2 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if any minutes were recorded of his meetings with the chairman of Greencore; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

3 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will outline in respect of each meeting he has had with the chairman of Greencore to discuss matters relating to either the Irish Sugar Company or Greencore plc, or any matters connected with either company or any of their subsidiaries, (a) the date and location of each meeting, (b) the other persons who were present at the meetings, (c) the purpose of each meeting, (d) if the meetings were minuted and (e) any decisions or initiatives taken as a result of these meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

4 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he will outline (1) dates, (2) locations, (3) agendas and (4) outcome of all meetings with the chairman of Greencore; if he will list the persons present at each meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

5 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach whether any civil servants were involved in the arrangements for his meeting with the chairman of Greencore, on 26 May 1990; if any person was present at this meeting other than himself and the chairman; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

6 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he will publish the list of advisers given to him at the meeting with the chairman of Greencore on 26 May 1990 and if that list is no longer in his possession, if he will describe the list; if, in particular, he will outline whether it was a short-list of stockbrokers from whom one stockbroker was to be selected, coupled with a short-list of legal advisers from whom one was to be selected; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, together. In view of the widespread media comment about the matters raised in these questions, I propose to deal with the background of events against which they are framed.

The putting down of these questions by Deputy Spring is clearly part of a larger process. There is strong evidence to suggest that the former managing director of Greencore, Mr. Comerford, and a number of other executives, betrayed the trust placed in them by the board and shareholders of Irish Sugar and used their special inside positions to make large personal gains at the expense of the company. These matters are the subject of some of the most exhaustive investigations at present that have been carried out in the State, including an investigation by inspectors appointed by the High Court.

Mr. Comerford is now, it would seem, going to considerable lengths to create a major diversion which will draw attention away from this central issue. He is ensuring that confidential information and documents which were entrusted to him as managing director are being made available to the Sunday Business Post for publication. Deputy Spring subsequently puts down follow-up Dáil questions. These Dáil questions are nothing more than an attempt to use this leaked information as a basis for false allegations and give them the additional status of an airing in the Dáil. I now propose to demonstrate to the House the spurious nature of these allegations disguised as Dáil questions by analysing the latest example which has been used by Deputy Spring.

A former worker director of the Irish Sugar Company, Mr. Noel O'Brien, as part of this process, spoke at the EGM of Greencore on 30 October and subsequently on radio about a very odd sort of telephone conversation which is supposed to have taken place between Mr. Cahill, chairman of Greencore, and Mr. Comerford following a meeting with me in May. Mr. Cahill is supposed to have stated, in the course of this telephone call, that as the Government had recently appointed NCB as advisers in the privatisation of Irish Life, they were inhibited from doing so in the case of Irish Sugar.

I have no responsibility for any telephone conversations which are supposed to have taken place between the chairman and chief executive of Irish Sugar, but I believe there are aspects of Mr. O'Brien's statement that Deputy Spring might have raised about this peculiar type of telephone call before taking the step of putting down a Dáil question and thereby, in effect, turning it into a serious allegation.

First of all, we must ask how did Mr. O'Brien know about this supposed telephone conversation. He had ceased to be a worker director in 1988 following his rejection by his fellow workers because he was rightly or wrongly regarded as being in Mr. Comerford's pocket. He must have been instructed by Mr. Comerford to make these statements. There is no other explanation. Secondly, there is a crucial flaw in Mr. O'Brien's version.

He was in the wrong pocket.

He quotes Mr. Cahill as stating that the Government had recently appointed NCB to the Irish Life privatisation, but it can be shown that Mr. Cahill could not have said anything of the kind.

The firm appointed in the Irish Life privatisation was Goldman Sachs/NCB, but they were not in fact appointed as advisers to the Minister for Finance for the privatisation of Irish Life until 23 July 1990, two months after the alleged telephone call was supposed to have taken place. The facts of the appointment are as follows. The Department of Finance circularised 51 firms about the appointment: 18 firms replied and 12 were short-listed. When the 12 firms on the short-list had been interviewed by the Department of Finance, a submission was made by the Department of Finance to the Minister for Finance in June 1990 and the appointment was made by the Minister on 23 July 1990. So much for the implied suggestion that the Government had appointed NCB on some basis of favouritism. The simple truth, therefore, is that a conversation to the effect reported by Mr. O'Brien could not have taken place.

I have already spoken here about this strange new concept that the Taoiseach must not apparently meet business people, the heads of State companies or persons of that kind. This is, of course, palpable nonsense, but it is inherent in the sort of questions being addressed to me by Deputy Spring and others. It is also being used to question the propriety of my functions in relation to the privatisation of Irish Sugar and my involvement in discussions about it.

