I wish to conclude my contribution by drawing attention to the fact that some time ago Deputy Molloy made accusations against the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully, one of the most honourable and hardworking Ministers in the Cabinet. The accusations were made on two occasions. The Minister asked the Deputy to withdraw them but he was unsuccessful with the result that a motion was moved in both Houses of the Oireachtas. As the motions were about to be discussed Deputy Molloy withdrew his accusation. I do not think there is any comparison between that accusation and the two words uttered by the Minister for Defence. The Minister made a passing reference to the President as an individual and did not make any reference to the institutions of the State. The Taoiseach has the confidence of the Irish people and the confidence of the people abroad. In particular, he has the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland. That will be clearly indicated this evening. I am happy to stand with him and I pray that he will be spared for a long time to serve the Irish people.
Confidence in Government: Motion (Resumed).
I intend to keep to the point in speaking in support of the motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach. I do not intend to go outside or beyond the events that occurred in the past two weeks nor do I think it necessary to do so for the purpose of our motion. The first event which this House is concerned with is the speech by the Minister for Defence to a section of the Armed Forces of the State at Mullingar barracks on 18th October. The initial and subsequent reaction of various Government spokesmen was that this was a regrettable incident but that it could be attributed to what Deputy Kelly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, described as the Minister's hot and generous temper. The clear impression the public was intended to get from Government spokesmen up to and including today was that the Minister's remarks were neither intentional nor premeditated but that they were spontaneous and off-the-cuff remarks with the corollary that as soon as the Minister had realised the effect and importance of these remarks he immediately apologised and this should have been "the end of the affair", to use the quotation from "a prominent Government spokesman" on that infamous Monday afternoon.
This impression of spontaneity which the public was asked to swallow would seem to be clearly untrue and contrary to the facts. The accounts given in newspapers over the last weekend by the reporter from the local newspaper, the Westmeath Examiner, who was present throughout the ceremony, would be regarded by most persons as a truthful version of what took place, a truthful version given by an independent person. This person's account would indicate that the remarks made by the Minister were deliberate and preconceived. It seems clear that the Minister was aware before he spoke of what he intended to say; that he spoke the words with deliberation and intent; that he was aware he was speaking not merely to a segment of the Armed Forces but that his audience included his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Cooney, the Chief of Staff of the Army and Members of this House. It also seems clear that after his speech the Minister was content with what he had said and reaffirmed that what he had spoken had been uttered deliberately.
The context in which the words were spoken and the audience to whom they were addressed were a direct and intentional reflection on the office of President. The President does not have many independent functions under the Constitution and his powers to refer Bills to the Supreme Court for a decision as to their constitutionality is one of these powers. The President's power to do this under Article 26 of the Constitution can only be exercised after consultation with the Council of State and must be read in the context of the oath of office which the President must publicly take and subscribe to in the presence of Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, of the Judiciary and the public. The oath reads:
In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously and in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me.
I am satisfied there could be no doubt as to what was in the Minister's mind when he uttered the words in Mullingar. It was a direct and deliberate attack on the office and on the person of President.
We operate under a system and a doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility. What happened in this case was that the Taoiseach and each member of the Government maintained that a subsequent letter of apology was sufficient for the incident involving the Minister to be totally overlooked, that the matter should be forgiven and forgotten, that that was the end of it as far as the Government were concerned. In our view a letter of apology was neither sufficient nor appropriate in this case. This was a deliberate and intentional statement by the Minister. Had such a statement been made by an Army corporal is it not right to assume that he would have been subject to courtmartial immediately, and rightly so because it would have been properly seen as an act of sedition by a member of the Armed Forces?
On 21st October the Taoiseach spoke here on the motion relating to Deputy Donegan's conduct. At that stage he had available to him the correspondence between the Minister and the President, namely the letter of the purported apology written by the Minister and the President's reply to that letter. The Tánaiste, Deputy Corish, this morning put on record that on Thursday last the Taoiseach could not divulge the contents of the letters involved because he did not have a copy of the President's letter. I will have more to say about that at a later stage.
Cavan): If the Deputy checks, he will find that he referred to Wednesday.
I accept the intervention of the Minister for Lands but I would like to assure him that I am quite satisfied from my recollection and the notes I made during the Tánaiste's speech this morning that the Taoiseach could not divulge the contents of the letters to the Dáil because he did not have a copy of the President's letter at the time. At that time the Tánaiste was repudiating the allegation made against the Taoiseach of withholding information from the House. That is my honest and sincere recollection of what was said, and if I thought it was not I would not have made it.
Two matters arise from the Taoiseach's knowledge of this correspondence on the occasion when the debate was taking place in this House. Firstly the Taoiseach must have been aware that if he, the Cabinet and individual members of Fine Gael and Labour were going to back the Minister for Defence to the extent of saying that his apology was sufficient, then he must have been aware that there would be no option open to the President as an honourable man except to resign. It may be that the Taoiseach and some of his followers are having difficulty in appreciating how honourable men act and react. If so, it is an indication of the unfitness of the Taoiseach and his colleagues to fill the posts which they are tarnishing.
Secondly, the Taoiseach's knowledge at that time must have made him aware that the course he proposed to follow would directly involve the President in resigning. I believe there were honourable courses open to the Taoiseach but his choice was to play one of the few parts which, I must confess, he plays well, that is, playing mute. This time it was the muteness of malice because the Taoiseach knew well the consequences that must inevitably follow the resignation of a President whose fault in the spoken view of the Minister for Defence, and apparently in the unspoken view of the entire Cabinet, was that he observed his oath of office and had the temerity to refer to the Supreme Court legislation arising out of a declared state of emergency which Deputy FitzGerald, Minister for Foreign Affairs, described as a mere formality or technicality when he addressed a group of foreign businessmen at a conference in Killarney during the debate on the so-called emergency for which this House was recalled during the early days of September.
At any time during the two important days of last week, the Taoiseach could have retained public respect for his office, and possibly even for himself, but instead he deliberately chose by his silence and inaction to lead to a collision course which was inevitable from that time and which has done grave damage to the institutions of this State to an extent that may not become clear for a long time.
I am very strongly convinced that the damage to the office of the President, done to it by the deliberate intent of the Taoiseach, at any time would be grounds for his censure by this House and grounds for his removal from the office he holds. For the Taoiseach to behave as he did, at a time when a state of emergency had been declared, when the Minister had alerted the Army that they may have unpleasant duties to perform, and when any criticism of the Government is designated as being subversive, can only be described as sinister. The person who seeks to put himself forward as one who would safeguard our liberties and freedom from attack, is shown up as a person whose real belief is in a totalitarian state, but probably with the proviso that he will be in charge.
