Nomination of Member of Government: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

Go gcomhaontóidh Dáil Éireann leis an Taoiseach d'ainmniú an Teachta Deasún Ó Máille chun á cheaptha ag an Uachtarán chun bheith ina chomhalta den Rialtas.

That Dáil Éireann approve the nomination by the Taoiseach of Deputy Desmond J. O'Malley for appointment by the President to be a member of the Government.

—(The Taoiseach.)

Mr. Ryan

The involvement of Deputy Haughey, who has seldom declared any passionate concern for the people of Northern Ireland, can perhaps be understood as an interest on his part to use the arms that were to be imported not merely in Northern Ireland but in the South of Ireland as well, because he was prepared to use an organisation which is recognised by the law and the majority of our people as an organisation concerned to undermine the very existence of this State. Yet that organisation was chosen and the directors of that organisation were personally paid by the men in question to bring into this State arms for what were clearly subversive purposes.

But that is not all. We have seen, as Deputy O'Higgins has mentioned, that the former Minister for Justice encouraged people in the commission of illegalities with an assurance that, if they did so, he would cover up for them. In addition, there have been a number of cases brought to the notice of the Taoiseach and this House in which the Attorney General deliberately withdrew charges which were already before the courts. There had been complaints by district justices that, where criminal charges against a person were withdrawn, no explanation was given to the courts. Yet we now have a situation in which that Attorney General is presumably supposed to investigate the possible criminality of members of the Government.

We have had evidence in this House that the former Deputy Martin Corry, a senior member of the Fianna Fáil Party, was involved in activities of bribery as a result of which it appears he was not, for the first time in his long career, a candidate for Fianna Fáil in the last general election. What has since happened? He has been honoured for his conduct by being appointed a director of a State company. When that matter was questioned here, the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, said there was no better man for the position.

We have had the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Charles Haughey, moving an amendment in this House to the taxation laws of this country and, within a short period, himself personally benefiting——

A Deputy

That is not true.

Mr. Ryan

The conclusion of this sordid affair, we have not yet seen. Tonight the Fianna Fáil Party are united whereas this morning it was quite clearly split.

Dr. Hillery

Wishful thinking.

Mr. Ryan

Members of the Fianna Fáil Party who were found unfit to be members of the Cabinet—including those who refused to resign and who threw back the Taoiseach's request— are prepared to give him their unqualified support. The nation, in days to come, will look carefully to ascertain whether the price for their votes to maintain Fianna Fáil in office was not a guarantee of immunity to prosecution. If they had not given their support, the Government would have gone out of power and a new Government would have been in office in this country which would have prosecuted them for their criminal acts against the Irish nation. Their only guarantee of immunity, of protection, was to give continuing support to the Government that was prepared to cover up for them.

This amounts, then, to the tragic situation that we have not seen the end of low standards in high places but we have now sunk to a new "low" because it is quite clear that the Taoiseach for political reasons cannot afford to have these people prosecuted. The day they are prosecuted and charged means that the day comes near when they risk being convicted, imprisoned and disqualified from membership of this House—with inevitable by-elections which the Government will lose and and which will bring the Government toppling down and the Fianna Fáil Party to inevitable destruction once and for all.

Here, we have this appalling, sickening, disgusting and frightening situation. All this has been done in a situation in which the unarmed law enforcement officers of this country, the Garda Síochána, have been obstructed and frustrated in the discharge of their duties for several years past. The rate of resignation from the Garda Síochána has never been so high.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Shut up.

Mr. Ryan

The amount of frustration in the Garda Síochána has never been so great. The number of cases of undetected crime, particularly political crime, has never been so high. This is because the Garda Síochána, in their efforts to serve the people, have been obstructed and frustrated, and indeed sometimes punished, by the Government of the day.

Mr. J. Lenehan

That is absolutely ridiculous. It is typical Fine Gael tripe.

Mr. Ryan

A situation has been developing for several years past also in which the national Army has been allowed to run down. Now we have the ironic situation in which the man mainly responsible—the Minister for Finance who withheld money from the Army—can now join in a sordid pact to pay £80,000 for the importation of arms from Vienna. Last week, I had occasion to bring to the notice of the Dáil the activities of two gentlemen who purport to be members of a foreign trade mission. It is significant that members of the Government endeavoured to prevent publication of the reports. Perhaps it is not without some significance that Czechoslovakia is not far removed from Vienna.

A week ago-48 hours ago—people would not have believed what has been disclosed tonight. A great deal more has yet to be disclosed before the full truth of this sordid situation can come to light. Internationally the reputation of this country stood exceedingly high in recent times, primarily due to the fact that in a situation in which it was expected we would make inflammatory, provocative and anti-British speeches we, the elected representatives of the free Irish people, maintained a responsible attitude and indicated that our primary concern was for the welfare of people. We indicated that issues of national pride were of less consequence. As a result, the United Nations, the Council of Europe and every other body or organisation to which we sent delegates, respected our position. The British people, who for years had an entirely wrong understanding of the northern situation, realised that there was an artificial majority in a section of this land who were quite improperly using the powers of government available to them. The British people realised that these people were acting in such a way without justification and because we acted reasonably and properly, the world accepted our good faith and accepted that we were not in any way wishful of forcing any section of the Irish people into a political situation to which they could not voluntarily and gladly subscribe.

All that image is utterly and irrevocably destroyed today because of the unforgivable and unreasonable behaviour of at least four members of the Government who are already known. One wonders just how many more are involved. One name that has not been mentioned tonight but which was on the Garda Síochána notepaper is the name of Deputy Gibbons, the Minister for Defence. One may ask why, when it was known and officially recognised that one Army officer was involved in this sordid affair, he was not dismissed but, instead, he was permitted to resign so that having committed this criminal folly against the nation, he could retire with a gratuity and a pension. One wonders just how much more there is to be revealed and one prays that the day is not far distant when the term of office of this Government, who are prepared to sacrifice all principles to remain in office, will come to an end because they are clearly divided. The Taoiseach and any people he may appoint can never rule this country with the authority of the people because the people would never have given their support to the conduct that has been revealed to us tonight.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Even at this late stage in the day one must admit to a feeling of total bewilderment at the succession of events since early morning. We might have read of such happenings in some far eastern country or some banana republic of South America——

Mr. J. Lenehan

Or Ghana.

Mr. M. O'Leary

——and been shocked but some would have said such events occur in those parts of the world; to find that we have such a situation here, whatever our policies in this assembly may be, is bewildering, to put it mildly.

There has always been the impression that Fianna Fáil stood for certain principles. They called themselves "the National Party." They claimed an intimate knowledge of the national question. In fact, they claimed ownership of the national conscience in relation to re-unification. At election time they berated their enemies for their anti-national position and they delved back into civil war history to prove who was patriotic and who was not. They were the custodians of patriotic and republican feeling. That same party are now exposed and we had the Taoiseach coming in here with a shamefaced, snivelling submission that he had these people in his Cabinet.

