Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 3: Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (20th Dáil) – Friday, 14 Dec 1973

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 3: Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach.

—(The Taoiseach).

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I spoke for a long time last night but intend to be brief this morning. I should like first to apologise to the House for a profane comparison which escaped me in the course of my speech. I will not repeat it now because that would only make it worse. I acknowledge it was in bad taste and I am sorry I was guilty of it.

When I reported progress last night I was talking about the abuses to which the system of conducting this Dáil was subject. Shortly before I closed I adverted to an instance about which I wanted to say more, but from which I was deflected by well-meant interruptions from the Opposition. I refer to the passage of the Second Stage of the Finance Bill during the Summer. At that time it was clear that we were running into severe difficulties in regard to shortage of time. The Second Stage of the Finance Bill was a purely introductory stage, necessitated by the procedure of the House, to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The substance of the Bill was to make effective the proposals already contained in the budget and fully debated in this House. The Second Stage was taken in mid-July when Deputies were panting to go on holidays. In fact, some of them had already unofficially gone on leave. The Opposition put in 16 speakers in order to hash over once again the subject matter already discussed in the budget. Apart from the Minister there was only one speaker from the Government side.

Two things were said about that. It was said that the Government Whip was keeping speakers out. That is not true. I have never yet, and I am sure I speak for Deputy Desmond in denying this, prevented or tried to prevent a Deputy on the Government side from speaking. What I have said is: "Do not speak unless you have something important to say and let us get ahead with the business," or "If you do want to speak, keep it as short as you can." There was no question of keeping speakers out. What we did was to let Fianna Fáil at it. They went at it and for the best part of two days wasted the time of this House. I will be accused of being undemocratic and not letting people have their say. Who remembers who these 16 speakers were? Who remembers a single word they said? Who could remember the following evening what any of them had said, or who cared? That could be interpreted as a radical attack on the whole system of parliamentary speaking, but there is a distinction between a genuine debate, in which a genuine point is discussed, and one in which people are simply put in for the purpose of filling time. The cost of running this House will be found in the Estimates which were passed the other day en bloc. The cost of running the two Houses of the Oireachtas is enormous. If we were to break it down—I admit that this is not an entirely valid exercise—and allot the cost of every minute during which this House sits, split the overheads, salaries, running costs, et cetera, plus the costs connected with running elections to these Houses, divide that and arrive at a notional price for every minute of parliamentary time, it would be a huge price. It would stagger the people if they knew it. That money is wantonly wasted and useful time is taken up on occasion merely to waste time.

I admitted last night that occasions arise, because of the exigencies of the way our Parliament runs, when the Government are obliged to protract a debate and—I will not shrink from using the same words—find themselves obliged to waste time too. I hope no one will leap on that admission. There is nothing new about it. I am merely putting into words what everyone knows, even if nobody has said in so many words before.

Another thing which was said in the debate on the Finance Bill was that Fine Gael and Labour were boycotting the House. That was the expression used by Deputy O'Malley. If we had matched the Fianna Fáil speakers man for man we would never have finished that debate by the end of July, let alone get on to the Committee Stage. No doubt every time a Government speaker spoke he would have triggered off some constituency mate who did not want to have it appear in the local paper that his opponent had spoken and he had not. Therefore we would not have had merely 16 Fianna Fáil speakers, we probably would have had 30. That debate would have been almost endless. That is a waste of time.

I am a democrat. I believe in free speech and the rights connected with parliamentary democracy. I am prepared to subscribe unreservedly to all these things. But I can recognise the difference between a debate and a waste of time when I see it. I assert that time is wasted in this House very often because of the situation in which the Government find themselves. The Government never wantonly waste time, only when the exigencies of the rules of procedure oblige it to do so. It is wasted wantonly by the Opposition simply for the purpose of obstruction. I am not identifying this Government or that Opposition as being guilty in that respect, although these offences have been going on for years.

Ruairí Brugha

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is not a good thing for a debate to collapse.

Mr. Kelly

When I hear the expression "a debate collapse" I have to ask myself what does it really mean. If a debate collapses it means that not enough people can be found with a genuine interest in the subject to come here and debate it. When that point is reached it is right that the debate should collapse. If an attempt is made to keep it going by putting in speakers, who waste 25 minutes or half an hour, no matter from which side of the House they come, that debate is a waste of the people's money.

I hope I have been reasonably objective about this. The reason why there are faults on both sides is because of the assumption on which our system is based. It is based on assumptions which lie far back in history, not our history but the history of the British Parliament. I have often complained in the two Houses about our uncritical adoption of British practices. There is hardly one practice less fitted to us than the notion of the Government having to keep a majority, in the sense of a superior number of Deputies on their feet, at a particular time.

That convention dated from a day when people could be persuaded, perhaps in the course of an evening, by the eloquence of a Burke, a Fox or a Pitt, to change their minds; not to vote with the Government, or go with the Opposition, or stay out altogether. It depended on the British Parliamentary system when majorities were such that they ran into two and even three figures. In a system where there is no rigid party discipline, where people can be persuaded or bribed to stay out of the lobbies altogether or go into one lobby rather than the other, I can see the point then in saying that the Government had lost that majority or were in danger of losing it. If it were possible for my eloquence to get somebody from the Opposition benches to walk into the lobby with us, then there would be some point in it. The papers could then say that the Government had a terrific majority last night——

Ruairí Brugha

Either way.

Mr. Kelly

——of 30 or the Government were beaten by 30 if the eloquence of the Fianna Fáil Deputies had persuaded Deputy Dockrell or myself to go into their lobby. That does not happen. How often does it happen that any man in the course of a debate changes his mind about how he will vote? There will be a vote here this evening at 5 o'clock and there is only one man about whom I have any doubt about which way he will vote—and I have not very much doubt as to what he will do. He made up his mind how he would vote before the debate started.

These are childish banalities. Is it not idiotic that we should have taken over this system? Once a Government is elected—the election takes place in terms of seats—it has a majority. The idea that it should be maintained in the shape of a certain number of human beings' presence around this House whenever a debate nears its end is childish. This may be interpreted as a plea by the Government Whip for an easier life for himself. It is not that. It is a plea for reason in the conduct of our affairs. It is because of the pressure of the vote but this means nothing. Barring accidents, everyone knows what will happen in the vote. Because of that pressure debates are strung out or, as Deputy Brugha has said, are prevented from collapsing. Because of that, nonessential and non-contentious business is stuffed in at a time when the Government know their Deputies must be elsewhere. It is because of that the abuses of which I spoke last night and this morning take place.

I have not got a perfect suggestion for remedying it. I would be very anxious to hear suggestions from the other side on how it might be done. My thinking would be on the following lines. A vote that was expressly a vote of confidence, perhaps on a budget debate or something of that kind, might be made the subject of a vote in the ordinary sense. Perhaps if a person who had been a Government supporter, or had been such on the election of a Taoiseach, signified his loss of confidence in the Government, a vote might then be held. For the ordinary business, even the contentious business on Committee Stage, to keep this House running in the wasteful and stupid way I have described, dictated to and dominated by the idea that what will count in the end is the number of people one can get to shuffle through one lobby or can prevent from shuffling through the other lobby, is childish and I denounce it as such.

I know I am a new boy here and I hope I will not be accused of trying to know better than my elders. Perhaps the fact that I am a new boy makes the matter more evident to me; had I been here longer, habituation might have clouded my view. I regard the system as childish. We will have a vote this afternoon around 5 p.m. Barring accidents, the Government will win that vote, but in order to do that Deputy Lalor and myself have to play hare and hound for days beforehand. I am the hare, he is the hound, although I must confess he is a very affable hound. I might add that the same goes for his assistant, Deputy Browne. They are an affable pair of hounds, and I do not mind being chased by them, but is it an exercise for grown men? Must I don the uniform of a hare, have the two other Deputies put on houndskins and yap round the House after me to try to prevent me marshalling my team into the House? I hope I am not giving Deputies Lalor and Browne a black eye with their own party by paying them tributes. They are excellent Whips. I think I said Deputy Lalor was obliging—by "obliging" I do not mean he goes out of his way to facilitate the Government. He does not, but he is human in his approach to the job.

What is the basis for all this? If the Government lose the division this afternoon it will be for reasons such as the following: a few Deputies may have missed a train; another Deputy may have gone for a nap and slept it out; a Deputy may be caught in a lift; a Deputy may be locked in a lavatory. In theory the Government would be gone, because the Taoiseach's Estimate has been refused. The financial implication is that the Taoiseach's Department will not get £10. The political implications drawn from it by people who have never looked critically at the system will be that the Government have been defeated. The reality is: two men are stuck in a train, one is asleep in the Library, one is in a lift and another is in a lavatory.

I hope that will not happen, but if the Government are defeated this afternoon that will be the reason. It will not be because a Deputy has come to me and said, "I'am damned if I am going to vote £10 for the Taoiseach's Department; you have enough money". It will not be because a Government Deputy has not confidence in the Government or is prepared to show his lack of confidence by staying out.

This is a free country. We were long enough looking for freedom, both constitutionally and by violence. We have got it now and we can run our own affairs. We should take a look at what is going on here. I think this is the right time to mention this subject because the Taoiseach spoke about reform of Dáil procedures. I am interested not only in reform of Dáil procedures within the limits the informal committee marked out; we should also look at the tyranny of the vote which is supposed to be a reflection of the confidence of individual Members in particular measures. The tyranny of the vote disrupts and holds up the business of this House and gives the public grounds for complaint. If real debate went on here, if we had only the kind of debate that was attracted by real interests and if the debate went on no longer than that, we would not have a House in which nearly all the time there is not even a quorum present. We would not have the situation where the Public Gallery is nearly deserted except at Question Time. That would be a real Parliament. We might not even have to sit three days weekly; we might have to sit only two days.

I cannot believe that people on the other side as well as on my own side do not share these views. I wish we could put our minds to devising some substitutes. Naturally I would like to make life easier for the Government Whip, whoever he may be, and I am sure Deputy Lalor would like an easier job than to be the Opposition Whip. That is only a part of the matter. We are the main human victims of the system but, on a large scale, the Irish people are the victims. Their work is done here in a way that could not be more sloppy, more inconvenient, more time-consuming, less devoted to the ends for which this deliberative and legislative assembly was meant to exist.

I hope my remarks will not be interpreted by anyone as words of disloyalty towards my own side. We are operating a system we have inherited; Fianna Fáil operated a system they inherited, and Cumann na nGaedheal when first in power with their allies operated a system that was uncritically taken over from the British. It is true that at the present time the British have a rigid party discipline; a Tory would not think of voting with Labour, or vice versa, except on a very rare occasion. However, it does not matter very much over there because their crazy electoral system means that in nine elections out of ten—although it did not happen in 1964—they have big majorities. They are able to afford a few tearaways, the fellows who will stay out altogether or vote the wrong way. They can absorb that but we could not. A very small number of accidents can produce what would be shouled to the world in headlines as a defeat of the Government. That does not make sense and we know that. Let us change it.

Ruairí Brugha

It makes it interesting for the gentlemen in the Press Gallery. They have a lot of tedium to put up with.

Mr. Kelly

The gentlemen in the Press Gallery know. Sometimes when I look at the paper in the morning I read a sentence on the following lines: On a division the vote was carried by 61 votes to 56. I often wonder if the journalist who wrote that sentence or the compositor who typed it realise the amount of work and worry—needless work and worry—the human inconvenience and waste of time that lies behind the history of that sentence. There would be an outcry that would be led by the people Deputy Brugha has mentioned.

I know it is out of order to affect to recognise the presence of anyone in the House except the House itself. I hope what I am saying may initiate a push from outside the House if we cannot get it from inside, to have the tyranny of the lobby vote removed from the proceedings of this House and the Seanad. The Seanad is rather different because it has a built-in Government majority and it can absorb a defection or carelessness and remain safe. This House is quite different.

I should like to conclude by saying a few words—and I promise to be brief—about the Sunningdale agreement which many Deputies have spoken about, and about which more will speak. Without looking at the big or the small print, I welcome this agreement in common with the rest of the Government parties. What entrenches me in the conviction that I am right in welcoming it is the sight of the wild men on both sides condemning it. When I see the Paisleyites on the one side and the Provisional IRA on the other side condemning it as a sell-out, I know I am right. When I see bullies and blackguards of every description condemning it, I know it must be right. When they come from both sides, from both extremes, I know it must be right. If you like, that is a primitive enough reason for swallowing a package in which there is a great deal of material, but I believe that is the reason which will weigh with many people. I think their instincts are correct about it.

The people who shout about sellouts would be happy—let us deal with our own breed, the green ones—if this Parliament and the Irish people in this part of the country spent their time condemning the British Army, condemning the RUC, condemning the Protestants, condemning the Unionists, condemning the Loyalists, condemning, condemning, condemning. That is what would make them happy, although I am not sure if it would make them really happy. I often think that this country will have a very big problem on its hands with disorientated gunmen once peace is finally achieved. What will those people do for a living? To what will they turn their attention when peace is achieved, and please God that day will come? That is another day's work but it is a problem which will face us.

If we look at a conflict which is far away from us and about which, perhaps, we are not too well instructed, like the conflict between the Arabs and Israelis, we are tired of hearing the Arabs making intransigent statements and seeing them adopting intransigent postures against the Israelis and we are tired of the Israelis behaving intransigently towards the Arabs. If I were an Arab or an Israeli it would be no bother to me to go along with the prevailing front line intransigence on either side, depending on which I was.

What really interests the outside world is when it hears an Arab say: "There is some point in the Israelis' case. We will have to do something for the Israelis. They cannot be blotted off the face of the earth. They are there. They have had a bad time. We will have to try to come to some accommodation with them which will make life possible for them." The rest of the world looks on with relief and gives a cheer when the Israelis say: "We recognise that the Arabs are the victims of injustice. There are 100,000 or more of them, innocent people, who were unceremoniously put out of their homes in order to make room for the creation of Israel. When it finds the Israelis trying to see the Arabs' point of view and the Arabs trying to see the Israelis' point of view the outside world breathes a sigh of relief and feels that both sides are behaving like civilised people, which basically both sides are. That is what the outside world likes to see. That is what the outside world likes to see in Ireland also, and rightly so.

There is no bother in standing here, as Deputy Blaney has sometimes done, and as Mr. Boland did, and as other people do to whom far less credit can be given because they have not exposed their views to the test of the popular vote, and taking a hard line if you are green by tradition, or taking a hard line in the other direction if you are orange by tradition. What is hard is to try to see the other man's point of view and go some of the distance with him. That is what the Sunningdale agreement is all about. It is the very element in it which is characterised as a sell-out by the far-out men on both sides which makes it valuable and worthwhile. That is what makes it historic.

I have no doubt about where the long-term responsibility for the trouble in the North of Ireland lies. I do not want to use bitter words but the Unionist Party, as it was in the past, must carry a large share of the blame. Having said that as quietly as I can, I want to say it seems to me that Mr. Faulkner is the man this agreement has left in the most sensitive position. It struck me on the night of the agreement that his position was a bit like that of Collins and Griffith coming back to Dublin after signing the Treaty in 1921. Like them, he will have to face vehement and possibly violent opposition from people who say he has given something away.

Without falling over myself with admiration for him or for his party—I have made my position about his party clear—the thoughts of this House ought to be with the man who is most in the corner. I may be wrong in identifying that man as Mr. Faulkner. Possibly it is the Taoiseach. If it is Mr. Faulkner, the thoughts of this House should be with him. If he can carry into effect those parts of the agreement which guarantee to the northern minority recognition of their legitimate aspirations, and justice in their ordinary lives as well as peace, he will have deserved as well of the people of this House as any Irishman who ever lived.

I should like to express my pleasure at the not very specific but general welcome which has come from the Opposition for the agreement reached in Sunningdale last week.

Mr. Dowling

I should like first of all to refer to a statement made by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and to its implications.

In the course of the last few days it has become clear that there have been some problems in the Government. The question of collective responsibility has been mentioned on many occasions. It is rather peculiar that this question of collective responsibility has come to light and been mentioned by Ministers only in the course of the last couple of days. A circular sent out recently indicated too this matter of collective responsibility—a Government decision taking the onus off a Minister. I should like to point out that on 6th December Deputy Gallagher asked the Minister for Transport and Power a question and the reply to that question given by the Minister indicates a misleading of the House, the grossest misleading we have experienced in the last few days. Deputy Gallagher asked the Minister:

...if he has any plans to provide electricity supply to Clare Island and to Inishturk and Inishbofin Islands, County Mayo.

To that question the Minister replied:

Substantial grants are being provided by the Land Commission to enable the inhabitants of Inishturk to transfer to the mainland and as the vast majority of the islanders are anxious to move the necessity to instal electricity on that island should not arise.

I am informed by the Electricity Supply Board that the extension of electricity supply to Clare Island and Inishbofin would be so costly that it would involve completely prohibitive special service charges and it is therefore not a practicable proposition.

Six days later, on 12th December, Deputy Gallagher asked the Minister for Lands if he had any plans to enable the inhabitants of Inishturk Island, County Mayo, to live on the mainland; and, if so, if he will indicate (a) where lands and housing are to be provided and (b) when this operation is likely to commence. To that question the Minister replied:

There are at present no proposals to provide assistance to enable the inhabitants of Inishturk, County Mayo, to settle on the mainland.

One can now understand how confused some Deputies are and how important it is to question and probe. Here you have two Ministers within a period of six days who, despite all the talk about collective responsibility, giving completely different answers. I suggest Deputy Gallagher has for some reason been deliberately misled by one or other of these Ministers. Within a period of six days there are two completely different replies on the same subject. Where the collective responsibility comes into operation I do not know.