The second result of the Taoiseach's silence during those two days and during the debate here on 21st October was that he deliberately misled the House and the people. If I wanted to make a political charge against him at this juncture, I could say it was not the first time he misled his own party and his Cabinet. He did that not so very long ago during the debate on the contraception issue. Such conduct is clearly repugnant to high office. It is conduct unbecoming to the holder of any high office in this State who misled this House and the public in any way. There has been a long tradition in this House that it is not tolerable that any Member should deliberately mislead the House.
The Deputy will understand that the words "deliberately mislead" are not in order.
Would the Chair tell me why the words "deliberately mislead" are not in order?
They have been ruled to be a charge which cannot be made against a Member.
If I am forbidden by a ruling of the Chair to use the words "deliberately mislead" I hope you will fully understand what I mean when I say "mislead".
It is very often easier to mislead by silence than by a positive statement. I believe what the Taoiseach did on that occasion is a direct equation with speaking a positive untruth. If that is so, that alone is worthy of censure by the House. Above all, this motion of censure comes down to a basic factor: the Minister for Defence was guilty of sedition in Mullingar. The Taoiseach is guilty of being an accessory to that offence by aiding, assisting and comforting him.
This motion of no confidence in Deputy Cosgrave as Taoiseach was never more proper. Since he has had time to consider the gravity of the situation over the past week, I hope he will do the honourable thing. It is time, right now, to let the people confirm or reject the Taoiseach's attitude in supporting a Minister, who to my mind, is guilty of sedition. No vote in this House will exonerate the Taoiseach for the cover-up he and his colleagues tried to do once this premeditated and unfortunate attack was made on the Presidency.
One is strongly tempted to use a word which has come to us in recent years from America—Watergate. At this stage, it is a word that could rightly be used here as a result of the vicious attack the Minister for Defence made on the Presidency. Is it not fair to say that deliberate efforts were made by the Minister for Justice to cover up this affair? Did he not use deliberately an Army officer to get at the young reporter from The Westmeath Examiner? Has this been denied by the Minister? It is obvious that the Minister for Justice tried a “Watergate” in regard to the outrage at Mullingar. Is it not fair to say that he used a member of the Irish Army for political purposes?
The Deputy is a very innocent man.
This charge has not been answered by Deputy Cooney although during the course of his half hour's contribution this morning he had the opportunity of replying to this charge. Instead he spent about 15 minutes endeavouring to convince us, but failing to do so, that a state of emergency exists and that this situation necessitated the legislation introduced by him last month. He spent a further 15 minutes recapping byelection results of the past three or four years and using quotations from The Irish Press for dates in November, 1973, and November, 1974, in an effort to justify his case. It is a great pity that Deputy Cooney did not quote from The Westmeath Examiner, a newspaper which circulates in the constituency he represents, with regard to his conduct in the whole affair.
The Minister for Justice.
I bow to the Chair.
Micheál Mac Liammóir will never be dead while the Deputy is alive.
Deputy Collins.
Regarding the so-called mysterious 'phone call made to the editor of The Westmeath Examiner on the day in question and to which there has been no reference by the Minister for Justice today, has it not been reported that the intelligent young lady on the switchboard recognised the voice of the caller as being that of the Minister for Justice? Was this another effort by the Minister to pull a Watergate—Irish version—over the Donegan gaffe in the cookhouse at Columb Barracks, Mullingar? It has been reported, too, that before a group of people which, in addition to Army officers, included Members of the Oireachtas, the Minister for Defence remarked that what he said should make the headlines the next day. There has been no denial of this report either. How can one regard the offensive remark as being merely a slip of the tongue when the Minister referred to it making the headlines? Other Members of this House who were present at the function concerned expressed shame on noticing the Minister for Justice applaud loudly at the end of the speech of his colleague, the Minister for Defence.
If when seditious charges are made there is any Minister present who is worth his salt he should stand up immediately and dissociate himself from such charges irrespective of the possible political consequences. Instead of such action at Mullingar there was the attempt at the Watergate-style cover up which did not work.
The importance of the Minister for Justice using an Irish Army officer in an attempt to cover up a mistake made by a colleague should not be dismissed. I have listened carefully today to the various contributions from both sides, but only the official record will show the confusion, the lack of clarification and of understanding of the situation that existed as between the contributions of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, both of whom contradicted each other. Unfortunately the contribution from the Tánaiste was not in the same mode as that of the Taoiseach, who at least tried to deal with the situation as it is, whereas the Tánaiste, who, I suppose, had not the opportunity of reading the brief that was presented to him before delivering his speech, gave us a contribution which was full of cheap political jibes of the type we normally associate with him when he is addressing his national party organisation as he did recently at a cinema in Dún Laoghaire. Nothing that the Tánaiste said can take away from the gravity of the situation. He rebuffed Fianna Fáil by saying that their tabling this motion would do nothing to help the economy——
He is a man beyond reproach.
Of course it will do nothing to help the economy; but is it not fair to say that those who should have been doing something in this area have thrown their hats on the stage, so to speak, for the past 12 or 18 months and have done nothing?
It is not enough to say that the apology of the Minister for Defence was sufficient. Neither is it enough for the Government to say that it was an unreserved apology. All I can say to the public in this regard is that they should read the copies of the correspondence which was exchanged between the Minister and the President and they will know then whether the apology was unreserved. I understand an unreserved apology to be one which has no qualification but that was not the type of apology which last week the Taoiseach led us to believe was sufficient to undo the great harm that resulted from the Minister's remark.
The situation is much more serious than the Government would wish us to believe. The damage that has been caused will not be undone for a long time. The Minister for Defence is not on trial here today. Those who are on trial are the people who comforted, assisted and helped him and in particular those who tried to cover up the whole affair. These are the people who should be brought here and highlighted because of these actions on their part.
I would merely refer to a heading in one of today's papers which confirms my belief that individual Ministers of the Government have used public occasions, since the cookhouse affair in Mullingar, to try subtly and indirectly to belittle the Presidency and the former President Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh. Today's Irish Press carries on its front page a report of a sick joke by the Minister for Finance last evening at the Dublin Junior Chamber of Commerce which backfired on him —when he referred to his budget as a “thundering disgrace”. There are other Ministers I know of, but who were not reported publicly, who did say over the last week at public functions: “We had better be careful; we must stick to our scripts for fear, you know, hee-hee, tickle, tickle, big giggle, dismiss it as a joke.” That is the attitude.
It is known in this House that Members of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties have, behind what they believe to be closed doors in their constituencies, wrongly accused President Ó Dálaigh of taking the decision he did take in sending the Emergency Powers Bill to the Supreme Court.
The Deputy's time is now up.
I shall conclude by saying that I can only dismiss the speech of the Minister for Local Government as a poor trial run for the Estimates speech for his Department which I hope he will be making in the near future.
What we are doing today is not politically motivated. There is no party advantage to be gained for the Fianna Fáil Party out of this. What we are trying to do is to show to the Taoiseach and those whom he appointed to his Government that he cannot rely on some of them. Might I just ask him: is he satisfied that Deputy Patrick Sarsfield Donegan is not a security risk at present?