On this I would like to quote from a clear statement on the functions of the Taoiseach by one of the most respected authorities in this area, Maurice Moynihan, former secretary to the Government. In an article in Administration, volume 7 (1959-60) page 293 subsequently reproduced in Basil Chubb's A Source Book of Irish Government, page 64, Dr. Moynihan states:

At this stage, it is well to recall once more the special position of the Taoiseach as the Head of the Government — the captain of the team. In this capacity, he is the central co-ordinating figure, who takes an interest in the work of all Departments, the figure to whom Ministers naturally turn for advice and guidance when faced with problems involving large questions of policy or otherwise of special difficulty and whose leadership is essential to the successful working of the Government as a collective authority, collectively responsible to Dáil Éireann, but acting through members each of whom is charged with specific departmental tasks. He may often have to inform himself in considerable detail of particular matters with which other members of the Government are primarily concerned. He may have to make public statements on such matters, as well as on general matters of broad policy, internal and external.

A similar statement on the Taoiseach's co-ordinating role, and his need to concern himself with the work of all Departments of State in particular on all major matters was made in the Report of the Devlin Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector.

It is absolutely clear from these statements on the role of a Taoiseach that the meetings I held with the chairman of Irish Sugar or Greencore were fully in accordance with the proper discharge of my functions and responsibilities as Taoiseach.

It is a matter of public record that I regard the commercial, semi-State companies as an important economic resource capable of contributing substantially to economic development and providing the jobs we need. I have met their chairmen and chief executives many times collectively and individually for this purpose.

The former Irish Sugar Company was one of the more important of the commercial semi-State companies. I regard its privatisation as a matter of major national importance. In practical terms it required the full co-operation of three Departments for its successful conclusion — Finance, Agriculture and Food and Labour. It was essential that I give it my full support as Head of Government and ensure the Government's approach to this major, and from our point of view, unprecedented undertaking was coherent and co-ordinated. My sole concern was that the transfer of this valuable company to the private sector should, in the best interests of the workers, the beet growers and the Exchequer, be carried through smoothly and successfully. The meetings I held and my involvement was for this purpose and nothing else.

I wish to confirm again to the House the circumstances in which my meeting with Mr. Cahill in May 1990 arose. It has now been confirmed that my account is correct and that, following a decision by the company as part of their privatisation strategy, I was briefed by the chairman and Fine Gael were briefed by Mr. Comerford. Deputy Sherlock of The Workers' Party was, I understand, also briefed by Mr. Comerford. The Labour Party have been very coy about whether they were briefed.

It is now definitely established, that, despite the attempts by Deputy Spring and the Sunday Business Post to cast some aura of suspicion around it, the meeting in my home in May 1990 was held at the request of the chairman of Irish Sugar; that it was not secret or personal but was an official approach by the chairman of an important semi-State company carrying out company policy in a way that was open and above board. I repeat again that at that meeting I was not concerned about advisers or their appointment, nor did I make any suggestions to Mr. Cahill about them.

Furthermore, I am informed that the chairman of Greencore indicated in his remarks at the Greencore EGM that the list referred to at his meeting with me, was a definitive list decided by management with the name of NCB included in it and that I did not suggest any changes in it.

For my part I reiterate categorically that I did not make any suggestions to Mr. Cahill at any stage about the appointment of advisers or consultants and that that has now been firmly established.

To attempt to suggest that in the light of all the fundamental and important strategic issues that had to be faced and the major decisions that had to be taken I was concerned about the appointment of advisers or their fees is patently absurd. I had meetings with Mr. Cahill on 21 September 1989, 30 April, 26 May and 16 October 1990 and 24 January and 7 March 1991. They were short and informal as the chairman briefed me on the ongoing process of privatisation.

A serious attempt has been made by Deputy Spring and others to distract public attention from what is really the central issue in the Greencore affair. What the Dáil should be concerned about is the question of leading executives of a State company engaging in transactions for their own benefit. It is significant and should be noted by all that Deputy Spring in his Dáil contributions has shown no concern for that real issue but has chosen instead to try to divert attention to the appointment of advisers by the company which, when one thinks about it, is of a minor nature compared to the real scandal that is now being investigated.

In response to assertions that Deputy Spring was acting in alliance with Mr. Comerford, Deputy Spring issued a statement, in which he denied that he had ever discussed the affairs of Irish Sugar with Mr. Comerford or anyone acting on his behalf.