None of the speakers from the Government benches has spoken about matters which are normally discussed during a debate of this nature, that is, the question of prices, taxation and other factors. Some time ago we were presented with a 14-point plan. I have tabulated about 28 points I would like the House to consider. First of all, the Government certainly have achieved higher prices. In the last general election the base of this Government's policy was to reduce prices and to stabilise them. Instead, we find the housewife has been misled by the Government and held up to ransom. There are various headings in the newspapers. On the 25th April, shortly after the Government came into office there is reference in the Irish Independent to “Price Shocks. Dairy produce up by 17 per cent. Massive increases, up to 17 per cent, in fresh cream, canned cream, ice cream, chocolate, are on the way” and there are the comments of the angry housewives. On the 22nd April there is reference to a withdrawal of the consumers' subsidy on cheese: “Cheese prices embarrasses the Government.” Again, on 28th April: “Butter. Another prices crisis. Creameries versus Keating clash.” Deputy Keating, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who over the years has cried bitter tears here for the housewife in relation to price increases and who indicated in no uncertain manner that if he were in control he would have a solution to the problem of price increases, sanctioned many of these increases.

On the 19th May there is a report in the newspapers of a large list of price increases agreed to by the Minister for Local Government which affect the shopping basket of the housewife and the community in general. On the 2nd June there is a very substantial list of price increases, another indication of broken promises on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Keating. On 20th June, 1973, the heading is: "Price freezes coming. The problem is to make it stick." On the 26th June: "Revision in postal charges." On Friday, July 13th, the General Secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, Senator Michael Mullen stated that the poor were becoming vegetarians because they could not afford to buy meat. I am quite certain that if Senator Mullen were speaking today he would be able to say the poor are almost unable to buy vegetables, so there is no point in being a vegetarian.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Dowling

Before the bell rang, I was quoting Senator Mullen, General Secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union who, after the vicious price increases in the first few months in the life of this Government and the series of broken promises in regard to price stabilisation and price reductions, indicated in the Evening Press of Friday 13th July, that the poor were becoming vegetarians. I remarked that if he were speaking today he would indicate that the poor were unable to buy vegetables, the price of which had soared since that statement on July 13th. On 26th July, 1973 there is an indication of more broken promises, with food, cars, and CIE fares going up. In the Irish Independent of 2nd August there is a heading: “The Summer of discontent in relation to prices”. Then The Cork Examiner said there was a limited celebration in relation to price increases with the removal of VAT. In The Irish Press on Saturday, August 18th, it says: “Shock for the housewives. Bread and cheese prices go up again.”

Again the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who had on so many occasions indicated he had the knowhow for price stabilisation and price reduction, forced up various prices and agreed to various price increases. "Croke Park tickets go up 50p." These are just some of the price increases indicated on that day. On 18th August it took two columns of the Irish Independent to outline massive price increases agreed to during that period by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It would take too long to go through the list to show the variety of people affected and how they are affected. This trail of broken promises of which we have seen so much in the newspapers since this Government came into power clearly shows the type of men with whom we are associated.

On 27th October again we find the prices of food, cars, vegetables and children's clothes all going up. We see headings like "The Price Rise Whirlwind". We find children's clothes again increased; these had been previously increased because of VAT being removed. On 30th October we read: "Housewives Press for VAT Cuts". The housewives were conscious at this stage of the colossal increase in the cost of living due to the removal of VAT from foodstuffs and its increased impact on other commodities together with the vicious rise in prices accepted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the case of food prices which he had indicated would be controlled. These prices were substantially increased prior to the removal of VAT and again substantially increased afterwards. In The Irish Press of 6th November we see: “Big Jump in Biscuits Prices”. On 14th November— that is coming very close—there were again two columns in the Irish Independent and The Irish Press showing the large number of price increases which the Minister for Rising Prices, Deputy Keating, had accepted.

This trail of broken promises clearly shows the irresponsibility of the Minister and the collective irresponsibility of the Government. On 20th November I put down a question to the Taoiseach asking him to indicate the cost of living index headings under which no increases had been shown. He told us that neck mutton had not gone up.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dowling

The important fact is that in the period prior to that hacksaw blades had gone up. So, he equated the increase on hacksaw blades with the stability of the neck mutton. Other items which had not increased were black and white films and toothpaste. This was a substantial advance by the present Government; they had certainly controlled the situation magnificently. I am sure the housewives will be very pleased to find that neck mutton had not increased. I have not yet seen it on the Restaurant menu here but if the Government have their way I am sure that is what we will be eating.

We get a very different view in The Irish Times on 14th December. On 20th November the Taoiseach was unable to give me information that is contained in the paper today in regard to the August-November quarter. This states that the cost of living jumped 12.6 per cent in a year and it gives the increases in the various quarters. The highest increase in the August-November quarter was in household goods which affect the family very substantially. I am drawing attention to the percentage increases permitted by a Government that claimed they would stabilise or reduce prices of household commodities. If we take the March, 1973 prices including VAT and the prices in November after VAT had been removed we find that the half-pound box of cheese is up by 47.8 per cent. This is price stability and price reduction. A 16-ounce packet of cornflakes, with the removal of VAT, has increased by 15.4 per cent. Giant-size soap powder after the removal of VAT is up 41.6 per cent: best back rashers increased by 24 per cent, strawberry jam by 45.8 per cent, cooking fats by 35.7 per cent, sausages by 36.3 per cent, canned peas by 27.2 per cent, eggs by 80 per cent and flour by 46 per cent.

Prior to the election we were told they would stabilise prices. In the period of stabilisation prices have increased by 40 per cent, 47 per cent and by 80 per cent in some cases. This is price stability. What will be the increase when the Government find they are unable to control prices? The housewife will be able to tell in a very short time, at the very first oportunity she gets.

Mr. Bruton

She had an opportunity in Monaghan.

Mr. Dowling

There is more to be said about prices before I conclude but I should like to speak about this Government's 14-point plan. I shall take the 14 points of higher prices, increased taxation, broken promises, appointment of pals, excluding the Judiciary, jobs for the boys, including the Judiciary, ministerial jackboot tactics; gerrymandering the national flop—formerly the national loan, student unrest, free health service for stockbrokers, bankers, mine owners and the knighted gentry.

The Socialist Minister for Health was very concerned before he went into Government about the rights of the weaker section of the community. He has now decided that a free health service should be given to stockbrokers, bankers, mine owners and the like. I wonder where in the queue will the unfortunate weaker section of the community, the lower paid workers, be. The Minister's socialism has changed considerably since he left Opposition. It is heartening to know that the Labour Party and the Minister for Health are so concerned about the health of stockbrokers, bankers and mine owners that the complete disregard of the weaker sections must be taken up by the Opposition. I hope those gentlemen will get a free health service. I suppose they will be able to drive up in their "jags" to collect the free tablets, pills and prescriptions. I am positive they will be at the head of the queue.

Mr. Esmonde

Auctioneers in Mercedes.

Mr. Dowling

And barristers. Of course we are told in answer to questions that it is impossible to find doctors, dentists or people to service the existing medical facilities required by ordinary people. The health of those gentlemen is of primary importance to the Government. The Minister for Health, a former socialist, has ensured that their health will remain good in the coming years. I wonder what will happen to the weaker sections.

We know how people were affected by the clawback of children's allowances. We know that in one particular firm they had to open a distress fund for workers who got, in their pay packets, 50p, 100p and in some cases no money at all when the clawback, by direction of the Minister for Finance, took effect. Men who should have taken home £30 or £40 got an unsigned blank cheque. A large brewery, of which there is one of the directors or owners stuffed into the Seanad——

A distress fund had to be opened by the largest brewery in the country. I will not name it. To think that in this day and age a concern must open a distress fund for its workers because of a direction from the Minister for Finance is regrettable and I am sure the socialist members who have supported this idea of robbing the workers' paypackets in such a savage way are very happy at this stage.

We have had the increase in the age limit for old age pensions from 65 to 69. During the election campaign the present Government clearly indicated that the age would be reduced to 65. I am sure the socialists will be very happy with the increase from 65 to 69 and also with the non-removal of death duties from farmers.

I should like now to ask the Taoiseach, when he is replying, clearly to indicate the position in relation to a meeting that took place in Monaghan during the by-election campaign. This is possibly the most important thing I am going to say today. During the recent campaign certain meetings took place between Government Ministers in a hotel or hotels where a movement was being processed for the formation of a new political party composed of Fine Gael and Labour. Would the Taoiseach indicate whether any advance has been made in relation to the formation of one political party composed of members of Fine Gael and Labour. I understand there was some disagreement but a large amount of agreement at this meeting or meetings. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the workers to the Labour Party Ministers who have suggested that they should now align themselves completely with Fine Gael. Since the general election they have come under the wing and are now completely in the hands of Fine Gael. It is no wonder some Ministers of the Labour Party would move in this direction.

I wonder what will be the reaction of the workers who believed they were supporting an independent Labour Party when they see an effort being made to desert the people who supported them in order to tie themselves up with Fine Gael and remain in power for some years to come. I am sure some concessions will be made to those people. Perhaps Deputy Desmond was at that meeting or was briefed about it or he may have been one of the people who were left outside, as he was on so many occasions. This is a serious matter. We could face the future in a very different way if we had a clear understanding about the formation of this new political party and the desertion of workers by the people they supported in the belief that they were a socialist Labour party. The decline in socialism in the past has been evident since Dr. Browne was expelled and the approach to prices, the clawback of children's allowances and the savage manner in which it took place, are a clear indication that the socialism has gone out through the window.

It is important that the Taoiseach should let us know when we are likely to have the change of name of the party and to give us some indication of the mechanics of the situation in relation to its development. At least then we will have one party only to face during the next election. In any event, the Labour Party will have been swallowed up. No doubt they are feeling the draught now and it is on this score that the movement towards the one party has taken place. I would welcome this situation and I hope that at an early stage the Taoiseach will be able to tell us that he has the entire approval of those who will then be the former members of the Labour Party in relation to the composition of this new political unit. When this information has been made known to us it will be interesting to hear the views of the workers who were "conned" into supporting the Labour Party during the last and previous general elections. The workers will know then the types of individual they have been supporting and no doubt will react in a rather violent way when next they are given an opportunity of going to the polls. This matter is important in that it can change the face of the whole political set-up here. Therefore, we shall be looking forward to hearing the details at the earliest stage possible.

When we were in Government the finger was pointed at us on every occasion on which there was industrial unrest. What has been the situation since the new Government took office? Has there not been quite an amount of industrial unrest? I can only express the hope that such unrest will not be prolonged. Some people have been on strike since July last and there are other strikes pending but I hope that these will not develop. However, the situation is on the heads of the people in power who created a situation of price spirals by their broken promises. Naturally, the workers are now seeking increases to offset increasing costs of food stuffs and other items.

We have heard from the Minister for Education that he intends rewriting the history of this country. It will be interesting to hear in what way he will set about this task. Is the decision a Government one and has it been reached out of a desire to eliminate the sooty past of some supporters of a previous Government? We await anxiously clarification from the Minister on these points. No doubt any attempt to colour our history in the fashion suggested by the Minister would lead to much controversy in the days ahead.

Another matter of much concern to people in employment is the reduction in amenity grants. These grants provided finance for employment schemes and it is astonishing that a Government composed of Fine Gael and socialists should be responsible for the removal of such grants from the employment scheme. We note, too, that there is a reduction of £8.5 million in the health board contributions. It will be the weaker sections of the community who will suffer as a result of this substantial reduction. The Irish Independent of May 19 last told us that this reduction would hit programmes. This has happened at a time when the Minister for Health and Social Welfare has indicated his intention to look after mine owners, the bankers and the stockbrokers. I am sure all these boys will be lining up at the health centres for free medical services. I wish the Minister luck. I suppose it is only right that he would look after these people since they are looking after him and his friends.

Another important matter is that of dual leadership of Government. At present we have two Taoiseachs in that since the last election we have had this look-over-your-shoulder attitude. We all know there can be only one boss. The formulation of a new party would probably solve that problem. Perhaps that is the main reason behind this idea. However, I understand that there are some members both of Fine Gael and Labour who have not been consulted about the possibility of this new party but no doubt they will do as they are told in due course. The look-over-your-shoulder attitude can be seen only in a comedy fashion. One cannot move without the other and neither does one trust the other. At any rate, I hope the problem will be solved so that we can have one leader and that we will know to whom we should speak.

Another remarkable feature of statements made by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare concerned old-age pensioners. Deputy Briscoe asked the Minister whether he would consider making a double payment to these people at Christmas. It was obvious that the Minister was very confused because he told the Deputy that the old-age pensioners had received a Christmas box from him in July last. The Minister is so mixed up that he does not know whether it is in July or at Christmas that Santa comes. In this instance it appears that he came in July. No doubt the old-age pensioners will be surprised to learn that their Christmas box reached them in July last.

Mr. Esmonde

Fianna Fáil are wondering whether Santa will ever come to them again.

Mr. Tunney

Perhaps he prefers to come now in July while the weather is warmer.

Mr. Dowling

Prior to the last election we heard much about the creation of a housing emergency. I will concede that the Government have created a housing emergency but not the type of one that they talked of then when they gave the impression that they would open the floodgates of finance, when they got into office, to ensure that more houses would be built than had been built at any time in the past. They have created a serious housing emergency in their first few months in office. Building societies closed down during that time and no loans were being sanctioned for the purchase of secondhand houses but the Minister has relented on that one. The emergency that the Coalition Parties were speaking of was the slowing down of building. If that was one of the aims of the Government they have achieved it in the way they have handled the building societies situation and also housing development. I hope that the target set by the Government of 25,000 houses per year will be reached. I am positive that next year that target will not be reached. For this year the starts had been made, and the planning completed, but during the next 12 months we will be able to see exactly how the Government measure up to their promise in this regard. We know that in relation to prices, taxation, jobs and gerrymandering they have shown their irresponsibility and lack of initiative. The "national flop", as I described the recent national loan, is a clear indication of the lack of public confidence in the Government.

The Government have also shown contempt for the Dublin City Commissioners. They made a decision in relation to the construction of a new central office for Dublin Corporation but the commissioners only learned of this through the newspapers. After 70 years of planning and consultation and after we had reached the stage that property had been acquired, plans prepared and development taken place the Government took a decision in relation to these offices. It would be interesting to know the reason for this decision. The city commissioners who were appointed by the Minister for Local Government first learned of this Government decision when work was about to commence. They were told that the work must be terminated. One can take it that the future situation was examined and that, with the pending large scale unemployment that probably will take place—already the kite has been flown by the Minister for Labour in relation to redundancies, pressures and unemployment —this scheme is a pipeline one for periods of unemployment. Public works schemes such as this would be ideal to relieve the tensions during a period of large scale unemployment which I feel is on the way.

If we were told the real reason for the Government decision in relation to this scheme we would have given sympathetic consideration to it. However, we were simply told by a letter from the Department of Local Government that this was not to proceed. Many people believe that this scheme is being retained to offset an unemployment situation that will arise in the building trade in the days ahead. This type of contempt for the city commissioners by the Government is something that makes most of us think. I hope that whoever is replying on behalf of the Taoiseach will give some indication of the reason for the Government decision in this regard.

The large scale redundancies which I have already mentioned, and the kites being flown by the Minister for Labour, are an indication of the pressures of the times. It is unfair that the citizens of this city should be inconvenienced by the termination of such a very necessary scheme. For too long the effectiveness of Dublin Corporation has been hampered by the fact that they had 27 different administrative buildings throughout the city. Because of this it is almost impossible to obtain information from the various departments. It does not appear that the question of money is involved in this because the corporation have made their own arrangements in that regard. The Government decision is viewed with suspicion by the commissioners and by responsible citizens of the city.

This office block is highly desirable and all parties have agreed on this fact. The Minister for Local Government gave financial consent in April this year but it is remarkable that six months later he terminates the whole scheme. A green light was given to the project in April but the red light was flashed in November.

References have been made, during the course of this debate, to the media takeover by members of the Government. There is no doubt that there has been a take-over of the media in many ways. These are visible. There is no politicians' programme transmitted by RTE now with the result that members of the Opposition do not have an opportunity of expressing their views or concern on television programmes. They do not have the opportunity, as they had previously, of engaging in discussions with Ministers in relation to development problems. This type of reluctance to make available the television or other sections of the media came about because of the fear of the Government that the truth would be projected. A Press release from the Government Information Services is generally printed in the form it is presented but because this is all that is printed the people are given a one-sided view of the matter.

No opportunity is given to the Opposition to state their views on projects. This is distasteful and it creates suspicion in the minds of responsible people. There has clearly been a take-over by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and his advisers in relation to political programmes. This is regrettable and when this has occurred such a short time after the Government took office I wonder what the situation will be in 18 months' time.

Concern has also been expressed about the bad image being created by Government Deputies and Senators who are members of the European Parliament. Their lack of unity created a bad image abroad as did their lack of discipline and understanding of Government policy. It is remarkable that some Members of this House and the Seanad were prepared to put the nation at risk. It has been suggested that when they voted they did not know; they should have known. It is their job to know what the discussion is about and how it affects this nation. The interests of the nation could have been disregarded in relation to important votes such as took place there and which were highlighted by the Press. Perhaps there was some limitation on a material supplied but it would be advisable if there were complete understanding in relation to matters such as we had in this division. There was lack of unity in the voting in the European Parliament a short while ago.

