be examined, and if the maintenance of a strategic fleet is a justifiable policy we need to quantify the size, structure and composition of that fleet. The Minister has indicated that he will be establishing very shortly a committee on strategic shipping requirements to investigate and report on various matters affecting the question of a strategic fleet. Since the matter has not been considered in more than 20 years, this is clearly the right way to go about it. The investment in a strategic fleet could be significant and we must give all the factors involved the fullest possible consideration. That will be the task of the committee.
Deputy Brady inquired about the future of Irish Continental Line. The question of what to do with the shareholding of Irish Shipping Limited in Ocean Bank Development Limited which owns Irish Continental Line is now a matter for the liquidator. Irish Continental Line are a successful and profitmaking company even if they have been affected to some extent by the recent recession in tourism which we hope is at an end. There is, to my mind, no reason why they should not continue as a going concern. I do not foresee them being forced into liquidation or receivership. Presumably the liquidator's objective will be to dispose of Irish Shipping Limited's shareholding in the company to the best advantage of the creditors of Irish Shipping Limited.
Will the Minister make a bid for it?
Certainly, the Government would be concerned that there should be an Ireland-Continent ferry service but there is no reason why such a service cannot be provided by a private enterprise company operating profitably. A point was raised on many occasions about the appointment of a receiver. The Minister has explained, and I would like to reiterate, that this was not possible in the circumstances.
In conclusion I have regretfully to reiterate once again that there are constraints and sensitivities in the aftermath of the liquidation of Irish Shipping Limited which inhibited the Government or the Ministers concerned in what help they have been able to provide. Every avenue has been explored to overcome these sensitivities and constraints but without success. However, the Minister for Communications has asked me to say what he has already said very emphatically and what I know from continuous talks with him on this matter. He appreciates and shares the deep concern expressed by Deputies on both sides of the House in this and the earlier debates, and he is continuing to search for ways in which some assistance, relief or alleviation might be offered to a workforce who, we all acknowledge, deserved a better fate.
The last part of the Minister's speech sums it all up. When this Government want to do nothing about a problem that exists, they resort to setting up a committee, as they are saying in this instance they are going to do, to examine the possibilities of recreating an Irish shipping company in some shape or form. That is the oldest excuse in the book for doing nothing. For two years since they came into Government they did nothing but set up committees and task forces to look at problems which have grown greater and greater since then. We have seen and heard from many of those task forces and committees. It is quite clear that as far as the reconstitution of an Irish shipping company is concerned the Government have decided that they will put it into the lap of another committee as yet unnamed and probably with terms of reference which will run on for years, giving them enough time to save their bacon, get out from where they are, and leave the problem to somebody else.
Consistently in this House I have spoken in every debate on Irish Shipping. For five and half months I was a member of a committee who inquired into the problems of Irish Shipping Limited. Just when we were about to find some of the answers to the remaining unanswered questions, what happened? The rug was pulled from under our feet and the Government decided to take refuge behind the legal situation, the appointment of a liquidator. Only the liquidator can talk about anything. Only the liquidator can do anything about it. They are sheltering behind a legal position and a financial sensitivity. I can only describe as hypocritical balderdash what they have poured out in this House tonight once again.
The Irish Government were a big creditor in Irish Shipping Limited as were many others in Ireland. Why did the Government not create an instrument, a debenture, to let them put in a receiver under the Companies Act, 1963? It was not jumped on them at the last minute. They knew what was coming for quite a long time, and if they had any real interest or had known their job properly, or if their advisers had known their job properly, for the protection of the Irish Shipping fleet, Irish creditors, the workforce and everybody else concerned, they would have taken the steps that are quite open to them to take and quite legal under the Companies Act, 1963, and appointed a receiver.
They panicked and mishandled it as they have mishandled every major problem that has come up in other areas. We saw evidence of that every month of the year that has gone by. Only last month I was talking here about miscalculation and mishandling of the Hyster project whereby 800 jobs were lost to Limerick. For the sake of £1 million the Government tried to gamble on the bad advice they got. Have they any minds of their own? Do they know what Governments are all about? Governments are about solving the problems just as management is all about solving the problems.