I wish to ask Deputy Spring if he still wishes to adhere to that statement. I am asking this because my information is that Deputy Spring, when he was Tánaiste and a Government Minister, was approached in 1984 on behalf of Mr. Chris Comerford, who at that time was seeking appointment as chief executive designate of Irish Sugar. Deputy Spring as Tánaiste subsequently sought to influence the late Mr. Ruadhrí Roberts, a former general secretary of the ICTU and at that time a director of Irish Sugar, to support the appointment of Mr. Comerford as chief executive designate. Deputy Spring on 23 August 1984 telephoned, while the board meeting at which Mr. Comerford was to be appointed was in progress, and had Mr. Roberts called out from the meeting. As anyone who knew Ruadhrí Roberts would expect, he was firmly rebuffed.

I believe that Opposition Deputies who have participated in the recent campaign have behaved irresponsibly; that they have not been concerned with the best interests of our parliamentary democracy. They have tried to destabilise the Government by a vicious campaign of false allegations and personalised attacks.

I want to submit that there has been a serious and culpable departure on their part from their responsibilities as Members of Dáil Éireann and as political leaders. It is legitimate at any time for the Opposition to seek to damage and even bring down a democratically elected Government by political means on issues of policy, administration or competence. It is not legitimate to seek to subvert a Government by an orchestrated campaign of vilification, innuendo and fabrication as has been happening.

The primary business of this House is to discuss and legislate for policies to improve the welfare of our people. Instead of that, we have had the spectacle for weeks now of Deputy Spring and Deputy Bruton engaged in a full time campaign of personal vilification, principally of me but also of members of the Government and of the Fianna Fáil Party. The only basis for this vilification has been that certain persons in the private and semi-State sectors are very properly being investigated under the High Court for what are very serious alleged offences.

When these events first came to light, all the anger and comment of the Opposition were directed at those directly responsible. But suddenly and unscrupulously, these attacks were switched to me, members of the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party.

In any other society or parliament, the legal investigations would be allowed to run their course and the findings debated in due course in parliament. But Deputy Spring and Deputy Bruton decided not to follow this fair, honourable and responsible course. They cannot wait for the legal findings from the various investigations. They prefer to attack me now because they know that in due course it will be found that neither I nor any of my colleagues was involved in any way in the matters being investigated.

I find all this deeply distressing personally but even more so in the context of the damage they are doing to the country. Do they not realise how foreigners who are our competitors delight in their behaviour? Have they no sense of dignity or indeed patriotism not to demean further our country's name already affected as it is by the events which are under investigation?

Let me also tell Deputy Spring and Deputy Bruton that I believe the general public, seeing clearly what has been attempted, are rejecting it and demanding that the campaign of vilification ceases and that the Government be allowed get on with the country's business. Enough harm has been done to our country. It is now time to return to the normal standards of decent behaviour and the traditional procedures of this House.

On a point of order——

I am calling Deputy Spring in the first instance.

My question is the first one of the particular group.

I am aware of that.

Why is my supplementary question not being taken?

The Chair is exercising his right of selection in such matters.

I will be brief. May I ask a question?

Certainly, Deputy, if Deputy Spring gives way.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I also wish to thank Deputy Spring. In view of the fact that the chairman of Greencore stated quite categorically at last week's EGM that he met the Taoiseach in his home at Kinsealy on 26 May 1990 and that they both — despite the Taoiseach's almost simultaneous denial to this House last week — discussed "a wide range of issues regarding the privatisation of Irish Sugar including the advisers proposed by the company"——

I am sorry, the Deputy is aware that quotations at Question Time are not in order.

How many companies, other than NCB, were on the list of advisers shown to the Taoiseach by Mr. Cahill? Did the Taoiseach suggest or advocate that NCB be appointed and given the contract? Were Goodbodys on the list and were they discussed by the Taoiseach? Who were the other companies on the list? Was the list submitted to the Taoiseach as a definitive list in an official or semi-official capacity? Does the Taoiseach realise that by denying the issue of advisers was discussed — he said today he was not concerned with the issue of advisers — and by denying that privatisation was discussed——

This is becoming a very long question.

The Taoiseach went on for 20 minutes.

Deputy Higgins, it is customary to put relevant questions but it is not in order to put them in omnibus form.

Does the Taoiseach realise that he is implying that Mr. Cahill, chairman of Greencore, one of the major companies in this country, was telling lies in what he said at the EGM last week?

