Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Oct 1976

Vol. 293 No. 5

Confidence in Government: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That Dáil Éireann affirms its confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government.

This motion, and the Opposition motion which it negatives, arise from the reference made by the Minister for Defence at Columb Barracks, Mullingar, on Monday 18th October. I propose to give a statement to the House of the events which have taken place since then.

The Minister's remarks were made about lunchtime on Monday. Let me say now, again, what speakers on this side of the House, and the Minister, have made clear at all times. All of us regret that the phrases were used, and we particularly regret that they should have been open to the construction put on them by the then President. The Minister's remarks in no way reflect the opinion of the Government.

When I heard what the Minister had said on the afternoon of Monday, 18th October, I immediately sought to contact him. When I did so, the Minister told me that he regretted very much what he had said and said that he intended to send the President an apology as soon as possible. He indicated that he would issue a statement to this effect to the media. This he arranged to have done. The statement, issued before 6.30 that evening, was as follows:

I regret the remarks which arose out of my deep feelings for the security of our citizens. I intend to offer my apologies to the President as soon as possible.

May I say that the Minister tried to have his statement available for use by the media simultaneously with the report of his remarks? He was successful in this in all cases, except one. Later that day, when I had clarified the position, I interrupted a function I was attending to phone the President. I was, however, not able to say much as I had to speak on a public telephone. I arranged to contact him again on the following day.

When I had been speaking to the Minister on Monday, I asked him to see me in my office on the following day before the Government meeting. The Minister came to my office about 10.45 a.m. on the Tuesday and offered his resignation. I did not accept his offer. I asked him to apologise to the President, as he had promised to do, and said that I would inform the Government of his offer of resignation at the Government meeting which was due to be held shortly afterwards. This I did.

Later that day, the Minister tried to see the President but, as is generally known now, the President was not available for the meeting. I phoned the President that afternoon and informed him that the Minister was sending a letter of apology. He said he would await receipt of the letter but that he had already taken certain preliminary decisions, the nature of which he did not disclose to me. The Minister then wrote to him conveying his apologies and expressing very deep regret for the expressions he had used. The President received the letter at 5.45 p.m. and replied by a letter of the same date. His reply was received in the Minister's Department at 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20th October. The Minister sent me a copy of the letter, late in the afternoon of that day, and said that he would be replying. The President, in his letter, neither accepted nor rejected the Minister's apologies and raised many questions about the Minister's remarks which had not been dealt with in the Minister's earlier letter of apology.

On Friday last, the Minister wrote again to the President indicating acceptance of the gravamen of his utterances as pointed out by the President. He expressed his regret for these references and again tendered his sincere and humble apology. This letter was issued on the afternoon of Friday before the Minister or I had any knowledge of the President's intentions. That letter was received by the President late on Friday afternoon, before he had resigned from office, but was not published with the other correspondence.

At the meeting of the Government on Tuesday morning, 19th October, as I stated earlier, I informed the Government of the Minister's offer to resign, as I had told him I would, but did not consider that I should advise the President to accept it. This was still the position up to the time the President resigned at 6 p.m. on Friday evening, the 22nd October. Even then the correspondence between the Minister and the President was incomplete. The President had received the Minister's second letter but we did not know his reaction to it—whether he intended to accept the Minister's apologies or reject them or call a meeting of the Council of State for consultation, or indeed what he intended to do.

I would stress that not only was the correspondence incomplete until late on Friday but that it was a private correspondence between the President and the Minister. I kept the Government informed of its contents in so far as I knew them. As the House generally knows the President released the two earlier letters to the Press about the time of his resignation. I have now arranged for copies of all the letters to be placed in the Library of this House, for the information of Deputies.

On learning of the resignation, the Government said:

The Government have learned with deep regret of the decision of Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh to resign, and wish to record their appreciation of his services during his term of office as President.

The Minister, when he heard of the President's resignation, made a second offer to resign.

Let me say here and now, clearly and emphatically, that I have the greatest respect for the office of the President and for the man who so lately held that office. I would also wish to make it clear that neither I nor any member of the Government endorse the tone or the content of the remarks made by the Minister in Columb Barracks which led to the President's resignation.

The ultimate guarantor of Constitutional rights is the Supreme Court. The right of the President under Article 26 of the Constitution to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court for a decision as to its constitutionality is one of the means by which this guardianship can be exercised. Nothing a Government or this House does should, in any way, endanger or call in question that right. 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.

But look at the facts. The Minister had made a statement which he has regretted and for which he has unreservedly apologised. He, in no way, reflects Government opinion in what he said. And he has done his best to retract any wrongful reflection on the office of the Presidency which might have been implied in his remarks. These remarks, however inexcusable in tone, sprang from the Minister's own passionately held convictions as to the priorities in the contention with those who use violence to advance political ends.

And let us not, sitting in the security of this House, forget just how deeply held those convictions are on the Minister's part. He lives near the Border where atrocious murders have been committed. His own premises have been the subject of bombing attacks. I do not say that it is because of these events that the Minister holds his views so strongly— they are too much part of his nature for that—but the fact that these things happened can only have strengthened his convictions and given them an emotional depth and strength which many who have not suffered as he has may well lack. We should remember this before criticising the man.

I would like you, in particular, to look at this question of motivation. The Minister believes strongly in the institutions of this State, the necessity for upholding the rule of law and for getting rid of subversion and violence as a political weapon. He used words he should not have used; he acted in a way no one would seek to defend. But what he did was done out of a passionate belief in convictions which the vast majority in this House share. He apologised for what was wrong in his actions and has regretted unreservedly any hurt he may have caused to the person of the President for whom we all have the greatest regard. Indeed, I would like now to take this opportunity of expressing again to him my appreciation and that of the Government of his services as President.

I think that to pursue the question of the Minister's resignation in the circumstances I have outlined could confer benefits neither on the Government nor on the Irish people. What the Minister did, his reasons for doing it and the subsequent course of events certainly do not warrant any loss of confidence in me or in the Government. I ask the House to support this view.

Mr. J. Lynch

For the second time in successive weeks we in Dáil Éireann are debating a motion which reflects the greatest discredit on the Taoiseach and on the Government. Last week we tabled a motion asking the Taoiseach to dismiss the Minister for Defence for his grossly offensive remarks in relation to the Presidency. We tabled that motion because we felt it was the Taoiseach's responsibility to take action which we felt should be taken by any man who regards as serious the responsibility of the office that the Taoiseach holds. We were not aware then that the Minister had offered his resignation. Obviously, the Minister realised the gravity of what he had said, the gravity of his undermining of the office of the President, but the Taoiseach now reveals that he did not see it that way and he rejected the offer of the Minister of his resignation. I believe that that compounds all the more the serious action and statement of the Minister for Defence.

We in this country have for over 50 years prided ourselves on having shown the way of freedom to freedom-loving nations who, like ourselves, were under domination of other countries and, who, like ourselves, sought the right to self-determination and to cast off the yoke of domination by a foreign power. We were looked upon by many of the emerging nations, as they are called, as a nation and country who, notwithstanding many years of suppression and domination, proved to be of the calibre and the character to govern ourselves efficiently and in accordance with the most exacting tenets of democracy. We took particular pride in refuting, and refuting utterly, the allegations and even the suggestions that we were not able to govern ourselves. Many nations such as India— I could mention more—who in the intervening years had secured the freedom and right to self-determination, the right to sovereignty, have regarded us as the paragon, the example, the justification for their seeking and obtaining the rights we have enjoyed now for some 55 years.

Unfortunately, the Minister for Defence, and particularly the Taoiseach by his inaction, has seriously tarnished the reputation that we had abroad, the reputation that successive generations of Irish people have exalted. Our Constitution of 1937, limited though it is in its territorial effectiveness, was regarded at the time —and indeed since, notwithstanding some criticisms of certain parts of it— as an example of what republicanism in its broadest meaning should be, what democracy in its very essence meant. The people themselves declare that they, the people, are the ultimate authority. Article 6. says:

1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy according to the requirements of the common good.

2. These powers of government are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of State established by this Constitution.

The organs of State were established to ensure that the ultimate authority of this State would remain in the people's hands.

It provided for a system of elections of a Legislative Assembly through the system of proportional representation. It provided certain constraints on the elected representatives and on the government that would set up under that system by establishing the office of Presidency that would, in the ultimate, be the guardian of the people's rights under the Constitution. It provided also that the person who would occupy the office of President would be elected by popular suffrage, except where there was no contest, and it provided procedures whereby the President would exercise his constitutional functions independently of the Government. In effect, the President is the supreme guardian of the Constitution, the supreme protector of the people and of their rights under the Constitution. The Constitution lays down certain procedures whereby the President would exercise these rights.

At this stage I should like to refer briefly to the appropriate provisions of the Constitution and relate them to the calculated, deliberate and outrageous criticism of the President in the exercise of these constitutional functions by the Minister for Defence. Under Article 12.8. the President is bound, in pursuance of his oath on entering office, solemnly and sincerely to promise and declare that he will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that he will fulfil his duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law. Article 13.8.1º states:

The President shall not be answerable to either House of the Oireachtas or to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and functions of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of these powers and functions.

Article 12.10.1º states that the President may be impeached for stated misbehaviour and Article 13.8.2º states that his behaviour may be brought under review in either of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Minister for Defence chose to impute to the President misbehaviour in the carrying out of his functions. The Minister did this in his own way and at his own chosen venue, the opening of an Army cookhouse in the presence of Army personnel. Is it not clear that the Minister for Defence, no matter what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach may say, was clearly in breach of the Constitution? If he felt he had a complaint against the President, a complaint so serious that he had to express himself as he did, there were powers in the Constitution whereby he could have taken action through himself or through the Government.

Following the enactment of the Emergency Powers legislation the President decided, not only in accordance with his conscience but also drawing on his vast experience as a constitutional lawyer, that because of the doubts he had in his mind about the provisions of that enactment and about its relation to Article 28 of the Constitution to refer it to the Supreme Court. It is well to recall that in the course of that referral the Attorney General argued that it was no function of the Supreme Court to inquire behind the resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the resolutions that enabled the Emergency Powers legislation to be passed, declaring that there was a state of national emergency. The Attorney General argued that the knowledge whether there was a state of national emergency was only within the peculiar knowledge of the Government and could not be disclosed to anybody, not even to the Supreme Court or to this House, because of the confidential nature of the reports the Government had in their possession.

It is well to recall that the Supreme Court rejected that contention. They decided they had power to inquire into it, even though they were not doing it then because they accepted there was a presumption of a state of emergency because of the enactment of the declaration of the two resolutions and because the presumption was not refuted in open court. However, they held they were entitled to inquire behind the resolutions to see whether the fact existed to justify the passing of the resolutions. It is well to recall that time and again we sought in the course of the passage of that legislation to write into section 7 of the Emergency Powers Act the right of a detained person to have access to his lawyer, doctor and family but time and again the Minister refused to write these provisions into the section. Again, the Supreme Court saw fit to say and to put on the record that a person detained under that section would have rights of access to his doctor, lawyer and family.

Apparently the Government were annoyed at the exercise by the President of his powers and functions under the Constitution and possibly they were annoyed at the full content of the judgment of the Supreme Court. However, whatever resentment was felt, all the members of the Government, with one exception, refrained from expressing this in public until the Minister for Defence, in his own way, launched his attack on the Presidency, the only result and purpose being to undermine the highest institution of our democracy.

I have no intention of repeating what I had to say last week about the Minister's unwarranted and reprehensible remarks, the responsibility for which has now passed from that unfortunate Minister to the shoulders of the Taoiseach himself. When I raised the Special Notice Question on Wednesday last, 20th October, and when I moved the motion on the following day asking for the Minister's dismissal I was not aware of the contents of the Minister's apology to the President. I was not aware if the President had replied and, therefore, I was certainly not aware of the contents of the President's reply. However, it is obvious that even if the Taoiseach was not aware of it on the Wednesday—he has now told us that the Minister sent him a copy of the President's reply in the late afternoon of Wednesday, possibly after he answered the Special Notice Question put down by me—certainly he was aware of the contents of the President's reply when he spoke on the motion here on the following day, on Thursday, 21st October.

The Taoiseach must have known from the context of the President's reply the likely outcome of his own silence and his failure to take appropriate action. However, he did nothing. He refused again the Minister's offer of resignation at a later stage, did nothing except apparently make a mild phone call to the President to say the Minister wanted to see him and then another mild phone call to say the Minister was sending a letter of apology.

Therefore, the responsibility for the resignation of the President, for undermining this most important democratic institution. rests solely on the Taoiseach's shoulders. The Taoiseach's fumbling attempts here last week to justify his Minister— and, indeed, today's attempt was little, if anything, better except that at least it was factual; the irrelevant support he received from the Parliamentary Secretary Deputy John Kelly, who was the only other speaker on the Government side during the course of that debate calling on the Taoiseach to dismiss the Minister these all compound the Minister's offence.

As for the Labour Party, not even one member of that party sat in this House through the major part of that debate. Not one of them spoke on the motion. Apparently they could not find it in their conscience to defend the Minister for Defence but they did find it possible to defend him with their feet walking through the lobby, and all this notwithstanding the misgivings known to have been expressed at the Labour Party meeting earlier that day.

I would like to recall some remarks of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, then Deputy Justin Keating, during the course of the debate on the nomination of Deputy O'Malley as a member of the Government on the 7th May, 1970, when he said in relation to Fianna Fáil's solidarity on that occasion:

The unity of Fianna Fáil is their shame, because it is a unity entirely without principle and without honour.