The Taoiseach

I do not snivel and the Deputy will not say that I do.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Grow up, little child.

Mr. M. O'Leary

In this Government we now have gun-runners without a cause because, obviously, they do not understand the problems of re-unification. From the safety of this side of the Border they are passing arms to people who must face real physical danger.

Mr. L'Estrange

Hear, hear.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Deputy Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien who has already spoken in this debate is a man who was maligned by that same Republican party not long ago at election time. This weekend he returned from a visit to the northern part of the country and in his sober prediction of events there, he warned of the impending danger this summer. He pointed to an alarming situation which could only lead to an armed conflict. This Government who, last August, took on the task of educating the people on this side of the Border on the realities and complexities of the situation in the north, have evidently given up the task at this stage.

In Tralee the Taoiseach stated how we must follow the path of peace if we wished to reconcile differences between Catholic and Protestant in the northern part of our country. Without going into the details of this latest event, since he made that speech the Taoiseach has had ample evidence, from their public utterances, of who in his Cabinet did not share his views. The story now revealed reads like a thriller magazine. Without any nod from the Special Branch or without any notification from Deputy Cosgrave, the Taoiseach had ample evidence a few months ago in various speeches of the members of his Cabinet who did not agree with his policy on the north. These same people held their posts until they were discovered in their own dangerous and anti-national practices by Deputy Cosgrave within the past two days.

This Government and this Taoiseach assumed the duty of leading public opinion on this side of the Border— public opinion that had been misled in the past in regard to this problem of the north. The same Fianna Fáil Party have shared in further misleading the people on this side of the Border were misleading people in suggesting there was a simple solution to that problem. One could say, in fairness to them, that Sinn Féin traditionally misunderstood the situation in that part of our country, that the founding fathers of Republicanism, the early revolutionaries in the early part of this century, did not fully understand the differences which existed between Catholic and Protestant and which ante-date the institution of partition.

This Government and this Taoiseach officially took on the arduous task of educating public opinion on this side of the Border to the view that the path of peace must be pursued if true reconciliation was to be achieved between Catholic and Protestant. We now find that almost a quarter of the Cabinet were involved in a policy totally opposed and at variance with that stated policy of the Taoiseach. How can this party claim here tonight that it is a national party? How can this party claim that it is or was honest in attempting to lead the Irish people to ultimate unity? They cannot claim that. They are exposed as people who would not scruple to have recourse to any formulae to hold on to office, to hold on to their majority.

We had the extraordinarily pathetic patch-up this afternoon. In fact, it was reminiscent of many Unionist Party meetings, when they came out to say that all was unity within the ranks. How many sad meetings of Unionists have there been after which their Whip or their leader for the time being said: "All within the Unionist Party is well"? Fianna Fáil in many ways remind me tonight of the Unionist Party in their manner of facing this crisis of unity within their ranks.

What is the stock of this Government in London tonight? In fact, what is the stock of this Government in Belfast tonight? Some members of this Government have been publicly amused by the strain on the Stormont administration in recent months. I wonder are there smiles on the faces of certain well-known Unionists tonight?

There is a serious situation facing all of us, we think, later this year. There are people on this side of the Border and on the other side who believe that a policy of force can yet settle this whole situation. All of us, before this year is out, may be engulfed in the results of such folly. This Government, this democratically elected Government, are themselves guilty; they themselves will have participated in the preparation for that whirlwind by the events that have been unfolded this day.

I hope that on Friday we will uncover the background of this plot, that we will discover who were the other people who aided and abetted this attempt by the Cabinet Ministers named, because not one Member sitting on those benches can be free of the proven guilt of these Ministers. These Ministers did not act in isolation. These Ministers had support from within that party; and there are many members of that party tonight who spoke in different accents, who gave different advice, in the earlier months of this year and last year. These men tonight have slid out from behind their former friends. It is our advice to the Taoiseach tonight that he cannot confine the problem and the division in Fianna Fáil to four Cabinet Ministers; it is all around him.

This can, without exaggeration, be described as a national crisis. The clock has been put back in bringing to the people of this part of our country an understanding of the real problems facing us in that area if we are serious. The only way in which unity can be achieved is by reconciliation between Catholic and Protestant. Fianna Fáil tonight fulfil all the expectations Mr. Paisley could have of this part of the country. They have put back the ultimate unity of this country.

Mr. L'Estrange

In the national crisis facing the Government and all of us today I am proud to say I am a member of a party that has always put country before party. I am proud to say that the leader of our party rendered a public service last night by going at 8 o'clock to the Taoiseach and prodding the Taoiseach into doing his duty. What else could we expect from the leader of our party, Deputy Liam Cosgrave, the son of W.T. Cosgrave, who helped to build up this country over 50 years ago when other people were trying to destroy it? Fifty years later on 5th May, 1970, we have our present leader, the son of that great man, again playing a noble part by going to the Taoiseach and making him do his duty. By so doing he saved our country from perhaps another civil war, because if those people had been allowed to continue it would certainly end in civil war and the slaughter of our brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland.

If there is collective responsibility in the present Fianna Fáil Government— and we have heard much of collective responsibility over the years—then the present Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, stands condemned along with Deputy Blaney, Deputy Haughey and Deputy Moran, because if he was informed or if he knew, as leader of the party, as he should have known, what was going on for the last year—and, God knows, he got warnings enough in this House—then he should have taken action and should have dismissed those people from his Cabinet not today, not yesterday, but many years ago. We are inclined to ask what has been done to stop the drift to anarchy that has existed in this country for the past few years. He is guilty, I claim, of culpable negligence. He was warned on numerous occasions by the leader of our party and by many other people on this side of the House; yet he took no action until last night when he was prodded into it by the leader of our party.

After a meeting of this discredited party, at which the Taoiseach informed them that he had information that members of the Cabinet were engaged in gun-running, we are now told that they have papered up all the cracks and that they are coming before us a united party. They come before this country a discredited party, a party that should resign and face the wrath of the electorate. They are not prepared to do that because there is too much at stake and because they want to stay close to the loot for as long as they possibly can. The message that went out to the Fianna Fáil meeting this evening was: "Boys, don't rock the boat. If any of you rock the boat you will expose us all and we will all sink together. Don't do that. Too much will be exposed." It would have been exposed but instead of that——

Mr. Power

Hans Christian L'Estrange.

Mr. L'Estrange

——because they are greedy for power, because they want to hold on to power, they unite to save themselves and to save their own skins. The people of Ireland deserve better today than that type of Government.