I implied nothing of the kind. What the chairman of Greencore said at the EGM is entirely in line with what I am saying. The chairman of Greencore, I understand — I was not there but I understand from reliable reports — stated at the EGM that the list referred to in his meeting with me was a definitive list prepared by management and that the name of NCB was on that list. Therefore it is quite clear that when he came to me a decision had already been taken as to who should be appointed advisers to the privatisation of Irish Sugar into Greencore. That is incontrovertible. I state here categorically again, I reiterate, that I did not make any suggestions to the chairman about advisers, and he has corroborated that fact. That is the key central issue.

No, he has not.

The chairman of Greencore has stated that I did not make any suggestions to him about advisers.

He did not.

Why did he tell the Taoiseach about what was on the list?

Order, Deputy Shatter, please, questions have been asked; let us listen to the reply.

I want to come back to what I have been saying about the question of the appointment of advisers. Why is there all this concentration on a matter of relative unimportance in regard to the major question of privatisation and all the many issues involved in it? I want to suggest not so much to Deputy Higgins because I do not attribute this to him but to Deputy Spring that the reason we have all this concentration, all these questions and all these allegations on the matter of advisers and consultants is that he wants to deflect attention from the real issue.

You are coming to life at last.

Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan will restrain himself, please.

The Taoiseach expresses wonder as to why this issue is being concentrated on. The reason quite obviously is that the Taoiseach misled the House two weeks ago. On seeking to have clarification——

That is not true.

——of the statement made by the Taoiseach that he had no meetings with Mr. Cahill he compounded the misleading of the House.

Order. Deputy De Rossa, I am on my feet. The Deputy may not suggest that any Member misled the House.

I put down a question which the Taoiseach has totally ignored. In Question No. 3 I asked the Taoiseach to outline the details of the four or five meetings with he now admits he had with Mr. Cahill, the dates those meetings took place, who was present at those meetings, were minutes taken of those meetings, what decisions were arrived at during those meetings and what actions followed as a result of those decisions. The Taoiseach has totally ignored that specific question. Unless the Taoiseach is prepared to provide that information question marks still hang over the credibility of this Taoiseach as to whether he is telling the House the full truth.

What about the credibility of the Deputy?

I will come to that in a minute. I would also point out——

Deputy De Rossa——

I have not finished asking my supplementary questions.

Deputy De Rossa, you will now hear the Chair.

I have not finished.

The Deputy will not ignore the Chair.

I am not ignoring the Chair.

The Deputy is ignoring the Chair. The Deputy is embarking upon a speech rather than putting supplementary questions.

I was hoping the Chair might ignore me for a change.

Deputy De Rossa——

I would like to point out to the Taoiseach——

No, Deputy. We shall proceed by way of questions.

The Taoiseach has said that he had meetings——

The Deputy may not continue to ignore the Chair. Will the Deputy please bring his questions to finality?

Could the Taoiseach give the facts in relation to his contacts with Mr. Cahill?

I am very happy to give the Deputy all the facts.

I thank the Taoiseach, but why did he not give the facts before now?

My primary consideration, as I have already stated, at the meeting on 26 May was with two issues. One was the question of a favourable allocation of shares to the workers and to the beet growers in the privatisation process because I knew that the privatisation process would not proceed smoothly unless something satisfactory was provided in that regard. My second concern was, as I have already stated, with an undertaking given some time before by the Irish Sugar Company when they left Tuam, that they would put up £2 million by way of investment for an industry in Tuam. These are my two primary considerations.

What about Thurles?

Deputy De Rossa asked me about the meetings and I can give him information on the various matters that came up from time to time as the privatisation process unfolded. Another matter which was discussed and discussed particularly at a meeting at which the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister for Labour were present with Mr. Cahill and myself, was the question of trade union representation on the board of Greencore. Other matters which were discussed from time to time were the question of a 45 per cent retention by the Minister for Finance, the question of the golden share, the Price Waterhouse report which had been presented, a statement by the Government on the broad framework of legislation and the special position of beet suppliers. That was discussed on 16 October 1990. On 24 January 1991 we discussed the Committee Stage of the Bill and also the deep concern of the company about the delay in the legislation. Finally on 7 March 1991 we discussed the question of the status and rights of workers and trade union representatives and a request that the President provide an early signature of the Bill.

The point I want to make to Deputy De Rossa and the House is that these meetings which I held with the chairman were entirely devoted to the important issues of privatisation and the problems and difficulties as they arose as that privatisation proceeded. At no time, again I repeat, did I ever make any representations, suggestions or anything of that kind to Mr. Cahill about advisers because it was not of the slightest importance to me.