The phrase "unity is their shame" now rings very true. The wheel has turned full circle to the eternal shame of the Labour Party in relation to this incident.

The only Government speaker apart from the Taoiseach, as I said, was the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Kelly, who treated us to a series of irrelevancies and what I can only describe as constitutional contortions. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, each speaking recently within his own constituency to his own party faithful, tried to play down the seriousness of what happened last week.

The most audacious of these contributions came from the Minister for Foreign Affairs who chided us, the Fianna Fáil Party—and, perhaps, all those who regarded what was said of the President as a damaging attack on our Constitution—for, as he said, making political capital out of the situation. I am rather surprised this Minister should treat this constitutional crisis so lightly as to try to divert attention from it to the economic situation. Of course, the economy is in a crisis situation. Of course, it is a matter of extreme importance to every one of us. But who, might I ask, is responsible for this economic chaos, and who is responsible for the constitutional crisis which is now upon us, bringing about the resignation of President Ó Dálaigh? As head of the Government, the Taoiseach is fully responsible for all these matters.

We are grateful that at last the Minister for Foreign Affairs has woken up to the serious position of the economy. Deputy FitzGerald, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has as much, if not more than any other member of the Government apart from the Minister for Finance, contributed to this sad economic situation. The Taoiseach has presided over one blunder after another, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs advises us not to advert to these blunders, not to criticise the Government for having committed them.

Do this Government expect to be above criticism, and particularly political criticism? Admittedly, they did not get much of it in their early, heady days when they were feeding and surviving on the healthy economic situation which they inherited on coming into office. Since then, unfortunately, they have shown themselves pitiably unable to tackle the most minor economic problem with any degree of courage, decisiveness or efficiency. The country does not have to wait until now, three-and-a-half years after the advent of this Coalition Government, to be told by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the weeks ahead will be crucial for us. They failed to act and to respond to reasonable criticism and constructive suggestions put forward by this party down through the years in relation to the economic situation. Of course "the Government of all the talents" could hardly be expected to take advice from the Opposition, but with equal élan, one might say even with disdain, they refused to take advice from the Economic and Social Development Council, from the Economic and Social Research Institute and from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

It is a sad reflection that we are now, with Italy—who, incidentally, for several months on end have not had a government—at the top of the European league as far as inflation is concerned. Only two days ago the Taoiseach's Parliamentary Secretary said that since 1973 our inflation has been running at an annual rate of 25 per cent, and it is still on the way up. This is a sad reflection on the economic performance of this Government, but more of that anon; we have an opportunity next week of debating more fully the economic shambles we now have in this country.

As the Government, month after month, failed to recognise the crumbling structure of our economy, are we now going to witness their failure to recognise and to acknowledge the crumbling structure of our democracy, because the Taoiseach refused to take the action he should have taken and the action which was offered to him by the Minister himself following that Minister's extraordinary behaviour?

Some people may try to justify the Taoiseach's extraordinary failure to act as a mark of loyalty, and even blind loyalty, to a colleague, but this is not the first occasion on which the Taoiseach has displayed the same kind of blind loyalty in some of the actions that not only he but his Ministers have taken in appointments to various offices of reward within the giving of this Government. This is the Taoiseach who was held up to us as a paragon of virtue, the man who would defend our Constitution and institutions of State at all costs, the man who would have us believe before he got into the position of power that he would act with dignity and impartiality, the man who so often contemptuously referred to Fianna Fáil's desire to stay in power only because of their desire to have their hands near the loot. Instead he has distributed that loot to the advantage of his own party followers at a rate and to an extent hitherto unknown in this land.

The burden of our motion, which is being superseded by the Taoiseach's own motion, which, perhaps, we anticipated, is primarily concerned with the responsibility for the assault on the Presidency, for obliging Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh to resign, an eminently suitable President who was carrying out his functions strictly in accordance with the Constitution. The Government say that they represent 50 per cent of the people or may represent the people as a whole, but no Government can represent somewhat more than 50 per cent anyhow, whereas the President represents the entire population. As a result of the reference by the President of the Emergency Powers Act to the Supreme Court the people now fully realise, if they never did before, that the President is their only or main defence against the action of a Government that might well, without that restraining influence, incline towards fascism or totalitarianism. Indeed, we have seen some evidence of that in recent weeks.

The Taoiseach and his colleagues when in Opposition often boasted that they always put the country above party. By his failure to act on this occasion, by his failure to take adequate and appropriate action the Taoiseach has proved his claim to be completely false and unsustainable. When the real test came for him to put his country above his party and above his desire to preserve what remains of the shattered image of this Coalition the Taoiseach lamentably and miserably failed. There has been inaction in relation to the economy, in relation to any sort of policy on Northern Ireland and in relation to the events of last week. The country now is in a state of constitutional crisis.

Grave constitutional difficulties have presented themselves to the people. This was initiated by the Minister for Defence when he undermined our democratic institutions. Who was responsible? The Taoiseach, of course. The country is now in economic chaos caused by the inept and incompetent handling of our finances. Again, I ask who is responsible? Again, I reply, the Taoiseach. The country is in a grave unemployment situation; industry is at a standstill; our people are dispirited and frustrated through Government inaction. Who is responsible for all this? Again, the answer is and must be, the Taoiseach.

There is only one honourable course for him and that course is the one I call on the Taoiseach now to take, to resign and give the people the opportunity to pass judgment on him and on his Government.

The Tánaiste

The Opposition motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach is primarily a political motion designed by the Opposition to bring about a general election. I believe it is a selfish manoeuvre and it is clear from the remarks of the Opposition that the Presidency is now only of secondary importance to them and that the real issue is defeating the Government if they can. I intend to treat the debate in that light.

The Opposition motion is a piece of opportunism brought about by the resignation of the President but it carries greater dangers for an office which is meant to be above politics. In my view the immediate need now is for calm, reconciliation and understanding and not further doses of political controversy. The country is faced with the mose serious economic and security crisis ever experienced in peace time and needs the full co-operation of all sections of the community. The economy of our nearest neighbour and largest trading partner is tottering on the verge of collapse. This affects us in terms of exports, jobs and inflation in a most serious way. At the same time, the security situation worsens with the assassination of the British Ambassador, the bombing of the Special Criminal Court, the incendiary attack on Dublin and lately the foul murder of a young member of the Garda Síochána. To me these are the real emergencies. These are the issues which cry out for national consensus and united national commitment.

The primary concern of this House should be for the lives and livelihood of our people especially those who are least able to defend themselves. These are the real national priorities and must not be abandoned no matter how great the temptation may be for the Opposition, even the temptation of their mistaken belief of a return to power.

The immediate cause of these motions is the resignation of the President because of remarks made about him by the Minister for Defence. I regret the remarks were ever made and I regret that the President saw fit to resign. I regret abuse from whatever quarter it comes and I regret it in respect of the person who is attacked. I do not believe that this episode, deplorable as it was, necessitated or warranted the resignation either of the President or the Minister for Defence. In saying that, I do not wish to dismiss the seriousness of the Minister's remarks or to minimise their regrettable nature or to ignore the offence given to the former President and I do not wish to be misrepresented as doing so. The remarks constituted a breach of accepted behaviour but a breach which could have been repaired by measures short of resignation. The President, however, did not regard the breach as capable of being repaired and, accordingly, he resigned. I respect his decision to do so even though it saddens me.

Nobody regrets his resignation more than I do. Lest Deputy Lynch should forget, I was one of the three party leaders instrumental in proposing Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh for President. I have always had the highest regard for him during the long years I have known him and I was most happy to associate the Labour Party with his unanimous nomination for the Presidency. In this debate I should like, as has been done by others, to record my sincere appreciation of his services to the nation, not alone as President but as Justice and as Chief Justice. I do this, not because it is formally expected of me, but because I believe our thanks and appreciation are due to him. In respect of the Presidency he fulfilled his duties with dignity and honour. It is regrettable that he resigned but commendable that he regarded the issue as closed and finished by his resignation. It is evidently not finished as we can see from the motion that has been tabled by the Opposition and as we can gather from the decision of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party to nominate their own Presidential candidate and to repudiate any attempt to get an agreed, all-party candidate. They hope to capitalise on the legitimate and understandable public sympathy for the man who resigned as President. They hope to turn that sympathy into support for their candidate and, if he is elected, to represent their success as a popular vote of no confidence in the Government which presumably they will expect to resign and be replaced by themselves.

If ever there was a recipe for constitutional crisis that is one—to use the office of Presidency as a battering ram to bring down the Government. I believe it is the most irresponsible strategy ever pursued by a political party in this House. To put a President elected by Deputy Lynch's manifesto of opposition to the Government into conflict with the Government elected in a general election would be to create the first constitutional crisis in the country since the late Mr. de Valera dissolved the Seanad for disagreeing with him. That is the danger which must be avoided if at all possible. It remains a potential danger should Fianna Fáil persist in exploiting for their own party reasons the electoral possibilities they believe to exist in the present circumstances. It may become an actual danger, but that is something I would prefer not to contemplate at this stage. I hope Fianna Fáil have the good sense to stop this before it goes any further, but I am afraid the danger is that they will not. That danger places in its proper perspective the motives behind this motion and the real regard of its movers for the non-political role of the Presidency. It also puts into its proper context the sincerity of the Opposition mover, who refused to associate on an agreed candidate with the leaders of the other two parties but who sees fit to associate and collaborate with a man he sacked from his Cabinet and who later retaliated by calling for his dismissal as Taoiseach.

I do not believe I ever did Deputy Lynch any wrong. I regret if I have offended any Member of this House but I am not going to listen silently to the Deputy's self-righteous indignation when I see the composition of his own front bench, nor am I going to listen to lectures in political morality from some of its members. The Opposition motion is designed to bring about a general election. It leaves the House open to the charge that we are engaging in sordid party politics at a time when real dangers face the economy and the safety of our people. If we descend to this we will be rightly condemned for it by a public distressed by the President's resignation but concerned with the economic future and anxious about its safety and its security. This is the time for reconciliation not recrimination, for calm and not for confrontation. It is also a time for responding to the situation with dignity and restraint. I believe this is what the people want. The Dáil should ensure that that is how it responds.

In order to assist such a response I should like to deal with some misconceptions which have been given public prominence and which tend to inflame rather than to inform. The first misconception is that the Government objected to the President exercising his right to refer Bills to the Supreme Court. It has been alleged by some Opposition spokesmen, and regrettably repeated by some elements of the press, that the Government were angry when the President called the Council of State into session and later sent the Emergency Powers Bill to the Supreme Court. It alleged that this attitude in some way triggered the remarks of the Minister for Defence. There is no truth in that allegation. It was not so. The Government introduced the emergency legislation in the sincere belief that it was constitutional. The President believed there was a doubt about one of the Bills and referred it to the Supreme Court. Needless to remark, this right was not challenged by the Government and was not objected to by the Government. The situation could not have been otherwise. In fact, the reference of the Bill to the Supreme Court had the beneficial effect of removing all doubts as to its constitutionality and has vindicated the Government's belief that it was constitutional.

It has, furthermore, clarified certain aspects of the law which had caused some persons genuine but, as it turned out, unnecessary anxiety. It has scotched the more ridiculous and reckless allegations of the Opposition that the effect of the emergency resolution and the Bill was to suspend the Constitution and remove the right to habeas corpus. These were the real and tangible benefits which resulted from the President's decision and proved the wisdom of his action.

As far as I am concerned, and as far as this Government and, I am sure, any future Government are concerned, any President can refer any Bill to the Supreme Court for adjudication at any time he thinks necessary. This procedure when adopted does not reflect on the good faith of the Government which introduced the legislation or the Houses which passed it. Neither does it imply a conflict between the Government and the President. On the contrary, such a procedure is a constitutional act and not a political one. When Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh resorted to that procedure in respect of the Emergency Powers Bill, he was acting completely within his rights as President and we as a Government accepted this. He exercised his role strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

I am personally glad that the Constitution empowers any President to refer Bills to the Supreme Court. Every Government have upheld and will, I am sure, continue in the future to uphold the Constitution, but it is always possible that some Bill may inadvertently infringe one or more Articles of the Constitution. I say "inadvertently", not "deliberately". No political party or group of parties sets out by way of legislation to deliberately subvert the Constitution. This Parliament is the first bulwark in defence of the Constitution. But it is a wise precaution to empower the President of the day to scrutinise all legislation lest some unintentional infringement should occur. Whenever a doubt arises in his mind as to the constitutionality of a Bill he not only has a right but, in my opinion, an obligation to refer that Bill to the Supreme Court for adjudication. Whatever it in turn decides, we as politicians must and do accept its decision unreservedly. To suggest otherwise, to imply otherwise, is totally at variance with the facts and damages in a very real way the respect for political leadership upon which democracy rests. Let those who make such allegations bear this in mind when they lecture the nation on respect for the Constitution. I hope that these remarks, when taken in conjunction with the Taoiseach's on this subject, will lay this misconception for all time.

The Taoiseach in his speech has dealt with the sequence of events which led to the President's resignation. I should like to elaborate on some aspects of those events so that the second grave and serious misrepresentation can be corrected and repudiated. There have been certain public allegations that the Taoiseach withheld from members of the Cabinet the exchange of correspondence between the Minister and the President on 19th October. Some of these allegations have gone further by suggesting that the Taoiseach thereby misled the Cabinet as to the true nature of the letters, hence the seriousness of the situation. I wish to repudiate these allegations unequivocally. The members of the Cabinet were made aware of the letters, as was their entitlement, and there was no question of the Taoiseach deceiving or misleading his Cabinet colleagues. We had examples of Ministers deceiving each other and their Taoiseach in the previous Government, but it is not the practice in this Cabinet to do so.