I have stated on many occasions in this House that there is a drift towards anarchy in this country. We have one law for the rich, for the spectacular, for the racketeer and for the Tacateer. We have far too much interference with the Garda in the execution of their duty. They have been frustrated and stopped from doing their duty on many occasions. We have interference by politicians with the judiciary in the execution of their duty. While those questions were raised on numerous occasions in this House the Taoiseach stood idly by and he either pretended that he did not know what was going on or he knew and did not care or was not prepared to take any action. He, no more than the others, did not want to rock the boat. There has been a breakdown in law and order. The Garda have been frustrated in trying to carry out their duty and indeed cases, as other people here can tell, have been withdrawn by direction of the Attorney General and different Ministers for Justice. For far too long we have had what Deputy Colley spoke about and warned about three or four years ago when speaking in Galway —"low standards in high places". It seems the Taoiseach was prepared to allow it to continue until he was prodded by Deputy Cosgrave, the leader of the Opposition, into taking action. I want to say that members of this party have a right to speak about public order. Deputy Tom O'Higgins stated that one Member gave his life when nobly and fearlessly performing his duty as Minister for Justice. Indeed, a number of our Deputies were murdered for their forthright speeches. We founded the institutions of this State of which we are all so justly proud.

The Garda Síochána have been much maligned. They were hindered and prevented from doing their duty in apprehending the bank robbers when they could have. They knew where they were and they appealed to the Government to implement section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act but they refused to do that. How could you expect of Cabinet to allow the Garda Síochána to do their duty when at the same time members of that particular Cabinet were importing from Vienna five to six tons of small arms, revolvers and ammunition? You could not expect that Government to help the Garda. They hindered the Garda in the execution of their duty.

Deputy Cosgrave on the 14th January this year dealt with this matter very comprehensively but even after that the Taoiseach took no action despite the fact that he knew the drift to anarchy was there. If the Government had the ability, or even the will, fearlessly to discharge the duty and the responsibility entrusted to them by the people, why did the Taoiseach not go on television and denounce those cowardly murderers? Although they may be dressed in green they are nothing else but murderers. Why did he not go on television and denounce them? Why did he not denounce all those bank robbers and appeal for the co-operation of the people? Why did he not denounce them as he denounced the farmers in 1967? He could not denounce them because his own Cabinet was divided and in his own Cabinet he had Ministers who were breaking the law and were trying illegally to import arms.

I want to put certain questions to the Taoiseach. If he believes in law and order and if he wanted to stop the drift towards anarchy why were men shown on television illegally carrying arms and firing live ammunition in Mullingar on a particular date? With all the responsibility I can command I want to put this question to him.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Can you?

Mr. L'Estrange

The Deputy called me an arch-anarchist the other day. Look behind you and you will see where the arch-anarchists are. They are not on this side of the House. They are on your side and you condoned them and hid them as long as you could. I want to ask the Taoiseach is it true that those people were armed, that they fired live ammunition and on the next day the Garda authorities in Mullingar sent the file to the Minister for Justice and said: "We know the men, we are prepared to arrest them, we are prepared to act. Give us the word to go ahead". Is it not true that file has been ignored, that there has been no reply? Is that law and order? Is that not a drift towards anarchy? What have you done to prevent it?

I also want to ask the Taoiseach if it is not true that members of the Garda Síochána were fired on by people who had participated in a bank raid, that when they were brought before the court the Attorney General was not ready to go ahead with the case and that they had got a garda to go sick and produced a doctor's certificate knowing that the particular judge would not accept a doctor's certificate, that he would want a doctor there prepared to swear the man was ill? When the judge refused to accept the doctor's certificate is it not true that the State then withdrew the case, that those men walked out scot free and now some of them are being sought for the murder of Garda Fallon? Is that not a drift towards anarchy? Was that helping the gardaí of our country, unarmed men, men we are proud of, who had arrested those thugs and taken them to the court only to find that through neglect, or just because some of those thugs had been dressed in green, parading as Republicans, the Government were not prepared to take action against them? Is that not a drift towards anarchy which the Taoiseach has condoned over the past few months?

Is it not true that today agitators are challenging people's personal and property rights, that they strut the streets daily with increasing insolence and there is nothing done about it? There is no effort made to enforce law and order. Surely if there is law and order people's personal property, whether we agree or disagree that they should have it, should be protected by the elected Government of this State? Does the Taoiseach believe it should be protected, and if he so believes why did he or his Minister for Justice not take action and why has not one single person been arrested for any of those episodes? There have been at least 15, 20 or 30 of those cases over the last few months. Ancient monuments are blown up and all that happens is that the taxpayers pay for the damage. Is it not true that the illegal organisations issue impudent statements which are duly published? We ask people from abroad to invest their money here but when they do we refuse to protect them from vicious arson and other crimes which are all too common in our country today.

The Taoiseach is supposed to hold collective responsibility and is in charge of the Government. Is it not true that six men were arrested in Donegal, in a house in the heart of the country, and in that house there were hundredweights of explosives which would blow up half of Donegal, stenguns, brenguns, revolvers, bombs, timebombs and ammunition of different descriptions? The Taoiseach can smile. He has stood by idly and smiled at all those things which have been happening over the last year but as Taoiseach he should be serious. If he is elected to the important post of Taoiseach he should govern and see there is law and order in the country. I want to ask him is it not true that when those people were brought to court the prosecutions were not pressed by direction of the Attorney General. They were allowed out under the Probation of Offenders Act. Is it not true that at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis numerous speakers complimented Deputy Blaney, the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, for ensuring that none of those gallant Republicans was sent to jail and that he saved them? This happened and it was reported in the Irish Press.

As a party we are proud of our achievements. We established the basic institutions of this State, with a trowel in one hand and a gun in the other. We do not want to see that happening again because we all admit that the divisions created by the Civil War are only now dying out. If those men in Fianna Fáil got their way and if Deputy Cosgrave had not taken action last night they would still be members of the Cabinet. Let us not forget that, on the day before yesterday, the Fianna Fáil Whips and the Taoiseach wanted the motion to appoint Deputy O'Malley as Minister for Justice to be taken yesterday. If we had agreed to take the motion the Deputy would have been appointed and nothing else would have happened. However, Deputy Cosgrave, with the information he had, refused to agree but waited to see if the Taoiseach would take action. When he saw the Taoiseach was not man enough to take action he saw it was necessary to prod him into doing something.

I agree with Deputy O'Higgins and other speakers who have said that people who draw the State's money and who, instead of working for it, try to introduce civil war into this country, should be behind lock and key. It is the first principle of a civilised society that its guns are under the lock and key of the lawfully elected authority of the State. We are the elected representatives of the people and through us, in this Parliament alone, should basic national decisions be made. Had the Taoiseach done his duty in the last year this crisis would not now exist.

I have already spoken on the drift towards anarchy and I have questioned the Taoiseach as to his and the Government's part in allowing this accelerating drift towards chaos to continue. We have seen men who do not belong to the Defence Forces wearing uniforms and carrying arms and they are allowed to remain free. They even appeared on our television screens. This open contempt for the law produced, until last night, only a frightened silence. I should like to know why statements of illegal organisations were permitted to be published. We have been told we have only one Army and we should have only one Army in this State. There have been many cases of arson in the last year or so and I do not think one person has been arrested for those crimes.