I was interested to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach about the business of this House and the number of Bills passed since last May. The Parliamentary Secretary said that they were the same in number as had been passed in the previous year by Fianna Fáil. He did not say that most of the Bills presented in this House were compiled by Fianna Fáil. Most of the Estimates also were prepared by Fianna Fáil. It was easy to present such material to the House.

The only Bill which was different was the Bill relating to the gerrymandering of the constituencies. This was the product of the present Government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach complained about the number of speakers from this side of the House. He regarded some of the time spent as time wasted. There were 16 speakers from the Opposition side and one from the Government side. That is what this business is all about. Parliament is there to ensure that we get a cross-section of opinion and that we can propose, speak on and present certain views. That is not time wasted in the House. Every Deputy is entitled to make a speech giving his point of view. The Parliamentary Secretary asked who can remember who spoke or what was said. In a few months' time a few people will remember what he said last night.

Certain aspects of the Parliamentary procedure can be modified and should be modernised in keeping with present day requirements. Some of the suggestions made were worth consideration. People must speak on Bills in the House and to indicate in any way that this is a waste of time and that Deputies should be deprived of an opportunity of so speaking is a further indication of the arrogance of the Government. Not alone have they blotted out the television on us, but they have presented their own view to the media with Government releases and now we are told we should not even speak in this House. This is serious. It brings home in no uncertain terms the necessity for caution. Deputies should be vehement in relation to their rights as parliamentarians or we will not have an opportunity of expressing ourselves here. This is the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach—a waste of time with no one remembering who spoke or what was said.

A serious situation is developing and before long we could have a Bill before us depriving us of certain opportunities to express ourselves. If it is the Government view that discussion here is a waste of time and that one speaker from the Opposition side is sufficient, some real thinking on this aspect must be done now. This could affect the democratic institutions which we have and deprive members of the Opposition of the freedom of speech. This is an important, fundamental and basic freedom. We cannot and will not give it away. Deputies who wish to give their opinion or the opinions of their constituents or any aspect are entitled to do so and will do so. We will show clearly our desire to maintain this basic freedom of speech. Certain freedoms have been taken away.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is largely responsible for taking away some freedom. Perhaps he is just the puppet on the string. I think he is the person responsible for some of the blackout we have witnessed in relation to political programmes.

It is desirable and necessary that the Estimates should be debated in full as has happened previously. On this occasion they were mainly compiled by the Fianna Fáil Government and afforded us little opportunity of being critical because they are part of our way of thinking. When the new Estimates come before the House I can assure Deputy Kelly that we will have substantial discussions on them. This will be necessary in relation to these Estimates. We see a very slack situation developing.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Dowling

I was dealing with the role of Deputies and was saying that any attempt to limit the freedom of speech or the length of their speeches in the House would not be tolerated in any circumstance. One Minister said recently when asked about the slogans which his party projected during the general election campaign that slogans and performance differ, that a slogan was an instrument to attract attention but the performance could be vastly different. We realise this is so when we remember the Coalition's promises about price stabilisation, about reducing taxation, about gerrymandering, about the appointment of pals, about the removal of death duties in regard to farmers. There were other promises but the people are well aware of the Government's performance in regard to them.

Not so long ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach spoke about trick-o'-the-loopery and he said there would be no more trick-o'-the-loopery now that they were in Government. That was as much as to say that they were trick-o'-the-loops when they were in Opposition, and that the trick-o'-the-loopery would be terminated. I am afraid, however, they must admit that they have carried the trick-o'-the-loopery into Government. Another Parliamentary Secretary spoke about irresponsibility. We can take that in connection with the recent statement about collective responsibility and in that context we can apply collective responsibility to the replies given to two different questions put down on 6th and 13th December last by Deputy Denis Gallagher.

On 6th December Deputy Gallagher asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he had any plans to provide electricity supply to Clare island and to Inishturk and Inishbofin islands, County Mayo. The Minister replied that substantial grants had been provided by the Land Commission to enable the inhabitants of Inishturk to travel to the mainland and that as the vast majority of the islanders were anxious to move the necessity to instal electricity on that island should not arise.

On 13th December the Minister for Lands told Deputy Gallagher that substantial grants were being provided for the islanders and that at present there are no proposals to transfer the islanders to the mainland. I wonder which this is. Is it a display of collective responsibility? Is it a trick-o'-the-loopery performance differing from the slogans? It certainly means that there was complete misleading of the House and the Deputy. Deputy Gallagher might have gone back to the islanders on 7th December and told them that substantial grants were being provided to enable them to go to the mainland. However, he was cautious. He knew the irresponsibility of the Cabinet member, so to safeguard himself he put down another question this week. I hope that when the Tánaiste is replying to the debate he will tell us why one of the Ministers mislead the House. After all, the Parliamentary Question is our one way of extracting necessary information concerning our constituents. With the only means available to us we get a confusion of ideas and totally opposed views. This type of answer to the question shows complete irresponsibility. We must be responsible. This is trick-o'-the-loopery and an attempt to mislead this House. It is a very serious matter when a Deputy is misled in this fashion. The question of collective responsibility has gone by the board. Deputy O'Leary felt that the slogan can differ from the performance. He will find out in a very real way how far he can go in the future.

Another problem which raised its head here was the attitude of Government Ministers towards trade union organisation. This is a very serious matter. Deputy Dr. O'Connell asked the Minister for Local Government if any measures of protection could be provided for people where trade unions do not act to ensure that they get the minimum rate. Deputy Tully stated that there were minimum rates laid down for many grades of workers but he was afraid that he could not see any way of protecting people who were not prepared to protect themselves by becoming members of a trade union. This implies that the trade union is a protection racket. As a trade unionist I deplore the type of attack which was made on trade unions by the Minister for Local Government. He implied that the trade union is a protection racket for workers and unless they join their rights will not be protected.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will please moderate his language. The expression "racket" as an appendage to the trade union movement is not in order.

Mr. Dowling

This was implied in Deputy Tully's reply. The trade union organisation is a responsible organisation. There are many people who are not members of trade unions, particularly the weaker sections of the community who need to be protected. It appears to be the policy of the Government to ensure that the weaker sections will not be protected unless they join the trade union and pay for it. This is a deplorable situation. The lower paid workers need to be protected. People who are not members of a trade union need to be protected. We should ensure that they are protected in one way or another. The Holidays Bill, which we passed recently ensures that non-union workers will get the same holidays as members of trade unions. It is wrong that the weaker sections, the lower paid workers and those who are not organised, should be deprived of protection. This is a serious reflection on the trade union organisation and one I did not expect to hear from a Labour Minister. It is on record. It is despicable. I hope that in due course the trade union organisation will deal with Deputy Tully in a positive way.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will refer to the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Dowling

At one stage I would have expected that attitude from the Fine Gael Party. The members of the Labour Party appear to be so entwined with the members of Fine Gael and conditioned by them that they now think along the same lines as the Fine Gael Party in relation to the weaker sections and lower paid workers.

It was stated in the Irish Independent of 23rd July that Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien picked up the phone——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. Dowling

——and protested to RTE about a certain comment which had been made during news time. Previously he had violently attacked Deputy Haughey for doing the same thing. The Minister seems to think that it is all right for him to do that because he is in power but, if somebody else does it, it is wrong. This is clearly double talk. We must keep a watching brief on this.

I should like to discuss the supply of fuel for the aged. As everybody knows, the weaker sections of the community have been getting fuel during the winter periods. I should like an assurance from the Government that the aged and the weaker sections of the community who have been in receipt of free fuel will not be affected by the fuel crisis, even though they do not pay for "protection" as has been implied by a Minister of the present Government.

Taxi drivers are concerned about cut-backs in petrol. They feel that their livelihood is at risk at the moment and during the coming months. A positive statement should be made about this problem. They feel that with the curtailment of petrol supplies to private motorists there will be an increased demand for taxis and public transport services. They are giving a very important service and this service should not be curtailed. If their supplies are limited this valuable service will be disrupted and mass unemployment may take place as a result of the Minister's failure to fully understand their problems.

I hope the Taoiseach will answer the many questions I raised in connection with the continuance of patronage as indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach who said that until such time as the scores were evened this practice would continue. I do not know what he meant by this. The Taoiseach might also answer the question in relation to the development of a new political unit and let us know the position to date. He should also tell us about price control, the broken promises and all the other matters that were raised. He might let us know about the stockbrokers, the bankers and the mine owners who will be able to avail of the health services that have been so generously granted by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare. When these people drive up in their Jaguars will the people who have to walk to the centres, the weaker section of the community, be deprived of the services? One Minister has stated that there are not enough dentists and doctors to operate existing services. When the free health service comes, will the Minister ensure that the weaker sections are protected adequately?

Deputy O'Malley dealt with the problem of patronage and he referred to a councillor who has been taken into one of the Departments.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will hear no reference to a personality outside of this House.

I put down a series of questions for answer some time ago asking the Taoiseach and Ministers the number of persons appointed to the different Departments from 13th March to date other than through the Civil Service Commissioners. The answer in relation to the Taoiseach's Department was nine; to Health, two —I will deal with those two in a moment—to Social Welfare, 16; to Defence, six; to Local Government, four; to the Public Service, 55; to Agriculture, 118; to Labour, three; to the Gaeltacht, nil.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Dowling

The answer to Lands was 13; to Foreign Affairs, two. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had so many that he could not say. He said it would take too long. I will deal with his reply later on. To Transport and Power the answer was one, Industry and Commerce, 16; Education, seven; and Justice 14. If the appointments were made at the same ratio within the same period as that in the question put down by Deputy G. Lynch, 20th March, 1957, to 13th March, 1973, the total number of jobs for the boys would be 8,512.

I read recently that the Taoiseach was getting traffic lights for Dún Laoghaire. Normally speaking, this matter would be dealt with by a member of a local authority. The fact that the Taoiseach had to go out of his way to get traffic lights to see where he was going in Dún Laoghaire is a reflection on Deputy Desmond and Deputy Dockrell, and it shows the need for having public representatives in action in that area. If they were carrying out their duty in that area they would be looking after this problem and the unfortunate Taoiseach would not have to go around checking on traffic lights in his constituency.

According to this newspaper report, apparently most of the work the Taoiseach does is in relation to traffic lights in that area. Week after week there are traffic problems in the area and no doubt it is a real anxiety for him if traffic lights are out of order or need to be installed at dangerous crossings. The public representatives should give the Taoiseach a hand to ensure that he does not have to deal with menial types of problems such as this. At the moment he has bigger problems to deal with and for this reason it is desirable that public representatives, and local representatives in particular, should avail of the opportunity of helping him. As I said earlier in relation to the appointments that have been made, if they are not in order and if they conflict in any way with any regulations. I should like to know if action will be taken to ensure that these positions are regularised. I am, as I said, very perturbed by the fact that a public representative has been appointed as an adviser to the Minister for Health.

Mr. B. Desmond

At the outset I should like to pay tribute to those who were engaged in the arduous negotiations in Sunningdale. This House and the Irish people, north and south, owe a debt of gratitude to those from Northern Ireland, from the Republic and to the British politicians who participated in these historic discussions. In the past two and a half years there has been a major change of attitude on the part of the British Prime Minister on the issues involved and particularly on the issues of participation by the Republic in such discussions. We will recall that on 19th August, 1971, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, sent a telegram to the then Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch, in which he said:

I cannot accept that anyone outside the United Kingdom can participate in meetings designed to promote the political development of any part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heath has changed from that view. He now accepts that we have a legitimate political right of direct involvement in such meetings. For that, we commend him. We pay tribute to Mr. Heath for having changed his mind and accepted the entitlement of the Government of the Republic to be in a co-consultative and in a co-determinant capacity in such developments on this island.

We must also pay tribute to Mr. Brian Faulkner. It has been said that Mr. Brian Faulkner is so fond of power that he has his legs curled around the legs of the conference table and, in order to get him away from that conference table, one would have to saw the legs off the table. Mr. Faulkner has proved now that he is not as intransigent or as impossible to negotiate with as many politicians in the Republic may have assumed. He has shown a flexibility and an appreciation and, if I may say so, without any sense of patronising a fellow Irishman, a sense of political maturity in sitting down with politicians from the Republic and the United Kingdom and negotiating an agreement of this nature. He, above all, as has been universally acknowledged, was in an almost impossible position in these negotiations. On that basis alone tribute has to be paid to him by this House.

To our own negotiators we, on both sides of this House, owe a debt of gratitude and congratulation for what they have achieved. I do not make that comment in any purely party political sense. I think a good deal of the outcome of Sunningdale resulted from the political developments in the Republic over the past two and a half years. On that, it must be said, in strict objectively, that a major contribution was made by the former Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch. He too, like Mr. Faulkner, was imprisoned in the partitionist corridors of the history of their parties. It is to the credit of Mr. Lynch that, notwithstanding internal political strife in his own party, notwithstanding the fact that his leadership was assailed on many occasions from within his own party, and notwithstanding the fact that there were standing on the sidelines men who presumed to be more republican than him, notably Mr. Colley and, again notably, those he dismissed, quite rightly at the time, who presumed to be supreme republicans—notwithstanding all these difficulties Mr. Lynch did carry his party——

An Ceann Comhairle

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy. I appreciate he intends no offence, but Standing Orders do ordain that Members of the House shall be referred to by the term "Deputy" and office holders by their appropriate titles.

Mr. B. Desmond

I apologise. Deputy Lynch did carry his party with him along a very difficult road towards reconciliation in Northern Ireland and towards peace in the whole of this island. I appreciate fully that it may be very difficult for Deputy Lynch, the Leader of the Opposition, to give an absolute welcome to the Sunningdale communiqué. Any Leader of any Opposition naturally tries to keep some options open in terms of future political developments. I appreciate that Deputy Lynch is faced with that difficulty. I appreciate that on his own front bench there are those who may be tempted to exploit the situation for narrow, party political advantage. Notwithstanding that, I would strongly appeal to the Fianna Fáil Party. On this occasion in Dáil Éireann we must put aside any personal advantage we might gain from the outcome of these talks. We must cast ruthlessly aside any party political advantage we might gain, or even be seen to be trying to gain, from the outcome of these talks, and we must, united in Dáil Éireann, perform one major exercise. We must unite on a very simple issue. We must support those in Northern Ireland who reached agreement at Sunningdale.

That may sound strange to some. The Irish Republic and the British Conservative Government were also parties to the communiqué. But there would have been no communiqué had not the diverse political interests in Northern Ireland united as best they could and gone ahead and formed an Executive with the agreement to form a Council of Ireland and with the clear intention of doing so. They are looking to us in the South and they are looking to Britain to support them now that they must face the people of Northern Ireland with the implementation of this agreement.

We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland and to the Unionist Party there who accommodated themselves to this situation. We owe it to the SDLP who have accommodated themselves to this situation and we owe it also to the Alliance Party and to the Northern Ireland Labour Party. We owe it to these political parties which joined together in the common cause of forming an Executive in Northern Ireland and a new political Administration in Northern Ireland. They did so on a unique power-sharing basis and any politician in Dáil Éireann from either side of the House who attempts to gain personal advantage from their decision can justly be accused of being a wrecker.

We in the Labour Party have, within the limitation of our influence in Government, contributed effectively in these discussions. I think it can be said that the Labour Party have established in Dáil Éireann a clear moral right to speak on this historic issue facing the nation and to recommend it fully to the Irish people, North and South. Yesterday there was a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party and we discussed at length the Sunningdale communiqué, and unanimously the Parliamentary Labour Party decided to endorse and fully support the communiqué. Yesterday afternoon there was a meeting of the administrative council of the Labour Party. I am a member of both bodies and at that meeting, which was well attended, we also agreed unanimously to fully support the Sunningdale communiqué. The Labour Party, therefore, is unequivocal and total in its support.

I know there are some, the so-called ultra-republicans of the country, who would regard the communiqué as being a sell-out or a surrender. I would make a point which has been made repeatedly in Irish history and was made, for example, when the Government of Ireland Act came in in 1949. The late Jim Larkin said to the Irish TUC in Belfast in 1949:

So embittered and bewildered has the whole problem become, so much have the slogans of "no surrender" or "unity by force if not by consent" become the daily catch cries of the fanatics on both sides, that the voice of reason, of understanding, is characterised as that of supine surrender.

Those who went to Sunningdale went with the voice of reason, with the voice of understanding, and there was no surrender on either side of the political divide; rather was there a decision to share power. The Labour Party in February, 1972, adopted a policy which advocated the creation of conditions in Northern Ireland, through structural reforms, which would guarantee the minority their right to participate in Government at all levels and which would ensure for the minority full equality of rights and treatment both in the public and private sectors. I submit to this House that that policy advocated by the Parliamentary Labour Party and the administrative council of the party is now being proposed for Northern Ireland.

I have no doubt that the implementation of the Sunningdale communiqué will pave the way for the full participation by elected representatives of the minority and the majority in Northern Ireland in a common loyalty one to the other irrespective of sectarian divisions. I have no doubt these new institutions will provide a democratic forum with which both communities can identify and to which both can give their own political loyalties.

My regret and my deep concern as an Irishman is that there are 900 people dead on this island for whom there has been no Sunningdale. In Dáil Éireann we must never forget that fact. There are many other Irishmen who contributed down through the years to the thinking about peaceful solution to the question of Northern Ireland, for whom there is also no Sunningdale. For example, Michael Sweetman, in the last pamphlet he wrote before he died, entitled The Common Name of Irishman, stated his ambition for Northern Ireland:

The reestablishment of some kind of self-Government in Northern Ireland is the kind of solution on which agreement is most likely to be reached between the two communities in Northern Ireland. It is the solution that will go closest to meeting the aspirations of each, since both communities are now seeking some form of self-determination.