I am concerned that this particular point should be established because the resignation of the President is serious enough in itself without there being added to it the sensation of a Taoiseach deceiving his Cabinet colleagues. Those who allege otherwise do so without foundation and do so dishonestly.

Finally, I repudiate the allegations that the Taoiseach unnecessarily withheld information from the Dáil when he answered Deputy Lynch's Special Notice Question on the 20th of this month or that he misrepresented the contents of the letter of the Minister for Defence to the President. The Taoiseach could not divulge the contents of the letter from the Minister to the President without the prior approval of the President and to allege that its contents were withheld for any other reason is both mischievous and misleading. It is important to remember that at that stage the Taoiseach did not have a copy of the President's reply to the Minister, so there was no way of knowing what way the President had reacted to the apology. If the Taoiseach had the information it would have been given. The Taoiseach has not hesitated in the past to impart information when it was in the national interest to do so. Some of the Deputies opposite have reason to be thankful for this high concept of public good, which contrasted so strongly with their own.

Mr. Coughlan

The tip of the iceberg.

The Tánaiste

As I said at the beginning, the immediate need is for calm and reconciliation. That is why we should remove from this debate unfounded allegations and insinuations and try, if at all possible, to repair whatever damage has been done with the minimum amount of delay and disagreement. That is why it has been necessary to remove some poisonous allegations so that we can identify clearly the root cause of this present controversy. It is the Northern crisis and its effects upon us. If there had been no Northern conflict and its spill over effect into the Republic, there would have been no Presidential resignation just as there would have been no Cabinet crisis in May, 1970.

Truly, the North has taken a heavy toll of political institutions in the Republic. This painful affair has arisen as a direct consequence of the IRA campaign of violence on this island, and, specifically, as a result of the British Ambassador's assassination, which led to the passage of the Emergency resolution and its two accompanying Bills.

The remarks of the Minister for Defence were themselves made within two days of the death of a young garda following a murderous attack on a Garda patrol in County Laois. They were withdrawn the same day and apologised for publicly. In themselves the remarks were personally offensive and open to misrepresentation. It is a matter of the deepest regret that they were ever made, because personally offensive remarks can never be condoned and, also, because they were open to misrepresentation.

Normally, when someone is treated in this way, the matter can be settled by an apology. In this case, it was clear, given the importance of the Presidency that any apology in order to be acceptable had to be made in public without reservation. In addition, it was also clear that the apology had to remove any possibility of questioning the President's powers and any possibility of a recurrence of such remarks. If no apology had been tendered, the Minister's resignation would have been inevitable. If no reassurance had been given on the President's constitutional rights the Minister's dismissal would have followed. In the event, the Minister undertook of his own volition to tender his own apology directly to the President. When this was not possible he sent it in writing. The nature and content of the apology removed any possibility of the remarks being repeated or further aspersions being cast on the office of the Presidency.

The President for his part believed that a special relationship existed between him and the Minister for Defence and replied that the Minister's remarks had irreparably breached this special relationship. We can infer from his reply that, in the President's view, the apology submitted in writing by the Minister did not suffice. The President later resigned for reasons he has publicly stated. I respect these reasons and I do not dispute the President's right to resign or to criticise his decision to do so in accordance with his concept of the office. But there are other ways of resolving differences and of healing relationships no matter how seriously they may have been damaged. Every and any action has to be weighed against its consequences. In political life, resignation is the most serious of all the options open to an office holder.

My concept of the Presidency covers not only special relationships with individual Ministers but involves a unifying role in the life of the nation. At this moment, we are torn apart by the Northern crisis and threatened by economic forces. Never were we in such need of unity, reconciliation and calm.

In these circumstances, without questioning for one moment the President's right to resign or the sincerity of the motives which caused him to do so, it is my view that the public apology of the Minister should have sufficed since it meant that the remarks were withdrawn and personally regretted, were not condoned by the Government and, therefore, ensured there would be no repetition. The last thing we need now is political controversy which embitters relationships between both sides of this House and among the public generally.

As the Taoiseach indicated in his opening remarks, the Minister for Defence tendered his resignation twice during the last week. In addition to offering his public apology to the President, this was the right and proper thing to do. It was then open to the Taoiseach and to him only to accept or refuse the resignation. This right to appoint, retain or sack Ministers is the Taoiseach's constitutional right, probably the most important political power vested in him, or any Taoiseach by the Constitution. The Leader of the Opposition will recall that this right was contested by two of his former Ministers when he sought their resignation and that he had it upheld at a meeting of his Parliamentary Party after he had exercised his right by sacking the two Ministers in question. The Taoiseach decided not to accept the resignation of the Minister for Defence and that right cannot be contested.

As I said earlier, we are all, in this painful affair, the casualties of the Northern crisis and the campaign of subversion associated with it. I do not wish to see the damage maximised by turning the non-political office of the President into a major party political controversy. My concept of the Presidency is that it should be filled by someone who is acceptable to all the political parties, someone who rises above the political process which chooses him the minute he enters office, someone who is acceptable to a united people.

There is a grave danger, as I have already said, that this concept of the Presidency will be irreparably damaged in the immediate future. The people are being invited by one Opposition Deputy to elect a Fianna Fáil President. There is no such thing as a "Fianna Fáil President". There is simply a President. It is to be deplored that the party which is virtually claiming for itself the monopoly of respect for the integrity and impartiality of the Presidency should at the same time ask the people to elect a "Fianna Fáil President". Nothing could be more foreign to the non-political character of the Presidency than a party political label.

I ask Fianna Fáil to give up this dangerous adventure because a bitter Presidential campaign, fought solely on party political lines and incorporating the idea of a verdict on the Government, would make it virtually impossible for a new President to restore the non-political character of the Presidency. I do not want that to happen and I am sure most Members of this House do not want it to happen either. I am prepared to co-operate on whatever measures are considered necessary to restore calm and reconcile differences. I am prepared to act to defend the non-political character of the Presidency which I put above party. I invite all parties to do likewise. I am confident that the good sense, national responsibility of all parties here will prevail and that this painful affair will be ended as quickly as possible and with the least possible division and recrimination.

I have spoken at length on the Presidency because it has given rise to the motions before us. But the motion moved in the name of the Taoiseach seeks to affirm the confidence of Dáil Éireann in the Taoiseach and the Government. I had intended, and still intend, to speak in the debate on the economy scheduled for next week. With all due respect, the Labour Party and I consider that it is the economy which comes at the top of the country's priorities along with the security situation.

Mr. J. Lynch

Why did we not have a debate on it last week?

The Tánaiste

It will be held next week; the Deputy tried to get it this morning. Notwithstanding current economic difficulties, I would have infinitely preferred to have concentrated solely and totally on the Government's record in dealing with the economy, tackling poverty, promoting social reform, building houses and developing our natural resources.

These are the policy objectives for which the Labour Party went into Government. These are the issues which have been at the heart of our policies and which give Labour their distinct role in Irish politics. We are in Government to defend the interests of those we represent and to implement the maximum amount of our policies. We are not in power for power's sake. Power without purpose is to me immoral. We are in Government to do the best we can to propagate and implement our policies, not for the sake of power, prestige or position.

I am speaking in favour of the Taoiseach's motion and my party are voting for it because the overall record of the Government merits that support. The Government must continue in office particularly to deal with the economic crisis and nothing could be more irrelevant at this moment than a presidential election, and nothing more unnecessary than a general election.

The issue of the Presidency is not one on which to resign. To the Labour Party, quite frankly, it is not that important. What is important is the economy, employment, inflation, the poor, the social services, economic recovery and social justice. That is why we went into Government. This is what I want the Government and the people to concentrate on.

Government is never an easy task, but outside of wartime it was never more difficult than it is now. The economic and security crises are putting stresses on the Government, on the political parties which comprise them, and on the individuals concerned in a way never before experienced. The wonder is that we have come through so relatively unscathed. It would be easier if these stresses were more widely understood and appreciated, because democracy needs popular consent and understanding if it is to survive.

My party willingly undertook to enter Government before the economic crisis arose, and prior to the recent deterioration in the security situation. If we were prepared to accept office in better times, we cannot in all honesty desert it when the going gets rough, and we are not going to do so. We will continue to the best of our abilities to serve the nation and to implement the maximum amount of our policy. In particular we will stay to tackle employment and inflation, to protect the poor and to defend the people against armed subversion.

We support the motion of confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Taoiseach seems to be mistaken this week, as last week, when he seems to confine the issues to the resignation of the Minister for Defence. The issue has become much more serious and fundamental than that. When the Taoiseach said towards the close of his short address this morning that he did not see any reason now or then why he should request the Minister for Defence to resign, he was, as has been the custom of the Government since this unfortunate crisis emerged, personalising the issue between the Minister for Defence and our former President, Mr. Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh. It has gone much deeper than that. This is not a personal issue between the Minister for Defence and the former President. It is not a personal issue even between the Taoiseach and Mr. Ó Dálaigh, and much less have we on this side the right to maintain it as a personal or party issue between us and the Government. It is a fundamental constitutional issue relating to the Taoiseach, his responsibilities under our Constitution and his obligations as Taoiseach—and I mean these in ascending order of priority—first, to his Government, second, to this Legislature and third, to the people of Ireland over whom he has a special responsibility as Leader of our Government. These are the responsibilities we are discussing in this debate.

Let it not be said at any time that we, by implication or otherwise, are denying that there is not a very serious economic situation or that we do not want to discuss it as being the really important issue. The Leader of our party has clearly indicated, both by his statements and by the motion in our names, that we regard these matters as being of fundamental importance and that we regard the Government's failure as being of critical, national significance. Do not let the Government or any other Member say, when trying to defuse this fundamental argument, that the really important things are the economic and social programmes. Of course they are, but we cannot operate in any of these areas unless the constitutional framework, unless the relationship between the Government of the State and the Presidency is clearly understood and fully supported.

Unfortunately we did not have a copy of the Taoiseach's speech this morning. This would have been very helpful to us in analysing what the Taoiseach was setting out. I am working now from my recollection and the notes I took at the time. I clearly understood the Taoiseach to say that on Wednesday last he had seen the letters which had been exchanged between the Minister and the President. The Tánaiste said moments ago that when the Taoiseach spoke to the House on Thursday he had not seen copies of the correspondence that had passed between the Minister for Defence and the President.

Minister for Lands (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick,

Cavan): I do not think he had.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is what I understood the Tánaiste to say. When the Taoiseach spoke here on Thursday, he had seen that correspondence which clearly indicated the President's point of view, and I quote:

A special relationship exists between the President and the Minister for Defence. 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.

"Irreparably breached" was the expression used; it was beyond repair between that Minister and the President. There can be no doubt about what those words represented at that time. He went on to say:

Have you any conception of your responsibilities as a Minister of State and in particular as Minister for Defence?

I do not think even a man noted for his precision of diction ever expressed himself more clearly than did our former President on that occasion. He went on to say:

If the office of President, as I conceive it to be, is to have any usefulness, a President would be failing in his duty to maintain the Constitution and to uphold the laws if he were not vigilant in his scrutiny of the legislative proposals.

He went on:

I cannot accept that what you have to say about the non-reference by me of the Criminal Law Bill was not intended to be a reflection upon my office.

On Wednesday the President had put it beyond doubt that what was passing by way of personal apology between the Minister and himself was unacceptable in his view for constitutional reasons, because of the lack of comprehension on the Minister's part of his constitutional responsibilities, because of the lack of awareness of the relationship between him and the President, and because of the fundamental responsibilities each of them had in a different way to the Army. Nothing could have been clearer than what is indicated in that correspondence. The existence of that correspondence, much less its contents, was concealed from this House last Thursday morning on a motion by our party Leader. How could the Taoiseach conceal from this House the existence of such correspondence and the President's reaction to it? In the light of what the President had said how could the Taoiseach have told us that he believed the apology to be adequate, full and sincere? The Taoiseach was judging the apology to be adequate. To whom was it adequate? Was it adequate to the President of our nation who had indicated clearly to the Taoiseach, through the Minister, that the apology was in no way adequate and that, in fact, no apology could be adequate in the circumstances?

We may hold views as to the former President's personal characteristics. I include in that those of us who have known him also as a Supreme Court judge but those views are largely irrelevant. The President recognised that it was not the generosity of his heart that was being called on to accept an apology. If such had been the case, I doubt if there could be found a more generous or more forgiving heart than that of the former President but what he had to consider was the office he represents—whether and to what extent that office had been damaged. That was his only consideration and the correspondence concerned makes that absolutely clear. It is sad that members of the Government, in particular, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and now, inevitably but, unfortunately, the Tánaiste, should involve themselves in a personal way in this situation. Despite the magnificent lesson that was to be learned from the former President, nothing has been learned by the Government in so far as the consequences and the extent of what happened are concerned.

When the Taoiseach says he regrets the construction being put on the event by the former President he is again personalising the issue between Mr. Ó Dálaigh and the Minister for Defence. The only question that arises in this issue is that of the Constitution. We do not need from the Tánaiste a statement of what he is prepared to accept regarding the President's right to refer Bills to the Supreme Court. We do not need any such statement from anybody on either side of the House because the provision enabling the President to act in such a way is written into the Constitution. The President's functions could not be stated more clearly than they are stated in that Constitution and our obligation simply is to say that we recognise the Constitution, that we have an obligation to act in accordance with its provisions.