The Taoiseach is guilty of dereliction of duty. He informed us today that on Monday, 20th April, he knew of the crimes being prepetrated by his own Ministers. He told us that he asked them to resign on Wednesday, 29th April, and that they asked for time. I should like to know if any other criminal would be given time? Surely the Taoiseach knows that when Deputy Blaney made his famous Letterkenny speech and other speeches they were certainly at variance with the policy of the Taoiseach and the Government.

We have had the sorry spectacle of the Taoiseach and the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on television. When the Taoiseach said that he had reprimanded the Minister— and he stated it here in the Dáil also —the Minister turned to him and said "I do not think you reprimanded me, Jack; you just said something to me passing by in the corridor". If that is the way this State has been run up to the present it is no wonder that this country is faced with the present crisis.

Deputy Blaney has made many declarations of revolt. I should like to refer specifically to an interview given by Deputy Blaney, as reported in the Irish Independent on the 27th April, in which he acclaimed the view expressed by somebody speaking in Derry that, if the use of arms was justified in maintaining partition, then the people of the Six Counties could claim the right to undo it by like means. The person in Derry to whom Deputy Blaney referred was a Mr. Seán Ó Cionnaith of Sinn Féin who made that speech on Easter Sunday in Dungiven at a Republican commemoration. That speech was headlined in the Irish Times of the 30th March as a battle-cry by Sinn Féin, which in fact it was. We had Deputy Blaney agreeing with this statement, and yet the Taoiseach did not take any action against him.

The leader of our party and many other Deputies have spoken about the drift towards anarchy. I should like to quote from a speech I made on 10th April, which was quoted in all the papers on 11th April:

When a senior Minister of State is seen to incite armed action in Northern Ireland then inevitably he is encouraging young men south of the Border to take the law into their own hands. If certain people are to act on Mr. Blaney's utterances, as they surely will act, it follows logically that they must furnish themselves with arms and money. The consequences may well be more bank robberies, bloodshed and loss of life in the Republic as well as in Northern Ireland.

I continued:

One wonders whether Mr. Blaney realises the tragedies he may beget by his irresponsible statements.

I also stated:

This is the time for plain speaking and it is my duty to say that Mr. Blaney's latest declaration should coerce any Taoiseach, however gentle or quiet he may be by nature, to remove him from the Cabinet. Even if action now results in a public split in the Fianna Fáil Party, there are members of that Party who would wish to put country before Fianna Fáil and the Government is assured of the full support of Fine Gael for policies of law enforcement and the policy of uniting Ireland by peaceful means only. The country can pay and is paying too high a price for Mr. Lynch's policy of peace in Fianna Fáil.... Where there is revolt and patent division in the highest council of the State it cannot be long until there is anarchy in the streets and outrages such as last Friday's murder in Dublin of a gallant servant of the people will surely follow. In those circumstances who is exploiting his trust—the Taoiseach or I?

I made that speech on 10th April and it was published in the daily papers on 11th April——

Mr. B. Lenihan

Great. The Deputy was great to make the speech——

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister is a promising young man who promises all things to everybody.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Deputy L'Estrange to continue his speech.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Taoiseach was doing his duty, then he should have taken action not last night, when he was prodded into it by Deputy Cosgrave, but at least a year ago or, perhaps, a little more.

I oppose the nomination of Deputy Desmond O'Malley as Minister for Justice. The person nominated should be one of the best in the Government because he is being asked to take charge of a very important Ministry. This newcomer to public affairs is being given one of the most difficult tasks that could be imposed upon any Minister. Any man appointed to this post should be above reproach. We have had some unhappy experiences of occupants of this post in the past but, perhaps, the less said about that the better. I may speak about it on some other occasion. I claim this man is not fit to occupy this Ministry. I have a letter here which was sent to the Taoiseach by a Fianna Fáil man:

Mr. J. Lenehan

It must have been the barmaid.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would Deputy Lenehan please cease interrupting?

Mr. L'Estrange

All the Taoiseach can say is "Ssh" and you cannot even hear him. He is not prepared to take any other action because he must keep the Deputy in the party. He cannot afford to rock the boat because the Deputy would expose too much and so would others in the party. The letter continues:

The guards were then called. A garda arrived and was told by O'Malley that if he reported the case he (O'Malley) would see that he (the guard) would be relieved of his duty and stripped of his uniform.

That is happening not just now but for the last 15 or 20 years, as long as Fianna Fáil have been in power, and the Taoiseach and the present Ministers close their eyes to it. The letter goes on:

This unfortunate incident is the topic of conversation at the moment in Limerick and it must surely have its repercussions on our Party image.

This was written by a Fianna Fáil man to the Taoiseach.

I feel it my duty to enlighten you on such unpardonable behaviour displayed by a Parliamentary Secretary.

Did the Taoiseach get that letter?

The Taoiseach

Will the Deputy name the writer and the address given?

Mr. L'Estrange

I am asking the Taoiseach did he get the letter?

The Taoiseach

Would the Deputy name the writer?

Mr. L'Estrange

I am making my own speech. I will read the Taoiseach's reply.

Roinn an Taoisigh,

Department of the Taoiseach,

Baile Átha Cliath, 2.

Dublin, 2.

22nd January, 1970.

Dear Mr. ——

I am obliged to you for your letter informing me of an incident which occurred at the Shannon Shamrock Motel recently. Since receiving your letter I have made personal inquiries as a result of which it would seem the matter has been very much exaggerated.

He does not deny it but only says it was exaggerated.

I received confirmation of only a minor part of the incident which I do not condone but which happened in the face of unpardonable provocation.

Yours sincerely,

J. Lynch.

The Taoiseach claims it has been exaggerated. Any man who throws a beer glass that could easily break and the glass blind a man, who assaults a barman or tells a guard: "If you dare to summon me I will have you stripped of your uniform" is not fit to be Minister for Justice and the Taoiseach should not appoint him.

The Taoiseach

These allegations are untrue.

Mr. L'Estrange

Here is the Taoiseach's own letter. Members of the Fianna Fáil Party would say anything. I am quoting the Taoiseach's own letter and does he tell me his own letter is untrue?

The Taoiseach

I said one minor incident was exaggerated.

Mr. L'Estrange

"I am obliged to you for your letter informing me of an incident which occurred at the Shannon Shamrock Motel. Since receiving your letter I have made personal inquiries as a result of which it would seem that the matter has been very much exaggerated." I would not expect the Taoiseach to say anything else about one of his pals. However, he only says it has been exaggerated. He does not say only "one minor incident". He admits that they all took place.

The Taoiseach

Would the Deputy——

Mr. L'Estrange

I am reading the Taoiseach's own letter. Did he sign it?

The Taoiseach

I wrote it and signed it.

Mr. L'Estrange

There you are, and you do not believe what is in it.

The Taoiseach

May I ask the Deputy to give me the name and address of the writer?

Mr. L'Estrange

I am reading for the Taoiseach his own letter. I am withholding the man's name.

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach

I want to assert that there is no such person as the alleged writer of that letter and nobody has lived at the address given for 20 years.