On last Thursday the leader of the Opposition, Deputy Jack Lynch, proposed a motion here calling for the dismissal of the Minister for Defence. Today we had a motion in the name of the same Deputy calling for a vote of no confidence in the Taoiseach. Normally, either or both of those motions would be taken by the House and the country to be very serious indeed. One would have expected an atmosphere of tension in the House last Thursday when the resignation of the Minister for Defence was called for. One would have expected the same atmosphere of tension and expectation in the Dáil this morning when a vote of no confidence in the Taoiseach was called for. What did we find? Last Thursday a whole day was allocated to discussion of the motion taken on that day but, by one o'clock, the people who put it down had run out of speakers and tongue. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition, in introducing the motion last Thursday fell very flat; the debate fell flat. I thought it was a non-event.
I sat here today through most of this discussion. Again, I am forced to say that I regarded the contribution of Deputy Jack Lynch as falling flat, as not rising to any sort of height. I put it to you, Sir, and to the House that the reason for the failure of either of those motions to evoke any sense of tension or expectation in the House was that neither was called for. Both were non-events and people, including the Members of the House, reacted accordingly.
The question of the right of the President of this country to refer any Bill to the Supreme Court is beyond question. Nobody questions that. I want to put on the the record of this House that I certainly do not question it. Indeed, it could be argued— and the Minister for Justice this morning here so argued—that it was a desirable thing that that Bill was sent by the President to the Supreme Court for scrutiny.
There is one thing the Opposition seemed to have ignored in all of their plots and ploys of the last ten days to try to exploit this incident for political gain. That is the commonsense of the general public, the ability of the general public and the ordinary citizen to penetrate the artificial atmosphere which Fianna Fáil are trying to generate and bring this incident down to earth for what it was—an unfortunate mistake made by a Minister, without a script, on the spur of the moment, and withdrawn, apologised for and regretted within a matter of hours. That is the way the general public regard this incident. That is where the common sense of the general public will manifest itself.
That is where lawyers down the years have seen the usefulness of the jury system, the ability of twelve men in a jury to sift things out for themselves and bring them down to reality. There is no doubt that the Minister for Defence made the statement or more accurately the remarks as reported. He made those remarks in Columb Barracks, Mullingar. We all know the circumstances in which they were made. Everybody has read in the papers the fact that there was one script there; that there was some discussion as to whether the Minister would have used that script or whether it would be given to the young reporter who was there. But there is one thing certain, that is, that the remarks made at Columb Barracks, Mullingar were not premeditated, were made on the spur of the moment, were not calculated or premeditated. As a matter of fact, I put to the House that the very phraseology used showed a spontaneity, and something that was not thought out, something that was used on the spur of the moment and regretted and apologised for after.
There is no use in the Opposition trying to convince the country that the Minister for Defence went to Columb Barracks, Mullingar with those remarks prepared and with the intention of making them. It is less than worthy of them to suggest that. The description of the events given in the newspapers about the manner in which the speech was delivered, with particular reference to the discussion about the script, as to where it was or who had it, is evidence beyond doubt that these are throwaway remarks, unfortunate throwaway remarks, remarks that should not have been made—of that there is no doubt—but remarks that were withdrawn and regretted in a manly way on the very same day they were made. Before leaving this aspect of the matter in regard to premeditation I again put it that these two words used are evidence that they were spoken off the top of the head of the man who uttered them.
What do we find? We find that the remarks were made about 1 o'clock in the day and that very afternoon the Minister for Defence, realising he had said something on the spur of the moment that he should not have said and that he intensely regretted, reported the matter to the Taoiseach and, on the very same afternoon, on the 6.30 p.m. news there was an expression of regret from the Minister who had made the remarks. Are the Opposition serious in asking the country to believe that a Minister would go to Mullingar prepared and determined to make this attack on the President and then go straight back to Dublin and seek the services of the radio to tell the country that he was sorry for what he had said and that he regretted having said it? The thing is too absurd to stand up to any sort of scrutiny and that is the reason why last Thursday's debate fell flat and that is the reason why Thursday's debate occupied only half the time allocated to it. And that is the reason why the Leader of the Opposition's contribution this morning did not rise to any heights.
On the very next day, after making this remark, using these two words, the same Minister seeks an audience with the President at Aras an Uachtaráin to apologise man to man, to meet the man whom he had insulted and say he was sorry in a humble and human way. Mark you, the Irish have many traits but many of us find it difficult to go and say: "I am sorry". Many of us find it difficult to say "I was wrong". Here is this Minister who, according to the Opposition, attacked the President in a premeditated way seeking an audience with him the very next day so that he could go to Aras an Uachtaráin with his tail between his legs and rub his nose in the dirt by saying "Your Excellency" or "President" or "A Uachtaráin"—"I am sorry for my remarks. I withdraw them. Will you forgive me?" That is what was involved and that is why this debate has fallen very flat and that is why Thursday's debate fell so flat. The President, as he was entitled to do—and it is not my business to criticise him for it— did not receive the Minister, was not available to the Minister, and the Minister goes back then and writes a letter, a letter which will be on record for all time, for his children and posterity to read, to an tUachtaráin expressing his regret for the remarks he made, apologising. I have not got the letter here before me but twice he used the words "I humbly apologise". I humbly apologise. Twice he does that in this letter. Surely that is not the attitude of an arrogant man. Surely that is not the attitude of a man who set out to abuse the President and was determined to stand over that. Surely that is the attitude of a man who, on the spur of the moment, made a clown of himself and regretted it, felt bad about it, and was man enough to go on his knees to apologise.
We are asked to believe that that sort of incident would damage the office of the Presidency. Our people have one outstanding characteristic, one outstanding trait—they are steeped in commonsense and they do not fall for gimmicks. They are able to sift the wheat from the chaff. That is the position. One would think in the light of all this that criticism is not now the order of the day. One would think that criticism of anybody or anything was something unique. If those who have been dead for the last 20 years could read the newspapers today they would literally turn in their graves. The whole scene has changed. Maybe it is all for the better. I do not know. But the scene has changed. We are living in an era of criticism. Within the last few months I have seen the highest dignitaries of all churches subjected to the severest criticism and severest analysis. Within the last week I have seen the members of the Supreme Court taken one by one, from one to five, analysed and criticised. That would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.
I am not saying this in any criticism of the President but, if the Hierarchy were to react to criticism by handing in their croziers, half the sees in Ireland would be vacant. That would be the reality. If the judges of the Supreme Court were to object to criticism or speculation as to how they might decide a certain case or as to whether they were liberals or traditionalists, li = "4"what would be the result? You would, I suppose, find them hauling people before the Supreme Court for contempt or else vacating the Supreme Court Bench.