I should like now to refer to the Taoiseach's obligations under the Constitution and to the special relationship in this area between the Taoiseach and the President. I refer to Article 13.1.1º which reads:

The President shall, on the nomination of Dáil Éireann, appoint the Taoiseach, that is, the head of the Government...

There is no alternative to that. Paragraph 2º reads:

The President shall, on the nomination of the Taoiseach with the previous approval of Dáil Éireann, appoint the other members of the Government.

Paragraph 3º reads:

The President shall, on the advice of the Taoiseach, accept the resignation or terminate the appointment of any member of the Government.

One way the Taoiseach could have ensured that the President's personal reactions would not have been brought into this affair would have been to discharge his responsibility under Article 13.1.3º, a responsibility which is confirmed later in the Article dealing with the Government's responsibility. Obviously, the Taoiseach should have acted in accordance with that provision in which case the President would have had no option but to accept the resignation. In relation to his reaction the former President said clearly that he was having regard to his duty to maintain the Constitution of Ireland and to uphold its laws. This rejects totally the unfortunate interpretation which both the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach have put on the President's constitutional responsibilities. If the President is not to be regarded as being the guardian of our Constitution, he is to be regarded as having no fundamental function. On coming into Office the oath taken by the President reads:

I láthair Dia na nUilechumacht, táimse, ... á ghealladh agus á dhearbhú go sollúnta is go fírinneach bheith i mo thaca agus i mo dhídin do Bhunreacht Éireann....

That is Article 12.10.4º of the Constitution and the word "thaca" there means obviously to support while the word "dhídin" means to secure or, to provide refuge or safety for. I have quoted the Irish text because it includes those two words, whereas the English text merely uses the word "maintain". Under that oath of office can there be any doubt as to the function of the President in relation to the guaranteeing and the supporting of the Constitution?

While, apart from his brief and inadequate expression of regret here on Thursday last, the Taoiseach remained silent, the infection spread inevitably with the result that we got the reactions of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, each of whom in one way or another downgraded and misrepresented the functions of the President. The Taoiseach must accept responsibility for this downgrading and misrepresentation of that Office. His Parliamentary Secretary expressed in a horrific way the relationship between the President and the Government when he spoke of the garden party being over. In the article he contributed to The Irish Times Deputy Kelly, who is a constitutional lawyer, asked why should not our President be in the position as are the Presidents of such great Republics as France and the United States. He chose to ignore the fact that our President does not have executive functions, that unlike the Presidents of these republics he is not involved in day-to-day political business. The Parliamentary Secretary ignored the fact that these other Presidents are not the guardians of a constitution. Government members have ignored many points of fundamental significance. The Tánaiste has told us that Labour's stand in this relates to the question of our national economic and social benefit. That issue can be debated next Tuesday but what we are debating today is a fundamental constitutional issue. It is not possible to compare one issue with the other in terms of relativity or priority. Without the safeguards that the Constitution provides, we could not operate at all.

No one on this side of the House has suggested that the President is beyond criticism or that in all circumstances we must accept and tolerate what he does but as our Leader has pointed out, in the exercise of his functions the President is not answerable to the Oireachtas or to any court in the land in regard to the discharge of his functions under the Constitution. It could not be made clearer than in Article 13.8.1º which says:

The President shall not be answerable to either House of the Oireachtas or to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and function of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of these powers and functions.

He is not answerable and, to the extent that he is not answerable, any criticism directed at him by us, in the sense that the Parliamentary Secretary said he can be open to criticism, obviously is improper and inappropriate. The Parliamentary Secretary even suggests that he could, if he wished, reply in the public press in the same way as anyone else. But there is no provision in the Constitution which enables him freely to speak to the public except with the prior consent of the Government. Of course, that provision does not distinguish between radio, television and the public press.

Mr. Kelly

Would the Deputy read out the provision?

Mr. O'Kennedy

I did not know the Parliamentary Secretary was there. Of course, I will. Had I known the Parliamentary Secretary was over there it would have helped even more to stimulate my thoughts.

Mr. Cooney

The Deputy could do with that.

Mr. O'Kennedy

My time is rather short and I am endeavouring to be relevant. If there is an implication on the part of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary that I cannot answer the point, I reject it. Perhaps what I should do is get into the public press with them and deal with it there.

Mr. Kelly

Do.

Mr. O'Kennedy

And I have no doubt at all as to which of them will be vindicated. In relation to that, as the Leader of our party pointed out this morning the only way we have a right and an obligation to vindicate or to protect and criticise the President is provided by Article 12.10.1º of the Constitution which says:

The President may be impeached for stated misbehaviour.

If what the Minister for Defence said was not stated misbehaviour I do not know what was. Not only were the words used so incompatible with the discharge and with the dignity and honour of the Presidential office but he also gave the reasons behind them and explained that the President did not do this, that or the other thing. I do not want to go back to that sordid passage now. But the Minister there laid down as clearly as possible grounds of stated misbehaviour against the President.

The Constitution provides a way of making such complaints. Not only does it provide a way but it almost obliges us, as Members of the Oireachtas, if we have that view, to take that way. This the Minister did not do and the Taoiseach did not advert to the fact that the Minister had not done so. They are the people who breached the Constitution. Under Article 12.10.1º the President had indeed a right of reply, not in the correspondence columns of the newspapers as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, but as stated in Article 12.10.6º which says:

The President shall have the right to appear and to be represented at the investigation of the charge.

—which is to be conducted by the House of the Oireachtas which happened to hear the charge. Under that provision the President would have to explain to the Oireachtas whether or not he had discharged his functions. That is what the Constitution lays down. That is what the Taoiseach and the Minister have ignored.

I want to deal with some personal points which the Taoiseach introduced this morning. He talked about the personal concern, the passionately-held conviction of the Minister for Defence. He asked us, to a certain extent, to excuse the Minister because of his passionately held conviction. I presume that, through that, he is asking us to accept what he has done in not asking for the Minister's resignation. We learned this morning that the Minister offered his resignation twice. The Taoiseach concealed the first offer here in the debate the last day. There had to be two deliberate concealments on behalf of the Taoiseach, both as to the resignation offer and the correspondence. Having done that we know now that the Taoiseach apparently still shelters behind his decision, for one reason or another, on the basis that the Minister is to be excused because of his passionately-held conviction, because of his proximity to the Border, because of his personal experience, which we all deplore. Had this never happened I would have thought that if the Minister's convictions were as passionately held as that, if he was to be affected by the personal experience he had on his business premises, even those would have declared him unfit for office, those, in addition to the other sequence of personal misjudgments and events in which the Minister has been involved.

At this time in our country's security we need people in these positions of responsibility who have balanced judgment, sensitivity, people in whom we can have absolute confidence in their reactions to whatever pressures may arise in the future. A man who has the passionately-held convictions of the Minister for Defence—to quote the Taoiseach—and who reacts to them in the way he did before the Army at Columb Barracks—because the Taoiseach has said that it was for that reason he responded as he did— in the view of the nation shows himself to be unfit to hold that very delicate and sensitive office at this time.

Let me say—if it needs to be said —we are not concerned with the person of the Minister for Defence. There are many of us on this side of the House, myself amongst them, who possibly have known that Minister personally for a long time, I certainly have since I came into this House. I have no right as a person to look for his scalp but I do have an obligation, as a legislator, to see that the Taoiseach, who is responsible to all of us, discharges that responsibility when any individual member of the Government does not prove himself fit to discharge his office particularly in such a sensitive area. I am sure the Minister for Justice now in the House must recognise the shocked reaction there must have been amongst the Army officers present on that day when the Minister for Defence spoke as he did. Indeed, it is still causing reactions to the point that we can get a serving officer of the reserve of the FCA to come on the radio, entering into the political arena, saying that this Minister is the best Minister for Defence we have ever had, better than all the other Ministers put together. Unfortunately, the Army have now been involved in an area in which they should never have been involved. They have been brought into a situation because of the Minister's personal direction of their affairs, his attendance at the Claudia affair, his personal projection as Chief of Staff, if one likes, which has been debated in this House on many occasions, in which the very delicate balance between the Army and the Executive has been breached I believe if not irreparably, then certainly damaged.

None of us wants to heighten hysteria at this stage but we do have to point to the developing trends which have been expressed by that Minister for Defence in his attitude to the Army. I do not want to go back over all the chapters that have been documented in this House in relation to that Minister. Before the debate concludes somebody from this side may refer to them. The newspapers have given them very adequate coverage. In the light of that Minister's personal incapacity and unfitness for office and because of the constitutional damage he did vis-á-vis himself and the President, the Taoiseach had no option but to dismiss him. But he did not act on that option. He forced another person who was discharging his responsibility with dignity, honour and concern to remove himself from an office he was gracing to our advantage. He forced him to remove himself from an office he was ensuring would protect the Constitution as it should do. The Taoiseach could not have had more adequate notice of that than he had from the relevant correspondence.

We respect the Taoiseach's concern at a personal level for his Ministers and particularly for one with whom, by all accounts, he has very close personal association. But I suppose it could be said: too close a friend, too weak a Taoiseach. While the personal loyalty, if I may call it such, and friendship between these two men may be commendable in an ordinary sense, that is a very different matter from the constitutional association and responsibility which exists between them.

While the Taoiseach may be guided by personal loyalty which may be commendable in private life, where that personal friendship obscures his constitutional responsibility it is to be rejected totally in the discharge of his office. I am afraid that, unfortunately, the Taoiseach has confused the two and has given priority to personal allegiance before public office and the national interest. The fact that he has done that places him at the centre of this debate. We have an obligation to fulfil our responsibilities under the Constitution. Because of the importance of his office, the Taoiseach has more onerous responsibilities than the rest of us. It is regrettable that he has not seen fit to discharge them. We are calling on the Taoiseach to resign because of the damage that has been done.

We expect something from our President. Our Presidents have given us that. The person who has left the office has certainly given it to us. We expect something from our Taoiseach, too, apart from discharging his constitutional responsibilities. Our President represented a concept of Irish dignity, culture and awareness. To the extent that he could not involve himself directly in reaching us in a political area, by his bearing, his standard, his character and learning he came across to our people and aroused them. He gave us a sense of respect and dignity when he represented us at home, and particularly when he represented us abroad. He had this concept of what Ireland is, of where Ireland derives and where she is going.

I wish the Taoiseach who is at the centre of this debate today had presented to the Irish people at any time since he became Taoiseach a concept of what he stands for, a concept they could respond to, a concept our young people could believe in, a positive concept of confidence in every aspect of our lives, and most particularly in that continuing storm and trouble in the north of Ireland. It is not enough to be moderate and comfortable and indifferent which, unfortunately, is the image that the Taoiseach and the Government have promoted throughout this land in the past few years. Unfortunately, indifference is the seed of frustration and cynicism we have seen for too long in this land.

I wish I knew what the Taoiseach stands for at the moment and where he is leading the nation. The nation wants to know where has he been leading us, what is his notion of what Ireland stands for, what is his regard for our culture, our language, our Constitution, our laws and our future. If we knew that, we and the public could give to the Taoiseach and the Government the response the country so badly needs, the response which would be clearly evident in the economic area as well. When you ask the country to respond you do not just talk in terms of dry, arid economic data. You appeal for a greater commitment to the national obligations of citizens. The man who was forced to resign had such a concept. The man we are asking to resign, if he has it—and, perhaps, he has—has not presented it to us. There is only one thing he can do with honour to save his own position—and I respect his personal integrity—and that is to do as we ask and save the nation's future.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Cooney)

Before I come to deal with what I might call the gravamen of the confidence issue I should like to take up a couple of points made by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the referral to the Supreme Court of the Emergency Powers Act. Perhaps before I do that, it might be as well at this first opportunity to restate the Government's views on that referral. Immediately after the announcement of the intention to consult the Council of State was made, and when the possibility of a referral was there, I stated that the possibility of the referral was unexpected when I was asked about it in the course of a radio interview. It was unexpected because the constitutionality of the particular measure had not been seriously challenged in the course of the debate in this House and, so far as I recall, not at all in the other House. It was challenged in this House in one peripheral technical way with regard to the wording or phrasing of the Long Title. The point was answered and it was not pursued. That was the extent of the constitutional questioning of the matter at the time. It was in that context I said the possibility of referral was unexpected.

Let me say quite clearly and unequivocably that there was complete acceptance by me and my colleagues in the Government of the President's right and the propriety with which he was entitled to exercise that right in referring the matter to the Supreme Court. There was no resentment whatever at his exercise of his right to do that. We recognised completely the propriety of this action. It is important that this should be made clear because Members of the Opposition and some commentators have endeavoured to present the view, because of the unfortunate remarks of the Minister for Defence, that he was reflecting a widely held Government view. I want to contradict that completely and unequivocably. There was no resentment whatever at the exercise by the President of his powers.

In fact, in the light of the judgment which the Supreme Court issued, I have some personal reason to be pleased with his action because that judgment vindicated completely and entirely arguments which I had made here in the course of the debate, arguments which were supported by the advice I had from the Attorney General, and which were supported here in the Chamber by the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, arguments which were scoffed at and laughed at by the other side.