He went on to say:

It is possible to construct a system would give Northern Ireland at least as great a degree of self-determination as it previously had by making a return to the old sectarian-type Government impossible. The use of PR would work against extreme polarisation on sectarian lines.

Those were the views of the late Michael Sweetman in one of his final pamphlets. As politicians in Dáil Éireann we now have devolved on us the responsibility of implementing the Sunningdale communiqué in the names of the people who because of political sectarian strife are no longer with us.

Time and again we in the Labour Party have said those who want a United Ireland in the real sense, in the sense not merely of territory but of people, must, by political and social conviction, win over a significant number of the Unionist Protestant population in Northern Ireland to a power-sharing situation. The Sunningdale communiqué has the hallmark of that effort and as such merits full support. The most revolutionary thing anybody could do in this country at the moment would be to give support for the communiqué itself. It is the most essential thing in any political activity.

As I said, I do not entirely share the deep republican traditions of the Fianna Fáil Party. I have always regarded their republican tradition as being perhaps too narrow. I favour a broader, more pluralistic republicanism, a more multi-denominational republicanism than that of the Fianna Fáil Party. However, I do appreciate the dilemma facing the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition in giving support to the Government in this debate. I think the Fianna Fáil Party should rise above party politics in Dáil Éireann; when we come back with the signed agreement after the conference in January-February for ratification in this House, I hope the Fianna Fáil Party will give that essential support to the Government, and that jointly the Opposition and Government will support this communiqué and the agreement to be ratified and will have it implemented in the best interest of the Irish people.

In Dáil Éireann both Opposition and Government have an obligation to explain the full implications of the communiqué to the Irish people, and they can do so by taking two or three basic political criteria by which we might pass judgment on the communiqué. The first essential of any solution in Northern Ireland, as we know only too well, is that it reassures both communities about their basic rights and that it gives both a sense of sharing jointly in the decision-making processes of administration. The Sunningdale communiqué lives up to that criterion. It does contain essential guarantees for the Northern minority that the reforms first mooted in 1968-69 will be carried out in full as well as assurances and guarantees that these reforms cannot be eroded or dropped in the future. The introduction of the SDLP and the Alliance Party to the Executive on a joint power sharing basis will cement that assurance to the minority.

A second criterion by which we should judge the Sunningdale communiqué is whether it provides a guaranteed role in Government for the minority, not just in committees, not just in the Senate of Northern Ireland and not just in the Northern Ireland House of Commons, as had originally been proposed, or by the inclusion in the Faulkner Cabinet of certain favoured individuals, as had originally been suggested by Mr. Faulkner. The Executive and the Council of Ireland taken jointly mean something far more than that: they mean a guaranteed role in Government for the minority. And so, the Sunningdale communiqué meets that requirement.

The other basic criterion of the Sunningdale communiqué is the guarantee and assurance that must be given in a situation like this to the Northern majority. There is a basic requirement in any such political setup for a guarantee that the Northern majority will not be handed over against their will to a State, a Government or a Republic which in its present form they regard as illiberal and excessively dominated by the Catholic Church. The Northern majority want that guarantee and they have got it in the Sunningdale communiqué. They also required, as an essential prerequisite for their support of the Sunningdale communiqué, a guarantee of peace and security, an aim which they share with the minority. The majority group in Northern Ireland saw the threat to their peace and security from a number of sources but most significantly from the Republic and the IRA itself. In the communiqué there is contained that particular guarantee.

These are the three criteria on which we must sell this proposed agreement to the electorate. I do not think it will be difficult to do so provided the politicians on both sides of the House resist the temptation to play politics with this communiqué. It is far more important than that. The criteria are first, assurances to both communities of essential basic rights; secondly the right to share in decision-making in Northern Ireland and a guaranteed role in Government; thirdly, there is the guarantee to both communities that their peace and security will be protected. All these are contained in the communiqué.

I appeal to Fianna Fáil and strongly urge them to join in the common name of Irishmen, in breaking the deadlock because we now have an historic opportunity for Deputies on both sides of the House to do so.

Unlike the Treaty debate when the House divided itself on a violent clash of personalities and on post-revolution tensions, we now have a situation in this House where very many Deputies such as myself never went through a civil war. Our parents were deeply involved, including my own father. We have an opportunity of looking at affairs much more dispassionately and objectively and in a more pluralistic Irish approach, North and South. We have an opportunity of breaking the deadlock in Northern Ireland and it would be tragic, even disastrous, for the future development of the Republic if we were to come back from London or Sunningdale again in January or February and find this House divided on the ratification of the agreement. It would be a repetition of past divisive debates in Dáil Éireann which could provoke a situation of extreme tension.

Therefore I am heartened and pleased to share in the sense of support given by the Leader of the Opposition to this communiqué. It is understandable that he should be reticent, that he could be reluctant and that he should have what one would call opposition reservations. This is the normal by-play of Government and Opposition. We understand this and we understand the position of Deputy Lynch within his own party. But we seek from his party, from the backbenchers behind him, but more particularly from the front-benchers, a unity of purpose in supporting this communiqué. I want to assure the Fianna Fáil Party that so far as I am concerned as a Labour Party Whip with any influence at Government level there will be no attempt on our part to claim kudos for any of the future developments relating to the ratification of the proposed agreement.

The communiqué is now the property of the Irish people, not the property of the National Coalition Government, nor of the Fine Gael Party nor of the Labour Party. It is the property of all of the people of the country, North and South. It is more especially the special historic legacy of the people of Northern Ireland. We, in the South, must give every possible support to those politicians in Northern Ireland who have sought our support for this communiqué.

The SDLP have come to Leinster House after Sunningdale explaining their position and seeking support for the communiqué. The Unionist Party in Sunningdale sought and got support and got the signature of the leader of the Irish Government delegation. That support has been willingly given. I want to utter a warning that any attempt by any Fine Gael, Labour or Fianna Fáil Deputy to exploit this communiqué for his own constituency advantage or for his own party political advantage will reap a terrible harvest in the years ahead.

Because we advocate the support of this communiqué is not in any way to bend the knee to Britain or to those extreme elements in Northern Ireland, on either side, who would want to tear this communiqué apart. The minority leaders of Northern Ireland are now co-partners in Government in Northern Ireland in the best Coalition sense, with due respect to Fianna Fáil's strictures on coalition—men such as John Hume, Gerry Fitt and Austin Curry could never be accused of bending the knee to Britain or to the more extreme and perverse elements in Northern Ireland who have opposed power sharing. They signed that communiqué fully aware that they would be accused of a sell-out and of bending the knee to Britain and to Ted Heath in particular. I am convinced that the Council of Ireland will clearly act as a major institutional link between Northern Ireland and the Republic without raising obscure and very difficult constitutional obstacles. I appeal in particular to the man who will wind up the debate for the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy George Colley, for his support. On the 7th April, 1973, Deputy Colley spoke in Barley Cove, where Fianna Fáil people are wont to speak, at a Comh-Chomhairle Corcaigh seminar. I quote from The Sunday Press of April 8th, 1973:

He said we could have a council representative of the Government in Dublin and the administration in Belfast, corresponding to the EEC Council of Ministers.

I put it to Deputy Colley that we have achieved that at Sunningdale and that we should not clap about future negotiations which will take place in the months ahead. He also said on that occasion that:

We could have a regular meeting body, consisting of representatives of the Dáil and Seanad on the one hand and of the Northern Assembly on the other—corresponding to the European Parliament.

I put it to Deputy Colley that what we have got is virtually what he suggested in Barley Cove in April last. Admittedly the Seanad is excluded from the Consultative Assembly. Deputy Colley would like to see the Seanad included but the negotiators at Sunningdale by and large came back with the kind of consultative assembly which he wished to see in operation in April 1973. He also said on that occasion that:

In that way, elected representatives North and South could get to know one another, reach working understandings, monitor and, if necessary, stimulate the work of the Council of Ireland.

This is precisely what we propose to do in the years ahead.

It is interesting to note that Deputy Colley on that occasion adverted to constitutional changes which have not been an issue at Sunningdale. Mr. Faulkner would dearly have wished to have made such an issue. I gather that the matter was disposed of quite early in the negotiations and there is no question of any constitutional changes being prerequisites to the signing of the communiqué. The constitutional position is not now in question. Deputy Colley said on that occasion:

That concept of a Council of Ireland would involve legislative and possibly Constitutional changes in the South but that should not be an insuperable obstacle.

Therefore, it ill becomes anyone in the Fianna Fáil Party who may be tempted to raise excessively constitutional implications which were not conceded at Sunningdale.

I would submit that this proposed settlement—I would not yet call it a final settlement; step towards a settlement which we are now slowly arriving at on a tripartite basis—will offer scope to the aspirations of both communities while they will, in many respects still remain opposed. It will encourage them to work together to the common benefit of all Irish people without resolving the issues definitively in favour of any of them at this stage.

We have on the Government side, clearly put forward a proposed settlement. The Taoiseach said in London on 2nd July, 1973:

I have in mind a settlement which would defer a decision between two positions which now seem irreconcilable in order to better promote the more limited aim of reconciliation between those who hold them.

He concluded by saying:

What I do say is that Northern Ireland's greatest need now is political structures and institutions which will promote reconciliation.

I submit that the negotiators, to their eternal credit, have effectively implemented that aspiration of the Irish people. While it is true that not much grass has yet begun to grow on the battlefield of Northern Ireland, it can be said that the Sunningdale communiqué has at least succeeded in planting a few crocuses around the edges of that battlefield. The responsibility of the politicians in Dáil Éireann is to give those crocuses an opportunity to grow and develop. Let us be acutely aware that there was no Sunningdale for the 900 persons who died in Northern Ireland, most of whom were murdered. There was no Sunningdale for the thousands of people who have been maimed, disfigured and mutilated for life. There is no Sunningdale for the young orphans of Northern Ireland. There certainly has not been any Sunningdale for the hooded murders and for the bombed-out workers. For them at least we have the obligation of ensuring that this communiqué gets an opportunity of working. I reject the cynical masquerade of the extremists who are trying to raise the hare of internment once again. I wonder did the Provisional IRA give a damn about the Irishmen who were interned and detained in Long Kesh when they hopped into their helicopter and military jet to go over and parley with Mr. Whitelaw. Of course that perverse effort proved unproductive. Internment then was no bar to their vision of the new IRA Ireland. They were prepared to use those interned for their own political cannon fodder. Therefore, we in this House have a particular obligation. First, we have the obligation of uniting ourselves on both sides in favour of this proposed agreement. I reiterate my plea to Fianna Fáil not to put themselves on the hook of history in relation to Sunningdale. I congratulate Deputy Lynch on his having avoided that trap. I congratulate him also on holding the situation within Fianna Fáil during the past couple of years. That has been an extremely difficult exercise. Fianna Fáil know, in relation to Sunningdale, in relation to the now overwhelming national desire that majority rule on this island is no longer the sacrosanct criteria, that it must be national consensus north and south, that majority rule north and majority rule south is no longer the sole motivating force in Irish political life but rather that there must be a power sharing approach. Therefore, we should bring a sense of sharing into Dáil Éireann also in respect of this historic endeavour.

I appeal to Deputy Lynch and, in particular, to Deputy Colley who is winding up this debate for Fianna Fáil, to resist the temptation to provoke in any way in this House the putting of Deputy against Deputy in relation to the communiqué. To do so would be disastrous for the future. I know that the favourite intellectual exercise of many Deputies is to indulge in the semantics of the interpretation of the Irish Constitution. This is an exercise that is a luxury for tired politicians but it is not an exercise which the widow of a murdered husband in Belfast will particularly appreciate. All the debate about the Constitution pales into insignificance when one remembers that the life of one child in Northern Ireland is perhaps much more important. We should not indulge in any way in the temptation to split political hairs on a constitutional basis when that Constitution is not a basic issue within the communiqué and when it has not been up for grabs at Sunningdale as many people on the extreme fringe would be tempted to insinuate. Therefore, we can go forward united in Dáil Éireann on a democratic basis. As Fianna Fáil have been committed to the democratic methods of this Parliament I would urge them to join with the Government in common support of this communiqué.

I have spoken exclusively on the package and I would conclude on this note: we, as politicians, have been burning the midnight oil in recent months in our efforts. A major contribution was made by Deputy Lynch in holding back the perverse elements of his party and in modernising and making more rational the Fianna Fáil approach to the intensity of the situation in Northern Ireland. We, on this side, have provided stable, strong and coherent Government. At Sunningdale we provided a united delegation. That was a major achievement and one which this time last year I would not have regarded as being possible. The Coalition Government have been a success but it is important that we should not allow this success to go to our heads. There is a great deal of work to be done in the field of major social, legislative and economic reform in Dáil Éireann during the next 12 months. Maybe within the next 12 or 18 months the all-party committee on Irish relations may also have reported and by then Dáil Éireann will have an opportunity of hearing from that committee of a general consensus on any constitutional amendments which may be deemed necessary in the national interest.

The churches, too, in Northern Ireland have an obligation to work. There are many aspects of Northern Ireland, whether in education, in social relations, or in ecumenical relations north and south, where the the churches could have done a lot more during the past four or five years. They could now take a lesson from the politicians and make their contribution also in a more constructive way. I should like to see many more joint communiqués being issued from the churches in Northern Ireland in such fields as education, marital relations, adoption and on such issues as contraception and divorce. Time does not permit me to elaborate on these issues now. I understand that Deputy Lalor and the Attorney General wish to speak; therefore I shall conclude. But before sitting down I make a final appeal to Fianna Fáil to join with us in mutual support for the Sunningdale communiqué and in a mutual determination that both Government and Opposition in the Republic will support fully those in Northern Ireland, on both sides of the divide, who signed this communiqué. That is the least we in the Republic might do as a tribute to them for the tremendous work they have done in bringing about peace, reconciliation and justice on this island.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy Desmond, in what I considered to be a curtailed and restricted contribution, indicated that he wanted to give an opportunity both to the Attorney General and to me to speak before 3.15 p.m. I will endeavour to accommodate the Government from this point of view. However, from listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach this morning I got the impression that he was engaged on behalf of the Government in trying to fill in a lot of hours. Certainly, I did not get the impression that the Government were anxious for time at this stage. By being restricted to less than one and a quarter hours I shall not be able to cover the amount of ground that I had intended covering.

I feel I should make reference to the Sunningdale agreement if only to clear up the ambiguity that every Government speaker endeavoured to create in relation to this matter in their contributions. It is remarkable that in two distinct parties—when one speaks of two distinct parties in this regard one must envisage that there are different shades of view—this is fully accepted.

The Taoiseach, in his opening remarks, the few remarks he made in relation to Sunningdale, tried to create the impression in this House, and in the Press, that he was speaking on behalf of the National Coalition, but the leader of my party, Deputy Lynch, who speaks on my behalf and on behalf of the party of which I am a member, was questioned about his views. There were raised eyebrows as to whether he had the full backing of his party in this regard. Deputy Desmond, in his contribution, raised the hares, raised the doubts, raised the question marks, and expressed the hope that Deputy Colley, in replying, on behalf of our party, will confirm that he believes and agrees with what Deputy Lynch has said. This sort of red herring arrangement was contributed to and spoken of by every spokesman on the Government side, particularly by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who is responsible for the dissemination of information, though this seems questionable arising from the contribution of the Taoiseach.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs went out of his way to give us far more information than the Taoiseach. In his own way this was an admission, through the Taoiseach, that he did not give us a sufficiency of information or was establishing a fact that with the Taoiseach in Copenhagen, he, the self-appointed Tánaiste, decides to give more. It is possible that this Minister argued at the Government meeting when the Taoiseach was preparing his statement that the Taoiseach should say more than the five pages contained in the original draft. It is remarkable that there should be such dissection of what Deputy Lynch has said by comparison with the contribution and the blanket statement made by the Taoiseach in this regard.

There is no doubt that what my party wants is a Council of Ireland that works, a Council of Ireland with teeth, a Council of Ireland with responsibility. The questions asked by the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party were with a view to eliciting this information and with a view to ensuring that the present Irish Government have not compromised our position.

One of the reasons why I will deliberately avoid using up the time available to me between now and 3.15 p.m. is to enable the Attorney General to make his contribution. I hope the Attorney General will give to the House some more of the details which the Taoiseach, for one reason or another, refused to give when introducing his Estimate. This House, and the people of the country, are entitled to this explanation. We were left uninformed and ill-informed in relation to this aspect. One thing on which I agree with Deputy Blaney in relation to his contribution yesterday is the fact that Deputies of this House and Members of the Seanad were left officially uninformed about the actual content of the communiqué until after the Taoiseach introduced his Estimate on Wednesday.

There was nothing in the Taoiseach's introductory speech which endeavoured to elaborate on this communiqué except to say that the communiqué was self explanatory. He also stated that he was making arrangements to lay this communiqué before the House. The Taoiseach went on to pay a tribute to the Government Information Services. By saying that he was laying this document before the House in order to have it circulated to the Members of the Oireachtas was an indication and a confession of the failure of the Government Information Services in relation to this.

As the Whip of Fianna Fáil I find it necessary almost daily to make contact with the Government Information Services. The Taoiseach spoke of what had been achieved in regard to this service and about this open information situation which the present Government had promised. I do not know what way to interpret that.