That is the sort of society in which we are living. That is the sort of climate in which we are living. That is the sort of atmosphere in which we are living. We are living in a world where everybody is criticised. When I was a young lad, probably in my teens, thinking about politics somebody said to me that anyone who enters politics needs to shed his skin. Certainly he cannot afford to be thinskinned. I point these things out merely to demonstrate that this is an age of criticism. Criticism is nothing unusual. I do not believe the Minister for Defence was right. I believe he was wrong. I believe the President was perfectly entitled to send the Bill to the Supreme Court. I might have done the same thing were I in his position. The fact is that the Minister for Defence said something which he should not have said on the spur of the moment, but he apologised without qualification that evening, the next day by letter and then by another letter.
The Opposition have a very considerable responsibility in regard to this whole incident. The incident is as I have described it and I believe that the people of the country accept it as such. But what do we find here? The remarks were made on Monday, an apology was tendered on Monday night, a written apology was sent on Tuesday and the Dáil reassembled on Wednesday. A Special Notice Question was put down in an effort to stir up the whole matter and to embarrass the Taoiseach. When the Taoiseach stated that a full and ample apology had been made and that he considered this to be sufficient, the Leader of the Opposition came into the House armed with a resolution calling for the dismissal of the Minister for Defence. Whatever about the conduct of the Minister for Defence being premeditated, very considerable thought was given to tactics by the Opposition at their front bench meeting. Surely it would have been better to allow matters to settle down and let the President consider the matter. Through the conduct of the Opposition in the Special Notice Question and the the emergency debate, the whole affair was stirred up and inflated. I believe the Opposition have a lot to answer for in regard to the resignation of the President.
Deputy O'Kennedy asked this morning what the Taoiseach stands for. I will tell him what the Taoiseach stands for. He stands for good, honest government, whether he is in Government or out of Government. He stands for protecting the institutions of the State from attack, and his whole adult life proves that. The tradition behind him also demonstrates it. He served in the Defence Forces during the Emergency when men were required. The Taoiseach stands for straight talk in Parliament, in Government or out of Government. He does not believe in double talk. He stands for straight thinking. That is the man we have here and I can tell you that as long as Liam Cosgrave is in public life he will stand, in the tradition of his father, for the interest of things Irish, the interests of the institutions of this State, built up by his late father and himself against very considerable odds.
I believe that the Opposition are trying to keep this controversy going for their own political purposes in an effort to try to rehabilitate themselves and to ensure that they will put, as one of their own front bench men has said, a political President into the Park. But I think they are having second thoughts about that. I believe that this motion will be rejected. There was an effort made by the Opposition to drive a wedge between the Fine Gael and Labour Party in Government. That effort has failed and this resolution has demonstrated the solidarity of the union of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party in Government.
This resolution does not come well from the Fianna Fáil Party. Their background in recent years, or even going back many years, makes a resolution like this very inappropriate. The Irish people do not have short memories and they must be laughing at some of the contributions made here, particularly the contribution of the spokesman on health, Deputy Charles J. Haughey, made on Thursday last. A person in the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery might have accepted his speech as that of a statesman but the people who know the background to this speech were simply laughing.
This resolution and the sudden vacancy in Áras an Uachtaráin may not be in the interests of the Fianna Fáil Party. The clans are gathering again. Mr. Micheál Ó Moráin was seen in this House yesterday in close and prolonged conversation with Deputy C. J. Haughey, former Minister for Finance. This was no coincidence. It is not so long ago since Deputy C.J. Haughey was photographed in this House in the arms of Deputy Neil Blaney, the Independent Deputy from Donegal. Are we to have a coming together again of these forces, these clans—Blaney, Haughey and Ó Moráin, to name but three? Perhaps when this knowledge gets across to the people, this effort will reflect to the detriment of Fianna Fáil rather than to their benefit.
I wish to congratulate the Minister for Lands on his efforts to obscure the issue and to tell him that he delivered a very good typical Fine Gael speech. If he regards that as a compliment he is welcome to it. He does not realise the irony of what he was saying. It will, I hope, emerge before we are finished. I believe it is significant that the motion we put down declaring no confidence in the Taoiseach has been substituted, within the rules of order, by a motion from the Government which seeks the approval of Dáil Éireann for an expression of confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government. The significance of the extension of the vote of confidence required is that if the motion were simply a question of confidence in the Taoiseach then quite a few Members of the Labour Party would find it rather difficult to go through the lobbies in support of that. They are being let off the hook by the motion put in by the Taoiseach which enables them to say that they are supporting the members of their party who are in Government.
The Taoiseach is entitled to those little gimmicks as much as anybody else, but it is no harm to draw attention to what is being done. It is of some significance that it has to be done. As we could reasonably anticipate, the general approach on the other side of the House to this matter has been to engage in a series of red herrings and inaccuracies and to try to subject Fianna Fáil to the inevitable political abuse we expect from the Government whenever, which is very frequently now, they are in difficulties.
The degree of contortion in which Government speakers have engaged was almost surpassed by what we heard from the Minister for Lands when he ended up blaming Fianna Fáil for all the crises which have arisen and for apparently the President's resignation. There is no limit to the ingenuity of members of the Coalition when it comes to trying to shift the blame. We have seen that in many areas, not least in the economy. If the resignation of the President of Ireland, in clear conflict with the Government, is of any significance—anybody who says it is not of significance is simply deluding himself and is not recognising the institutions of this State, as some people in the courts are wont to do —and if it is not to be raised in the House by the Opposition, who will raise it? Let us get this matter into perspective. It is the duty of the Opposition to raise this matter in the House, to ventilate it and to try as far as we can to get at the truth of the matter and determine responsibility for what has happened.
We believe, on what we knew before the debate started, that the ultimate responsibility for what has happened rests on the shoulders of the Taoiseach. Now, coming towards the end of the debate, we are more convinced than ever that that is precisely where the responsibility rests. I propose to demonstrate that in the course of my remarks.
We have, however, first of all, to deal with a few more red herrings. The Minister for Foreign Affairs introduced one a couple of days ago and was followed today by some of the speakers on the other side. This particular one was that our economy is in such a state of crisis that it was frivolous at best and criminal at worst on the part of the Opposition to waste time on a discussion of this kind and to ignore the crisis in the economy. I suggest that for sheer brazen hypocrisy it would be hard to beat that argument coming from the benches over there.
May I remind the House that the Coalition Government, having been largely responsible for the economic crisis in which we find ourselves, called a special session of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann during the recess, not to discuss the economic emergency but to discuss an emergency and measures arising therefrom which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the man who made that speech the other day, described to international industrialists as a "technical emergency". May I also remind the House that when, on the resumption of the Dáil, we sought, as a matter of priority, an urgent discussion on the state of the economy, the Government said "No". They postponed it for three weeks because apparently they regarded as more urgent that such matters as the Water Pollution Bill and the Friendly Societies Bill should be discussed before the state of the economy. Those people now have the nerve to that a discussion in Dáil Éireann on the constitutional crisis which has arisen from the resignation of the President of Ireland in conflict with the Government, is a waste of time and is diverting attention from the economy.