Irish Shipping management obviously made mistakes and those responsible for them are now walking scot free. Some of them got golden handshakes. I said then and I repeat now that every worker in that company was entitled to the same treatment as some of those people got. When did the principles of law change so that an employee is not a preferential creditor in any company and is not to be protected? The Government panicked and ran away from a few big fellows out in Hong Kong when they should have sat back coolly and decided what was in the best interest of everybody, the company, the Irish taxpayer whom they constantly bemoan. Yet day after day, week after week they are spending thousands and thousands on PR agencies, consultancies, new management companies. There is no worry about the taxpayer when they do that.
They have appointed a liquidator who will probably be ongoing for the next five years, and all the money he will get could look after those people who have served in Irish Shipping Limited under the Irish flag for so long. Members of the Government come in here one after another crying crocodile tears. I heard them one after another here tonight trying to extend their sympathy to the workers of Irish Shipping Limited who are being left stranded and destitute, but when I examined the record how many of these took part in the many debates?
I have gone through the debate of 13 June 1985 in detail. There is not a word there from Deputy Owen or from Deputy Skelly who was hypocritical here tonight when he spoke about the legal situation. I heard him in a corridor last night telling three people from Irish Shipping Limited that they need not worry about the Minister putting out this nonsense about hiding behind legal complications. He said he was a lawyer and that he knew there were no legal complications. Then he comes into the House tonight and acts the archhypocrite in trying to defend the indefensible situation of the Minister who is supposed to be caught up in legal complications. There was not a word from Deputy Avril Doyle in that debate, from Deputy Keating or Deputy Flaherty. In fairness to Deputy Glenn, I must say that she talked about the situation with some humanity. She knows what it is to run a household and that she could quite easily face the same problems that are faced by many of the families of Irish Shipping workers. She knows what it is all about and is prepared to express that humanity.
The Government expect the employees of Irish Shipping who have served this nation so well to accept the bona fides of the sympathy expressed here tonight. What is being offered to them? The ultimate insult of an innocuous amendment which proposes to delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" in our motion and substitute the following:
notes the action taken by the Minister for Communications to deal with the problems arising in the aftermath of the liquidation of Irish Shipping Ltd.
That is the most innocuous amendment I have ever seen. The Government side want to hide behind that and say they are backing the Minister wholly and squarely, standing behind him in the actions he has taken. On the other hand, they try to offer sympathy to the people of Irish Shipping. What is this House all about? What is Government about? Government is about legislating and every person should be treated fairly and equitably under the law. Can anybody opposite hold his hand on his heart and say when he walks through the lobbies tonight that he is applying the law fairly and equitably to the people of Irish Shipping, making excuses about legal complications and financial sensitivities? Where there is a will there is a way. Do they want the people to accept that bureaucracy can stand in the way of this House in dealing fairly and equitably with the citizens of this State?
From five and a half months examination of the workings of Irish Shipping I know how many times the staff and workers of Irish Shipping were prepared to forego wage increases, to restructure the whole set up, to make a magnanimous contribution to solving the problems of Irish Shipping. At the end of the day all they have got from this Government is a kick in the teeth for doing all that was within their power to do.
The Government should be ashamed of their readiness to insult our national flag around the world. Irish citizens in Marseilles, Mombasa or anywhere else in the world are proud to see a ship with an Irish flag. This may be a small nation but it has its national pride. People never thought they would see an Irish Government or Minister take down the national flag, dishing out the greatest insult to Irish citizens around the world, and put up in its place the Jolly Roger, as they did in Nigeria when the staff of Irish Shipping had to prevent pirates from taking away the ship. People who were proud to wear an Irish uniform and serve under the Irish flag suffered the greatest ignominy in Marseilles where they had to walk one and a half miles to make a telephone call to their people. Minister after Minister said in this House that they were being looked after by the Department of Foreign Affairs but I know the treatment they received — one visit from a representative of the Irish Embassy in Paris. They had to carry their garbage to a point two miles away for collection. They were put into an isolated part of the port reserved for criminals and pirates. That is what an Irish Government did to an Irish workforce. They should be ashamed of themselves. Nothing has served more to undermine our national pride and destroy the spirit of this nation than that act of national sabotage in liquidating and sinking Irish Shipping. This act will never be forgiven by the generation of today or those who come after. This Government will be written into the history books as one which reneged on national responsibilities, gave this country a bad name abroad and above all took away pride in serving under our national flag.