During our term of office one of the criticisms made of us was that we made too much use of chamber of commerce dinners, and Fianna Fáil Cumann dinners, and that we seemed to dodge taking the opportunities we had in Dáil Éireann to make serious and important announcements. As Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party, and in order to keep my fellow front-benchers and the members of my party informed, I went through the papers daily and found that very important policy statements were being made at every sort of dog fight by Ministers of the present Government.

In an effort to keep my colleagues and myself informed I contacted the Government Information Services to see if it was possible for the biggest political party in this country to get at least the same service as the Press. I sought this information for the 68 Deputies who are members of my party, a figure which is slightly less than half of the total complement of the Dáil. I asked the Government Information Services if they would do us the honour of letting us have the benefit of two copies of the speeches of the various Ministers, one to be retained in the Whip's Office and the other to be given to the counterpart of the Minister making the speech. In fairness to the Government Information Services they promised to do their utmost in this regard. Quite frankly, they have been endeavouring to do this although very often I only receive one copy. The situation is that invariably this copy comes to me at some stage after it has been issued to the Press.

The public must be kept fully informed through the Press. When I was a Minister speeches being made by a Minister on a Thursday night at 8 p.m. were released to the Press three or four hours beforehand on the condition that they would not be used before the Minister actually made the speech. This was done so that the speeches could catch the papers the following day. The present Government do not normally have their speeches published before they make them. Many vital speeches are made on Friday nights. These speeches have been prepared during the week. This House is closed on Saturday, and it is Monday next before the spokesmen for the Opposition get copies of the speeches. If they are interested they will have read them in Saturdays papers.

I do not expect Fianna Fáil Members to get preferential treatment but they should be recognised as a large political party. The Government have developed the habit of treating the Opposition with contempt and they should not be allowed to continue doing so. I sought a copy of the communiqué from the Government Information Services last Monday. On Tuesday evening I got one single copy of that communiqué. I was told that the Government Information Services had not circulated it in the first instance. The 68 Fianna Fáil Deputies did not get copies of the communiqué until Wednesday evening, while the Press had copies on Sunday night. In view of the unusual circumstances surrounding this all important occasion, copies of the communiqué should have been circulated on Sunday night. The Government Information Services should have made some arrangements in this regard. Deputies should have been able to speak on Monday last, quoting passages of the communiqué.

The Leader of the Opposition, who had prepared the ground for the creation of the Council of Ireland, appeared on a special edition of "7 Days" on Monday night. He had to talk about the communiqué without even having seen a copy of it. He had to confess on both radio and television that he was depending on the newspaper accounts. Deputy J. Lych said he had no reason to believe that the Press publication was in any way incorrect. I saw a smug Minister for Finance on the "7 Days" programme saying to Deputy J. Lynch: "Don't you know so far as paragraph 5 is concerned the statements of our Government and the statements of the British Government stood parallel in the official communiqué?" Deputy J. Lynch did not know because he had no way of knowing. This was a rather remarkable situation. There was a bipartisan approach to this whole situation previously. Deputy Desmond mentioned it today. It is a pity the Leader of the Opposition should have been treated with such contempt by the Government.

There is no ambiguity about the views of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to the Council of Ireland. We want to see it working. We have our worries in relation to some of the paragraphs and they have been spelt out by Deputy J. Lynch. The Attorney General and the Tánaiste will speak later. I hope that either or both of them will endeavour to clear some of the doubts arising from the noncommittal approach of the Taoiseach, which were added to by the contribution of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on whose speech I do not wish to comment.

As Members are aware, I was Minister for Industry and Commerce in the last Government. One of the principal reasons why we are not in Government now is the success of the Fine Gael and Labour propaganda about my failure to prevent price increases. We have an opportunity now in this House to see whether the present Minister for Industry and Commerce will speak in this debate and give some account of how he has failed to fulfil the false promises of himself and his colleagues. These promises contributed to a great extent to bringing them into power.

It seems remarkable that this very day the Central Statistics Office report shows that in the cost of living index there has been an increase from 152.6 to 156.9 between mid-August and mid-November. Then we had that beautiful statement from that genius —I am talking in press terms; in fairness, he never claimed to be a genius himself—indicating that the cost of living had been got under control. He said publicly that there had been a slowing down and indicated that food prices had dropped by one per cent. Then he came to this House and said that the situation had been corrected and we had the Taoiseach corroborating it in a statement outside the House when Members of the House had no opportunity to question it. I wish to object strongly to that procedure.

Early in July Deputy Lemass and I had questions to the Minister for Industry and Commerce about the car assembly industry and about the fears expressed in regard to redundancies. Deputy Keating three weeks earlier had said—he was not in the House and the reply was given on his behalf by the Minister for Education—that any redundancies in the car industry would be the responsibility of the previous Minister. This was a re-echo of the National Coalition candidates' statement in the general election campaign. They had told the people that when the intelligentsia, the geniuses came into power there would be no further increases in prices.

This time last year I stood in this House to explain that price increases were caused by world inflation and consequent increases in the prices of imported raw materials and that there was no action I or the Minister for Finance could take to prevent these increases.

Of course, Deputy Keating had a secret formula. This day last year he stood here—he, Deputy Tully and Deputy O'Leary as well as Deputy Peter Barry and Deputy Donegan, of course—and said they could not see any reason why I should not be able to keep down prices in general and food prices in particular. The debate was curtailed and in deference to a request I did not go into detail. Now, standing on this side of the House, I welcome the opportunity of asking the Government how they can justify the increases in prices. Of course, Deputy Keating, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is not here. Prices are the concern of the entire nation and would one have thought that before this Adjournment debate opened Deputy Keating would have been allowed to present his Estimate and to have it debated. Of course, that did not happen. One would have thought that he would at least have put his head into the Chamber during the Adjournment debate, he of all Ministers, but the genius has not appeared. There was also the Monaghan by-election and, of course, it would not have been good for the Coalition candidate if Deputy Keating's Estimate had been introduced and debated in the House before it.

We warned the people last February about the probability of a repetition of the disaster that occurred from 1954 to 1957 when we had the last Coalition Government. I have contested successive elections since then. Of course, the children in those years have grown up and have forgotten the disastrous record of the last Coalition. In the last nine months they have got a rude awakening.

There is now the added difficulty of wondering what the Government intend to do about the fuel supply situation. In view particularly of the statement made by the Minister for Transport and Power on the radio the other day, I am afraid for this country. I am afraid of what will happen in 1974 and 1975, if the country survives so long. Deputy Peter Barry went on radio on Monday night. He said he is having reports on the situation each week in regard to oil supplies. Obviously, such a report had been telephoned to him in Cork and he called a Press conference. At that stage it had been agreed to have a debate on the oil crisis in this House on Tuesday last, to provide an opportunity of telling the House what the fuel and oil position was. True to type and true to example being given by every front bencher here, he made sure that the Government Information Services fed the information to the Press before the elected representatives were informed. He called a special Press conference for Monday in Cork. This conference was held. Deputy Barry, Minister for Transport and Power, made his statement. I do not like to use the phrase "no problem" because it is hackneyed, but the general information conveyed in the Press on Tuesday morning last as a result of the Press conference was that there was no great need to worry; the people were doing what he was asking them to do, there was conservation of supplies and things were working out reasonably well. We were shattered by the information conveyed by the Minister and his colleague who came into the House on Tuesday last to tell us that not only was there nothing the Minister could do about controlling prices but the Minister threatened that things would get worse before they improved.

The number of price ceilings which the Minister for Industry and Commerce fixed for this year and raised subsequently has been alarming and must be extremely embarrassing for him. It is because of that embarrassment that he shies from the opportunity of coming into this House and giving an account of his stewardship. I particularly drew attention to this because he said he was welcoming an early opportunity to give the Deputy who was asking the question—the former Minister for Industry and Commerce—his answer. He also said that he was arranging to have his Estimate introduced in this House. On more than one occasion I asked him when he was bringing it in. I also felt that the Estimate for the Department of Justice should be introduced. But no. The Fianna Fáil Government, with token assistance from the present major Government party, had secured our entry into Europe.

The farmers were doing extremely well, and, therefore, the agricultural Estimate could be introduced. Estimates which constituted no problem from the Government point of view were introduced. Unfulfilled promises which could not be dealt with were not mentioned.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated early in July that he would show up the former Minister for his failures. Why did he not avail of the opportunity to come into the House and present his Estimate? Arising from this challenge the Minister will probably make use of the Government Information Services during the recess. I will not have the opportunity of replying or dealing with misrepresentations made by him because the House will not be sitting. I do not propose to listen to the veiled hints of what he is going to do and not having the backbone to do it. I warn him that I will not tolerate this shilly-shallying any longer.

The Minister takes the opportunity, as Minister should, of speaking at dinners attended by important business people. He drew attention to the progress made by this country since the change of Government. I read a report of the tremendous increases we have had in industrial exports in that period. I compared that statement with the statement contained in the annual report of Coras Tráchtála and they corresponded. The Government, through the Minister for Industry and Commerce, claimed full credit for the large increase in exports which had been built up by CTT, with the full backing of the former Government and the then Minister for Industry and Commerce. This is degrading and disgraceful conduct on the part of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The aim of CTT at that time had been to exploit and explore every opportunity presented to it by our entry into Europe. Our exports increased by 20 per cent in 1972. This is important because somebody could say: "There were great price increases in cattle. Naturally our export figures showed this increase." The exports of manufactured goods showed a very big increase from £220 million in 1971 to £282 million in 1972, that is, an increase of £62 million. The Minister used these figures to prove the advances which have been made by the Coalition Government since they came into power.

On 14th December, 1972, the present Minister for Labour, Deputy M. O'Leary, spoke very sarcastically about the export efforts of the then Minister for Industry and Commerce. He was jeering jealously about the amount of travelling which I, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, indulged in. At column 1605, Volume 264, of the Official Report, he said:

I would almost congratulate him in that connection for the energy he has displayed for seeing distant places and talking, through interpreters, to get people to come to the Emerald Isle to set up industries in different parts of the country.

That was very smallminded of him, as I said in my reply. The previous year Deputy Donegan the then spokesman on Industry and Commerce for Fine Gael had criticised me for not travelling enough. Overseas travel does not attract me. The personnel in the Department of Industry and Commerce, CTT and the IDA must, if asked, say that the then Minister for Industry and Commerce was anxious to make sure that every minute of his time could be used for the benefit of the country. It is remarkable that I should have been attacked by Deputy O'Leary at that time. In the three years I was Minister I was in Sweden, Japan and North America as well as on promotional trips to Europe. It took me three years to complete that kind of circuit. I am not criticising the present Minister for the trips he has made abroad because I know there is work to be done there but in eight months he has been to all the places I have visited. Yet, when I made the trips his colleague, the Minister for Labour, said I was globetrotting.

Some three or four weeks after the Minister for Industry and Commerce returned from Canada, where he had been on industrial promotion, the Minister for Labour trotted off to the same country also on industrial promotion. This was despite the fact that the IDA had just reported on a wonderful year with regard to industry when they had exceeded their targets. They did a wonderful job and I want to pay tribute to the personnel in that organisation.

It struck me that the Minister for Industry and Commerce went to Japan, Sweden, Canada and the United States to see what Lalor had done. Strangely enough, as far as I could see, he came back with the same industries I had the year previously. However, we have not seen any more of that.

In fairness I must admit that negotiations are opened up as a result of Ministers' visits and they are extremely beneficial to the dedicated people working overseas on behalf of the IDA and CTT. I should like to take the opportunity of stating in this House that the country could not have better ambassadors of goodwill, quite apart from the trade aspect, than the personnel on both those State-sponsored bodies. It might be said that when a Minister visits a foreign country the personnel with whom he is working may work very long hours, thus proving to him that they are dedicated people. I do not buy that particular line but I am very impressed when I meet the American, the Japanese or the Swede who calls me aside and pays tribute to the representatives from Ireland with whom he is doing business. I presume I may mention names when it is not derogatory—may I mention the director-general of the CTT——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair would prefer that neither praise nor blame be given.

Mr. Lalor

These people have worked for the Department of Industry and Commerce. I think Mr. Killeen and Mr. Garvey of the two organisations I have mentioned should be praised because when I was Minister for Industry and Commerce they were attacked in this House. I want to pay tribute to the work they and their colleagues have done. In any organisation there may be people who do not pull their weight but I did not find them. From the point of view of attracting overseas industry with which the IDA are concerned, and the developing of overseas trade, which is the province of CTT, we have first-class people.

One criticism I heard when I was Minister was that an Irishman at home wishing to get a project off the ground may not get the same kind of co-operation as the person from overseas. The reason may be that when the Irishman is making an application he objects to the standard basic investigation the IDA have to carry out. The foreigner takes this for granted and does not get annoyed about it. He realises that before the IDA give a grant they must be satisfied about the project.

In that debate last year the present Minister for Transport and Power was very critical of the steps I had taken —or not taken as he put it—in relation to doing something concrete about car insurance. He told me that I should recognise it was a matter of urgency to see that car insurance was put on an equitable basis so that people would not feel they were being asked to pay excessive amounts. It is now 12 months later. At that stage I had just received the report of the insurance commission and I was examining it with a view to taking positive action. The present Minister has had the report for all that time, but what did he do? He extracted a line where it was suggested in an aside that it might be no harm to set up another commission to look into another aspect of the problem but nothing has been done. We have been promised a speedy report although we have not been told when it will be issued. If I were to go through all the contributions on that Estimate criticising me for lack of positive action with regard to car insurance, I could keep this debate going all day.

With regard to the Department of Industry and Commerce, the new Government via its genius, Deputy Justin Keating, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, have done nothing. We know that the only member of the Government who has done anything has been Deputy Tully with his National Coalition consolidation Bill. We had promises of legislation dealing with mergers, of action in connection with car insurance, with car assembly work and promises about negotiations with regard to leases for Tara Mines. There has been absolutely no output from the Department of Industry and Commerce. There has been just utter failure by this genius of a Minister who took up office on 14th March. Nothing has come except increases in prices and failure to fulfil the commitments of the previous Government. This is the man the entire country looked forward to, as the person who could produce a secret formula to pull the country back from the depths into which Deputy Lalor had plunged it. The Minister will say the situation had gone so far there was nothing he could do about it. He had a report on car insurance but nothing was done. We were told there were two different ways of giving a lease to Tara Mines but again nothing has happened. There has been no improvement so far as the car assembly industry is concerned. We have had improved exports, but this had happened up to 31st March last.

Here is a man who was projected as a genius. I do not know how somebody could be projected as a genius and then produce absolutely nothing. He has been labouring for nine months and has produced nothing but increased prices. There is no slowing down in the increase in the cost of living. No matter how The Irish Times interprets the position today, despite the removal of VAT from food, which was to resolve all the problems, we have had an increase of 2.8 per cent in food prices. The statistics cannot hide the facts. Just because the price of potatoes and tomatoes had dropped coming up to the mid-August index review the Minister announced: “Now I have it in check. Now we have stopped it. We have slowed down this increase which was taking place under Fianna Fáil. It is slowing gradually. It will be dead shortly.” Instead, we are on the uptrend again.

The Minister who knew this statement was being issued today made no effort to get in on this debate. Why? There is a deliberate attempt, quite clearly to be seen, planned by the Government, to keep the minds of the people off the economic situation, to keep their minds off their bread and butter. During this 2½ days debate, they have been trying to throw clouds of suspicion on Jack Lynch and the Fianna Fáil Party. This is the dodge. This is the smokescreen. They are trying to hide the price increases. I was most anxious to make a contribution to this debate and call on the Minister for Industry and Commerce to do something to prevent the country from plunging into a state of economic disaster. Nothing is being done.

Deputy Desmond spoke immediately before me. I listened to him for years bemoaning the position of certain sections of the community and criticising Ministers for failure under one heading or another. The impression he created was: "If we could only get this shower out, this Fianna Fáil crowd out, everything would be all right." There is a scribe in this country who says that Fianna Fáil do not realise they are out of office. The extraordinary thing about that scribe is that he seems to have forgotten that the National Coalition are in Government because he is still banging away at the former Government and blaming us, like the Minister for Industry and Commerce, for what is going on now, aided and abetted by the Government Information Services which the Taoiseach praised. They are helping to create the smokescreen which the Government are generating to keep the people from learning the facts. I have endeavoured to outline some of the facts. I would be happy to continue doing so but my colleague Deputy Colley will be getting in at 3.15 p.m.

I join with the Leader of our party in asking for more elucidation on the Sunningdale agreement. The Attorney General is seeking to get in. He is a legal man and, perhaps, it is his intention to give us more information. The agreement and the Council of Ireland are of such importance that I do not think I should speak for the next 20 minutes—although I am tempted to having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach who went on with a lot of messing—if the Attorney General has an important contribution to make.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce may claim that he did not have an opportunity to speak in this debate, but that was of his own design. He had the opportunity to come in here and try to cover up his failures, to back up the allegations he made, and give me an opportunity of challenging him on them. He gave veiled hints and he told the trade unionists that the former Minister had let them down. They went to the Press yelling about the way the former Minister had let them down but no reference was made to the way in which I was alleged to have done that.

I hope the Attorney General will endeavour to clear up some points for us. He should not try to take on his capable shoulders the problem of trying to defend the incapable Minister for Industry and Commerce. I hope he will give us some of the explanations my leader and a number of other Fianna Fáil people want.