I am afraid that this morning the Leader of the Opposition was guilty of a serious misreading or misinterpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court. He said the Supreme Court decided they have power to inquire behind emergency resolutions. The Supreme Court have decided no such thing. It is important that this be made very plain and I will read from the judgment of the Supreme Court in order to deal with this point. The Leader of the Opposition was making the point that the Attorney General had argued that the Supreme Court were not entitled to look behind an emergency resolution. The point was argued in the context of the particular emergency resolution which gave rise to the Bill being considered by the Supreme Court. It was also argued in the context of being put forward as a general proposition.

First of all with regard to the particular resolution which was before the court I will quote from page 13 of the judgment:

The last matter to be considered is the question of the existence of the state of affairs necessary to permit the application of Article 28, section 3 subsection (3). As pointed out earlier in this judgment, these are matters or statements of fact which are contained in the resolutions of the two Houses of the Oireachtas. Submissions were made as to the extent, if any, to which the Court could examine the correctness of these statements. It was submitted by the Attorney General that there is a presumption that the facts stated in the resolution are correct. The court accepts the existence of that presumption and the corollary that the presumption should be acted upon unless and until it is displaced. In this case it has not been displaced.

The court did not consider further the question of the current resolutions. The judgment goes on to say:

The Attorney General submitted the general proposition that when the resolutions referred to in Article 28, section 3, subsection (3), 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 expressly reserves for future consideration the question whether the Courts have jurisdiction to review such resolutions.

The important sentence there is: "The Court reserves for future consideration the question whether the Courts have jurisdiction to review such resolutions." This is a very long way removed from Deputy Lynch's statement that the Supreme Court decided that they had power to inquire behind the emergency resolution. It is regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition on such a fundamental matter should have so misinterpreted the judgment of the Supreme Court, and it is important constitutionally to indicate quite clearly that that fundamental matter of the power of the court to review such resolutions has not been decided. I do not have to spell out to Deputies here the implications and the importance of it.

I mentioned, too, that I personally was pleased by the judgment of the Supreme Court because it vindicated the submissions and stands and points of view that I had been putting forward in the course of the debate on that Bill. Again, Deputy Lynch sought to twist the judgment of the Supreme Court to make the point that the Supreme Court had upheld those who were arguing against me and, in effect, that the arguments I had been putting forward had been proved wrong and unfounded. This arose out of the question of what the rights are of a person who had been arrested under section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act, his right to legal and other advice, and whether all his constitutional rights are set aside by reason of the protection given by Article 28.

It was alleged and argued very strongly by the other side that by reason of Article 28 of the Constitution in regard to anybody arrested under section 2 being removed from the scene, that there was no protection whatever, that habeas corpus had been taken away from such a person and that such a person could not and never could challenge his detention. I pointed out that the exemption which Article 28 of the Constitution gave to the section extended only to lawful acts done under this section, and the section sets out powers and that only acts lawfully done in accordance with those powers would have the constitutional protection of Article 28. I was supported in this by the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Kelly and he was scoffed at and my arguments were scoffed at: “Not at all, it is quite clear the Constitution will be removed entirely.” I said that a person unlawfully detained under section 2, if he choose to do it, would be entitled to have recourse to the courts.

It was urged on me in the course of amendments by the Opposition that I should accept their amendments to provide specifically for daily access to people in custody by legal and other advisers and that this had to be done in order to give these rights to these people; that, again, by reason of Article 28 those rights had been removed. I rejected that argument and I said at column 716 of the Official Report of the 8th September, 1976:

... I am advised—I have no doubt about it—that by virtue of the guarantee of personal rights under the Constitution one such right is a right to legal advice. That is a constitutional right, and, as such, it is part of our law. I have no doubt at all that that is the situation and since that is so, it is unnecessary to write into this legislation what is the existing legal position. I have no doubt, too, that were there any impediment placed in the way of the exercise of that right, the court would very speedily grant relief.

That is an argument I put forward that these rights were already there as part of our constitutional rights. They were clearly part of our existing laws. I was scoffed at in this House and the other House because it is alleged that these rights were removed by virtue of constitutional immunity from Article 28.

Deputy Haughey, who took a prominent part in the debate, said at column 733 of the Official Report of the 9th September, 1976:

... I think it is incontrovertible that that wording——

He was quoting Article 28.

——prevents any person arrested under section 2 of the Emergency Powers Bill challenging that arrest for any reason in court.

That argument was repeated by various people on the other side and it was repeated again by Deputy Haughey and others at columns 716, 764 and for a number of pages in the Official Report of the same date. I will read my reply to that argument. I am quoting from column 756 of the Official Report of the 9th September, 1976:

It is important to set the scene by saying quite firmly again that the Constitution is not suspended by virtue of the passing of the emergency resolution. All the powers, rights, privileges and guarantees that the Constitution gives still remain in full force and effect. Immunity from constitutional challenge is, however, given to the period of detention provided for in this Bill and that is the only immunity given by the emergency resolution. All the other matters and aspects of the Constitution remain in full force. Habeas corpus is not suspended and is available for any citizen who deems that his detention is not in accordance with law, and law for the time being will include the Emergency Powers Bill....

I expanded on the point. I want now to turn to the Supreme Court judgment and again the House should bear in mind that it was argued by the Opposition that the Constitution went out the door totally and completely with regard to any citizen arrested under section 2 of the Emergency Powers Bill. I rejected that proposition and stated that it did not do so, that the immunity extended only to detention lawfully effected for seven days under section 2 and that all the other rights, personal rights of legal access, medical advisers, communication and so on were not affected and were preserved because the Constitution was not set aside. I quote from the Supreme Court judgment:

In this context it is important to point out that when a law is saved from invalidity by Article 28, section 3, subsection (3), the prohibition against invoking the Constitution in reference to it is only if the invocation is for the purpose of invalidating it. For every other purpose the Constitution may be invoked. Thus, a person detained under section 2 of the Bill may not only question the legality of his detention if there has been non-compliance with the express requirements of section 2,——

That is a point I made several times during the debate.

——but may also rely on provisions of the Constitution for the purpose of construing that section and of testing the legality of what has been done in purported operation of it.

Again, I made that point in reply to Deputies who asked: "What is to stop a person from being arrested for successive periods of seven days?" The judgment goes on:

A statutory provision of this nature which makes such inroads upon the liberty of the person must be strictly construed. Any arrest sought to be justified by the section must be in strict conformity with it. No such arrest may be justified by importing into the section incidents or characteristics of an arrest which are not expressly or by necessary implication authorised by the section.

This again is back to the point I made on several occasions during the debate:

While it is not necessary to embark upon an exploration of all the incidents or characteristics which may not accompany the arrest and custody of a person under that section, it is nevertheless desirable, in view of the submissions made to the Court,——

The submissions in question were made by those challenging the section.

——to state that the section is not to be read as an abnegation of the arrested person's rights, constitutional or otherwise, in respect of matters such as the right of communication, the right to have legal and medical assistance, and the right of access to the Courts.

It is a clear vindication of the arguments I put forward during the course of that debate, arguments to justify the non-acceptance of amendments. The essence of my arguments was that these amendments were unnecessary because those rights were already part of our law but I am glad that the arguments have now been vindicated and confirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in question.

I always feel about confidence motions that they have an element of ritualism about them, that there is a sort of political ritual tribal dance that Oppositions feel a compulsion to embark on from time to time. Somehow they are not realistic because like any ritual pattern there is a certain process and a certain inevitable conclusion. I have no doubt we will go through the process here and come to the inevitable conclusion. I have no doubt the Dáil will vote confidence in the Taoiseach and in the Government but we will have gone through the ritual dance. It is somewhat unreal and I think the Opposition know in their hearts that the exercise of a confidence debate on this issue is an unreal exercise on their part. It gives them an opportunity to dance this ritual and perhaps it gives them a feeling of justification that they are being serious and effective as an Opposition.

However, there is only one test of confidence so far as any Government are concerned. There is only one vote of confidence that is worth a damn and that is when the Government and their opponents go before their masters and ask them to decide whether there is a question of confidence. We have had tests of confidence since this Government came into office, going back to the early days of the Government. They were real tests of confidence, not ritual tribal dances in this House. It is no harm to recall them and to bring a bit of political reality into the debate.

The first test of confidence was in the by-election in Monaghan following the election of the late President Childers to the Presidency, an election the Opposition won if one wants to speak of a Presidential Election as being political and that one was such. Immediately succeeding that there was a by-election in Monaghan that was won comfortably by the Government. I quote from The Irish Press of 29th November, 1973. Deputy Lynch is quoted as saying:

We asked the voters of Monaghan to show their disapproval of the Coalition's failure to honour their promises but they have decided by a small margin not to do so at this stage.

There was a vote of confidence in that election and the Government won it. Deputy Lynch said we won by a small margin but the actual margin was an increase in the Coalition vote of 4 per cent—a not insignificant margin in terms of political swings. Deputy Lynch's comment was that the voters of Monaghan decided not to show their disapproval of the Government "at this stage"—hope springs eternal in the breast of Opposition leaders.

There was a further vote of confidence subsequently in Cork and the process continued—the Opposition vote fell. I will quote from The Irish Press of 15th November, 1974:

Fianna Fáil will be happy at the success of their candidate but disappointed that his selection in a constituency which combines a good blend of rural and urban voters did not reflect what many of their speeches during the campaign had claimed was a widespread disillusionment with the Government's performance in the past 18 months.

Again, there was a test of confidence and if there had been no confidence on the part of our masters, the people who count, it would have been reflected in the poll. On the contrary there was no such reflection and the fact that there was a fall in the Opposition vote is an indication of no confidence in them. In connection with that contest, The Irish Times in a leading article on 15th November, 1974, said:

In a time of economic crisis in the middle of a Government's term of office, in a traditional Fianna Fáil area, an increase in the party's vote might have been expected. Neither a first count victory nor an increase was achieved.

We move then to a further vote of confidence in the Government, a real vote, not a ritual thing in the Dáil. I am referring to the elections in Galway West and Galway North East. I quote from a leading article in The Irish Press of 6th March, 1975:

For Fianna Fáil the result of yesterday's election should sound a warning note to the Parliamentary Party ... Clearly the performance of the present Parliamentary Party is not winning new support.

That was gilding the lily somewhat because, not merely were they not winning new support, they were not holding their existing support. Let us consider the swings in that election. In Galway West Fianna Fáil dropped 8.6 per cent; Fine Gael dropped .5 per cent; Labour increased 5 per cent. In Galway North East Fianna Fáil dropped 5.2 per cent while Fine Gael increased their vote 3.7 per cent. The west of Ireland was a traditional stronghold of Fianna Fáil and these were real tests of confidence which the Government faced and which they came through successfully. There was no element of the ritual dancing there. A leading article in The Irish Times of 6th March, 1975, in connection with those by-elections said:

The Coalition parties have good reason to be pleased with the result of the Galway by-elections.

We had reason to be pleased because we had got a resounding vote of confidence from the people in those constituencies.

We must keep in mind that in his comment after the first by-election Deputy Lynch had said that the people had decided by a small margin not to show a lack of confidence in the Coalition at that stage. He was still hopeful but at this stage we were in November, 1975—two years later. Having regard to the serious situations this Government have had to contend with on all the fronts, and for which they had been criticised for not dealing with properly and effectively, one would think that the people who would be affected in their daily lives by this alleged failure would seize avidly their opportunity to teach the Government of the day a lesson. Instead we had the rout of Fianna Fáil and the overwhelming confirmation of the Government in office. We had an overwhelming vote while the Fianna Fáil vote dropped drastically. Deputy Lynch, a man who put a good face on things, said he was disappointed at this temporary setback. That was the fifth temporary setback he suffered since he went into office. A leading article in the Irish Independent of 14th November, 1975, said:

The Coalition are fully entitled to assert that their large victory is a convincing endorsement of their policies and plans.

It was a real test of confidence before the people who are the ultimate masters, not a ritual, political, tribal dance in this House. Deputy Colley, one of the leading figures in the Opposition, was quoted in The Irish Press of 14th November, 1975, as saying:

The party obviously would have to carry out a complete reappraisal of policy and structures. It would be foolish to shrug off the result even though he believed a number of people did not understand Fianna Fáil stance on a number of issues.

He was quite right to believe that because the people were convinced there was no stance and no issues on which they could have stances. I do not know if there has been a reappraisal of policy and structures since then. There have not been any such signs visible to us in this House. Is a phoney no confidence motion on this issue the reappraisal of policy and structures? Is the emergence of Deputy Haughey as the new spokesman for Fianna Fáil on all current political matters the reappraisal of policy and structures? Is the resurgence of Deputy Haughey challenging the integrity of the Taoiseach what Deputy Colley meant by a reappraisal of policy and structures? We wait anxiously to see what it is. The remark of Deputy Colley was made in the aftermath of the Mayo by-election not 12 months ago.

That was not the end of the votes of confidence we sought from the people. We had other votes of confidence in two widely differing constituencies, in Dublin and Donegal. It was said earlier that Mayo was west of Ireland, was the deontais country and that the Government had bought the votes there. I think Mayo people are too sensible to be bribed and it was an unkind reflection by commentators on the people of the area. We move then to a Dublin urban constituency and a rural constituency in Donegal. We know that the Opposition lost both seats. I quote from The Irish Times of 12th June, 1976, only a few months ago:

For Fianna Fáil and for Mr. Lynch personally the results are simply disastrous. Bad as the party's performance has been in the other recent by-elections, no previous set back has come remotely near the calamity of losing two seats in a day.