I wish to raise a matter which I brought to the attention of the House yesterday and which perhaps the Taoiseach would clarify for me now. The Government Press Secretary acting on behalf of the Taoiseach, not on behalf of any other Government Minister and not on behalf of the Progressive Democrats, stated that I had a link in the Telecom scandal.

No.

May I now ask the Taoiseach to put on the record of this House that this does not exist and that he is not making the allegation?

What about the allegation——

For four years you remained silent.

I am very glad to confirm to this House and to Deputy Spring that no such suggestion or allegation was ever made.

It was made.

There are many reputable journalists in the Press Gallery of this House who will confirm that no such suggestion was ever made.

The Taoiseach is a disgrace.

The one thing in this country for which I can never be held responsible is newspaper headlines. I want to assure Deputy Spring — and I am certain that journalists will confirm this — that all the Press Secretary said was that it was likely to emerge that Deputy Spring was associated with Mr. Pat Doherty. The reason — and I want to put this to Deputy Spring — that emerged was that it was known that Deputy Spring had met Mr. Pat Doherty. I want to suggest to Deputy Spring that if it had emerged that I met Mr. Pat Doherty, how many Dáil Questions would be put down in the House?

I must suggest to the House that we come to deal with the questions tabled for us here today. The matter to which the Deputy has adverted is somewhat extraneous. Let us deal with the questions before us.

I do not believe you are saying this. I genuinely do not believe you are saying this.

What about the questions before us? Deputy Spring, I have called you in response to the three questions you have tabled.

I am grateful to the Taoiseach for climbing down off that horse, successfully on this occasion.

The Progressive Democrats are enjoying this.

Will Deputies over there behave themselves for God's sake? They had their chance this morning.

It is a matter of knowledge to me for a long time that the Minister for Justice had dinner with Mr. Doherty in London, and I do not raise any questions about that. There is no problem at all with that.

The Taoiseach seems convinced that there is some conspiracy theory between myself, the Labour Party and Greencore — Irish Sugar.

Yes.

I want to put something on the record of the House, and the Ceann Comhairle will have to give me permission to do so.

This is Question Time and I have to dissuade both the Deputy and all Members from debating this; I am not going to permit a debate on this matter today. There are other ways and means of having a debate.

This is supposed to be answer time, a Cheann Comhairle.

This is Question Time.

I want to put it to the Taoiseach and this House that the position of the Labour Party in relation to Greencore is outlined in statements I made on 4 and 5 September; a letter to The Irish Times on the same date, a statement on 10 September, a statement on 11 September, a statement on 19 September by my colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, a statement on 20 September by myself and a statement on 4 October by my colleague, Deputy Mervyn Taylor calling on the Government to freeze Mr. Comerford's golden handshake and to secure repayment of the excess profit made by Talmino and calling on the Minister for Agriculture and Food to outline the position of other senior executives in this company.

Does the Taoiseach want more?

The Deputy is imparting information rather than seeking it, as is usual at Question Time.

He has no option other than to do so.

This is not the time to do so.

I want to ensure that the Taoiseach is better informed than he has been to date.

He knows, all right.

The Taoiseach has said also that I did not refer to Greencore, Gladebrook or Talmino in the confidence debate. In all 62 speakers spoke in this House in that confidence debate and 56 of those speakers made no detailed reference because the Ceann Comhairle had given us guidance that any mention of Gladebrook and Talmino would be ruled out because of the sub judice rule. That, among other reasons, is why we did not deal with it.

The question?

I hold no brief for Mr. Comerford nor have I ever held a brief for Mr. Comerford.

I want to assist Deputy Spring to elicit information but he must proceed by way of relevant brief supplementary question. That is the only way we can proceed at Question Time.

I appreciate your guidance, a Cheann Comhairle. I am responding to a 20 minute reply to our questions.

The Chair has no control over the length of statements by Ministers.

The Chair is lucky.

The first time the question was put down in relation to the Taoiseach's meeting with Mr. Cahill, the question was transferred; the second time, the Taoiseach said he had no meetings with Mr. Cahill; the third time the question was asked he said he had meetings with Mr. Cahill.

Most certainly——

The Minister was not there.

None of the Ministers was invited to the Kinsealy meeting; they were not wanted.

The Deputy was not——

The Taoiseach wanted the meeting on his own. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, was not invited; he was not on the agenda.

The Minister did not even know about it.

The Minister might be very lucky he was not part of the agenda.

I must dissuade the Deputy from making statements, as he is indeed doing. We must proceed by way of relevant supplementary questions.

