After all that has been said and done since the beginning of this whole sordid conspiracy to import arms illegally by attempting to subvert the institutions and public officials of this State, one fact is clear and incontrovertible and that is that Deputy James Gibbons, the erstwhile Minister for Defence, since promoted to the rank of Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries by the present Taoiseach, was either an accessory to these events, which were described by both Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney as most damaging to the welfare of this country, or else he is a moron. He is either untruthful, or incompetent, and it matters very little to this nation which he is. Both conditions render Deputy Gibbons unfit for membership of the Government and of this Parliament of the people, and the continuing support by the Taoiseach of this person, so demonstrably unfit for office, indicates also the Taoiseach's unfitness for the office which he holds.
I propose to prove this not by quoting the evidence of people who are unacceptable to Deputy Gibbons, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, but by his own sworn testimony and by the submissions of the High Court judge to the jury and the jury's decisions on those submissions. Before I do so I think it would be relevant to refer to last night's speech by the Tánaiste. It is a speech which can best be described as one typical of a man who knows so little about what is going on that he seeks a pair for a Division in this House from a member of his own party, who is a member not of this House but of the Seanad, a man who was proved in the course of the trial never to have been consulted by the Minister for Defence, by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, by the Minister for Finance, by the Minister for Local Government, or by any other Minister in the absence of the Taoiseach, because he was presumed not to know anything about what was going on. Putting him in to intervene in this debate is not really a worthwhile contribution. True, the Tánaiste, in his innocence, may accept Deputy Gibbons as a worthy man, but a jury of what Deputy Haughey described as 12 good Dublin men did not and, if we have to make an election as between what the Tánaiste thinks of Deputy Gibbons and what 12 ordinary good and true men think, I think we will rely, and so will the people of this nation, on what 12 good and true men think.
Before we come to the evidence, it is important to recall that in this House, in the position he now occupies, Deputy Gibbons, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, said—though it makes no significant difference to what we are required to adjudicate upon in this motion—that a lie was one thing, perjury was another. Whether he elects between either of these, or both, or neither we have never learned. All we do know is that 12 jurymen did not accept his version of what occurred. In the first instance, I want to deal with Deputy Gibbons's denial of knowledge about or consent to the importation of arms. I submit that his denial was rebutted by evidence which he himself tendered in court on 10th October, 1970, because his own evidence disclosed that as early as 25th March he was told by Captain Kelly—I am sorry; as early as the last days of March and the beginning of April—that there was an attempted importation of arms through Dublin port in which Captain Kelly was involved and, on the evidence of Deputy Gibbons, we are told that Captain Kelly informed him of the presence of the Army at the docks and the Minister's query to Captain Kelly was: "Did the Army disappear into the shadows?" He admitted in the course of his sworn testimony that Captain Kelly informed him of other plans to import arms through the port of Trieste and also of an intention to import arms through the port of Antwerp. We were also informed by him that he was aware of the presence of Captain Kelly in Vienna. We were also told on oath by Deputy Gibbons that Captain Kelly had not identified to him, the Minister for Defence at that time, any of the persons involved with him—that is, Captain Kelly—in the enterprise; all that he knew was that Captain Kelly was involved. The only complaint was he did not identify his companions. We were also informed in the same sworn testimony that he admitted that he did not disapprove when Captain Kelly told him of the attempt to import arms on 25th March through the port of Dublin, nor did he express any disapproval, or condemnation, or give any order to prevent further attempts; and his excuse was he did not want to give Captain Kelly any sense of grievance by being let down, especially having regard to the fact that the declaration was made to him.
Judge Henchy, in his submissions to the jury, said, amongst other things, that Mr. Gibbons had been "assailed as a witness who was a liar and an unsatisfactory witness, and I must leave it to you to decide whether that conversation"—that is, the conversation between Deputy Gibbons and Captain Kelly—"took place or not".