Here is the Opposition, after suffering that calamity not six months ago, asking the Dáil to reject the Government which won so decisively when they went before the people. Then there is The Irish Press of 15th June, 1976, when the post-mortems were taking place in the higher echelons of Fianna Fáil and the knives were being sharpened discreetly in Mount Street, when heads were being looked for, although Deputy Lynch, fair play to him, hopped in before his head could be demanded and put it on the block. Of course nobody wanted to cut it off publicly; Fianna Fáil like to do these things in private. However, there was something happening in the corridors of Mount Street, because it was reported in The Irish Press of 15th June, 1976 that at a meeting of the national council or the supreme body of Fianna Fáil changes in the type of candidates were hinted at by Deputy Lynch when he said he would expect “the calibre of Fianna Fáil candidates to be a true reflection of the needs of the people”. I wonder whom he is going to drop from his front bench and from his back benches in order to get the calibre of candidates he needs to sustain him in future contests of confidence with the people. As far as we are concerned here the calibre is ideal. They are well fitted to do what they have been doing here. We are well satisfied with the calibre of Fianna Fáil candidates. Deputy Lynch is not so happy. He feels there is need for change. Having regard to that list of disastrous challenges in the country and the disastrous defeats in votes of no confidence which the Opposition have sustained, I have much sympathy with Deputy Lynch when he worries about the calibre of his candidates. Time after time when we went before the people and debated our case, with the benefit of full media coverage, the people gave resounding votes of no confidence in the Opposition and resounding votes of confidence in the Government.

Is it any wonder that I say today's proceedings are somewhat unreal, that they are nothing more than a ritualistic, political tribal dance? They come in here howling for the blood of a Minister who made an unfortunate, extempore remark that nobody stands over. He withdrew it handsomely and apologised for it, and on that basis the Opposition suggest the Government should resign and go to the country. How silly and unreal can you get? I am afraid that the Opposition by hanging their hat on this issue are only pointing out their silliness and the fatuity which informs so much of their efforts, a fatuity which has been recognised by the people in these successive confidence challenges throughout the country since this Government came into office.

The people recognise that in a moment of impetuosity a mistake was made for which a humble and complete apology was tendered. They also recognise, and I think this is a trait of this country, that generous amends were made. When the people contrast that with the mistakes and the conduct of previous Ministers, they are not going to be suddenly taken in by an Opposition who say: "He must resign. The Government have behaved disgracefully." He did not put his hand in the till. He did not misappropriate any money. He has not been found out in any untruth or misleading statements in this House. He has not been pilloried from the Supreme Court bench. He made one indiscreet remark for which he apologised fully. I think the nation sees this in its true perspective and dimension as being essentially an insignificant matter which the Opposition have tried for motives of political opportunism to blow up into a momentous issue. This motion is a phoney issue. The Opposition know it is only a ritualistic exercise. When genuine tests of confidence took place throughout the country the Opposition were routed, and I have no doubt that when the next test of confidence takes place they will be routed again.

Mr. Andrews

I would like to take the opportunity of congratulating that well-known former liberal, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Patrick Cooney, for his speech. He certainly avoided the issue with which the House is now confronted. It comes ill from the same Minister to talk about knives and heads rolling in the context of his performance on the night of the discussion on the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act in late 1972 when the then Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Cosgrave, and Deputy Donegan were seen sitting on this side on their own, and the Minister for Justice, who was then Opposition spokesman for Justice, was leading a putsch, aided and abetted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, then Deputy Garret FitzGerald, against his Leader. The Minister for Justice had his own experience in regard to people taking over parties, and were it not for the bombs that went off in Dublin that evening he would not be Minister for Justice today. It is also well known how he got his portfolio. The Taoiseach retained the giving of the portfolio of Justice until the last, and the Minister was not aware until the last moment that he was being appointed.

Therefore it ill becomes the Minister for Justice to speak in the fashion in which he has spoken here and to pretend that our motion of no confidence is not relevant. It is deeply relevant in the context of what has happened to the institution of the Presidency. It is now clear that the former liberal, who expressed an extremely concerned social point of view when he was in Opposition, has now been subsumed by the fascist elements in his Government. For that reason I feel privileged to have the opportunity of speaking here in this debate. My own belief is that there is a fascist element within the Government, and that if that fascist mind had its way there would be no Opposition. Speaking in a freely elected assembly, I assume it will remain free, and that the Opposition will not be the subject of whatever proceedings the fascist minds in the Government might consider taking against them.

That is not a remark from the top of my head. I have given this matter considerable thought. This view is shared by a large majority in this nation, that we are moving so far right that the dictatorship of fascism has become predominant within the Government. It is a frightening prospect, but it is nevertheless a reality having regard to the traditions of the Fine Gael Party. This was portrayed by the Taoiseach's performance here on Wednesday and Thursday last, replying on Wednesday to a Private Notice Question from the Leader of the Opposition and again to a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday in connection with the Donegan débácle. On Wednesday he spat out a few words in reply to the Leader of the Opposition's very reasonable questions, and the record is there to show how many words he used in reply to those questions. Deputy Lynch “asked the Taoiseach the action he proposed to take following the gross insult offered to the President and the grave reflection on his integrity, capacity and constitutional status as Head of the State by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Donegan”. The reply was:

The Taoiseach: While I do not accept that the remark of the Minister for Defence can be given the particular construction which the question puts on it, I regret that the Minister should have made any remark which slighted the President.

The Minister has offered a full and unreserved apology to the President.

That was the way it was to be left by the Taoiseach. He compounded that insult, not only to the Leader of the Opposition but to the institution of the Dáil itself, by the reply he gave on Thursday to the motion by the Leader of the Opposition:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Taoiseach to request the Minister for Defence to resign.

The Taoiseach treated this House with contempt last Thursday. He made what one political correspondent, I think, described as a circular speech—he repeated himself five times in connection with what was meant to be a satisfactory apology to the President, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh. This circular speech which was again snarled out in less than five minutes conveyed that the Minister made a full and complete apology. That was the extent of the Taoiseach's contribution on the motion. I sat at the back of this House, not occupying my seat in the Dáil. I have been in the Dáil for just on 12 years and I was particularly depressed at the treatment of this Dáil by the democratically elected political leader of the country because by his attitude and his refusal to explain and possibly apologise to the President, he undermined this Dáil. His attitude was to me shattering and appalling and, to say the least, deplorable. I left the House that afternoon shaken and depressed by what I had seen and heard, the direct undermining of the institution of Dáil Éireann by the Taoiseach in his refusal to give reasonable information on a reasonable motion by the Leader of the Opposition.

If the Taoiseach intends to treat the Opposition, as he does, with contempt and disdain and total disregard for the part they play in this House, this message permeates through to the people. That is what I speak about when I say there is the suggestion of a certain fascist element rife within the Government. They would have no Opposition if they could help it. This was indicated by the Taoiseach's performance—or lack of it—last Wednesday and Thursday. Despite what the Minister for Justice has said, we believe, and the large majority of the people believe, that the Minister for Defence was reflecting a point of view in the Cabinet that the President should not have referred the emergency legislation to the Supreme Court and that it was wrong to do so. The Minister for Justice has confirmed that. The Taoiseach in opening this debate spent only ten minutes waffling his way through a mountain of meaningless words with complete contempt not only for Dáil Éireann but also for the Presidency by his unwillingness to concede that the Minister for Defence had done wrong. There is a strong feeling, certainly shared by me, that the statement by the Minister was a reflection of the views of certain members of the Government.

We see in the newspapers that apparently the Minister offered his resignation on a number of occasions to the Taoiseach following his attack on the President. The insult was offered in the presence of Army officers and men. The Minister for Justice was also present when this dreadful insult was offered to the Presidency. In view of the suggestion that the Minister for Defence offered his resignation on two occasions, is it not fair to say that the Taoiseach, having refused to accept the resignation, has shifted the burden of responsibility to his own shoulders and that he becomes fully responsible for what has taken place? In fairness to the Minister, he had the courage to recognise that the seriousness of what he said about his Commander-in-Chief in front of a group of Army officers had undermined the office of President. If we accept that he offered his resignation on two occasions, he recognised the enormity and gravity of the insult he had offered. However, the Taoiseach decided not to accept his resignation and the responsibility then shifts to the Taoiseach. That is one of the main reasons why this motion was put down by the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that the Minister for Justice has played an insidious role in this matter. One can only wonder at the presence of two Ministers at the opening of an Army cookhouse——

Mr. Cooney

It was in my constituency.

Mr. Andrews

If so, you should have left the Minister for Defence at home and this sorry, sordid débácle would not have occurred. That makes your responsibility greater.

Mr. Cooney

Deputy Carter was there also.

Mr. Andrews

But he is in Opposition. Two Ministers present at the opening of an Army cookhouse will cause people to wonder and they will correlate that to the general condition of the country. Could not the Minister for Defence have sent his manuscript to the Minister for Justice who, no doubt, would have torn it up and possibly used the same words that the Minister for Defence used in regard to the President? In fairness to the Minister for Justice, I doubt that. In addition to the insult offered to the President on that occasion, there were other insults offered and not much has been heard about them, insults offered by the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Justice was present and the Minister for Defence, having offered insult to the Presidency also insulted the Garda Síochána and estimated that the life of a garda, according to his assessment, is worth £6,000. When the Minister for Defence had sat down, even at that stage, could not the Minister for Justice have stood up and said something in defence of the Garda Síochána?

No defence or explanation for his lack of a contribution on that occasion has been forthcoming from the Minister for Justice. The gratuitous insult offered to the Garda Síochána remains on record and unanswered. In addition to the assessment of the worth of the life of a garda, the Minister for Justice also made some improper remarks in relation to the powers the Garda Síochána took and to which they were not entitled. Again, these remarks by the Minister for Justice stand unanswered on the record. We had a hand-washing operation by the Minister for Justice in last Monday's newspapers. He said he did not realise that the Minister for Defence was going to make the statement he made. He realised that pressure was building up; that people were asking why he did not comment on the matter. If he did not want to say something in defence of the Presidency, he might have said something in defence of the Garda Síochána. At no stage was a defence forthcoming.

There are a number of questions in relation to the office of the Presidency and the holder for the time being thereof which might well be asked of the Taoiseach during the course of this debate. How many times did the Taoiseach visit the President during his short term in office? Did he keep the President informed of various developments within the Government and the country? Did he brief the President on the emergency legislation before it came to the Dáil? The Taoiseach should answer these questions in his reply. By definition the attitude of the Taoiseach to date shows complete contempt not only for the office of the Presidency but for the President himself. The Taoiseach had an opportunity to retrieve himself as late as this morning but he did not take that opportunity. These questions are asked on the basis of his attitude to date arising out of the three occasions on which he had an opportunity to exculpate himself and the Government—on Wednesday and Thursday of last week and today. We believe that the Taoiseach had little or no time for the Presidency and the holder of the office and that, consequently, he saw him on very few occasions and certainly did not keep him informed in relation to current developments. We understand that the Taoiseach of the day visited the President once a month during the currency of one Taoiseach's office. Can we say that the present Taoiseach visited the former President once a month? If he did visit him, what did he say to him? Did he visit the President as a formality, to be seen visiting him, or did he visit him to discharge his proper function as Taoiseach? I exonerate the Minister for Defence in some way by placing responsibility for the current sorry state of affairs on the shoulders of the Taoiseach on the basis that the Minister for Defence has offered his resignation on two occasions.

There is another sinister aspect of this affair which needs public airing. We had those two great political pals, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Defence, Deputy John Kelly, and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, giving us the benefit of their joint Coalition views during last weekend. Last Sunday Deputy Kelly spoke on radio and suggested that the Minister's remarks were unpremeditated and made in a sudden brainstorm. He said that the Minister did not intend saying what he had said and that he had expressed deep regret after making the statement. That is as far from the truth as history has since told us. That lie was compounded by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on Monday when he suggested that the Minister for Defence made his remarks in an unpremediated fashion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lie having been made on Sunday was compounded on Monday by his Coalition pal and colleague. I nearly described the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs as a main member of the Labour Party, but he is, as all members of the Labour Party are, a Member of the Fine Gael Party. They have been consumed by the Fine Gael Party. History will prove that despite the litany which has been read by the Minister for Justice.

When the electorate have an opportunity of expressing their view of the performance of the present Government in a general election, the Dublin area will wipe out the Labour Party despite the view of the Minister for Justice and the gerrymandering of the constituencies in a surgical and professional manner by the Minister for Local Government. Mark my words. When the Minister is sitting on this side of the House in six months' time I will be able to point to the record.

Let me return to the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It is a well-known fact that the young journalist who was present for the Minister's droplets of wisdom on the efficacy or otherwise or the cleanliness of an Army cookhouse asked the Minister for his script. I understand the Minister handed him his script and asked for it to be returned. Apparently the Minister pooh-poohed the idea of a script. The young reporter was told that he should wait for some news. Of course, the news was the premeditated attack on the President. History is there to say that this young reporter clearly heard the Minister say: "Wait for it, you have not heard the half of it yet". In fairness to him, the young reporter got the scoop of a lifetime and I wish him every success in his chosen career. After the unforgivable insult to the Presidency, the Minister for Justice asked to see the reporter. The reporter, in line with the integrity of journalists, knew what the Minister was about. He knew the Minister was going to say: "It would be better if that was not printed" or words to that effect. He refused to see the Minister and the news became public. Despite what Dr. Cruise-O'Brien and Deputy Kelly say, the attack was premeditated.

An Ceann Comhairle

These office holders must be given their proper titles.