The Attorney General (Mr. Costello)

I should like to intervene in this debate briefly to say a few words about the Sunningdale conference. I want at the outset to pay a tribute to those who worked with us at Sunningdale to reach the agreement which was signed on Sunday evening last. I want to pay tribute to the members of the Official Unionist Party, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and representatives of the British Government for the way in which they approached the task we were jointly undertaking.

The agreement which we are discussing was reached only because the participants at the conference met in a spirit of mutual respect. They brought to their deliberations goodwill and understanding. They manifestly shared a common concern to create institutions which would restore peace in Northern Ireland. They manifestly shared a common belief in the immorality of violence. When the delegates at the Sunningdale conference discussed the serious, intricate and tragic problems confronting the conference, they did so fully accepting that those at the conference had different basic political aspirations, but recognising that, notwithstanding this fact, it was possible for men of goodwill to reach agreement and to achieve practical results. They realised that such agreement was not only necessary but possible, notwithstanding the differences which were mutually acknowledged.

What has been done at Sunningdale was to help the creation of foundations for two political institutions, the Executive in Northern Ireland and the Council of Ireland. Those foundations have been built and it will be the task of all of us in the immediate months ahead to build stable structures on those foundations.

A point I think must be stressed during this debate is that it will require the same courage, the same skill, the same restraint, the same understanding shown by the delegates in the discussions in Belfast prior to the agreement to establish the Executive in Northern Ireland and which was shown also by the delegates at Sunningdale, to create the sort of political structures which have yet to be built. Anybody who reflects on the present situation must realise that, when we approach this task of building these new political institutions, we must at the same time rid ourselves of past obsessions. We must cease to be transfixed by symbols. We must realise that for too long have people being living their lives by, and the lives of others have been lost, because of, obeisance to empty formulas and long dead symbols. And so, when the Government, the Opposition and the Members of this House come to discuss in the weeks and months ahead the progress it is hoped will be made in the institutions which are to be created our discussion must be on a realistic basis.

I would add my voice to those who have already suggested that we, in this part of the country, must show the same realism as was shown by Mr. Faulkner and his colleagues and by Mr. Fitt and his colleagues. For us, that realism should be this: the IRA's campaign has not only brought death and destruction but it has also brought in hideous form the retaliation that was bound to come about. It has produced and it has exacerbated deep divisions in the Northern Ireland community. It has inflicted running sores. There is only one way in which to heal those divisions and those wounds and that is by the creation of acceptable political institutions. That is what the partners in the new coalition in the North have been trying to do and that is what we, in partnership with them in the Council of Ireland, must tend to do.

I do not think we need be prophets to know that the Council of Ireland when it is established will not have all the powers that we in this House would like it to have. It requires no great powers of prognostication for us to be able to foresee a Council of Ireland which does not have the powers and the structures we would deem most appropriate. What we must realise in this part of the country is that, if political institutions are to work, they must reflect political reality. If political institutions are criticised very frequently, it is very often not the institutions themselves that are to blame but the underlying political realities on which they are built. The political institution of the Northern Executive is being built on the realities in Northern Ireland and so, too, must the political institution of the Council of Ireland. We will be less than wise, and certainly not statesmanlike, if we try to force a political institution in the form of a Council of Ireland which does violence to political realities.

Everybody with any understanding of the political situation which exists, and will exist for some considerable time, must know that the Council of Ireland must be an evolving body, a body which undertakes responsibilities by agreement. We see the Council of Ireland as a means of assisting in establishing the agreement and consensus which men of violence have for so long been disrupting.

We can help in this part of the country. Every member of the Dáil and of the Seanad can help. So, too, can every political commentator and every writer. All can help in many ways, not just by avoiding violent speeches, not just by avoiding, suggesting or implying support for those who use violence, but by our agreeing not to insist too obviously and too openly on our own political aspirations, by accepting that there are other political aspirations held by men of goodwill. We can help, not by abandoning our aspirations, not by compromising them, but by accepting that the two traditions in this country can best work together by the creation of institutions in common and not by the brash assertion of our different aspirations.

I would hope that we would avoid attempts at a "greener-than-thou" attitude in our political debates. I would hope that politicians from every political party, commentators outside and spokesmen in other places would not attempt to vie with one another to prove the purity of their nationalism. I would hope that the bipartisan approach which has been characteristic of politics of this part of the country for several years past on the problem of Northern Ireland would be maintained.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the views expressed by Deputy Lynch, the Leader of the Opposition, when he, on behalf of his party, said that this bipartisan approach should continue. We are playing with lives. Our words are read, parsed, quoted and used to destroy lives and what we do and say in the weeks ahead will influence to a considerable extent the future course of Irish history and the lives of innocent people in this island. And, so, I welcome the fact that there has been an indication that politics are not going to play a part in the deliberations on this subject. I regret that misunderstandings may have arisen, and I hope that these misunderstandings have been dissipated. We have an agreement at Sunningdale every word of which is part of the whole, every word of which was signed and accepted by all delegates present. We had a package every part of which was dependent on the other parts. This has been recommended by the Government for the approval of this House. It has obtained the approval of the vast majority of the House of Commons in London. It has obtained the approval of the Unionist Party, the SDLP, and the Alliance Party. I hope that no word and no action of ours will in any way help to dispel the spirit which grew and developed at Sunningdale. I know there are those who would hope that this will happen. I know there are those who would wish that the accord which was reached at Sunningdale was fractured. I know that we shall be tempted in our remarks and in our approach in the weeks ahead to the problems which still face us to say things which, while perhaps scoring debating points, would nonetheless be damaging. Therefore, the restraint and understanding which was shown at Sunningdale will I hope, continue in these deliberations and in those that are to come shortly, so that the sort of institutions this country needs and requires can be built on the foundations which have been laid.

Mr. Colley

The business before the House at the moment is, as you know, Sir, the Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department, which traditionally furnished an opportunity for a review of the Government's activity or inactivity. By chance of timing it also provides a convenient vehicle for discussion on the communiqué issued after the Sunningdale conference.

Contrary to what has been implied and, indeed, what has been said by Deputy Costello, the agreement reached at Sunningdale is not before us. It is not before us because, of course, the agreement is not yet drawn up. As the communiqué indicated, there is still quite a number of loose ends still to be settled. For example, the determination of the functions to be assigned to the Council of Ireland have to be settled before the formal agreement is entered into. There are other loose ends. Therefore, I want to make it quite clear that what this House is discussing at the moment is not the agreement that presumably will arise out of the Sunningdale conference, because that agreement is not yet drawn up.

I mention this both to clarify the position and also because I was particularly struck by something that happened when the leader of this party was speaking in this debate. Deputy Lynch made it clear that we on this side of the House intended to vote against the Government on the business before the House but that that did not signify that we were voting against the understandings arrived at at Sunningdale. When he said this, at the same time as the Taoiseach was accepting that this was a reasonable proposition, we had some sniggering stupidities from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who apparently were not at one with the Taoiseach in this. However, what struck me most was that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was one of those who took part in the conference at Sunningdale and, nevertheless, did not appear to be aware of the fact that an agreement has yet to be drawn up.

Furthermore, no indication whatever was given by the Taoiseach as to the procedures to be followed in regard to the agreement when it is drawn up and as to whether or not it should come before this House. The only guidance, in fact, that came on this matter came from the leader of this party, and some efforts which were made to get the Taoiseach to clarify the position did not meet with any success. This is consonant with the manner in which the Taoiseach dealt with the communiqué from Sunningdale in his address to this House.

I think it is fair to say that he said nothing of any consequence in his address in regard to that communiqué, although he had stated in reply to Parliamentary Questions the previous day that he would make a full statement in this debate. I want to make it clear — I do not think there should be any doubt but lest there should be— that as far as this party are concerned. we want to see power sharing in operation in Northern Ireland, and we want to see a Council of Ireland operating with executive functions. We worked hard in this party to bring about these two major advances, and most people would admit that the progress which has been achieved which enabled the Sunningdale conference to take place at all, has been due in very large measure to the wisdom and the steadfastness of Deputy Jack Lynch and the Fianna Fáil Party in recent difficult years.

We know that the only possible road to peace in this country, and ultimately to unity by consent, is the road indicated by power sharing in the North and by an effective Council of Ireland in which Irishmen of differing political traditions can join together for the good of this country, and in working together see for themselves the real possibilities that open up in a united Ireland, the real possibilities for advancement of all the people of Ireland, North and South.

We believe this is the only sane approach to that objective and that is why we worked so hard to bring about this situation. We decided quite some time ago that the correct model for the Council of Ireland was the European Economic Community with an independent secretariat, a Council of Ministers and a Parliamentary Assembly. I spelled out our view on this matter and our ideas on 7th April last and they were reported in the newspapers on the following day. I understand Deputy Desmond referred to that in this debate. I recall it lest there be any doubt as to where we stand and have always stood on these matters.

In the course of the few remarks the Taoiseach made in regard to the Sunningdale communiqué he said:

The policing, human rights and law reform proposals are equally part of the totality of the agreement.

This is a doubtful statement to say the least. Whatever may be said about the proposed arrangements regarding policing — and a great deal could be said about them — it is quite clear that the proposals envisage the question of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights or such part thereof as might be agreed on, north and south. That application depends on the Council of Ireland and agreement being reached within the Council of Ireland on that matter.

Furthermore, I think it is clear that the law reform proposals referred to by the Taoiseach have been referred to a commission. Some people might regard this as a long-fingering exercise but it is clear that there is no obligation on that commission to produce its report and recommendations, if any, before the signing of the agreement and the setting up of the Council of Ireland. This is a pity because I think that the area involved here contains within it the possibility of very major advances both in regard to satisfying the Unionist population in the North—and unless I say otherwise I mean by that those who favour the link with Britain — and their concern on the one hand and satisfying those on the other hand who want to see more and more effective all-Ireland institutions in operation.

I am not criticising the provisions in that regard; I understand the difficulties involved. I am merely making the point that these are matters which are outstanding and may well be outstanding when the agreement is signed and consequently to say that they form part of the totality of the agreement is, I suggest, misleading.

The Taoiseach also stated, and again I am quoting from his speech:

Those who say they do not want the statements on the status of Northern Ireland must also say that they do not want a Council of Ireland.

With all due deference to the Taoiseach I suggest that statement is nonsense because it presupposes that our negotiators were the best available to us and did the best possible job.

There are very many people in this country who would dispute that proposition and in particular who would dispute that proposition in relation to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who has given the impression, certainly to many people, that in his view there should be two Irelands, one for the British and one for the Irish. Some people have suggested that anyone who is concerned with the content of paragraph 5 of the communiqué is preoccupied with words, with dictionary politics. I suggest what is involved in the concern in this matter is a very grave political reality and anybody who does not understand this is not in touch with our people.

I should like to make clear that in my view the position of Ireland vis-á-vis Britain as regards sovereignty is one in which we cannot and will not concede the right of Britain to sovereignty over any part of Ireland. The position of the majority of the population of this country vis-á-vis those who favour the union with Britain is different and I think most of the people in this country would favour leaning over backwards to try to persuade and induce those who favour the link with Britain to work together with the rest of the Irish people in the interests of all the people of Ireland.

The matter is complicated by reason of the fact that there is no sovereign state in the North and that the interests of the area of Northern Ireland are represented by the British Government. If the proposals in paragraph 5 of the communiqué are designed to meet that difficulty — to distinguish on the one hand between this country vis-á-vis Britain in regard to sovereignty and on the other hand the position of the majority of our people in this country vis-á-vis those who favour union with Britain — then, certainly, that effort has our sympathy. We know the difficulties involved.

It has been implied, if not actually stated, that the manner in which paragraph 5 of the communiqué is set out is intended to suggest that you have on the one side the declaration of its position by one sovereign Government and, on the other, the declaration of its position by the other sovereign Government. We have lived for a long time with the situation in which we, under our Constitution, claim that the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas, and at the same time the British Government, through Acts of Parliament passed at Westminster, claim that Northern Ireland forms part of the United Kingdom. In one sense, one could regard Northern Ireland as a disputed territory between two sovereign Governments, a situation for which there is ample precedent in other parts of the world. We have had to live with that situation for a long time.

If these two declarations were intended to set out the positions of the two Governments in effect agreeing to differ on this question of sovereignty over Northern Ireland and going on then to add the views of each of the Governments as to what might be done to improve the situation in Northern Ireland, then I think this could well be an acceptable position. The difficulty is however that in the Irish declaration there is no reference whatever to the Irish position in regard to sovereignty while in the British declaration there is a clear spelling out of the British position. I could well understand a declaration which in both cases made no reference to this matter, or alternatively a declaration which made reference to this matter on both sides. It is the imbalance in this paragraph, the statement of the British position and the non-statement of the Irish position, which has led to concern and, to say the least of it, has led to confusion. I am saying this in criticism of the Irish Government negotiators.

The agreement has not yet been drawn up. It would appear that when it is drawn up it will have to come before this House for approval. When it is drawn up, if it were in its final form to mean an abandonment of our claim to sovereignty over the whole island of Ireland vis-á-vis Britain, then it would not get the support, I believe, of the great majority of the voters. However, I sincerely hope the agreement in its final form will not amount to that. But I fault, and fault gravely, the Irish Government negotiators who agreed to such a potentially dangerous ambiguity, and it has been noted that there is no such ambiguity on the British side.

I hope that from what I have said it will be clear that we want to see the positive elements outlined in the communiqué from Sunningdale implemented and implemented as soon as possible. It would indeed be strange if we did not want to, having regard to the efforts that we made over a very difficult period to bring this about. We have concern about some aspects of certain parts of the communiqué but we realise that the final agreement has yet to be drawn up. We believe it has to come before this House and we hope that when it does come before this House it will be in a form that will be acceptable to the great majority of our people.

This debate provides a convenient vehicle for discussion of the Sunningdale communiqué which is not before us in any formal sense. I turn now to a matter which arises to some extent directly from the Sunningdale communiqué, and that is the question of security in this State. We all know that the very efficient and massive Government propaganda machine has been directing its efforts to try to convince people that, on the one hand, Fianna Fáil is either weak or ambivalent on security and, on the other hand, that the Coalition Government can safely have security left in their hands. I want to challenge that assertion as not being in conformity with the truth. There have been a number of examples of this Government's incompetence in the security field since they came to office. In particular I refer to the matter of security at Mountjoy Prison prior to the escape by helicopter of three prisoners detained there.

I want to refer to the efforts which we made to ascertain from the Minister for Justice whether or not it was true that security at Mountjoy had been reduced some days prior to that escape. I want to recall to you, Sir, that the attitude adopted by the Minister for Justice in response to those questions was to say that he could not answer them without breaching security. I also want to recall to you that subsequent to the escape the Minister for Justice announced to the general public that a whole review of security in prisons throughout the country was taking place and that changes were being made in security methods adopted at prisons. In those circumstances, I suggest that any disclosure of what security had been in the past could not be regarded as a breach of security and that the Minister for Justice was simply covering up what had happened and the incompetence of himself and his colleagues in Government in regard to security. Propaganda is no substitute for real action in this field.

I also think it is no harm to remind ourselves of the very ambivalent position of the majority of the members of the present Government in regard to the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act. We all recall what happened when that Bill was going through this House. We recall that the Labour Party voted against it and we recall the last minute change of heart by most Members of the Fine Gael Party, including the present Minister for Justice, when some bombs went off in Dublin. I want to suggest that the members of this Government, and in particular the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who puts himself forward now as the self-appointed guardian of law and order, should now either admit that they were totally wrong when that Bill was going through, or if they were not they should repeal it. Any other stance can amount only to ambivalence on a very important aspect of security in this country. There cannot be that kind of ambivalence at the best of times but particularly if we are to try to make work the institutional arrangements outlined in the Sunningdale communiqué there cannot be any such ambivalence in the Government.

I wish also to put a footnote to the indictment made by Deputy O'Malley of the Government when he outlined some aspects of the jobs-for-the-boys syndrome. Apart from the various appointments to which he referred, judicial and others, some other judicial appointments at a lower level have been made and which were also appointments of former Fine Gael candidates. The Attorney General who has just left the House has been heard to say that under him State prosecutions would be allocated on the basis of merit. It is a well-known fact in the Law Library that since Deputy Costello took office any known supporter of this party has been cut out completely. These people will get on without any patronage from the Attorney General or from any of his colleagues but let us acknowledge the facts. I hope that never again will we hear the holier-than-thou-attitude that we had so much of from the people opposite when they were in opposition.

The Taoiseach's speech in this debate is noteworthy on a number of counts, not least the one I have mentioned — the lack of real comment on the Sunningdale communiqué — but also for its lack of reference to any new achievement by this allegedly brilliant Government although we do not hear so much these days about this brilliant Government as we had been hearing. Maybe this is symptomatic of something. However, one would think that the Taoiseach in his first major review of the activities of his Government if he had anything to point to, would point out significant new departures adopted by his Government but one would search his statement in vain for any such reference.

The Taoiseach's statement is noteworthy also for a recital of facts and figures to show the growth in the economy but that growth, as I propose to show later, is the work of Fianna Fáil and not of the present Government. The statement contained also a number of references to success in the field of industrial development. These references were based almost exclusively on the IDA's annual report for the year ended March, 1973. That is a significant factor. Noteworthy also were the references by the Taoiseach to developments in the Department of the Public Service, in the field of Arts and in relation to parliamentary procedure, all of which the Taoiseach and his Government found readymade on their desks when they took office. Furthermore, we had from the Taoiseach some platitudes but no commitment to such matters as reform of the Seanad election procedure. We had references also to increases in social welfare but those references did not disclose that if one deducts the £30 million, approximately, by way of EEC savings, there emerges the fact that this Government in this year are spending less on improving social welfare than was spent by the Government last year in this area at a time when the then Government gave reliefs in income tax and, most significant of all, imposed no new taxation while this Government have taxed everything in sight.