At the end of the day the Government are prepared to let the workforce of Irish Shipping walk around this city begging for a living. Why should they have to come to their Members of Parliament and go on their knees to beg for what is rightly theirs, having served this country in an emergency and built up a company which was the flagship of the semi-State humanly possible but in return the Government say there are legal complications and financial sensitivities.
Governments are elected to serve the people and treat them with fairness and equity. There is no legal complication which cannot be solved in this House. This is the supreme legislature. We can change any law if the Government want to prove their concern, expressed so hypocritically time and again. Let them be honest with the people for once and do something for the profession of politics. Since this Government came into power they have dragged it down into the muck. One of the leading backbenchers on the Government side said that the last election produced nothing but junk politicians. He is a disgrace to this House because he is prepared to deny the democratic system. If that is the sort of people in Government today, is it any wonder that the people gave the answer they did last week and are only waiting to get to the hustings?
If the Government want to solve this problem let them bring in the necessary legislation. They will get full backing from us. If they wish to reconstitute an Irish shipping company let them forget about another committee which will go on talking until the Government are talked out of power and leave the matter for a Fianna Fáil Government who are already committed to reconstituting a shipping company.
There is a crew on the Irish Spruce and a co-operative could be set up. There is a party in Government called the Labour Party. If they want to be true to any of the ideals that they or Larkin ever stood for, let them look after the workers who have served so well and follow the principle of worker co-operatives. Do they believe in it? They talk about it often enough. An opportunity is being presented to them now but will they take it and set up the co-operative? Let us have no more of the hypocritical balderdash that the job cannot be done. I heard the same sort of stuff in 1980 and when I had to solve a similar problem to do with superannuation and pensions in the aftermath of the Post Office strike. Civil servants told me time and again that it could not be done. It was done by Eamon de Valera in 1932 when he came into office, so why could I not do it as well?
If the Minister wants to be true to his job let him bring in the legislation and make up his own mind for a change. The advice he got in the first instance was wrong, as was his handling of the situation. He talks about the legal advice he received, yet one director of Irish Shipping Limited told the Joint Committee on State Sponsored Bodies that his legal advice was directly contrary to that of the Minister. Doctors differ and patients die and legal advice is as good as the judgement of one man against another. At the end of the day the Government must decide what they want to do. It is quite clear that in this case they wanted to make a name for themselves by destroying a semi-State structure. They would take Irish Shipping first and follow on with many more. No evidence produced in this House has convinced me or anybody else that the Minister is not trotting out the same silly, stupid stuff. This Government are bedevilled by well-educated fools. Let them get rid of the economists and bring in fellows with commonsense. The Government are dealing with people who are far removed from reality. The amendment before us is far removed from the reality the families of Irish Shipping workers have to endure.
In the dying days of this Government the Minister should make a name for himself by forgetting about the weird advice he is getting. I am not sure whether the advice is coming from the Civil Service or outside. I have always admired the Civil Service for their pride in the semi-State institutions and I am afraid the Minister's advice is coming from outside. There is another input from the national handlers. There is plenty of money when they have to be paid and plenty of money for consultants. There was plenty of money during the election campaign to place half-page advertisements trying to explain the land tax. There was plenty of money for advertising of all kinds but there is no place for the ordinary working person.
Your time is up.
My time is not up, according to one clock there are three minutes left and, according to another, there is one minute and a half left.
The Deputy knows perfectly well which clock counts.
Fine Gael should try to stop betting each way and they should look after the people who looked after the country when we needed them during the Emergency. If the Government have any humanity, they should see that the principles of justice are applied. The Minister should make a name for himself by standing on his own feet. I hope that some of the people who expressed such hypocritical sentiments here tonight will make a stand when they go through the lobbies for firmness, equity and justice for the ordinary people. If they do so, they might retain some credibility.
I am putting the amendment.
Would it be possible for the Minister to withdraw the Donald Duck amendment?
The Deputy is out of order.
The amendment is meaningless.
Deputy Haughey should not interrupt the Chair when he is on his feet.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West).
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.