Mr. Andrews

Despite the suggestion of these two gentlemen that the Minister for Defence did not make a premeditated attack on the Presidency, we have the word of this young journalist. I understand Army officers were present at the time and within the hearing of the Minister for Defence and that they will confirm what the young journalist has said, if it needs confirmation. I do not think it does. One can listen to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, Deputy Kelly, ad nauseam. In my view he is an extremely colourful speaker and an extremely sensitive person. In the main I do not agree with what he says because I believe he is one of the people with very strong fascist tendencies within the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has tolerated the expression "fascist" in a general way as a political charge but will not tolerate that term being applied to an individual Member of the House. That term is not in order. The Deputy will take the advice of the Chair on this matter. He has mentioned the word "fascist" on numerous occasions and the Chair, reluctantly, is treating it as a political charge but the Deputy may not apply it to an individual Member of the House. It must be withdrawn.

Mr. Andrews

I withdraw the application of the expression "fascist" to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence and leave it stand as a charge of fascism collectively against the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not circumvent the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Andrews

I have already withdrawn the charge. This was an attempt by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach to mislead the country in relation to what happened at the Army cookhouse. The lie has to be nailed in the interest of accuracy, of honesty and of history. The journalist, Mr. Lavery, was told by the Minister for Defence that he would be given some news for the press. It is that news which now gives rise to the motion before us.

Another aspect of the affair which must be dealt with is the fact that the Taoiseach's colleagues may not have been aware of the correspondence engaged in by the Minister for Defence and the then President. This is a serious charge. The Taoiseach may have withheld the correspondence or the facts from the Cabinet but that would be consistent with a Taoiseach who votes against a Bill introduced by one of his Ministers on the contraception issue. The Taoiseach came to the House, his intention unannounced to any of his colleagues, and voted against the Bill dealing with contraception, much to the amazement and chagrin of his ministerial colleagues. On that basis it is consistent that the Taoiseach would withhold the full facts of the President's resignation from his colleagues.

The President of Ireland, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, can rest easy in his premature retirement, brought about by the Taoiseach and the Government, because he performed his duty with courage and dignity. He acted courageously in resigning. I should like to put the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs into the picture in relation to the Constitution because he has so misinterpreted the Constitution on so many occasions in the last five or six days that it is appalling to think he is even in charge of a broken down telephone service. The Constitution states that the Dáil and Seanad, in which the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is vested, are enjoined not to enact any law which is repugnant to the Constitution. The Constitution states that the President can refer Bills to the Supreme Court which shall be the final judge or arbiter of their constitutionality. It requires him to take an oath not only to maintain the Constitution and uphold its laws but also to fulfil his duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and to dedicate his abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland.

That is what Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh did with dignity, integrity, honour and courage. The Government came into power on a lie and now they are being called to account for their broken promises. The "jobs for the boys" slogan has been put into practice by the Government and the Taoiseach. I should like to express my thanks for the opportunity to express my point of view on this motion.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

Apart from the fact that this debate allows people like Deputy Andrews and myself, who did not contribute to the debate last week, an opportunity to speak on this motion, it is a blatant attempt by Fianna Fáil to waste the time of the House. Last week they had a debate on an issue which was closely related to this motion; so closely related that the difference is almost unrecognisable.

Mr. Wilson

I should like to call the attention of the Chair to the fact that we are debating the Government's motion.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Wilson is not very long here and may not know the rules of the House.

Mr. Wilson

I should like to draw attention to the fact that it is well known that old age without common sense does not deserve any attention.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to remind the Deputy that a time limit applies to debates of this kind and interruptions are particularly unwelcome.

Mr. Wilson

The Minister called attention to a personality issue. I should like to add that personalising debate is also unwelcome. I have no objection whatever to what the Minister does or says but he is an adept at personalising debate and I object to it. The Chair has a right to object to it also.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has only commenced his speech and if the Deputy persists with interruptions of this kind he will have to suffer the consequences.

Mr. Wilson

That is a threat.

Mr. Tully

So far the debate has been almost clear of interruption. I do not know whether Deputy Wilson has been sent in for the purpose of wasting as much of my time as he can. He may attempt to do that but I am sure the Chair will take note of the time wasted by the Deputy and will deal with that situation in an appropriate manner. We had a debate last week, one this week and will have another next week. There is also legislation to be got through. The Government have a record of legislation which has not been equalled by any Government since the foundation of the State. The Government have done this in spite of deliberate attempts by the Opposition to prevent reasonable debate on many matters. Although I would prefer if we were dealing with some of the important matters of legislation which have to be debated here, nevertheless I welcome the opportunity to intervene because what is at issue is the fact that Fianna Fáil feel they may get an opportunity of having a general election if they can create enough trouble. They are like the gambler at the wheel; they know they lost the last one and almost certainly will lose the next one, but as long as there is an opportunity of having a go at it that satisfies them. I can assure Deputy Wilson that the situation which appertains at the time will mean that they will stay on that side of the House.

I should like to remind the Opposition that the important standard by which the public judge the Government is their over all achievements—social, economic and political—or failures during their period of office. Fianna Fáil would be well warned, therefore, not to underestimate the ability of the electorate to see through political opportunism when it is expressed as blatantly as it has been this week and make a more sober appraisal.

I was surprised when I read through the newspaper reports last week to note that Fianna Fáil, instead of using a policy of their own, quoted what was in the newspapers. It used to be The Irish Press that stood four square with the tablets of stone taken down by Moses from the mountain. Something different has happened. Although The Irish Press is mentioned, The Irish Times and the Irish Independent are now quoted. If a cub reporter makes a political statement, that is considered as good as what Moses brought from the mountain. According to Fianna Fáil, if it is printed in the newspapers it must be fact. All last week statements were made by reporters and quoted extensively in this House.

I have the highest regard for the gentlemen of the press. In the main they do their job pretty well, but the fountain of knowledge does not rest with the press. If they want to get a lead story or make something look sensational and get publicity, good luck to them. If that sells newspapers, they are entitled to do it. For Fianna Fáil Members who have been in this House for a long time to quote these statements as gospel makes very sorry reading.

Another thing that makes very sorry reading was raised by Deputy Andrews when he considered that there was something wrong with the Minister for Defence making a comment in a cookhouse. I had the honour to serve in the Irish Army at non-commissioned rank during the Emergency. There were many things wrong with the Army at that time but there was one particular thing wrong—we did not have Ministers for Defence going into the cookhouse. The food would have been better if somebody had the love for the Army which the present Minister has displayed since he became Minister for Defence. He has ensured that the Army got only the best.

I would like to place on record that I was one of the people who signed the nomination paper for Mr. Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh. He was not a Fianna Fáil President, as some people would like to say. The former incumbent of the office was not a Fianna Fáil President; he had the nomination of members of the three parties of this House. I had respect for him while he was in office and during his very long career in law. He was perfectly entitled, if he felt it was the thing to do, to resign from this office. I would not like anybody to get the impression that the Minister for Defence is not also entitled to the highest respect. Of course what he said was foolish. He should not have made that comment either in front of reporters or behind their backs. It was a throw-away remark he made for who knows what reason. His script was circulated and normally newspapers work from scripts. If someone suggests that that remark was premeditated, he obviously does not want to believe the truth. If that remark had been premeditated it would have been in the script to ensure nationwide coverage.

This Minister for Defence had done what other Ministers for Defence were not able to do: he raised the status of the Army so that they now walk with their shoulders back and their heads high. Very decent men held the post of Minister for Defence. My colleague, Mr. Hilliard was Minister for Defence; so was Mr. Frank Aiken and General Seán McEoin. None took the same interest in the Army this Minister did. If you ask anybody in the Army, from the highest to the lowest rank, he will tell you that this is so.

It is important to remember that in this country, as in other countries where there is a national army, the people serving in that Army are entitled to the highest respect. When there is danger to the State or to the lives of certain people, the Army are important, but I believe they are important all the time and this Minister has ensured that they will be so regarded in this country.

For anyone to suggest that there was an attempt by the Minister to subvert the Army is too ridiculous to bother refuting. I do not live as near to the Border as the Minister. I live 35 minutes by fast car from the Border and he lives 15 minutes. Those living near the Border know what happens there better than anybody else. Some people attempted to blow up the Minister's property. The reason they did not blow up his house was because it was heavily guarded. Is it wrong that it should be necessary to heavily guard Ministers' houses. The Minister is a good Irishman, but because he was a member of the Fine Gael Party it did not seem to matter to some people on the Fianna Fáil side that his property was damaged. I wish they would grow up and realise that this is 1976, the year in which we are attempting to get out of a very serious financial situation. What assistance do we get from the Opposition? They hold up the House for three weeks in a very short session to discuss a matter which is forgotten by the man mostly involved, the former President, who said "The matter is over and that is the end of it". Yet Fianna Fáil for their own reasons would like to keep it alive.

I was not here last week because I was on Government business but I read the reports and it appeared that some people were attempting to show that all politicians should be paragons of virtue. Yet here was a Minister for Defence who had done something which was entirely wrong. There was a reporter writing down what he said so that he would be reported all over the country and everybody who disliked the present Government could "have a go" at him.

We do not have to go back too far to realise that if there were reporters around on other occasions things might not have been said that they could report but they could write about things which would not redound very much credit on the people who did them. To have some of them coming here attempting to throw stones at the Minister for what he said sounds a very cynical exercise. People in glasshouses should not throw stones. None of us is perfect. We are all human and from time to time we all say or do something which we immediately regret. It takes a man to stand up and apologise for what he has done. That is what the Minister did. It is a pity that his complete apology was not sufficient. He gave a full and complete apology not once but twice. That was sufficient for the Irish nation as can be proved by anyone who goes to the trouble of talking to the ordinary people.

When the former President decided to retire, as he was entitled to do, he should have been allowed to do so and should not have been used as a political football by the Fianna Fáil Party and they are doing themselves and the country no good by attempting so to use him.

We may ask if there is any force whatever in the arguments being put forward by Fianna Fáil. Incidentally, Deputy Andrews indicated that he is not au fait with the situation in the Government when he referred to Deputy Kelly as being Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence. Much play has been made of what has been said in this affair by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs but anyone who wishes to be fair to those two gentlemen must acknowledge that when they make statements they are prepared to stand over them. There are some who endeavour to sneer at the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs but if there is in this House a more courageous man than he, I should like to hear who it is. Time after time the Minister has pointed to the real cause of trouble between this country and Northern Ireland, that is, the activities of the para-militaries on both sides. Indeed, we need look no further than the other side of the House to realise from where the para-militaries on one side got their inspiration in addition to support and money for a period and also some training. I recall a time in relation to that episode when Ministers had to be sacked after they refused a request to resign, Ministers who admitted subsequently that they had been involved in what was alleged against them. All of this leaves me wondering whether Fianna Fáil have been struck with the malaise of forgetting what happened simply because it suits them to forget.

During the coming week we are to have a debate on the economy. Perhaps it is because such a debate is imminent that there has not been much emphasis in this debate so far on the record of this Government. In this context I should like to put on record a few points which are the concern of my Department.

So far as the country's economy is concerned, Fianna Fáil would wish us to believe that if they were in office there would be no inflation, no unemployment or any other evil. They would choose to ignore the oil crisis although that situation affected many countries in addition to ours. The same can be said of inflation. Fianna Fáil will ignore, too, the fact that this Government under the Taoiseach's leadership have ensured that although times are tough the ordinary people who had got a raw deal under Fianna Fáil, would get a fair share of what was available. However, this attitude on the part of Fianna Fáil is the rock on which they will perish in the general election which is due to take place in 12 or 15 months' time.

We have heard much from that party about the increase in the number of unemployed but they choose to ignore that in office they accepted as the norm an unemployment rate per annum of between 65,000 and 70,000 and this at a time when the average figure for emigration was about 25,000 a year. Now there is no emigration so that if we take a total of 50,000 as being the emigration figure for two years and add it to what was the average figure for unemployment during Fianna Fáil's term in office, we come pretty close to the present unemployment figure. What is extraordinary in regard to all this is the document published recently by Fianna Fáil which, incidentally, was not costed and which bore no relationship to the statements of economic advisers in the previous weeks. Fianna Fáil were telling us in that document that if they should be returned to power they would have no difficulty in finding the millions that would be required for the programme they outlined. Do they ever stop to think that it is this attitude on their part that has resulted in their being in opposition now?

During their many years in office they displayed little knowledge of what should have been done for the less well-off. There are two items in this connection to which I should like to refer specifically. It is difficult to understand the minds of people who endeavour to illustrate that there is no housing programme. Fianna Fáil were not able to build more than 14.6 thousand houses over an average of three years although in one year by holding over 2,500 houses they were able to produce a figure of 21,500 the following year whereas consistently we have exceeded our target of 25,000. Consequently, in a few months' time when we shall have completed four years in office 100,000 new houses will have been built in that time. Apart from the question of the number there is the very important factor of quality. The standard of the houses built during those four years is so high that people living in the houses built prior to that time are objecting strongly now to having to live in them. Are Fianna Fáil not aware of this situation? People I speak with ask me whether they should have to live in the igloos built by Fianna Fáil.

When I became Minister I was faced with a rent strike which had been in existence for a number of years. This strike resulted from a situation in which people were being asked to pay much more than they could be expected to pay in terms of their wages and salaries. However, we introduced a scheme setting out what the situation would be and we succeeded in having the problem resolved. We were criticised by Fianna Fáil who, obviously, considered the houses good enough in the first place for those who had to live in them. Building costs have increased enormously so that it costs much more now to build a house than it cost when Fianna Fáil were in office but despite this fact we are insisting that the houses are of a high standard. Some years ago there were people who had built houses privately and who complained when a local authority scheme was proposed for their area. If there are any such complaints now they are for a different reason, that is, that the standard of the local authority houses is so high as to make it difficult for the private individual to compete.