This new found concern for the economy on the part of the Coalition is very touching but it is hardly credible having regard to their record in creating the problems we are facing and their record in recent weeks in trying to run away from a discussion on the economy. As far as we are concerned the business before the House today is the question of the Taoiseach and his unfitness for the office he holds.
I do not want to say very much about the Minister for Defence except in so far as I will have to do so in order to deal with the Taoiseach's role in this affair. I will say this much about the Minister for Defence. At least he offered his resignation twice. I want to say quite clearly that that is very much to the credit of the Minister for Defence but it is not to the credit of the Taoiseach. It took this motion and the Taoiseach being under attack before that was dragged out of him. It is some little thing to the credit of the Minister for Defence, which, God knows, he could have done with recently.
The situation is that the Minister for Defence uttered outrageous criticism of the President for his action in referring a Bill passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas to the Supreme Court and did so before a largely military audience. The words used by the Minister for Defence are acknowledged on all sides to have been outrageous and they have been apologised for, but there has been no withdrawal of the criticism made by the Minister for Defence in either of the letters now available to us which he addressed to the then President. No matter how carefully one examines them is it possible to find anywhere a withdrawal of the criticism the Minister made? There is the withdrawal of the words used but not of the criticism made. There has been no regret expressed by the Minister for Defence or the Taoiseach that a political speech, above all of the nature of the one made by the Minister with this outrageous criticism of the President, was made before a largely military audience.
In fairness, I overheard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach in the course of a radio interview, making a point that political speeches should not be made to military audiences. One would have thought that self-evident but one would also think in the circumstances now arising that the very least we could have had was a withdrawal and an apology by the Minister for Defence and by the Taoiseach and an acknowledgment that that was wrong and an undertaking that it will not happen again. We do not get any of this and this is supposed to be a situation in which we have a full unconditional apology.
The first line of defence we have been having from Government speakers could be summed up as follows. They were saying in effect that these were silly remarks made by a silly man and we should forget them. If the Minister for Defence is so silly that he did not know what he was doing, then he should not be a Minister. In fairness to Deputy Donegan, he offered his resignation but the Taoiseach would not accept it. Therefore, the responsibility rests fully on the shoulders of the Taoiseach.
The second line of defence we have been getting is that the words used were wrong but that the Minister was entitled to criticise the President in regard to his action in referring this Bill to the Supreme Court. It is particularly noticeable that no speaker on behalf of the Government has committed himself to saying that no Government Minister would again criticise a President of Ireland. The last speaker for the Government, the Minister for Lands, went further and followed the line of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach in defending the right to make this criticism. Are we to take it that it is the contention of the Government that this kind of criticism is justifiable, that we may expect it again from Members of this Government? We are entitled to know where we stand on this issue. I also suggest that it should clearly follow that if this line of argument, that a Minister is entitled to criticise a President in any action he takes which is discretionary, is justifiable, the President should be entitled to criticise a Government on their actions and, indeed, to criticise the Supreme Court. There are constitutional difficulties in this regard so far as it relates to the President but they are obviously no problem to members of this Government. Leaving aside the constitutional difficulties I would like to hear from the Taoiseach whether he says we should accept a situation in which it becomes commonplace for members of the Government to criticise the President and for the President to criticise members of the Government. That would be an appalling situation if it were to develop, and I totally reject the argument that has been put forward by various speakers on behalf of the Government that this is a tolerable situation. It is not in accordance with the Constitution. Even if it were, is it a situation which any of us desires to see develop? If it is not to develop it must be stopped now. In all the years since our Constitution was enacted and under all the Governments of different political hues which have been in power, no such situation has ever developed before. This is a new departure, a new dogma, and I want to know now: do this Government propose that in future it will be possible for members of the Government to criticise the President, and conversely, do they accept that in those circumstances the President should be free to criticise the Government?
A third line of defence favoured by speakers on behalf of the Government has been to advert to the events of 1970. They imagine that what they can convey to the public is "They were as bad as we are, so there is no great advantage, and forget all about it". It is very short-sighted of any speakers on that side of the House to revert to the events of 1970, because what emerges when you look at the situation is the sharp contrast between the Taoiseach then and the Taoiseach now. The Taoiseach in 1970, Deputy Jack Lynch, sacked Ministers when he thought that the situation warranted it. This Taoiseach ran away from his duty. The Taoiseach did not even have to sack anybody; the Minister offered his resignation but it was not accepted. That is the contrast that emerges and that is one of the reasons we are asking the House to say that it has no confidence in the present Taoiseach.
The fourth line of defence emerging seems to be that the whole thing is a storm in a teacup, that there has been a bit of personal abuse and there has been an apology, and what are we making all the fuss about. Having regard to the number of times this kind of case has been made, it is worthwhile to recall briefly the constitutional position. I am not purporting to express this in legal terms but in relatively simple everyday terms. The people enacted the Constitution, and in doing so they laid down certain limits, and the effect of those limits is that no Government of whatever party, no matter what their majority, are entitled to go beyond those limits without going to the people to get their agreement. The President by his oath of office is sworn to defend the Constitution. He is sworn within the powers vested in him to try to ensure that no Government will go beyond those limits laid down in the Constitution. He swears, on taking up office, to discharge that obligation. Therefore, if a Bill comes before him for signature in respect of which he has doubts, he has the power and the obligation to refer that Bill to the Supreme Court in order to determine whether or not the limits laid down by the people are being exceeded.
For anybody to suggest that that obligation of the President is a matter of no moment, that the whole thing was a storm in a teacup, if that right of the President is attacked or if the exercise of that right and obligation of the President is attacked, to say that that is of no moment is to ignore the realities of the Constitution, and much more important perhaps in real terms, it is to ignore the barriers which have been put up to prevent encroachment on the freedom of the people. It is the rights of the citizen and the freedom of the citizen that are at stake here. That applies whatever Government are in power. I believe this line of approach on the part of the Government is pernicious.
I noted that in dealing with this matter the Taoiseach has changed his stance. What has happened is rather ominous. I refer to the Taoiseach's speech in this House on the motion calling for the resignation of the Minister for Defence. The Taoiseach is reported in the Official Report at column 162 Volume 293. This is the sentence I want to quote from that report. Referring to the Minister for Defence the Taoiseach said:
He made what he and I regard as a serious comment on what the President did in a disrespectful way.
If words mean anything what the Taoiseach was saying was: "I disapprove of the method of expression used by the Minister for Defence but I regard him as having made a serious and, by implication, justified comment on the action of the President."
That was when the Taoiseach was under a little less pressure, perhaps, than he has come under since. He has come under a good deal more pressure and we are getting a different line of approach today. If I may, I should like to quote one sentence from the Taoiseach's speech today. I am taking it from the script issued by the Taoiseach's Department. The Taoiseach was referring to the right of the President to refer matters to the Supreme Court. He very correctly spelled out the position and then went on to say:
If what the Minister said on Monday week last, and what he did subsequently, were to lend colour to any suspicion that these fundamental principles were not accepted, without reservation, then there would be no doubt whatsoever as to my course of action.