Mr. L'Estrange

Here is your own letter: "I am obliged to you——"

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has already read it twice.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Taoiseach admits that this took place. He claims he has made a full investigation, and he said it was exaggerated. He went on further to say——

Mr. Donegan

And no fraud.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would Deputy Donegan please allow Deputy L'Estrange to make his speech?

Mr. Donegan

The Minister for Transport and Power can talk too.

Mr. L'Estrange

If there is no such person, how did you write this letter to him and how did you get the letter and how did you put in the last line, "It happened in the face of unpardonable provocation"? Can you tell me what sort of provocation it would take to make a man throw a glass of beer and its contents at any tourist in this country? What sort of provocation would it take to make him assault the barman?

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Deputy L'Estrange.

Mr. Meaney

The muckspreader of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am quoting the Taoiseach's own letter that he cannot deny that he wrote and in which he says that he does not condone the incident but that it happened in the face of unpardonable provocation. I claim that no provocation should make a man assault a barman, threaten a guard and throw a glass full of beer, or whatever it was, at any individual. I claim that this man is not fit to occupy the important position of Minister for Justice because today we want a Minister for Justice who is prepared to act without fear or favour——

Mr. J. Lenehan

Like Kevin O'Higgins.

Mr. L'Estrange

——who is prepared to cherish all the children of the nation equally and who is prepared to prosecute the highest in the land when he deems it necessary. We want a Minister for Justice who is prepared to instruct the Attorney General to consider the liability of the following persons: Charles J. Haughey, Neil T. Blaney and Micheál Ó Moráin to answer to criminal charges under the Firearms Act, 1925, the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, and the Defence Act, 1954, and any other relevant enactment.

That is the type of Minister for Justice we want in this country today and I believe that the man whose name the Taoiseach has submitted to us has not got the guts to prosecute those people who stand condemned before the bar of the Irish people today. I think that today, Sir, you are trying to hold on to power, trying to hold on to government; you are trying, and your people, to keep your hands as near to the loot as possible and you are supported by men who have taken the people's pay while at the same time, for months, they were trying to put the country in jeopardy. The time has come, in God's name, for you to retire from politics. Let the Fianna Fáil Government get out. Call an election and have a Government elected that will govern in the interests of the people without fear or favour.

Mr. Desmond

I share no sense of pride or pleasure in making any contribution to this debate this evening. It is no particular pleasure to me, as it seems to be to some Deputies, to see the leader of any national political party in this country, more particularly of a political party which objectively it must be said has made a long and an honourable contribution to the evolution of this State, in the dock. It is no particular pleasure to me to see the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, in the dock at the bar of this House this evening. Therefore, I make one plea at the end of this debate, that is, that public comment on this quite reprehensible episode should be objective and that there should not be any outbreak of emotion or hysteria arising from this incident.

It is regrettable, disastrous to our parliamentary institutions, that there should have occurred an unforgivable breach of personal confidence towards the Taoiseach by his own closest parliamentary colleagues. I personally —and I am sure this sentiment is shared by many members of the House—would offer to him, not in any gratuitous or snide way, the sympathy and understanding of the vast majority of the Irish people for the fact that he should have been let down so badly by fellow Irishmen in a quite disgraceful manner, which has caused considerable shock and national shame.

It is important that he should try to make amends. We have to examine the amends which the Taoiseach has made to the Irish people north and south, to the people of this island as a whole, to the people of this nation. He has made amends in so far as he has removed from office Ministers of State, his closest colleagues, who in the heat of political battle have been so very close to him as we have witnessed over the past decade. We must support him in that removal, painful and embarrassing and profoundly disturbing as its consequences will be to the Irish people north and south. He is deserving of our support and our commendation in that small measure.

It is equally important that in our analysis of the situation there should not arise any further cause of disenchantment such as has existed in many sectors of the community, with parliamentary democracy, and disillusionment with all political parties. Therefore there should be further decisive action on the part of the Taoiseach to ensure that the position is not eroded further and that the 144 Members of this House, acting with collective responsibility, would not fall into general disrepute.

The Taoiseach, therefore, is faced with a painful series of alternatives. I, personally, do not think that it is a satisfactory solution that Deputy Haughey, Deputy Blaney, Deputy Boland, should go to the back benches of Fianna Fáil. I consider it unhygienic and not in the best interests of Fianna Fáil that that should happen, if I may say so genuinely and sincerely. I consider that it would be undesirable for the development of parliamentary democracy that the Fianna Fáil Party should be made hostages to fortune by the decision of three or four backbenchers who are now taking out massive insurance policies in the expectation that—as we pray will not happen—there should be further escalation of difficulties in Northern Ireland. This has always been the attitude of Deputy Blaney, a general overtone, and it has always been, inherently, the attitude of Deputy Boland, to say to the Taoiseach: "We told you that it was going to happen and we were right". Now they have gone to the back benches with inherently the same attitudes of introverted and perverted patriotism, if I may use such strong terms.

It is, therefore, essential, as we do not, frankly, have confidence in his administration at this point of time, for the Taoiseach, if he wishes to purge the collective guilt of his Government, the collective irresponsibility, to consider whether he would be wise to remove them from the Parliamentary Party of Fianna Fáil and to have by-elections and, if their constituencies deem them to have acted honourably and if the national executive of Fianna Fáil deem them to be worthy of nomination for their respective constituencies, let the people judge. This, at least, could be a mark of honour on the part of Deputies Blaney, Boland and Haughey that they would resign their seats and let us see what the Irish people think and let them make their collective expression of the repugnance which most certainly the Taoiseach has conveyed and which most certainly the leaders of the Opposition parties have expressed in no uncertain manner.

It is a salutary and a bitter lesson for the Irish people from the point of view of the development of collective parliamentary responsibility. It is the function of the Dáil to frame policy. It is the function of the Dáil to carry out policy, irrespective of whether or not we like the particular policy in our individual capacities as Members of Dáil Éireann. That is our function as elected public representatives.

It is a matter of note that the three or four front bench members of the Fianna Fáil Party, now relegated to the back benches, contravened Article 28 of the Constitution which clearly lays it down that it is the sole function of Dáil Éireann to determine whether or not armed force will be used. They have repudiated the Constitution and, having done so, in any self-respecting parliamentary democracy, these men would go and, if they refuse to go, then there is an obligation on the leader of the Government to go to the country, making sure that these men will not in future ever again participate in Irish parliamentary life.

I frankly get no pleasure whatsoever in this particular denunciation of Deputy Haughey, or Deputy Boland, or Deputy Blaney. It must go on the records of this House that we have lost in Deputy Haughey, much as we may disagree with his budgetary strategy, a man of talent, expertise and charm, a man who is a profound loss to Irish parliamentary life. He committed a disgraceful and unforgivable error of judgment, as he said himself at the party meeting, of an emotional nature. He committed a grave breach of confidence but it must go on the record that he is a profound loss.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy has no right to make that statement. No such statement was made at our meeting.

Mr. Desmond

This is a matter of conjecture.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is a different thing.