We also had from the Taoiseach a long dissertation on the Government Information Service and on the alleged open-government policy. However, the Taoiseach made no reference to the failure of this allegedly open Government to communicate to the people the facts, when they were at their disposal, in regard to the oil crisis. Neither did he make any reference to the failure of the Government Information Service to provide copies of the communiqué from Sunningdale to the Deputies on this side of the House for days after the meeting had concluded although such copies were made available immediately through the media. Neither did the Taoiseach refer to the failure to provide any information on the real state of our economy, a matter that I will deal with later.

We had no reference either from the Taoiseach to the appalling breach of confidence that occurred on the first day of the Conference. We are entitled to know whether this happened on the instructions of a member of the Government. If so, that member should be named and be answerable to this House. If he is not so named the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will have to be held responsible since responsibility for the Government Information Service has been assigned to him. We are entitled to know also whether, if the breach occurred without any such instruction from the Government or a member of the Government, what action has been taken in regard to the official concerned.

We handed over the economy of this country in very good condition. One aspect of it was that industrial strife was at an unprecedented low level but in a matter of months, under the Coalition Government we have had chaos in the field of industrial relations but there was no hint of this in the Taoiseach's review of the economy. I wonder whether he considers the matter to be so insignificant as not to merit as much as a mention. Certainly, the inactivity of the Government in this field would lead one to believe either that the Government think this situation does not matter or, more likely that they have no idea of what to do about it.

One of the major failures of this Government is in the field of prices. That failure has been aggravated considerably by the unscrupulous promises they made in securing support from the people. They promised the immediate introduction of strict price control and a stabilisation of prices. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has been described by some of his erstwhile friends in the Labour Party as, in one case, a brilliant Marxist-Leninist economist and, in another, as an apostate Marxist. I do not know whether it is due to his being one or other of those things, brilliant or otherwise, but the fact is that he has presided over the greatest increases in prices ever recorded in this country as is shown by the most recently published figures. Those figures show also that food was one of the main items in the recent increase in prices and this was after the removal of VAT from food.

I do not propose to delay the House by going back over the history of this business of VAT except to remind the House that I said here that we were prepared to be judged as against the Coalition on the basis of which of us had the better approach to government on this question of the removal of VAT from food. I suggest that there is not a soul in the country now who does not know who has the right approach on this subject. This Government has got to learn that gimmicks do not constitute good Government. They have to stop trying to bluff the people and tell the truth. I believe the situation in regard to prices has become much too serious for bluff. Real government in this as in other fields requires that the Government tell the truth to the people and give leadership.

There were claims by the Taoiseach, and there have been continuing claims by members of the Government, that the economy is booming and that that is due to the actions of the present Government. I should like to refer to the economic review issued by the Confederation of Irish Industry, dated November, 1973. On page 1 this review says the following:

It is generally agreed that in Ireland in 1973 there has been a marked upswing in economic activity. This expansion began towards the end of 1972 and has, if anything, gathered momentum during the year.

Further on, and on the same page, it states:

The latest data on production now relate to the second quarter of the year. In this period the volume of output was 12.5 per cent higher than in the same period last year. This increase is slightly lower than the outstanding growth of 14.5 per cent for the first quarter of 1973 but the trend is still strongly upwards.

These quotations, I suggest show that the upswing in the economy was taking place under Fianna Fáil at the end of 1972, the last quarter, and continued on an upward trend thereafter with a slight drop when the Coalition took over as I have just shown.

In referring to productivity the same publication, in page 3, says:

However, in the first quarter of 1973, an 11 per cent increase in productivity was recorded and in the second quarter productivity rose by 9 per cent.

There is, I suggest, no reputable economist who would claim that any effect on the economy can be discerned arising out of increased capital injections for a period of six months as a minimum and in many cases the effects cannot be seen for some years. It is quite clear, on any objective assessment of the situation, that we handed over the economy of this country running well on a balanced growth path. No credit is due to the present Government for that.

The worrying aspect of the matter is what this Coalition Government has been doing to the economy since. I know that when the truth emerges they will try to hide behind the consequences of the oil crisis but, for that reason alone, and if for only that reason, I want to put on record in this House the mismanagement of the economy by this Coalition Government before any effects of the fuel crisis. The public capital programme published for this year proposed expenditure of £56 million more than was expended last year. We, on this side of the House, have discovered that there is proposed additional expenditure over and above the public capital programme in respect of capital expenditure from the Exchequer of £8 million for the Agricultural Credit Corporation; £6 million for telephone capital and, apparently, £6 million to the building societies. These we know about but, no doubt, there are others that we have not been told about.

Taking what we know about, this amounts to £20 million extra over and above the published capital programme making a requirement of £76 million more than last year. On the resources side, however, we know, although the Minister for Finance tried to conceal the fact, that the picture is grim and getting worse. The general public subscribed £19 million less to the national loan this year than they did last year. From the 1st April this year to 23rd November the amount invested in savings certificates went down by £2.4 million as compared with the same period last year. In the same period national instalment savings were down by £1.9 million and prize bonds by £1.2 million.

Because of the Government's efforts at concealment we can only guess at the rest of this sad story but we know for certain from the figures I have quoted that Exchequer resources are down by £24.5 million at least as compared with last year. Putting this figure with the increased expenditure proposed we find a gap of more than £100 million. What I want to know, and I hope the Tánaiste will be able to tell us when he is replying, is where is this money going to come from. Will it come from the banks with the consequence of an unprecedented credit squeeze on the private sector or very massive external borrowings with all that entails or is there to be a major cutback in the public capital programme?

The public is entitled to know the answers to those serious questions affecting the fundamental structure of our economy, questions which have arisen quite apart from, and before, the oil crisis. I repeat, apart from, and independently of, and before, the oil crisis.

The gap in capital requirements from the Exchequer, as I have indicated, amounts to at least £100 million and probably more. However, we know that it is that much from the figures we have extracted. This is a most serious matter and it is one that cannot be shrugged off. This Government allegedly committed to a policy of open government with its massive propaganda machine, should now come clean and tell the Irish people the facts of their mismanagement of the economy. Even more important, they should tell the Irish people what steps the Government propose to take to remedy this situation before it is too late.

Truth at this stage, however unpalatable it may be, is far preferable to lulling people into a false sense of security until one day the Government throw up their hands and the economy comes crashing down around our ears. I am not saying this lightly. I am extremely concerned about the situation which has been developing and which I have outlined to the House. If the Government believe that this situation is not serious, then they have an obligation to tell the people the facts and to show where the figures I have quoted are wrong. They must show how they propose to remedy the situation. I have not a great deal of confidence that this is going to be done. It will be recalled that a few weeks ago I put a Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Finance which, arising out of the tremendous shortfall in the national loan, asked the Minister for Finance to indicate what changes he proposed in the public capital programme, and that would have included either changes in expenditure or changes in the plans for resources to finance the public capital programme. I did not get the answer. Perhaps I should quote the second paragraph of the reply:

My proposals for financing the public capital programme were set out in the capital budget booklet. These proposals are constantly being reviewed in the light of developments during the year. In view of the present unsettled state of capital markets both here and abroad it would be premature to make any statement on the matter.

I would suggest that if the Minister is unable to say, because of the unsettled state of the capital markets, where he is going to get the money it behoves him to indicate to the House and to the country the steps he proposes to take if, because of the unsettled nature of those markets, his plans do not work out. His plans as indicated in the public capital programme have not worked out at all. The public capital programme referred to the fact that small savings were expected to show a moderate increase, to quote from the Capital Budget, 1973. Of course, they have not shown a moderate increase. They have shown an enormous drop. In paragraph 7 of the Capital Budget, 1973 it is stated:

As regards external borrowings, the foreign indebtedness of the Exchequer is relatively modest (about one-third the level of the official external reserves). Nevertheless undue reliance cannot be placed on borrowing abroad due to the uncertainties of the international capital market.

Paragraph 8 states:

The surest foundation for satisfactory development of the public capital programme lies in the expansion of domestic savings.

What has been happening is the exact reverse of that. I believe that a very serious situation has developed. I believe that the Minister for Finance has misguidedly tried to conceal that fact and that the interests of the country now require that the facts be told to the people so that if remedial measures are necessary and if they are unpalatable we can know about them and spread them over as long a period as possible so that they will have minimal impact.

I am afraid that failure to do this can have quite serious and even catastrophic effects on our economy. I believe that this Government up to now have operated on a basis of concealment of the truth contrary to their alleged commitment to open Government. I have indicated a number of areas in which the truth has been concealed as effectively as the Government could conceal it. I have indicated, arising out of the efforts made on this side of the House to extract the truth, the disturbing economic position that is emerging.

It is time for the Government to stop bluffing. It is time for them to tell the country what the position is and to indicate the action they propose to take. I repeat that the crisis situation in regard to the public capital programme which I have outlined has taken place quite independently of the fuel and oil crisis. The Minister for Finance has suggested that part of the trouble is due to the very high interest rates and the alternative sources of investment available —alternative to Government sources. This is a very superficial explanation of the position. The facts are that last year international interest rates were at an all-time high, and alternative attractive sources of investment— alternative to Government sources— were available.

Last year the resources subscribed by the public to national loans and savings were increasing at a substantial rate. Investment in such bodies as the ACC were increasing at a substantial rate. While I was Minister for Finance up to March of this year I never had to find any money from the Exchequer for the capital requirements of the ACC. In a matter of months this whole picture has changed dramatically. The whole trend has been reversed. The explanation which the Minister for Finance has tried to give is not at all satisfactory. If one were to accept his explanation as being the true and only one, does it not follow that when he sees what is happening he has a duty, and the Government have a duty, to take cognisance of what is happening and to note the reduction in the capital resources available to the Exchequer, and to tell this House and the people what the Government propose to do because of what is happening?

Failure to do that can only be regarded as the gravest dereliction of duty by the Government in general and the Minister for Finance in particular. On top of all this trouble there is looming an oil crisis which can have most serious effects on our economy, not only at home but also on our exports, especially those to Britain which is our largest export market.

If this crisis develops in the way that many people fear it will, there is no doubt that we will be faced with a grave national emergency which will require the utmost discipline and co-operation among all sections of the community. Our people are capable of this discipline and co-operation. They have shown this in the past. But to produce this the Government must give real leadership, and this requires an end to the bromide type statement, the concealment of facts and the propaganda gimmicks which have passed for Government in this State since 15th March last.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Colley

It is far beyond the time when the Government learn that gimmicks and propaganda are no substitute for real government. I hope the crisis in our economy which is looming, quite apart from the oil crisis, will be enough to make the Government wake up. I would hope the Government will now learn to forget the gimmicks and the propaganda, to get down to the difficult, slow and very often unspectacular business of government — to get on with the job. If the Government even now will start to govern, in face of this most serious crisis, they will get maximum co-operation from Fianna Fáil and as a result the damage to our economy and the hardship which can be caused to our people will be reduced to an absolute minimum.

I believe it is the duty of all political parties in the event of a crisis developing of the kind that appears to be looming up, like the people, to exercise discipline and co-operation where necessary to reduce the impact of the grave emergency facing us. We on this side are prepared to do our part. Will the Government, starting from today, start to govern? Then they will be doing their part.

An Tánaiste

Right through all the speeches of Fianna Fáil members, particularly the Front Bench, there seems to be some sort of an obsession as far as the national Press is concerned. I think it was Deputy Brennan who spoke about the Government Information Service feeding the Press with propaganda. Apart from the fact that it is absolutely untrue, I do not think anybody would imagine that the Irish Press, as we know them, could be fooled in any way. They are no fools. They can draw their own conclusions. They can make up their own minds and their editors can write the editorials they like to write. If anybody thinks this Government are the pets of the Press, they are very much mistaken.

Deputy Colley made the complaint, if one can call it a complaint, that the communiqué from Sunningdale was delayed and that the Government Information Service could have made it available to Deputies in a quicker time. I should like to tell the Deputy that the delegation got back in the early hours of Sunday morning and that the communiqué was presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas on Tuesday and was in the hands of Deputies before the debate began on Wednesday.

Deputies

That is not so.

An Tánaiste

The communiqué was presented to the House on Tuesday——

Mr. Cunningham

That is a lie.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cunningham must withdraw that word.

Mr. Cunningham

I withdraw the word "lie".

Mr. Lalor

The Tánaiste changed his slip.

An Tánaiste

I may have changed my statement, but it is not for a Deputy to call anybody a liar.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The statement was in the Library on Tuesday.

An Tánaiste

I want to devote most of my remarks to the tripartite conference at Sunningdale. As far as I am concerned, the fact that it was held was an achievement in itself and a most significant development in politics in this country for the last 50 years. I believe it made a major advance towards final reconciliation between the two parts of the country. I do not claim, nor does any member of the delegation or any Member from this side of the House claim that Sunningdale was the ultimate answer to all our problems. Indeed, it could not be so because we all must recognise the century old divisions will not be eliminated overnight. They are still very strong, but we can justifiably claim that a foundation has been laid for reconciliation, for peace and for unity.

I believe history will decide that Sunningdale was one of the greatest achievements of this or any other Government. The vision and the imagination and the generosity of spirit and the dedicated hard work of our delegation made the agreement possible and I want to pay my personal tribute to each of them and to say how proud I am to have been associated with them and with the agreement that came out of Sunningdale.

I must confess that I have heard not all of the speeches in the House but there was a certain amount of waffle in Deputy Colley's speech, particularly in regard to paragraph 5 of the communiqué. I still do not know how he stands on it, but I want to assure him and all the Members opposite, that as far as these two parties who form the Coalition are concerned there is unanimity as far as the Sunningdale agreement is concerned.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

An Tánaiste

In thinking about Sunningdale and the agreement, we must remind ourselves of the tragedies of the past five years and particularly remember the hundreds of people from all sides who lost their lives. These tragedies have forced us to face up to the realities of the division of this island. The events of the past five years have shown us that there is no magic way by which the Border could be ended. If it has done that— it is difficult to say — it has done some good. At least it may prevent further loss of life.

The events have shown us that there are deep differences of opinion and aspirations, but in the past five years we have learned to understand each others fears, whether unfounded or genuine. I believe the achievement of last weekend's discussions was, to quote the Taoiseach's words "There were no winners and no losers". Nobody went out to Sunningdale to do battle, to go for total victory, because each realised that attitudes and political opinions were so deeply held that a four day conference could not resolve all those differences. Therefore we agree to disagree on the long-term aspirations of the two communities in Ireland. It is significant that both the Social Democratic and Labour Party and ourselves jointly repeated our aspiration for the unity of our country by free consent. We clearly stated in paragraph 3 that we would not and could not depart from that aspiration. This may have been quoted before but I want to get it on the record in case Deputy Colley or any other Deputy would be under any misapprehension as to what the aspirations of this side of the House are and, I hope, they are the aspirations of the House in general. In his original statement the Taoiseach said:

The people of the Republic, together with a minority in Northern Ireland as represented by the SDLP delegation, continue to uphold the aspiration towards a united Ireland. The only unity they wanted to see was a unity established by consent.

The Unionists for their part stated what they desired — to stay part of the United Kingdom. Having to disagree on these fundamental aspirations, all five sides found it possible to agree on immediate practical proposals, proposals which would promote peace and reconciliation and could eventually, we believe, lead to unity by consent. For the northern parties Sunningdale was the second stage in talks about the future of the North and of the whole island. For them the first stage was talks which led to power sharing in the Executive. This was warmly welcomed not alone by the Taoiseach but by Deputy Lynch the Leader of the Opposition. That itself was an historic achievement and one of the great causes for hope. We might ask ourselves who would have imagined, even a year ago, that this would happen and there would be power sharing between the Unionists and those representative of other parties in Northern Ireland.

I have no doubt in my mind that despite the reservations of some members of Fianna Fáil that the people of this country as a whole, irrespective of their political affiliations, overwhelmingly welcome the establishment of the Council of Ireland as proposed and included in the agreement signed last Sunday. It is vital that it be established. Its establishment was dependent on the formation of a power sharing Executive in the North. As far as this side of the House is concerned, both were complementary to each other, the establishment of a power sharing Executive in the North and the establishment of a Council of Ireland as between the North and the South. I am convinced that it was the mutual understanding which grew among Northern parties in their power sharing talks, held a month or six weeks ago, which created the basis for success at Sunningdale. Whatever the outcome might have been the fact that five parties, the Irish Government, the Unionists, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the Alliance Party and the British Government, sat down together was a tremendous advance on past positions. There was a further achievement. Agreement was reached on specific proposals. For the first time ever, Irishmen of all persuasions agreed to come together and created political institutions for all the people of the island without any British involvement. That is the measure of the success of Sunningdale. In addition to this, the British Government have for the first time ever agreed to support a united Ireland should the people of the North so desire it.

Our main obiective in entering these talks was the establishment of the Council of Ireland. We were gratified that our proposals provided the basis for an agreement. Personally, I think that however important the Council of Ministers may be, the Consultative Assembly, composed of 60 members of the Dáil and the Northern Assembly, will be in a sense more important, because again for the first time in half a century, Irish politicians from both sides of the Border will communicate with each other and will be able to hear at first hand the others' point of view rather than be dependent on radio and television. There is no substitute for personal contact if one wants understanding to develop. The tragedy of the whole situation in the last 50 years is that we did not have enough communication between, not alone politicians, but ordinary people in the Twenty-six Counties with those in Northern Ireland, or the Six Counties.