With reference to the denial by Deputy Gibbons in this House that there were people from Derry involved in the training in the use of arms in Dunree—and, if I may, I will refer now to Deputy Gibbons's own words last night when he said the purpose of arms was to kill—he, on his own admission in court and here, gave the direction and the authorisation for the training and use of arms outside the jurisdiction of this State for the purpose of killing. On his evidence in that regard, this is what the learned judge had to say: he said that Deputy Gibbons said that it was not true to say such people had been trained in Dunree, that technically training was not given to any civilian, that before training was given to people from Derry, the nine people, or so, were inducted into the LDF and thereby became members of the Defence Forces, so that statement was technically true and, when pressed on the point, he said that this was a statement in Dáil Éireann, thereby implying that statements of this kind which are not the literal truth are frequently made in Dáil Éireann. "It is a matter for you," the judge told the jury, "to decide whether his conduct in regard to the statement he made in Dáil Éireann about the training of the people in the Bogside, or the statement he made in Dáil Éireann about his suspicions or that nothing concrete had emerged, are within the category of technically correct statements which are made by politicians in Parliament, or whether they show Mr. Gibbons to be a man given to half truth and lies, and whether as a result, you should treat him as being discredited as a witness. I express no opinion but leave the matter to you." To the 12 honest men on the jury!
Again, his lordship, addressing the jury, said with reference to the contradiction between the evidence of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Gibbons about the conversation: "Either Mr. Gibbons concocted this story and has come to court and perjured himself, or it happened. If there is another explanation, please act on it."
Again, later on, the same judge addressing the same jury, said that the jury might say that Mr. Gibbons should have put his foot down and told Captain Kelly that he should not import arms in any circumstances, that that was a matter for the appropriate Army authorities and that, when he got information about the attempted importation into the port of Dublin and the projected importation from Vienna and when he, Mr. Gibbons, did not do so in any categorical terms, Captain Kelly was entitled to presume that Deputy Gibbons was saying "Yes". The judge added: "That is the view that is open to you. I will say no more about it."
When that jury of 12 honest men came to express their verdict they rejected all that Deputy Gibbons had said. They found that Deputy Gibbons, then Minister for Defence, had misled this Dáil in relation to the training of people in the use of arms to kill in Derry. They found that Deputy Gibbons had misled this Dáil and, through this Dáil, the people of Ireland in relation to his own involvement in the importation of arms.
We are informed that within the last few days Deputy Haughey said that the time has come to leave the events of May, 1970, and their squalor behind us and to let history judge all those who played any part in them. We find this proposition unacceptable. We cannot leave it to the charity of history to find out what happened to £100,000 voted by this Dáil into the custody of Deputy Haughey to properly administer it to bring relief to the homeless, the distressed, the naked people of Belfast and Derry, who had no beds in which to sleep. We cannot leave that to the silence of history—that requires a verdict now—while those responsible for this debacle, to use Deputy Haughey's own words, remain in Government, continuing the harm they have done to this nation—and by nation we mean a nation of 32 counties —by the way in which they have disillusioned the Nationalists in the north by misleading them and by the manner in which they have multiplied fear and hatred in the minds of Unionists for the rest of us because of the way in which Deputy Haughey and others abused the responsibility entrusted to them by the people of this nation.
The casualness and complacency about public money, about the illegal importation of arms, the deployment of our public officials; the casualness about persons training in the use of arms in the knowledge that those arms would be used, in the words of Deputy Gibbons, to kill, indicates quite clearly that even if the reputation of this Government is to be put on the decision plate tonight, as the Taoiseach would have it, then the Government is clearly deserving of condemnation.
But we have related this motion to the conduct of a member of this House, a person charged with Government responsibility by the Irish people through this House. We seek a verdict upon that issue alone and if the consequences of that are unpleasant for the Taoiseach, his Ministers and the Fianna Fáil Government, they have no right to presume that their personal, individual welfare or membership of Fianna Fáil takes precedence over the interests of the nation. That is precisely what is proposed in the Taoiseach's own threat to his dissidents uttered the other night. We seek a verdict upon the merits of Deputy Gibbons but it is the concentration on the survival of Fianna Fáil and the efforts of the Taoiseach to hold off within Fianna Fáil those who are out to "do" him now or in the future that has led the Taoiseach and his Government to abandon any attempt to govern the country.