Mr. Desmond

I suggest I be permitted to conclude my comments. I find it very difficult to conjure up any sympathy for Deputy Boland. I do not believe the man has been well judging him in the light of his political attitudes over the past four or five years. He has been much too emotional and unobjective to hold Cabinet rank. Frankly, I think the Taoiseach should have severed his involvement with him several years ago. His attitude became particularly noticeable during the PR campaign. Charity forbids me to comment further.

With regard to the nomination of Deputy O'Malley, I certainly subscribe to some of the strictures voiced by Deputy L'Estrange. I do not go along with his Governor Reagan slick analysis of Irish political anarchy, but I feel his remarks in regard to Deputy O'Malley may prove true.

There was a serious error of judgment on the part of the Taoiseach in allowing Deputy Moran to hold office as Minister for Justice for the past 12 months and, had we a different Minister for Justice, it might well be that we would not have tonight the predicament in which the Taoiseach finds himself, having literally to scout around the security apparatus of the State to find out what his colleagues were up to. I have the highest respect and regard for the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, and in matters of national security there is now and there will be in the future an obligation on the Minister for Defence, so far as national security permits, to keep the House fully informed of all aspects of his particular responsibility.

It is only right that we should place on record the loyal support of our Army, of our police force and of our public servants generally. While certain individuals may not measure up, it must be placed on record that the vast majority have never failed in loyalty and service to the State.

I suggest the time has now come when the Taoiseach might crack the whip. I am a little disturbed at the thought of the new Minister for Justice, with the support of erstwhile Cabinet colleagues, introducing a Criminal Justice Bill. I do not propose to deal in detail with that particular aspect. I suggest there should be a close examination of activities about which we warned the Taoiseach in October last. At column 1551 of volume 241 of the Official Report I said:

... I would suggest that the Government might investigate some reports that money has been passed in certain quarters....

I also said that some Cabinet Ministers were fostering movements in certain parts of Northern Ireland. The activities of Deputy Blaney were no secret to those of us who are members of this House. The attitude of Deputy Boland did not call for very much analysis.

The Taoiseach still has a great deal of explaining to do. He has a great deal of educating to do in his own party. We are all anti-Partition. We are all hoping and working for the ultimate reunification of the country. The Taoiseach was led a merry dance by members of his own Cabinet and by a great many of the delegates at his own Ard-Fheis. I did not particularly notice any great rallying of Fianna Fáil to Deputy Lynch on that particular occasion. Indeed, the silence of certain people was particularly noticeable. It was obvious they were waiting to see which way the ball would hop. The ball has hopped and the internal dilemma of the Fianna Fáil Party is not resolved by merely shuffling a number of Ministers to the back benches. A great deal more remains to be done.

Last October, too, when the Taoiseach repeated his rejection of the use of force, I said I would like to have confirmation of that policy from those associated with him in the Cabinet. I said that assurance was overdue. Deputy Blaney came into this House and looked at us with an enigmatic smile and said nothing. I gave Deputy Haughey credit for greater political percipience, but he, too, did not go on record. Deputy Boland went red with temper and left the House; he did not go on record.

I have no desire to see political history written in the context of "Captain Terence Lynch". It would be a tragedy for the Irish people if we should have a development in the Republic of the Parliamentary disarray and shuffling that went on in Northern Ireland.

I do not think the Fianna Fáil Government can survive with the blackmail which will go on over the next six months or year, or three or four years, in Dáil Éireann, with men of the calibre of Deputy Boland, Deputy Haughey, Deputy Blaney and other Members, a number of whom I met in this House this evening, who frankly support them, and they know it, and who will cause further trouble and difficulties for the Fianna Fáil Party in the years ahead.

It may be an excruciating exercise for the Irish people to have to face a general election in that setting. It would be no pleasure to have to go through the shades of republican ideology at the church gates in such a campaign. The Taoiseach should seriously consider the motion of no confidence which is placed before him and which deserves the total attention of the members of the Cabinet now supporting him. This should be done objectively. If it is done and if the Taoiseach accepts there has been a failure in confidence, failure in anticipation and in total frankness with the House on this occasion on the part of the Cabinet and on his own part, it is, I think, only the Irish people who can judge that at the polls. I strongly commend this course of action to the Taoiseach. I have no desire to spend 1970, 1971, 1972 and the early part of 1973 wondering what new permutation of party political activities Deputy Boland, Deputy Haughey or Deputy Blaney may be thinking up for the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil.

When Deputy Haughey left the Department of Finance this morning he told his staff: "I will be back." This is a measure of the disunity within the party which certainly does not give hope for effective political administration in the years ahead. I suggest to the Taoiseach that the insurance policy which Deputy Boland with his simultaneous resignation took out should be cashed in this House tonight. Otherwise the British Government will seek explanations. I do not particularly care what the British Government may think but I am conscious that the Minister for External Affairs will have to give explanations in certain quarters, to the British Government and what is left of the Northern Ireland Government, the members of Stormont, in that some members of the Northern Ireland Government have been involved in this arms proposition with members of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. I suggest that the people of these areas cannot any longer repose confidence in the collective opinion of this State and therefore the only logical solution is to have a general election. The Taoiseach should face that situation.

It may seem repetitive but I would urge the Taoiseach to reconsider his nomination for the Department of Justice. I do not think we need a stronger man. I do not particularly want men of the strength, character and attitude and political dogmatism of Deputy Ó Moráin. Age, in that respect, does not give one any particular lack of this and I think that I have detected this already in some of the overtones and attitudes of Deputy O'Malley, much as I detest having to give prejudgments on prospective Ministers.

I make these comments because I feel deeply on the subject. My father was a founder member of Fianna Fáil and he left the Fianna Fáil Party in the thirties. He was there long before Deputy Leneghan was heard of. It would not be my desire as a Member of the House to see any political party destroyed. When I had a political choice to make I did not join Fianna Fáil because I had become disillusioned with some of the manifestations of political autocracy, totality and domination I had seen in that party. One is given many opportunities to feather one's nest if one wants to be involved with the Fianna Fáil Party. I say in sincerity and congratulation that Deputy Cosgrave, my political colleague in my own constituency of Dún Laoghaire, has done a service to the House and the Irish people tonight. Therefore, I think there is an obligation on the Taoiseach to reciprocate the trust of the Irish people. We in the Labour Party, in tabling this motion, are acting in a responsible manner and we are suggesting that the Taoiseach should go to the country. Distasteful and counterproductive in many ways as a general election may be, such a course of action is desirable on this occasion.

I make these observations on these matters because I feel it is time that Fianna Fáil implemented—to put it bluntly—the policies enunciated only a few years ago by Eamon de Valera on 8th March, 1957, as quoted in the Irish Independent.

Mr. de Valera said: "We think force is not the real solution. We do not want to coerce anybody."

At the same press conference, as reported in the Irish Times, on 9th March, 1957.

Mr. de Valera said that real unity could not be achieved by the use of force.