That is a very laudable sentiment, but I suggest it does not square with what the Taoiseach said here last week. It was only when the Taoiseach himself came under pressure that we found him trying to repair fences. The truth of the attitude of the Taoiseach and other members of the Government came out in what was said by the Minister for Defence in outrageous terms and what was said in measured terms by the Taoiseach on 21st October in this House when he made the statement I quoted and I repeat:
He made what he and I regard as a serious comment on what the President did in a disrespectful way.
This is a most serious situation. The Taoiseach is on record in this House as saying what the Minister for Defence said was a serious comment. Of course, as I said, he has been trying to mend his fences since. The fact is that the Minister for Defence was unfortunate enough to say in public what clearly a number of his colleagues were saying in private. Indeed, there is a good deal of evidence to show that another Fine Gael Deputy, not a member of the Government, made a similar statement a few weeks before the Minister for Defence. Is it surprising that they would do so when we have the Taoiseach himself saying something similar in this House on 21st October?
We notice that the Taoiseach felt free in the debate on 21st October, on the motion concerning the Minister for Defence, to refer to the first letter sent by the Minister to the President, and he felt free to give his own version of what was in that letter. We note also that the Taoiseach did not feel obliged to disclose even the fact that the President had replied to that letter, quite apart from disclosing the nature of the letter. That letter from the President clearly indicated to the Minister, and through him to the Taoiseach, that unless action was taken by the Taoiseach the President would take action. If there is any doubt about that I should like to give two quotations from the President's letter dated 19th October. The first is as follows:
That relationship has been irreparably breached not only by what you said yesterday but also because of the place where, and the persons before whom, you chose to make your outrageous criticism.
That was the relationship between the President and the Minister for Defence. Later on in the letter the President said:
I cannot accept that what you had to say about the "non-reference" by me of the Criminal Law Bill was not intended to be a reflection upon my office.
There can be no doubt whatever that, on receipt of that letter, the Government had been given notice that the President intended to take whatever action was open to him unless the matter was dealt with. In fairness to him, the Minister for Defence offered his resignation but the Taoiseach, having that letter in front of him, knowing the score, chose to say no. He knew the President would take action. Whether it crossed his mind that the action to be taken by the President might amount to resignation from office, none of us can know except the Taoiseach himself. What is clear is that, knowing a constitutional crisis was brewing, the Taoiseach simply battened down the hatches and said: "We will weather it out" and came into this House, talked on the motion put down in relation to the Minister for Defence, gave his version of the Minister's letter, concealed from the House that there had been any reply from the President and, in doing so, concealed the ominous nature of those phrases I have quoted. He cannot say this happened unknown to him. He was given due warning obviously by the President and, for whatever reasons, he chose to ignore that warning. It is his privilege to ignore it, but the country is entitled to ask why the Taoiseach, with his eyes open, chose to plunge us at this time above all into a constitutional crisis.
Presumably the Taoiseach is aware —although sometimes one wonders about it—of the doctrine of collective responsibility. One does not have to rely on that doctrine in order to make it quite clear that the Taoiseach is involved up to his neck in what happened and is responsible for what happened. I have demonstrated that clearly. I want to draw attention to the fact that the other members of the Government are involved under the doctrine of collective responsibility. In fairness to them, however, there is more information which should be given by the Taoiseach than he has given as to what went on.
Before I come to that, I want to refer to a statement the Taoiseach made today in an attempt at exoneration of what was done by the Minister for Defence. He referred to the passionately held convictions of the Minister for Defence as though this in some way excused what happened. I would like the Members of the House to consider what is the position if you have a man exercising authority as the Minister for Defence does who has passionately held convictions and who is to be untrammelled by law or the Constitution. Is not this fascism? Is there any other word for it? What was the nature of the criticism that was being made by the Minister for Defence and supported by the Taoiseach, as I have shown from that quotation of 21st October? It is criticising the President who, in exercise of his obligations of office which he had sworn he would carry out, referred the Bill in question to the Supreme Court; not because he is not entitled to say it is contrary to the Constitution, simply for referring it to the Supreme Court, a slight trammelling which the passionately held convictions of the Minister for Defence compelled him to. But the Minister for Defence apparently could not stomach even this slight trammelling on his aims and objects fuelled by his passionately held convictions.
The picture that emerges from that situation, particularly when we find it is backed up by the Taoiseach, is a very ominous picture. We should all be extremely grateful to the former President for the fact that he had the guts and the integrity not to stomach this and to make sure that the people were informed of what was going on and were given an opportunity, in so far as he could ensure it, to express an opinion on this approach by members of this Government. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated. The rights and freedoms of all our citizens are at stake if the President, whoever he may be, is to be subjected to this kind of public abuse by a member of any Government, or any party, because he exercises this right in order to test whether the limits laid down in the Constitution are being exceeded or not.
This is not a matter to be swept under the carpet. This is not a simple matter of an abusive insult and an apology given. Nobody should be so naïve as to imagine that is what it is all about. The former President and most of the newspaper correspondents who have dealt with this matter, quite apart from the Opposition and indeed the vast range of opinion of people who would be regarded in political terms as being independent, many of them Coalition supporters— are all those people totally wrong? Is this just a storm in a teacup? Are all of these people totally misled? Are they totally misreading the situation? On the face of it that is unlikely.
We know in our souls that there is a serious issue involved here. The most serious issue of all, in my view, is that the Taoiseach, not only by his actions but explicitly on the record of this House, supported the approach of the Minister for Defence. I am not of course saying that he supported the outrageous language used. He did not. That is not what I am saying, and the Taoiseach knows very well from what I said before that I am not accusing him of that. I am accusing him of something much worse, that he knowingly, having received the letter from the President, which we have now all seen, went on the record of this House as saying, referring to the Minister for Defence and I quote it again: "He made what he and I regard as a serious comment on what the President did in a disrespectful way".
It is a matter of concern that one of the members of this Government most concerned in the discharge of his ministerial duties with the combating of subversives should publicly and apparently in front of the Chief of Staff and many senior officers of the Army, himself engaged in something which, if it is not subversive, is as close as you can get to it. In order to put this in perspective, I wonder if the statement made by the Minister for Defence had been made by some prominent member of the Provisional IRA what would be the reaction of the Government? What would the reaction of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs be? The Minister for Defence, who is specifically charged with dealing with certain aspects of subversion, himself attempted to undermine one of the basic institutions of this State, the Presidency. Indeed, the phrases used immediately after his outrageous criticism of the President, when he said that the Army would have to stand behind the State, apart from being subversive amounted virtually to the non-recognition of the Presidency in the way that some people are wont not to recognise the courts of this country set up under the Constitution and as defended by the Taoiseach, this Taoiseach on whose behalf it was claimed that he puts the country first, who himself claims that we all know where he stands on law and order. We do now, if we had any doubts about it. When it comes to the crunch, keeping his hand and that of his colleagues on the loot, to quote himself, comes way ahead of the preservation of the rights and obligations of the President of this country, whoever he may be, to discharge his functions under the Constitution whatever Government may be in power.