A shining example is that provided by the various organisations, but in a semi-political sense, the unity that exists between the trade union movement in the 32 counties of Ireland. If we as Members of this House with members of the Assembly can imitate the relationship which exists between those trade unionists in the north and south, we can go a long way to understanding their difficulties and their fears, and to their understanding us, but always accepting the aspirations of the majorities on both sides of the Border.

I believe that the formation of the Assembly meets one point referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy J. Lynch, that there should be a parliamentary as well as an intergovernmental aspect of the Council of Ireland. Therefore this whole Parliament will be involved in the Council of Ireland with representatives from the Northern Assembly.

Whatever measure of success there was at Sunningdale, let us not for one moment assume that it means the ending of violence, because the signs are there so far as the men of violence are concerned. Our job at Sunningdale, and our job as legislators in this part of the country, is to try to ensure by our actions, generosity and goodwill that these men of violence from either side will be isolated and to demonstrate that in no uncertain fashion and be unanimous in having them isolated. We must be careful lest any word of encouragement from any section of the community down here could lead to a situation which might not be controlled by either of the Administrations.

There is more than a broad agreement among the parties in Dáil Éireann that Sunningdale was a further step towards peace and reconciliation. I take the Taoiseach's point when he says that the agreement is not to be voted on in this debate. I was disappointed that the members of the Fianna Fáil Party were not more generous in their comments or remarks on what emanated from Sunningdale in what at times was a very difficult situation. There appears to be a broad opinion in the House that Sunningdale was successful. Irrespective of party affiliations, I believe 97 per cent of people in this part of the country want to see the Council of Ireland given a good and decent start.

Unfortunately, this is not so in the Northern Assembly, as evidenced by the attitude and actions of certain political groupings there. Not alone are they opposed to a Council of Ireland but to the very idea or concept of a power sharing executive. All the evidence shows they want nothing less than the old Stormont of the one-party rule. I think we all agree this can never be because it would mean that those elected by proportional representation earlier in the year to represent the minority would have no voice in decision-making. This would be a reversion to the position that obtained prior to the suspension of Stormont and which caused civil unrest and demonstrations in practically every decade in the last 50 years.

That is why it is important that we see Sunningdale as a package, all of which was agreed by all the parties. We cannot pick and choose the parts we like because all parts are interdependent and related to a Council of Ireland. If there is no Council of Ireland, there will be no power sharing; if there is no power sharing executive, there will be no Council of Ireland. While we welcome a power sharing executive in the North, we cannot leave it at that because the natural consequence so far as the minority in the Assembly are concerned is the establishment of a Council of Ireland.

In his opening remarks, Deputy Lynch said he was disappointed at the proportion of the speech that was devoted to the agreement. It is possible he did not have time to examine it in great detail. May I say the importance of the statement is not proportionate to its length; what is said is what matters, not the length or the amount of paper used. If he read in full the ten-page document that was presented to the House last Wednesday, and which is now part of the records of the House, perhaps he might have taken a more positive line. That agreement was hammered out in four days after very long and detailed negotiations. May I assure the House that in those negotiations the position of every word was considered not once but many times. It was a difficult and arduous job and that is why I wish to compliment not alone my colleagues who participated but those of the other parties who, in my view, were determined to see that something would emerge from Sunningdale that would be the basis for peace and reconciliation. I believe Deputy Lynch will now agree the communiqué is clear. It is not necessary or useful to go into a detailed commentary on it now.

In his speech Deputy Lynch said he would like to see agreements implemented. Incidentally, I welcomed his approach when he said this is no time for irresponsible brinkmanship. I do not doubt that he talks for the rest of his party when he warns of the danger of brinkmanship because, I suppose more than many people in the House, he realises that sort of exercise could lead to a situation that might not be possible to control.

However, the House and country perhaps may not appreciate the extent to which lives depend on the way the agreement is dealt with in our part of the country particularly. Deputy Lynch's welcome, with its qualifications, is appropriate to him in view of his deep involvement in those matters in the past and at the present time. He questioned paragraph 5 on the status of Northern Ireland. If he were in the negotiations I do not know if he would have changed the wording, the sequence or the arrangement so far as the two declarations were concerned. However, I hope he does not take exception to the Irish declaration in paragraph 5. I do not think he will find it incompatible with some of the utterances and speeches he made in the past. The one that comes to mind is the one he made in the Garden of Remembrance on 11th July, 1971. I quote the speech the Deputy made on that occasion:

The Government have stated, many times, our view that Ireland should be united. We have made it clear that the unification we seek is one attained by agreement. There is no threat in this way to any fair demand of the national minority. In these circumstances and in the light of the friendly relations which exist between the people of Ireland and Britain we consider it unwise to continue the kind of guarantees to the North which makes intransigence a virtue and silence as a reason...

It would take nothing away from the honour of Britain or the rights of the majority in the North if the British Government were to declare their interest in encouraging the unity of Ireland, by agreement, in independence and in harmonious relationship between the two islands.

When Deputy Lynch is considering the parts of the communiqué dealing with the status of Northern Ireland, I would ask him to consider this statement of his Government's views on the matter. I would ask if he would consider the paragraphs in the communiqué dealing with this subject as being irreconcilable with these views. If he examines the text carefully I do not think he will find anything that does not accord with the statement I have just quoted or many of the other statements made by the Deputy when he was Taoiseach. We all want unity, but the only unity we want is that established by consent. That is what the communiqué says and it is in this spirit the Government negotiated the Sunningdale agreement.

Deputy Lynch wanted to see the institutions work and he mentioned four: (1) institutions which would guarantee the same civil rights to all Irish people; (2) institutions that would outlaw violence; (3) institutions which would be of social and economic advantage; and (4) institutions which would be capable of evolution by agreement. All he has to do is to look at the communiqué again — possibly he has done so — to see that these requirements are met.

So far as civil rights are concerned, they are covered in paragraph 11. That paragraph refers to the Council of Ireland and declares that the council will consider ways in which the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms will be expressed in domestic legislation north and south. This is referred to in paragraph 11, which I would like to quote. Paragraph 11 reads:

It was agreed that the Council would be invited to consider in what way the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms would be expressed in domestic legislation in each part of Ireland. It would recommend whether further legislation or the creation of other institutions, administrative or judicial, is required in either part or embracing the whole island to provide additional protection in the field of human rights. Such recommendations could include the function of an ombudsman or commissioner for complaints, or other arrangements of a similar nature which the Council of Ireland might think appropriate.

That should be sufficient, I think, to satisfy the views or the desires of Deputy Lynch so far as the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is concerned.

Deputy Lynch also asked about the question of the outlawing of violence. On re-reading and reviewing the communiqué he will find that is dealt with in paragraph 15. I am sure the House will bear with me while I quote part of it. Paragraph 15 reads:

With a view to improving policing throughout the island and developing community identification with and support from the police services, the Governments concerned will co-operate under the auspices of a Council of Ireland through their respective police authorities...

It will be noted that all these activities, those and the last I have mentioned, will be in consultation with the Council of Ireland.

Deputy Lynch also raised the question of social and economic advantages and called for joint action in the social and economic fields as listed in paragraph 8. I do not think I need to quote paragraph 8. Suffice it to say that on these eight or nine items it was the opinion of the five groups that there could be useful and positive work done within the Council of Ireland.

Deputy Lynch also asked would the council be capable of evolution by agreement. This was expressly stated in the communiqué from Sunningdale. The council will grow in importance in proportion to the agreement reached between north and south. It was certainly uppermost in the minds of those concerned with that part of the agreement that the council could evolve and take on more functions, many functions which would be of mutual benefit and advantage to the people of the two parts of the country.

We are engaged in building from the present. I do not think anyone wants to look to the past. If one looks to the past, it is with a certain amount of sorrow. We are engaged in building from the present and we cannot do that if our every action and every word are to be interpreted or misinterpreted in the light of what happened ten, 20 or 30 years ago. Apart from the words and dots and commas, the spirit of the communiqué is the important thing. We must all act in the belief that to speak of winners and losers is to speak of contradictions. If what we are hoping to achieve is achieved, all the people of Ireland will be winners. I would ask, therefore, that the communiqué be interpreted in this light and not on the words or paragraphs as they are placed in any document.

Deputy Lynch also asked for clarification on a number of points in the communiqué. I do not know whether it was necessary to quote from the communiqué but perhaps for his benefit I should refer him to paragraph 7. The Deputy asked who will make the choice of the 30 members of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Ireland. So far as the Dáil and the Assembly are concerned, it will be on the basis of proportional representation using the single transferable vote, the system which has been employed for such a long time in this part of the country, and which has been employed recently in the Northern Assembly.

May I repeat that I personally place great importance on this tier of the Council of Ireland. I know that those who will be representatives from this Parliament, and those who will be representatives from the Northern Assembly, will have powers of consultation and will act in an advisory capacity. The important thing is that they will be 60 Irishmen, no matter what their aspirations, or their religion, or their political views may be. They will be 60 people meeting together regularly in dialogue which everybody would expect would bring about a greater understanding between the people and the communities in this country.

Deputy Lynch asked if a recommendation under paragraph 10 is made by the proposed legal commission will it be accepted? I do not think the Deputy would expect me to say that it would be accepted. He has experience in office. He was Taoiseach for a long time. I am sure he is aware of the dangers of open commitment by any Government or by any party to accepting a recommendation until that recommendation is known. In present circumstances, when a completely new institution is involved, this type of reservation applies with even more force to any question of forward commitments. We cannot say what a council would or would not do in relation to the recommendations of the proposed legal commission. In fact, no one is in a position to give an answer to that question as yet, that is, until the recommendation is known and seen, and the proposals in it are examined.

Deputy Brennan asked about the significance of registering the agreement with the United Nations. Because it is an agreement between two sovereign Governments, Article 102 of the United Nations Charter will apply. This article provides that every agreement between Governments shall be registered with the United Nations. For the benefit of the House and for the record I should like to say what the precise terms of this article are. I quote:

102. 1. Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.

2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.

It is only right and proper that, in view of the terms of this article, and particularly subsection (2), the agreement should be registered with the United Nations. The precise wording of the communiqué has not yet been determined. It will be determined at the resumed tripartite talks which will establish the framework of a formal agreement.

The agreement will incorporate the decisions which have already been made and those yet to be made as well as the declarations referred to in paragraph 5 of the communiqué. The form the agreement will take is being considered but I can reassure the House — the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs last night assured the House — that this document will be brought before the House and Members will have an opportunity of discussing it and making a decision on it.

This is the first major debate since we took office. As we are all so prone to preface our remarks on the Taoiseach's Estimate it provides us with an opportunity of reviewing, in our case, the months that have gone since we took office and, despite what Deputy Colley said, I believe that the period has been one of major and substantial progress. I am not now referring to the historic breakthrough which culminated in five parties agreeing to the establishment of a Council of Ireland. There are many other matters to which Deputy Colley did not refer in which there have been vast improvements. If Deputy Colley did advert to some of these, he touched very, very lightly upon them.

I do not think anybody could decry or write down the achievements that have been made in those Departments for which I have responsibility, not necessarily because they are my responsibility but because of the approval of the Government. We were aghast at the extent of the poverty in the country and we were determined that the budget would concentrate on those who were poor, and just on that. Boasts were made by Deputy Colley as to what had been done in previous years. I do not think he will deny that this year's budget was the greatest social welfare budget ever.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

An Tánaiste

There was an extra £52 million devoted to what we considered to be deserving people. Right across the board every one of those got a fair increase. I do not say it was substantial enough in order to meet all their requirements, but we did measure up to the promises that we gave to the electorate in regard to social welfare in the election of February of this year. We did reduce the age for qualifying for the old age pension to 69. We did provide for free travel and free electricity and free television for these people. We did substantially ease the means test in the case of non-contributory old-age pensioners and non-contributory widows and orphans. There was a substantial easement in the means test and, so far as social welfare is concerned, in relation to the 14-point programme we certainly did deliver the goods.

I believe there were complaints that there was a cutback as far as health services are concerned. I do not know how that impression was gained by the Deputy who uttered these complaints. Suffice for me to say that current expenditure has increased from £104 million in 1972-1973 to an estimated £132 million in 1973-1974. That increase has been devoted to improving community care. There has been an easement in the means test in respect of the disabled who cannot fend for themselves. This Government decided, and this was an outstanding feature of the budget, that the parents of severely handicapped children would get an allowance of £25 per month. That was a not inconsiderable achievement in a short period of eight or nine months. The rates were relieved of health charges and there was relief given in respect of some of the housing charges as well. The commitment by the Government to provide free hospitalisation for all the people will be honoured from 1st April next year.

There is some significance in these improvements from the point of view of that part of my speech dealing with Northern Ireland. I think all these are a fair contribution to reconciliation, to understanding and to equality when one remembers that the benefits at which we have now arrived because of the increases given are roughly up to the Northern Ireland level and, in some cases, better than the rates paid in Northern Ireland.

The decision to give free hospital services to all the community is again a movement some part of the way towards the hospital services that are now free to the people in the North of Ireland. There is also the decision to introduce a pay-related benefit scheme which will bring us nearer to the social services and health services in Northern Ireland. These have made a substantial contribution to the process of harmonising social services north and south.

I know there has been criticism here — certainly there was criticism by the ex-Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch— about housing. The facts speak for themselves. I shall not dwell on them. I merely want to point out that in 1973-1974 this Government provided £68 million for housing as against £46 million provided by the outgoing regime. Evidence of that is to be found in the fact that in the first six months of this financial year 12,000 houses were provided as against 10,000 houses in the same period last year. Therefore, in my book, these increases indicate the Government's case that they are fully supporting the housing programme and, despite what the ex-Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, said, he still cannot get away from the fact that the growth rate will be double this year compared to each of the last three years.

One of the criteria of good Government and successful Government is in the numbers of those who are employed or unemployed. Fianna Fáil may want to take credit for this, but the fact is that we have 6,000 fewer unemployed on 1st December this year than we had last year. There is increased employment. Our exports are booming.

Again, despite the criticism made by Deputy Colley and some of his colleagues, as far as political affairs are concerned, there is a new approach. Despite what has been said about the personnel of this Government, I remember the last Government used to be described as the youngest and brainiest in Europe. I make no further comment except to say: let nobody be worried about the Coalition. There are people who are worried about the Labour Party. We will be able to worry about ourselves. As a matter of fact, we have enough to worry about with the critics within our party, but this is a united parliamentary party; our administrative council is united. As an example of this, let me say that the administrative council of the party, representative of the whole country, yesterday unanimously endorsed the Sunningdale agreement, as did the members of the Parliamentary party. But we do not boast about this because our party believe that those of us who went to Sunningdale went there to do something positive to alleviate the frightful situation we have in the north and try to prevent a further deterioration of the situation there.

I believe that our achievements have been considerable in a very short period. I want to assure Deputy Colley that we are working as a team. He may not believe that. He may sneer. He may pick out individuals and talk about contradictions in statements and so on, but I can assure him that this Government are working well as a team. We are not unaware of the difficulties that will face us in the future. We are fully aware of the oil crisis. We are very well aware of the difficulties that may arise, difficulties — may I say it? — that will not be of the making of this Government or this country but will be generated and influenced by events in the world generally. The obstacles may be formidable but we are confident that this Government have the talent, the commitment and the experience to overcome them and the country can be assured that we will do so.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 54.

Tá

Barry, Peter.
Begley, Michael.
Belton, Luke.
Belton, Paddy.
Bermingham, Joseph.
Bruton, John.
Burke, Dick.
Burke, Joan T.
Burke, Liam.
Byrne, Hugh.
Cluskey, Frank.
Conlan, John F.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cooney, Patrick M.
Corish, Brendan.
Costello, Declan.
Coughlan, Stephen.
Crotty, Kieran.
Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
Desmond, Barry.
Desmond, Eileen.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, John.
Esmonde, John G.
Finn, Martin.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Governey, Desmond.
Hegarty, Patrick.
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Keating, Justin.
Kelly, John.
Kenny, Henry.
Kyne, Thomas A.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
McMahon, Larry.
Malone, Patrick.
Murphy, Michael P.
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Connell, John.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Leary, Michael.
O'Sullivan, John L.
Pattison, Séamus.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Ryan, John J.
Ryan, Richie.
Spring, Dan.
Staunton, Myles.
Taylor, Frank.
Thornley, David.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Toal, Brendan.
Tully, James.

Níl

Allen, Lorcan.
Andrews, David.
Barrett, Sylvester.
Brady, Philip A.
Brennan, Joseph.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, Seán.
Brugha, Ruairí.
Burke, Raphael P.
Calleary, Seán.
Carter, Frank.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
French, Seán.
Gallagher, Denis.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hussey, Thomas.
Kenneally, William.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Leonard, James.
Loughnane, William.
Lynch, Celia.
Colley, George.
Crinion, Brendan.
Cronin, Jerry.
Crowley, Flor.
Cunningham, Liam.
Daly, Brendan.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dowling, Joe.
Farrell, Joseph.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Fitzgerald, Gene.
Lynch, Jack.
MacSharry, Ray.
Meaney, Tom.
Molloy, Robert.
Moore, Seán.
Murphy, Ciarán.
Noonan, Michael.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Malley, Desmond.
Power, Patrick.
Smith, Patrick.
Timmons, Eugene.
Tunney, Jim.
Walsh, Seán.
Wilson, John P.
Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.

Vote reported and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 6th February, 1974.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 14 Dec 1973