I had thought that Deputy Boland and, above all, Deputy Haughey with his association with the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, who acted in such a perceptive way in many respects on the question of national unity, would have learned their lessons and would not act in an adolescent, politically disastrous manner and in a manner which, as far as we are concerned, means that they will go down in Irish history as a crowd of political musketeers with no ammunition left to them.

These are the views of the Labour Party. The Fianna Fáil Party at this point of time have a greater duty to the Irish nation than just staying in office hoping the clouds will pass in a year or two and that Deputy Blaney, Deputy Boland and Deputy Haughey and any other incipient political blackmailers in that party—and they are there and we know them; they will be named in due course—will be rehabilitated. I dislike the language of the overkill almost as much as I dislike some of the overkill overtones of Deputy L'Estrange in some of his comments but it is time that the Taoiseach showed the steel and the fibre which he has claimed he possesses and that there was a quick kill within his own party of this type of political anarchy. It is high time for this act of political hygiene. I think it would do the Irish people, in many respects, a great deal of good and be good also for Parliamentary democracy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

According to order the Chair now calls on the concluding speaker from the Labour Party.

Mr. Keating

Coming in at this time I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat many of the charges that have been made and which, indeed, apart from being made have been documented beyond the possibility of any effective reply. I want, therefore, while this is all something new, something that has probably disorientated everyone in the House a little, to look at some of the repercussions and some of the inevitable consequences of the events of the past few days.

Someone on this side of the House said earlier that the Fianna Fáil Party were split this morning and unified this evening and the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Lenihan, in regard to the "split this morning" accusation, said that this was wishful thinking. We are now asked to believe that the Fianna Fáil Party are indeed totally unified.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is true.

Mr. Keating

I am bound to accept the word of my colleague but it seems to me that the unity of Fianna Fáil is their shame——

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Keating

——because it is a unity entirely without principle and honour. The greatest reproach of all on this day is that among 70 odd people not a single one who had an honourable trade and could make his living and save his soul in another way, had the moral fibre to sacrifice his own political career to honour and truth and dignity. Not one. They are unified indeed but unified with loss of all stature, of all validity, of all honour in the eyes of this country.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Keating

All of us, not just an individual Deputy, or an individual party, but the people of the entire country are now faced with the question of actual belief in statements made by leading persons in this land, invested with all the dignity of their office. We have seen the building up of the Taoiseach—perhaps a public relations job—and the line taken was the extent to which he was personally above reproach. I am not inventing the phrase. I am putting into the record a phrase that is familiar to everyone, the phrase, "Honest Jack."

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is true.

Mr. L'Estrange

"Honest Jack" how are you.

Mr. Keating

In that context I want to quote certain words. We had a debate here last October about the North of Ireland. I want to quote the words of Deputy Andrews in that debate. He said:

I think it is true to say that the Taoiseach, our political leader, the political leader, by the way of all political parties, the political leader of this Dáil, the political leader of this Republic has been universally applauded for the decent and responsible manner in which he handled the whole tragic situation which exists in the Six Counties.

To the extent that the Taoiseach is my Taoiseach, as he is the Taoiseach of everyone in this Republic, it is not just Fianna Fáil who must be ashamed. I feel that the vast majority of Irish people at the moment are deeply and personally ashamed because when somebody stands up here in the dignity of his office and tells us something, tells it explicitly, I do not say that we are bound to believe it, but the whole influence of the office and the tradition of the respect due to another Deputy or a Minister or our Parliamentary institution all tend to compel us to take the word of that person.

It is not for me to say specifically that X is a liar or Y is a liar. I am at the stage—and many people are at the stage at the moment—of saying that perhaps they are liars or perhaps they are just stupid. We have no way of knowing that they are telling us the truth any more. It is jargon to say that credibility has disappeared, that there is a credibility gap, but we have no way of knowing, when we are told something with all the dignity of ministerial office, whether it is true and we say to ourselves: "Well, perhaps." Perhaps the fullness of time will reveal something else.

We were told by the Taoiseach that the ex-Minister for Justice, Deputy Ó Moráin, had no connection with these events that his retirement was due to considerations of health. I can only say "perhaps". That will be revealed in the fullness of time. I am not at the stage—and I say this with great regret; I know I speak for probably a majority of the people when I say it—when I will necessarily believe it any more. We have been told an extraordinary collection of things in the past two or three weeks from official organs of the State. We were told there were no shots fired outside Leinster House. I can only say "perhaps". We were told— and I have to say this is not in any way a reflection on the person as a person and if he was unfortunate he has all our sympathy—that Deputy Haughey fell off his horse. I can only say "perhaps". We are told that whoever murdered a member of the Garda recently cannot be apprehended by the best efforts of our Garda authorities. Perhaps. We have got to the stage where possibly there are other explanations and where possibly, in fact, all these seemingly scattered events fit together into what is a conspiracy that undermines the very basis of democracy.

That is why at this moment the crisis is as serious as previous speakers have said it is. That is why it is the most serious crisis in the life of this State since it was established. We are asked to admire the sense of party solidarity and the sense of political professionalism which can paper over the cracks that have appeared in the Fianna Fáil Party in the past 48 hours or, in fact, that appeared a bit earlier. This is not peculiar to any political party in this House and it is not peculiar to this time. The papering over of cracks at the expense of principle, quite apart from the way it degrades the party who do it, and quite apart from the way it therefore necessarily degrades the whole nation, is something that inevitably comes unstuck very quickly.

There was a time, we are told, when Romans who lost their honour went out and killed themselves, but the striking thing today is that nobody of the 74 or 75, not one, has the honour to sacrifice his own political career. That is the extraordinary situation we have. It is an instance of the sort of unity that can be based on total abandonment to self-interest and, therefore, it is the sort of unity which in its ultimate is totally at variance with the needs of this nation. If they were worthy to represent the nation they would tell the truth about their disarray and they might then emerge with great difficulty but with some honour and with a future. As they stand now, they have neither.

At this point I should like to say a word about what the Taoiseach did when he became aware of the activities of two or three, or perhaps more, persons. We are not quite clear yet exactly how he became aware of these activities. The fullness of time may produce the timetable, but a great deal can be obliterated by the workings of an entire State machine. However, we may become aware of the steps by which the Taoiseach became aware of these events; and we may have a feeling about the order of the extraordinary timetable the Taoiseach gave today, starting on 20th April, before the Budget. We will discover, perhaps, how these events came to his notice.

However, after more than three weeks the Taoiseach has now acted and we will be discussing the reasons for his action in a minute. In the meantime, let us look at what he has done. He has taken away ministerial office from two persons who refused to accept his request to surrender them. But he has not taken away the whip or tried to do so. They are still members of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party and they are still members—and I have heard of no call for their removal— of the Fianna Fáil Party as distinct from the Parliamentary Party. There has been no mention of intention to have them removed from membership of this House which they have dishonoured.