I would pose a few questions to the Taoiseach and would invite him to answer them before this debate concludes. First, I would ask him if at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning after the Minister's statement the Taoiseach informed his colleagues of the conversation he had with the President the night before? Secondly, did he inform his colleagues in the Government of the contents of the President's letter? If so, when? I noticed that in his speech today he was very carefully vague on that point. He did try to convey that he had kept the members of the Government informed in so far as he had information, but I suggest that it is relevant to consideration of this issue and in fairness to his colleagues in the Government, that the public want to know whether he informed his colleagues of what was happening or the contents of the President's letter and of the clear message in it that there was going to be a crisis if action were not taken. Did he inform his colleagues in the Government of the conversation he had with the President on the Tuesday over the telephone and of the fact outlined by the Taoiseach today that the President had said that he, the President, had made some preliminary decision. If the Taoiseach did so inform his colleagues, will he tell the House when he informed them? Will the Taoiseach explain why he concealed from the House during the course of the debate on the motion relating to the Minister for Defence the fact that the President had written a letter to the Minister for Defence and the contents of that letter?
The Taoiseach will appreciate that an explanation is required having regard to the fact that he felt free to tell the House that the Minister for Defence had written to the President and he also felt free to convey his own version of what had been written, a version that does not seem to accord with the contents of the letter now that we have seen it. He might also like to say why a second letter was written by the Minister for Defence to the President. I hope he will not be tempted to tell us it was written out of courtesy and in reply to the President's letter. I say I hope he will not be tempted to do that because, of course, if that were the explanation the question immediately arises: why did the Minister for Defence not attempt to reply fully to the President's letter? It is a very selective reply, dealing with one point and totally ignoring all the other points. We are entitled to ask why the second letter was written.
Those who have some idea of the Taoiseach and his general approach to matters, and in particular his colleagues in Government who still have rather bitter memories of the Taoiseach concealing other facts from them in relation to his voting intentions on the Bill dealing with contraception and various other people are now learning what kind of man he is. He is secretive, some might even say furtive, but in a matter of this kind it is not merely a question of whether his colleagues have confidence in him or whether he takes them into his confidence. It is not merely a question of whether he plays fair with them or they with him. It is much more than that. The President of Ireland resigned because the Taoiseach, with due warning from the President, decided he was not going to take any action. That concerns all the people and, therefore, they are entitled to know the facts of the situation. They are entitled to know to what extent, apart from the doctrine of collective responsibility, is the responsibility in this matter resting solely on the shoulders of the Taoiseach and to what extent it rests on the other Ministers of the Government.
There are a few misconceptions that I think should be got out of the way before I deal with some of the more important matters, if any part of the comments from the Opposition during this debate can be regarded as of any importance.
Typical.
The Opposition have made a good deal of play about the correspondence that took place between the President and the Minister for Defence. First, let met say the correspondence was between the President and the Minister for Defence, not between the President and the Government, not between the President and myself. As Deputies will see from the terms of the letters exchanged, particularly the letter from the President to the Minister for Defence, the correspondence raised questions to which the President, I assume, expected a reply or replies. Therefore, the correspondence was continuing. As Deputies know, the Minister for Defence subsequently sent a third letter. I can imagine the clamour that would be raised if either the Minister, or worse still if I, without the President's authority, disclosed correspondence that was between the President and the Minister. These letters were between the President and the Minister, not between the President and myself or anybody else. I made clear today that I informed the Government at all stages of the Minister's position and of his offer to resign. The other minconception that has been propagated during the course of the debate was that the Minister in some way or other made a premeditated or planned speech. The very language used indicates that was not so. It was alleged in the course of the debate that the Government were not informed. I have already dealt with that.
I want to try to get this debate into perspective because it has become a sort of happy hunting-ground of the Opposition that in some way or other I did not inform my colleagues or that I kept something back from them. The last few sentences of the last speaker referred to a debate on a Bill here a couple of years ago when on a free vote I voted the way I wanted, and that because that was done there was some obligation on me, but not on anybody else, to say in advance what way I was going to vote.
The fact is the present situation arose because of emergency legislation that was brought into this House at the end of August and which was discussed here for three weeks. How did that legislation come to be introduced? It was introduced because the illegal terrorist organisations that operated in this country had shortly prior to that launched two malicious attacks, one on the Special Criminal Court in Green Street and another on the then British Ambassador resulting in his death and the death of a lady secretary. That was the situation in which the Dáil was called to deal with emergency legislation, to pass Bills that were criticised by the Opposition, not just for one day, one afternoon or two days, but for three weeks. That discussion continued in which the wildest allegations were made, that this was an emergency created by the Government to obscure the real situation in the country. The language used then and the language used since was of a most extravagant character. It was said that it was not necessary to introduce the legislation and even in the course of the debate this afternoon criticism was made that it was described by the Minister for Foreign Affairs as a technicality, as a technical emergency. Of course if one takes words of that kind in isolation the phrase seems innocent enough. Why did he describe it as such? He did so because under the 1939 resolution the Attorney General advised the Government that it was necessary to have an emergency resolution, so that if the Emergency Powers Bill which was being passed through the House was challenged in the courts, there was the risk that, because the earlier resolution referred to the then war in Europe, it would not be strong enough or capable of supporting the emergency legislation; in other words, the original 1939 resolution was spent. The resolution that was introduced here was necessary to copperfasten and make secure the legislation that was passed.
What was the legislation passed for? It was passed to deal with an armed criminal conspiracy by terrorists to attack the institutions of this State or to attack those who were sent here on legitimate business representing countries with which we have diplomatic relations. That was the purpose of the legislation. In addition, there was the other Bill which increased the penalties for offences in respect of membership and other illegal activities. That legislation was passed by this House after an exhaustive and lengthy discussion. With probably one or two exceptions, it was not seriously contended that it was unconstitutional. In fact, one Bill, the Criminal Law Bill, was not challenged on that ground at all. There were some doubts expressed about the emergency legislation.
When the two Bills were passed, the President, as he is entitled to do under the Constitution, summoned the meeting of the Council of State. After considerable discussion and deliberation on it, the President decided to sign one Bill and refer the other Bill to the Supreme Court for decision. The Supreme Court considered that. Arguments were advanced on behalf of the Attorney General by himself and other representatives on behalf of the State, and the contrary case was put by counsel assigned by the court in respect of them.