I want to put it to the Taoiseach that on the third time he was asked, he said he had two meetings with Mr. Cahill and on the fourth time he was asked he said he had four or five meetings with Mr. Cahill. Mr. Cahill went on record last week as saying he went to Kinsealy to solicit the Taoiseach's support for the general principle of privatisation. That is totally acceptable in any democracy, but then Mr. Cahill also said as a matter of record:

The issue of advisers was only one of a number of issues which he and Mr. Haughey discussed.

What was the Prime Minister of this country doing discussing advisers at that stage of the proceedings?

There can be no debate now.

Deputy Spring, you do not really want to know.

A question please, Deputy Spring.

When the Taoiseach after returning from Cork on Monday, was asked by The Irish Times correspondent if he had discussed the list of financial advisers, the Taoiseach replied, “not particularly”. Will the Taoiseach please explain to us what “not particularly” means, as Mr. Cahill had said that he did discuss it with the Taoiseach?

Will the Taoiseach re-shuffle the Front Bench?

We have had quite an amount of discussion about the meeting I had on 26 May with Mr. Cahill. I have already given the background to it and, as he confirmed at the EGM, he came to me to seek my general support as Head of Government for the issue of privatisation. He stated, and I accept, that he gave me — he did not give me a list——

I want to be absolutely accurate about this.

There was a list of advisers. That list had been prepared by management. That list already included the name of NCB and I did not make any suggestions about that list. They are the central facts. The Deputy can twist them around and turn them on his head as much as he likes.

The facts?

They are all reported facts and statements.

Three times I asked Mr. Cahill and he stonewalled.

I ask the House why is Deputy Spring concentrating exclusively on this issue of the appointment of advisers?

To try to get the truth.

I want to suggest to you, Deputy Spring, through the Chair, that you are doing this as a stalking horse, as a red herring, that you want to deflect attention from your associates, Mr. Comerford and other people on the Irish Sugar Company staff.

Nonsense and the Taoiseach knows it.

It is not nonsense.

Taoiseach, you disowned Deputy Lenihan and now Mr. P.J. Mara.

Is there anyone left?

The House knows and the public know——

——that the central issue and the only scandal in the Irish Sugar Company-Greencore affairs is the alleged enrichment of themselves by a group of executives using their trusted inside position to do so. That is the central issue. I want any fair-minded Member to ask a question: why is Deputy Spring concentrating on the relatively minor aspect of the appointment of advisers?

If the Taoiseach had chosen to answer this question he would not be in the mess he is in now.

It is now firmly established to any reasonable person that I did not make any suggestions to Mr. Cahill about advisers or consultants. That is now a fact.

Why did Mr. Cahill not say that in reply to my question: three times he stonewalled that question.

Deputies opposite should try to control their venom and malice.

I told Mr. Cahill that I was looking for the truth.

Unless Question Time proceeds in a much more orderly fashion it will be concluded quite promptly by me.

I have not finished, and I want to repeat that Deputy Spring in this House is deflecting attention from the main, central issue——

No.

Nonsense.

——and that he has his own special agenda for doing that. You have your own special agenda for doing that.

Deputy Stagg was the only one from the Labour Party——

I call on Deputy John Bruton.

I have just two questions.

Explain the phone call; speak up or shut up, explain your silence.

Order, please, Deputies. Let us have regard to the dignity and decorum of this House, which should prevail even at a time like this. Deputy Bruton.

I have just two questions, Sir. Could I ask the Taoiseach what did he say to Mr. Cahill when Mr. Cahill showed him——

This is not a bit funny.

Unbelievable.

Which version do you want?

Deputy Bruton without interruption.

Your Fianna Fáil backbenchers are displaying your unsuitability for Government. You are doing yourself no good. You do not even see the seriousness of what is happening.

Please, Deputies, please. I call on Deputy Bruton, without interruption.

May I ask the Taoiseach why he discussed the issue of advisers with Mr. Cahill at all? What did he say to Mr. Cahill when Mr. Cahill showed him the list — that is the first question. The second question I should like to ask the Taoiseach is this: does the Taoiseach agree, or not, that Mr. P. J. Mara misled, or attempted to mislead the Press in suggesting an improper — I shall start that again.

No, we are having references now to persons outside the House.

Sir, you are very quick to interrupt questioners from this side yourself——

Does the Taoiseach agree that Mr. P. J. Mara either misled or attempted to mislead the journalists working in this House when he suggested some form of improper association between Mr. Pat Doherty and the Leader of the Labour Party, and if he does accept that, will he ask Mr. Mara, who is a civil servant, to resign his office?

Another red herring. First of all, the reason that advisers were discussed at my meeting with Mr. Cahill was that Mr. Cahill informed me as to who the advisers were going to be, as prepared by his management, with the name NCB already included on it.

