To day I asked the Taoiseach whether he is aware that, as evidenced by public reports of a meeting in Kilkenny on the 13th instant, there appears to have been a breach of the principle of the inviolability of Cabinet proceedings in relation to the decision to provide £1,000,000 for the relief of unemployment and, if so, if he will make a statement on the matter. To that question the Taoiseach replied in the following terms:—
"The suggestion contained in the Deputy's question is unfounded and the answer to both parts of the question is therefore in the negative."
The reply which I have quoted, given to me by the Taoiseach, immediately puts in issue the substance of my question. It is necessary for me, therefore, to call attention to the evidence on which the question is based.
In the daily Press of the 13th of this month there was published a report of a meeting at which the Tánaiste was present. Not only was the Tánaiste present on that occasion but he also spoke. Another Deputy, Deputy James Larkin, also spoke, and spoke in the presence of the Tánaiste. According to the Press report on which my question was based, here is what Deputy James Larkin said at that meeting in the presence of the Tánaiste:—
"Mr. Larkin explained that a Labour Party deputation had approached the Taoiseach about providing £1,000,000 for relief work. Cabinet difficulties. ..."
Mark the term "Cabinet difficulties"
"...were developing and Mr. Norton had made it plain that if the money was not forthcoming there would be sharp and bitter division within the Government."
Again, mark the significance of the phrase "there would be sharp and bitter division within the Government" Quite obviously these statements of Deputy James Larkin related to the difficulties of which he had knowledge, difficulties which had arisen between the factions within the Coalition Cabinet.
Otherwise, why speak of Cabinet difficulties, why refer to "sharp and bitter division within the Government"? According to Deputy James Larkin these difficulties had arisen between the Tánaiste on the one hand, as representing Deputy Larkin's Labour Party and the Minister for Finance as representing the Fine Gael faction on the other. The difficulties spoken of must have been very marked. "Sharp and bitter" was how Deputy James Larkin described them. But sharp and bitter as they may have been, that is not the aspect of the matter to which I wish to call public attention.
Deputy James Larkin's statements were either true or false. I cannot say which they were but I doubt if Deputy James Larkin, in the presence of the Tánaiste or indeed elsewhere, would make a statement which he knew to be untrue and, in the words of the Taoiseach himself, unfounded. So, unless the statements which he made were contradicted by the person who, according to Deputy James Larkin, had threatened to create sharp and bitter division within the Government, we are entitled to assume that Deputy James Larkin's statement was true and that the suggestion contained in the question which I put to the Toiseach to-day was well-founded. I can only approach the matter on the basis of prima facie evidence.
How did the Tánaiste, who was on the platform with Deputy James Larkin, deal with that Deputy's statement? How did he deal with the statements made by his own Party's member? You will note I am not dealing with the merits of providing £1,000,000 for the relief of want and destitution which, for the first time in 24 years, will be widespread this Christmas. I am dealing only with one narrow aspect of the matter, an aspect of it which is the special responsibility of the Taoiseach. Under the Constitution, the Taoiseach is responsible to this House for the Government as a whole and for the behaviour inside and outside the Cabinet, in relation to public affairs, of every member of that Government. May I say again that I am dealing only with the narrow question as to how it came to pass that Deputy James Larkin was in a position to broadcast that the Labour Tánaiste had got the better of the Fine Gael Minister for Finance.
Let me repeat again what Deputy James Larkin said:—
"Mr. Norton has made it plain that if the money was not forthcoming there would be sharp and bitter division within the Government."
I am not going to express a view as to whether or not the £1,000,000 would be forthcoming or where the Minister for Finance would get it from, whether by borrowing or out of normal taxation or by special taxation. All I want to know is, not where the Minister for Finance will get this £1,000,000 but where Deputy Larkin got his information. What I might say in the next three or four sentences may be a matter of surmise. We have seen the Tánaiste in this House. We have seen his conduct, his aggressiveness, sometimes his offensive conduct here towards members.