Other misconceptions have arisen in the course of this debate, and while I did refer to them today, it is no harm to repeat what I said. The view has been expressed in some way or other that the President, whoever he may be, or the office of President is the guarantor of the Constitution. That is not so. The ultimate guarantor of constitutional rights is the Supreme Court, but the right of the President, under Article 26 of the Constitution to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court as to its constitutionality is one of the means by which the guardianship can be exercised. The President, exercising that right, decided to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court.
In the course of his remarks here this morning the Leader of the Opposition referred to the recent Supreme Court decision on the validity of the Emergency Powers Bill, and the references he made in one respect were inaccurate and misleading. In the course of argument before the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review the contents of the emergency resolutions was discussed. The Attorney General suggested that because of the division of powers set out in the Constitution the Supreme Court had no such jurisdiction. This alternative argument, based on the presumption of the validity of these resolutions, was accepted by the court. The court did not decide that it had jurisdiction to review the actions of the Dáil or Seanad in declaring a state of emergency. It expressly declined to make any decision on this point, and I quote the relevant passage from the judgment:
The Attorney-General submitted the general proposition that when the resolutions referred to in Article 28.3.3º have been passed, this court, has no jurisdiction to review the contents of them. When the consequences of this submission were pointed out to him he withdrew it.
As he said, it did not arise in this case. The court went on to say:
The court expressly reserves for future consideration the question whether the courts have jurisdiction to review such resolutions.
I think I should record the fact that the criticisms made both in this House and in the Seanad of the drafting of the long title were decisively rejected by the court. It should also be pointed out that the Minister for Justice had argued in this House and in the Seanad that the amendments proposed by the Opposition were unnecessary. The Minister's view was borne out by the view of the court, and far from being resentful, as suggested by some Deputies, the Government have welcomed it as vindicating their position. I think that deals with the power of the President to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court.
The purpose of this whole legislation, the Criminal Law Bill and the Emergency Powers Bill was to strengthen the law against criminal terrorist conspiracy in order to defend the institutions of this State, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to prevent people using the territory here to attack our people in the North of Ireland. The recent emergency legislation was framed for the purpose of giving extra powers of interrogation and to increase the penalties for those convicted of terrorist outrages against Irish people, North and South.
That legislation was in the national interest. It was designed to safeguard the public, and, contrary to what was said by at least one Deputy in the Opposition and possibly others, it is not repressive in character against those who obey the law but is designed to prevent criminal terrorist conspiracies not only against the interests of the Irish people but against the courts established by the Constitution, against the legitimate forces of law and order, the Army and Garda of the State. Shortly after that legislation was passed, and indeed on the very night it was signed by the President, the House and the country are aware that one Garda on duty was murdered and other members of the Garda were injured
There has been a great deal of fuss and comment here about the words of the Minister for Defence. I have said already many times and I want to reiterate now that what the Minister said is regrettable and is regretted, but the responsibility for accepting his resignation or, on the other hand, requesting his resignation, devolves on me. Deputies opposite have contrasted this event with the events of 1970. It is only natural that they should, because those events are still, I hope, fresh enough in the public memory, although occasionally one notices that some members of the Opposition forget what happened in 1970. Some of them have had lapses of memory in that regard; others brush it aside as some minor trivial event. But I want to contrast what happened in Mullingar on Monday week, what one might describe as excessive verbal exuberance, with what happened under Fianna Fáil, and I want to compare. I shall not give my version of it: Deputy Colley was worried because I gave what he said, and I think it was a fair analysis of the Minister's letter to the President. I want to quote again for Deputies in case their memories are defective. Mark you it is not the first time that politicians forgot things. It is a long time since Randolph Churchill said he forgot about Goschen. If one looks at the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts ordered by the Dáil to be printed on 1st December, 1970, one sees on page 61, paragraph 75:
Captain Kelly claimed to have been operating as liaison officer between the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Neil T. Blaney and the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Charles J. Haughey, as members of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Government, and people in Northern Ireland (paragraph 73). He dated this activity from October but later he amended this to August or September.
Later on page 63-this is the important one—it is stated in paragraph 79:
It must be added that had Colonel Hefferon taken appropriate action when he learned from Captain Kelly about the proposed arms importation and his drawings from the account, much of the money might not have been misappropriated. Had the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Neil T. Blaney, the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Charles J. Haughey, and the then Minister for Defence, Deputy James Gibbons, passed on to the Taoiseach their suspicion or knowledge of the proposed arms importation the misappropriation of part of the money which is now known to have been spent on arms might have been avoided.
There is some contrast between that and the speech in Mullingar. It is no wonder Deputies opposite have lapses of memory.
That is not the whole story. We had a debate later. First of all, the debate was in May of that year but we had a debate in October and it transpired that it was subsequently discovered and reported on by the Committee of Public Accounts that £100,000 was misappropriated. That money has not yet been recovered. That was no comment of an ex tempore nature. That was a finding by a Committee of this House on which there were members of all parties. For those who may not be aware of it, the Committee of Public Accounts is an all-party committee and it is traditional that the Opposition fill the post of chairman. It is also the tradition that the Committee agree on its report. It would not be an uncharitable description, in the words of Harold Wilson, to say that a report of this sort is the lowest common denominator. That is the result that this Committee found after an investigation. The contrast between what the Minister said the other day and what was found to have happened in that report does not require elaboration.
As regards this debate, everybody recognises that there was generated a temporary state of mass hysteria. As the Minister for Lands said, this is an era in which the first headline on the media takes over and it goes on as long as it can go. Sometimes it dies suddenly. The Opposition brought in a motion last week and have now brought in another motion. In the course of almost every speech made here today their comments were prefaced or interspersed with references to the economy, realising that there was no real substance in this debate, no real belief or conviction among the Opposition that there was any serious problem so far as the State is concerned.
Of course, we regret—this has been said many times in the debate—what happened. The fact is that this legislation—and this goes to the root of it and this is what the Opposition want to conceal—was introduced to deal with a conspiracy against the institutions of this State. It was delayed in its passage through this House by a deliberate policy of obstruction from the Opposition. These are facts. We wanted this legislation to save the lives of gardaí and to save the institutions of the State, to prevent attacks on the courts, to ensure that this country would be free and that the only authority to act for it would be the authority responsible to this House, elected by and answerable to the people.
The Opposition are always worrying about me. When I was in Opposition they were afraid I would be toppled from one day to the other. When I am in Government they are still afraid I will be toppled.
You are the best friend we have.
May I say this? Thank God, whether in Government or in Opposition I was always able to look after myself and, please God, when I am not, I shall call it a day.
The main thing in the debate is this: the Opposition have had their say; they have made what speeches they could; they have tried to make much more of it than it was worth. When all is said and done the Deputies supporting the Government and me will vote confidence in the Government and, in the last analysis, that is what counts.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The Taoiseach made a number of references to lapses of memory. May I ask whether it was due to a lapse of memory or was it deliberate that he failed to answer the questions I put to him as to when he informed the members of the Government of the various points I raised?
That is my business, not yours.
That is the point.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- 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, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Keaveney, Paddy.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.