Therefore, what it boils down to is that through their alleged activities— let us try to be judicial about them— they contravened a number of laws, yet the Taoiseach's reaction has been merely to say: "You cannot go on being Ministers". He has not said to them: "If the allegations are true and they are of such a profoundly serious nature, you neither can go on being members of this party or of this House; if the allegations are true you have placed yourselves outside the realms of what is acceptable in Irish public life".

Then, we have to ask why did the Taoiseach take only the steps he has taken? The answer is perfectly simple —to retain power. It does not matter about the seriousness of the actions; it does not matter about the betrayal of the Taoiseach by them; it does not matter about deceiving the national Parliament: the reason for this reaction of the Taoiseach is that if he did not have these Deputies he could not hang on to the levers of power which apparently have, for their own sake, become so desirable. It does not matter how the levers of power can be made to serve other people. All that matters is how they can be made to serve themselves and the pleasure the command of these levers can give to them.

It is possible to believe that the Taoiseach did not know of those activities before 20th April. We on this side of the House are reluctant to read into the record rumours which we cannot substantiate and, of course, we do not have the mechanism of the public service to investigate them. However, it is common knowledge that rumours of this sort, some of them more circumstantial than others, have had fairly wide circulation since last August.

The Taoiseach assures us that this was the only case of smuggling of arms. However, there are many fairly circumstantial rumours. Were I in a position to be able to control the activities of the police force and the security section of the Army, I could have uncovered a lot a long time ago, were it my intention to do so. But the Taoiseach says with the authority of his office, speaking to this House, that that was the only event. I am bound to say I am not convinced. We recall the Taoiseach, speaking earlier on, in the first stormy debates that followed the choosing by him of his Cabinet after the present Dáil assembled, enunciating the principle of responsibility inside the Cabinet—the responsibility of all the Ministers for all the decisions, and specifically his responsibility as Taoiseach for what his Government did.

Therefore, let us put it to three members of his party. First of all, there is the Minister for Local Government. Then there is the Minister for Justice—a very sensitive post in this respect. Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney are people not just intimately associated with the Government at the very highest level. They are intimately associated with the party structure. They are the machine men of the party, much more so than even the Taoiseach himself. The degree of duplicity, of willingness to deceive one's colleagues and those who share the great responsibility and honour of being a Minister, surely puts into question not alone the actions of these people themselves but the honour and truth with which the whole of our local government apparatus has been administered. It puts into question the credibility and honour of the whole party structure, in which these people have been the most powerful figures. What we are uncovering and discussing now is not just a rot of a few people inside the Cabinet, but the rot of a whole party, both of a Government and of a party structure.

We are entitled to look ahead— with not much time to think about it —to the future. We are expected to believe that there was a unanimous vote. When it was suggested that there were ten contrary votes earlier today, the laughter was loud and long and seemingly convincing. Perhaps it is true there was unanimity. We must ask how long this unanimity is going to last.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Longer than in the Labour Party.

Mr. Keating

It is nice to have that reassurance from my colleague. When we have disagreements we are honourable enough to have them so that the world at large can hear what the debate is and what the position is. We do not have spurious, bogus unanimity. I want to look to the future——

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Labour Party have a communist outlook anyway.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. L'Estrange

It is like the Moscow trials.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Keating.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Keating

I was referring to the credibility of the Government in the future. Two enormously serious things face us in the near future. From these benches we criticised the Budget. We criticised it as being irresponsible. I, for one, and others, pondered on the motivation. We said there were things in it obviously not based on economic considerations and that we did not understand it. It was not capable of being read in the context of what we knew at that time. We said that the Minister for Finance must be in possession of information which was not in the possession of other Members of the House.

It now begins to make sense sooner than we thought. The irresponsibility we correctly criticised will not go away. The dangers of the Budget will not go away. In the very short period since its introduction the economic position, particularly in the United States, has been deteriorating dramatically. We now have a Government which in large areas of the whole nation has practically zero credibility. That Government are faced with a very serious economic prospect. Perhaps in July or August the opening of negotiations with the EEC will start. This will be done, firstly, by a Government, of practically zero credibility and, secondly, by a Government about which everybody will ask the question: "When will the knives be drawn again to carve one another up? When will a general election be sprung upon us? How can you validly govern and take honourable long-term decisions in the light of the nation's interests if you are locked together by a spurious unity in which nobody believes?"

We must deal with Northern Ireland. All the evidence is that this summer is going to be a time of very great danger. What do we say now to honourable young people in the north of Ireland who are frustrated with the rate of progress? We are discredited in our dealings with all sections of the people of the Six Counties. One of the conditions of progress is that our word should be credible to the middle community there, to people who for historical reasons distrusted us and doubted us. It is profoundly important that the middle community should have some hope of survival and not be ground away by extremists on either side. It is profoundly important that the sentiments uttered from this Parliament—greatly to its honour— last October should be credible. How credible are they now? They are now a hypocrisy and a reproach to us. This is our contribution. We have had a wrecking of community relations, a wrecking of the long-term prospects of building unity with honour. The net result of all these actions, in regard to the north, in regard to the Budget, in regard to the EEC and in regard to the international financial institutions with which we have to deal is that we are regarded as a joke. These are all serious problems.

I do not want to spend time trying to put a finger on where this rot all started, because it is a political question and not a question of the personal morality of the people involved. Fundamentally it is based, in my conviction, on political mistakes. I said last October, in the debate about Northern Ireland, that from the point of view of the Government the situation was practically impossible because it was not within the power, even of the most adept contortionist, to face in two directions at the same time. Hypocrisy and loss of honour result from facing in two directions at the same time. I expressed myself then in harsher words than I would now use although the situation then was important, but it was less of a national crisis than the one we now face.

We must choose our words gently now so that we do not use forms of description which are in themselves offensive and which would make it impossible for our adversaries to listen to the point of view we are trying to express. We have moved away from the ideology which motivated Fianna Fáil when it started and was the reason why so many people in Ireland gave their political allegiance and votes to that party. We have moved away because a section of that party has now grown up, a section which was deeply involved with foreign industry but which was facing in two directions. The political contortions to which I referred were to bring out the fact that one cannot simultaneously be genuinely concerned with national unity, national independence and the solving of problems of the long-term evolution of the two parts of the country while one is compromised by the biggest economic enterprises of the western world, which are quite indifferent and inimical to our national identity.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Would the Deputy tell us why the Labour Party united in voting against the old age pension increases?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Keating has only two minutes left.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Labour Party voted against the increases in the pensions.

Mr. Keating

Let me turn to the motion. In a slightly contemptuous way we are asked to debate on the motion that Dáil Éireann approve the nomination by the Taoiseach of Deputy Desmond O'Malley to be a member of the Government. I would oppose it, in addition to the reason given by Deputy L'Estrange concerning a rather distressing and sordid little episode, for the reason which is to me the most serious of all. Since the spurious unity of today nobody in the Fianna Fáil Party has the moral stature to be a Minister for Justice and therefore whoever is chosen from the ranks of that tarnished party at this moment will be unfit to fill that office.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 7 May 1970