I thought it was a list.

How often do I have to repeat that?

Deputy Bruton has asked me a question and I would like permission to answer it.

I should love to hear the answer.

He asked why was the question of advisers discussed at my meeting with Mr. Cahill, because the chairman told me who they were going to be. He also said——

Why?

Because he gave me a whole range of things about privatisation that were important, and that he wanted to brief me on. This was one of them. It was not a very important aspect of it; it was a minor aspect of our discussion and it had no particular significance. That is the answer to that question.

To answer the second question of Deputy Bruton, which is another stalking horse, another red herring, another attempt to deflect attention from the real scandal in Irish Sugar and Greencore, my understanding is that the Government Press Secretary did not attempt to suggest anything of the sort that Deputy Bruton is now suggesting.

Deputies, please. We have devoted——

In relation to——

Please do not interrupt me when I am on my feet, Deputy.

Do not shout me down. We have devoted almost three quarters of an hour to these five questions.

Not enough.

I insist on their being brought to finality, and I will call——

Members may not rise. I will call Deputy Spring, Deputy De Rossa and Deputy Jim Higgins to finalise matters. Deputy Bruton is on his feet at the moment. He may put a further question if he so wishes.

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle. My name was mentioned by An Taoiseach and I should request your permission to raise a supplementary question.

I shall facilitate the Deputy.

Thank you.

Deputy Bruton. I should ask you to be brief and relevant.

Yes, Sir. Could I ask the Taoiseach if he seriously expects the House to believe that he had a discussion with Mr. Cahill about the appointment of advisers in which he, the Taoiseach, expressed no opinion? How could one have a discussion without expressing an opinion?

I can only refer Deputy Bruton to what Chairman Cahill said. Chairman Cahill said, very specifically and very clearly, that I did not make any representations or suggestions to him about the list of advisers——

What about taking some names off the list?

——prepared by management of the company and mentioned by him to me in the course of discussing many other aspects.

He did not say that.

That is not correct.

Order. Deputy De Rossa, please, a brief, relevant question.

If you have a list produce it now or be quiet.

A Cheann Comhairle——

He is an authority on everything, "Mr. Manifesto" himself. No. 77.

I again return to the specific information that I sought from the Taoiseach and which the Taoiseach has not yet provided. I asked about the locations of the meetings with Mr. Cahill. I asked for a list of the persons who attended the meetings he attended with Mr. Cahill, and whether there is any record of those meetings. Is there a minute of the meeting held in May? Is there a minute of any of the meetings held since? Could the Taoiseach indicate whether any of the meetings were held, for instance, on Inismhicealáin or in any other private residence? Could he indicate the decisions that arose from those meetings? I think they are legitimate questions. It is significant that the Taoiseach now admits that he did, in fact, discuss the question of advisers with Mr. Cahill, although on 16 October he denied that any such discussion took place.

Hair-splitting again.

Deputy, this is sufficient.

Finally could I also suggest that the Taoiseach would now accept that his attempt to smear Deputies in this House has brought politics to a new low and that he would now withdraw the allegations he has made——

Please, Deputy De Rossa.

——outside this House through his press secretary against Deputy Spring, against Deputy Howlin and against myself——

Deputy De Rossa will now resume his seat.

——after his performance in the House today?

Deputy De Rossa will now resume his seat or leave the House. I now call Deputy Spring.

I have already told Deputy De Rossa that two of the meetings were held in my home in Abbeyville and the rest were held in Government Buildings. I have already told the House that they were short, informal meetings. There were no minutes kept because they were primarily of a briefing nature. The follow-up to them was normally by way of my reporting to Government about the process of privatisation. As regards people present at them, the only additional people I can recall being at any other meeting was the one I have mentioned when the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister for Labour were present dealing with the question of trade union representation.

The others were all person to person, between Bernie and the Taoiseach.

May I clarify some matters with the Taoiseach? As I understand it, as of now, the smokescreen which the Government Press Secretary tried to create on Monday in relation to linking me with the Telecom scandal is now withdrawn.

It never existed.

Another lie.

That, Sir, is another attempt by the Taoiseach to mislead this House.

I feel strongly that we must proceed to other questions.

Actually I am glad the Taoiseach has repeated that because not only is he trying to mislead the House but everybody who reads a newspaper or listens to television in this country, in relation to what P. J. Mara tried to do to me on Monday——

I have already said that there are many things in this country the Deputy can, with some legitimacy, accuse me of but newspaper headlines is not one of them.