The question is regularly asked these days: has Ireland any Government at all? If this motion is defeated tonight the question will still remain: who is the Government? Are they anxious to govern or are they, as they have been for the past 18 months, yielding at all times to their own dissidents? To those weak-minded people in our midst who say that now is not the time to ask the will of our people to prevail, we say there will be no government if this motion is defeated; the same non-government will exist as has existed for the past 18 months. The way to get a Government is to go to the people to elect a Government to execute the will of the people and that can happen within three weeks from this night if certain people vote the way they ought to vote, and as their consciences tell them.
The only occasion since Deputy Haughey was dismissed from the Government, on which he was moved to speak in this House, to which he was sent to express the views of his constituents whether he held the glorious office of Minister or just as a Deputy, was a fortnight ago when he intervened to protest against the alleged prostitution of a 42-year dead poet. We feel sure that Yeats rests peacefully tonight, unoffended by any play upon words and unaffected by Deputy Haughey's defence of his prostituted corpse. But one cannot but feel that Deputy Haughey could have chosen some matter of greater moment to his constituents and the country upon which to speak after 18 months of Parliamentary silence. Why is it that Deputy Haughey always returns to his wealthy, luxurious home in County Dublin to well-staged press conferences or to equally well-set-up television interviews, to make double-talk pronouncements on the welfare of the State instead of talking here in the people's forum where he can be challenged on what he says.
Deputy Haughey, at the conclusion of the arms trial, issued a challenge to the Taoiseach and he said then of that trial, which was arranged by the Taoiseach and by Deputy Gibbons, that it was a political trial brought by his enemies against him. He said that those responsible for the debacle had "no alternative but to take the honourable course that is open to them". This man, who then in a moment of truth said or implied that the only honourable course open to the Taoiseach and Deputy Gibbons was one of resignation, is now ready to sell his membership of Fianna Fáil in the national interest even though it means dishonour to himself and the Fianna Fáil Party in order that he can stay behind Deputy Lynch who is still out to exterminate him.
What else did Deputy Haughey say on that night of truth? He said that the trial would have political implications which would be far-reaching. On the same night Deputy Blaney, as yet a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, also referred to the political implications of yesterday's verdict: "You can wait for the political implications; they will come." Whether either or both or all these people and those who support them go in behind the Taoiseach tonight or not is irrelevant except that for them to do so would be an act of gross indecency because their intention still is, still uncontradicted by them, to bring about political implications and bring about the downfall of Mr. Jack Lynch, for the time being Taoiseach.
We live in terrible times. Nobody on this side of the House wishes to add to the disillusionment or distress of the people of Northern Ireland; nobody wishes to add to their pain. We are quite well aware that in these terrible moments, seconds and split seconds may well count and may turn the tide between disaster and bloody civil war and peace and reunification. But we do not see that there is any prospect of bringing about the reconciliation of minds necessary in Northern Ireland while this country is for the time being, presumably, governed by a party which is within itself torn completely asunder. It is because of our sense of the urgency of the need to give to the Republic of Ireland a Government which is united and not divided upon the basis of vicious personalities and animosities that we moved this motion in condemnation of Deputy Gibbons.
We feel it is very necessary to restore public confidence in the institutions of this State. We have no authority or right to speak other than that given to us by the people. Nobody here can be so naive as to say that what has happened in the last two years was in the contemplation of the people when they last gave their verdict. Quite clearly they are entitled once again to give a verdict on what has occurred and decide who should rule and guide the destiny of this nation in these terribly critical days ahead.
Those critical days are not, I suspect, the next 21 during which we could go to the country and have a verdict in a general election but they may well be the next 21 weeks and if Ireland has not by then got a Government which is united and dependent for its support, not upon people who are determined to pull down the Taoiseach, then the catastrophe facing the country is probably greater than any of us in our worst nightmares can ever imagine.
I saw a reference recently to a suggestion that this Dáil was like a circus. It is a fair comment, I suppose, when one considers what has been happening. The reality is that Deputy Lynch has been turning the whole country into a circus. The Taoiseach has been putting on his own special Fianna Fáil act of quick change artistes, sword swallowers, tightrope walkers, knife throwers, cliffedge hangers, carpet pullers, roaring lions and——