Why was that statement made by P.J. Mara to the press?

A Cheann Comhairle——

Deputy Spring, I would ask you, please, to bring this matter to finality by way of a brief question.

This matter is extremely important to this country, to the conduct of business in this country and to what politicians do in this country.

There was never an allegation, as such.

I want to ask the Taoiseach: does he not accept that my comments on 5 September in relation to the Greencore scandal as follows: Calling on the Government to prepare a legal case to secure repayment of the excess profit made by Talmino——

Will Deputies listen to it?

There are rules governing Question Time.

I want to put it to the Taoiseach——

Deputy Spring was attacked by the Taoiseach and he is entitled to defend himself.

——nobody else is ever attacked.

I want to put it to the Taoiseach that my further statement: calling on the Government to freeze Mr. Comerford's golden handshake, agreed by Mr. Cahill, the Taoiseach's Chairman of that company; also calling on the Minister for Agriculture and Food to outline the position of other senior executives in the company——

We must now conform to the rules governing Question Time. I am calling Deputy Sherlock.

A Cheann Comhairle, I want to ask a question of the Taoiseach and I am entitled to ask a question.

Yes, Deputy, I am awaiting a question, but what we are having is a speech.

I put it to the Taoiseach that he must accept that the Labour Party, I personally, or any member of my party hold no brief and never held any brief for Mr. Comerford.

I am calling Deputy Sherlock.

Lastly, I want to put it to the Taoiseach that, whereas he told this House on two different occasions that no discussion took place in relation to financial advisers, he is now admitting in this House to have discussed NCB and that that was what the meeting was all about.

That last statement by Deputy Spring is not correct.

But the Taoiseach is now telling us that he discussed it.

There was no discussion. The meeting took the form of the Chairman briefing me on many issues including his telling me, not asking me — not asking for suggestions — including his telling me——

Are Members not interested in the facts? The facts are clear, incontrovertible. The Chairman told me who was on his list prepared by management. He also told Deputy Spring and everybody else that I made no suggestions to him——

He did not.

He did not tell me.

A Cheann Comhairle——

A brief question.

I want to pose a brief supplementary question on Question No. 6. I want to make this comment arising from the Taoiseach's statement to the effect that Mr. Comerford had briefed me. I should like to say clearly and categorically that no such meeting took place.

In 1988 I requested a meeting with Mr. Comerford to advise him——

——that Mr. Goodman had solicited the support of my party when we met the Chairman in the matter of the take-over of the Irish Sugar Company.

We are having statements which are not in order.

A Cheann Comhairle, may I just point out——

Deputy Sherlock knows the procedure to be adopted at Question Time.

I want to make a brief supplementary to point out a serious conflict in the statement now being made by the Taoiseach to the effect that Mr. Cahill came to solicit full privatisation at a time when Mr. Cahill——

I am afraid we are having a long statement from the Deputy which is not in order.

A Cheann Comhairle, the conflict is this: that on the very day that NCB were appointed Goodbody James Capel, Stockbrokers, had their services dispensed with by Mr. Cahill and he stated that that had been on the advice of the Government.

That is sufficient, Deputy.

In view of the fact that the Taoiseach has refused to answer any of the vital questions on this matter in relation to the conduct of Cabinet business in private residences, may I ask him this: in view of the fact that the Taoiseach said in this House, on 30 October 1991 at column 1931 of the Official Report, that he was confident that the report of the two inspectors would allay all disquiet in relation to his involvement in this affair; furthermore, in view of the fact that that disquiet has been worsened may I ask the Taoiseach this: will he be prepared to give evidence on oath to the inspectors about his meetings with Mr. Bernie Cahill and will the inspectors' report cover the business of those meetings?

I have no hesitation in giving evidence anywhere about those meetings. I want to repeat again — and this in reply to Deputy Sherlock — the background and the purpose of those meetings. The company decided, and the executives of the company decided, that, as a matter of privatisation strategy, the Chairman should brief me, that Mr. Comerford should brief Fine Gael, Labour and The Workers' Party. The Chairman, in pursuit of company policy, briefed me on these matters. I am stating to this House — and I will state anywhere else it is necessary to state it — that Mr. Cahill, at his briefing, told me of the contents of the list prepared by the management of his company — not by the Chairman, Mr. Cahill, but by the management of his company — as to who was being appointed advisers, that NCB were on that list. He and I are both prepared to confirm to any tribunal anywhere in this country that I made no recommendations or suggestions about that list.

Please, Deputies, may I inform the House that, in accordance with Standing Orders, we must now proceed to deal with Priority Questions?