It is apparent that Fianna Fáil do not bother reflecting on their record. During their period in office it was not only very difficult to have new water and sewerage schemes put into operation but it was virtually impossible to maintain those in existence. On taking office my allocation in this area was for £8.7 million. This year the allocation was to have been £19 million but I succeeded in having the figure increased to more than £25 million. This is yet only a drop in the ocean but the most arrogant Fianna Fáil councillor will admit that most of the trouble resulted from the failure of that party to make the money available for the schemes. This Government have made much progress in this area and we are hopeful that within the next few years we will be able to solve completely the problem of inadequate water and sewerage schemes. Should Fianna Fáil not be ashamed of having shown such scant regard for works as important as these?

There is also the question of the moneys being paid in social welfare benefits. I recall a former leader of that party saying that the limit had been reached in this regard. He was speaking at a time when a married man with a couple of children would receive about 25/- per week in social welfare payments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will appreciate that there will be an economic debate in the coming week.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. Tully

I am aware of that but I went to great trouble reading: "That Dáil Éireann affirms its confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government." I commenced by saying that it is the record of three and a half years, not what the Minister for Defence or the former President, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh said last week, that will decide the confidence in the Government. I am attempting to put on record that we have a Government with a record which they can stand over and are prepared to stand over. I have put portions of my Department's functions on record, which I wanted to do and I thank the Chair for its courtesy in allowing me to do so.

Let me return to what the Opposition would like to claim as being the real issue, that is, whether or not the Minister for Defence should have been sacked. That is exactly what the whole thing is about. They had a motion last week, debated it and were defeated on it. This week they come in again; they turn the coin around and start the very same debate. There may be some little change in the words used, the personnel possibly slightly different but they are still flogging the same horse.

I am perfectly satisfied that the Taoiseach has the full confidence of the Government; he has the full confidence of the two parties. If anybody wants to claim that Fine Gael and Labour are the one party I would have to refer them to the programmes of the two parties and to the 14-point programme of the Coalition because we are a separate and distinct party. It displays an ignorance of politics to suggest that because two parties come together to form a Government in coalition that means they become one party. All over the Continent there are a number of parties joining together in various countries and forming a coalition for the purpose of ruling those countries. In many cases they are doing it very well. In any case nobody suggests that it simply means sinking their identity. The only people who see it as sinking their identity are the Fianna Fáil Party. They talk about that at one stage and the next minute they talk of the terrible split there is between Fine Gael and Labour. There is no split between Fine Gael and Labour. We are members of a Coalition and we are still working to a 14-point programme. I would suggest to Fianna Fáil that they might look over their shoulders occasionally because the only place I can see splits in the present political scene is in the personnel of the Fianna Fáil Party. Do not forget that we have had on radio, and reported in the newspapers, one prominent former Minister suggesting that there must be a Fianna Fáil President. Indeed I understand he is working himself to death in his efforts to try to draft the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Wilson

Nobody listens any more.

Mr. Tully

Not because the Leader of the Opposition would not make a fairly good President—he might make quite a good President—but he would make a heck of a lot better a President, in the eyes of most Fianna Fáil people than the man who is suggesting him. He would make a much better leader than the person suggesting that he should be removed so that he can have another go at taking over the leadership.

Mr. Wilson

Smokescreen.

Mr. Tully

I agree, it is a smokescreen. He has been attempting it and has been doing it fairly well. But I think those fellows over there caught him on too early and are now objecting to him proceeding with it. It just goes to show that the so-called united Fianna Fáil Party, who have had the temerity to introduce this motion here and that of last week, themselves, when in Government, did not have a debate in the Dáil about it. Ministers got sacked in the middle of the night. They were sacked because of the fact that the man against whom the motion has been put down today went to the then Taoiseach and said: "I know what is happening. There is a danger to the State and, for that reason, unless you do something, then I will make it public." They know that that is true. For them to come in here and attempt to pin something on a member of the present Government, they having done what was done in the past, is the height of arrogance.

Mr. Wilson

The squid is provided by nature with a little pouch full of ink. He squirts this ink out when he tries to hide himself from fishermen. We have been listening to the Minister for Local Government acting the squid. He talked about everything but the relevant motion before the House. I suggest that it is irrelevant to this debate whether the Minister for Defence was a good provider of cookhouses for the Army or that an attempt was made to blow up his House. I know it is the art of the debater to try and sidetrack the real issues. Indeed the Minister for Local Government did refer to what should be the real issues before the House. But it is not the fault of this side of the House that those real issues are not being debated here. I can assure the Chair of that.

The motion put down in the name of Deputy Jack Lynch was: "That Dáil Éireann has no confidence in the Taoiseach." We believe that if the Dáil accepts this motion it will be sanctioning the view widely held in this country by the various leaders of our economic, political and social life. The vast majority of our people have lost confidence in the Taoiseach and in his team. They also believe he should have changed his team and that he did not do so.

The genesis of the present situation is worth outlining—the flamboyant summoning back of this House during the summer recess to declare an emergency. That was the original move in this political game: we were to declare a state of emergency and we were to pass certain legislation. The communis sensus is that this was a ploy, a readyup for a general election in this month of October. The evidence is all there. The economic situation was deteriorating apace. The Government either had to get under the bed or run away from the situation. But if they could cook up an emergency, if they could go to the country on a law and order issue they thought then they might have a chance of saving themselves from the vengeance of the people because of their mismanagement of this country.

Resolutions were passed in this House declaring a state of emergency. In banner headlines it was bruited abroad that there was a state of emergency in Ireland. It hit the headlines in the countries from which we were borrowing money. It definitely made the task of the Minister for Finance easier that there were headlines in the newspapers of the countries from which the money was being borrowed that this country was in a state of emergency. This House knows very well how cagey and careful are financial people about where they put their money. It was bruited abroad in the countries where Bord Fáilte agencies were working might and main to entice and attract people here. It was bruited abroad in the countries where Aer Lingus were trying to push their business. It was totally unnecessary. The type of emergency that the Government were declaring by resolution did not exist, but another type of emergency did. Relentless pressure from this side of the House and indeed from the media, which kept the people well informed about the real issues, caused considerable modification of the legislation that came before this House consequent on the passing of those resolutions. The cold wind of public opinion blew across the insensitive— except where votes are concerned— faces of Government members and, due to pressure from here and from public opinion, they changed the legislation substantially. Their frustration then is understandable. The general election ploy was up the spout. They could not go. They would have to wait and face the economic doom they themselves prepared for themselves and they lashed out at everybody, including Fianna Fáil, because they had not got their way.

Legislation by normal process went to the President. He had constitutional rights and he exercised those constitutional rights. The constitutional position has been, as the Minister for Local Government admitted this morning, well teased out, well debated, discussed and explained by our party leader and others. The ordinary people do not go in very much for abstruse constitutional speculation but they understand that the President has a protective role and that he is the protector of their rights and, when he referred the laws as he did to the Supreme Court, he had the support of the people in doing that. What brought on this debate and all this crisis was the reaction of the Minister for Defence to what the President did in accordance with his constitutional rights. It is, I submit, completely irrelevant that the perpetrator of this outrageous attack on the office of the President is in fact a man who has never displayed any mature sense of responsibility. That is irrelevant. There is no use in saying, when he has done what he did, we will give him a clown's pardon. He is not entitled to a clown's pardon if he has the protection of the Government and the Taoiseach in the action he took.

Again, in a sense the incumbent of the office of President is irrelevant. The incumbent happened to be a man of charm and dignity, a man of very active intellect, deeply imbued with Gaelic culture and a student of European cultures. As far as he personally was concerned, I am sure Deputy Paddy Donegan's words were written in water; but, in so far as the dignity of the office he held was concerned, this could not be so. They were subversive. They were dangerous. They were undermining one of the arms of the Oireachtas, an institution very important in the legislative process. They tended to undermine that and it was on that issue the President resigned from, as he said himself, the highest office in the land. Indeed, if one reads his letter or reads the Taoiseach's speech one sees that he indicated that he was going to take some serious action. He said, and I quote from the Taoiseach's speech, he would await the receipt of the letter but he had already taken certain preliminary decisions, the nature of which he did not disclose at that time to the Taoiseach. This should have alerted the Taoiseach to the seriousness of what had happened.

This morning the Taoiseach said that Minister Donegan's remarks, and I quote, in no way reflected the views of the Government. The Minister's remarks in no way reflect the opinion of the Government. But it is true that there was no total repudiation by the Taoiseach or the Government of the remarks of the Minister in Columb Barracks in Mullingar and there has been no total repudiation even yet and certain statements made by people trying to extricate the Government from the situation in which it found itself would, on circumstantial evidence, tend to give one the impression that the Minister for Defence was not in fact alone in his views on this occasion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, clothing himself in the robes of a zealot—and that is the only word one could use—desperately swimming against the tide of public opinion, of righteous public indignation, lashed out at Fianna Fáil, lashed out at the newspapers, lashed out at the magazines with the zeal of a Savonarola in trying to retrieve the position. He is himself a distinguished constitutional lawyer and the gaps in some of his statements were certainly not there because he did not realise the position. One could not possibly believe that. He is much too intelligent a man for that. But he compounded Minister Donegan's serious and grave action, this serious attempt to undermine the office of the President.

It may also be indicative that these kinds of views were being expressed in Government circles. On political occasions in the west of Ireland, before Minister Donegan made his outrageous attack on the President in Mullingar, public criticism of the President had taken place. There are very disquieting stories indeed about the position of the President vis-á-vis the Government in relation to trips to Rome and the United States—ironically the United States of whose Constitution the late President was a very assiduous student. The late President was in fact a victim of the ploy by the Government to put us in a general election situation on the wrong issue and the Minister for Local Government here today put his finger on it. We are debating the wrong issue and we are debating it because of the Government's sins of omission and commission. It was a ploy to obscure the serious economic position of the country. It was a ploy to have a general election fought not on the real issue of the economy but on a ploy which just did not come off. The artificial emergency was practically stillborn. The people saw through it, helped by a fairly relentless attack on that from this side of the House, and helped by the media which kept the people informed.

The Fianna Fáil Party Leader mentioned that this Government have refused to take advice from the various economic agencies, from the ESRI, the NESC or from any body and, by their sins of omission and commission in the economic sphere, they are forcing the economy down the slippery slope of inflation and unemployment to its doom and destruction. The Minister for Local Government admitted that and the burden of his speech was related to the economic issue. He should, in his wisdom, have told the Government meeting which decided to recall the Dáil during the summer recess that the real issue was an economic issue. If he had, all this trouble, constitutional and otherwise, could have been avoided.

Paper 26 of the NESC has teased out the situation that we should be discussing in this House. They point out that in all the OECD countries, if manufacturing and agricultural industries had increased output, all the others, the service industries, commerce, public utilities would all follow. They have pointed the way to the Government and the Taoiseach has an obligation to lead the country in a drive to save our economy. He is not doing it. The obligation on him is strong and our resolution contains the very essence of truth—that this House has no confidence in the Taoiseach in the present situation if he allows himself to be manipulated into a situation where he will impose by resolution and statute a political and law and order emergency and at the same time ignore the real one.

The report I have referred to has shown the Taoiseach what to do. It has told him that in all the OECD countries that if the manufacturing and agricultural industries are put into production, everything else follows and that more jobs will be available.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair invites the Deputy to come back to the subject matter of the motion.

Mr. Wilson

I am on the motion in accordance with your ruling when the Minister for Local Government was speaking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Next week we will have an economic debate.

Mr. Wilson

I am trying to convey what the Taoiseach should be doing if we are to have confidence in him and that is directly related to the subject matter under discussion. The Government must know these things and they must take economic action to rectify them, because if they do not we are ruined. Where the Taoiseach should be going is to the trade unions. Never in a time of crisis, political or economic, have the trade unions let the country down. The Taoiseach should be selling that package to them and a headline should be taken from the sheltered sections of the economy. Otherwise this Government will have ruined us.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair again invites the Deputy to come back to the motion and avoid an economic debate until next week.

Mr. Wilson

I have always obeyed the ruling of the Chair. I am basing my remarks on those of members of the Government. I would be very reluctant to accuse the Chair of having one criterion for the Minister for Local Government and another for me. I do not believe the Chair would do that. I do not see why the Minister for Local Government should be allowed to spend a lot of time discussing housing, the quality of housing and social welfare and I am to be refused permission to say where the Taoiseach has gone wrong.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has allowed the Deputy to reply to the points which were, in the judgment of the Chair, incorrectly made by the Minister for Local Government. The Chair now invites the Deputy to come back to the subject matter of the debate.

Mr. Wilson

Lack of confidence in the Taoiseach stems from the type of Government over which he presides and the type of person the Taoiseach himself is. There is in the Government a division of policies and it is this division which prompted the Government to try to create an artificial emergency out of which came the legislation which was referred to the Supreme Court by the exPresident. We think the Taoiseach has lost the confidence of the country, and, I hope, of the House, and I am suggesting to him that he should get up quietly and unostentatiously and lead his ragbag of failed academic economists and law and order merchants who have prised out the keystone of the edifice of law and order in the country, namely, the Presidency, and put it under attack; he should lead also the gentle bearded man of social welfare, and quietly ferret out the Presidential Commission and tender his resignation to them, because the country and, I hope, this House have lost confidence in him as leader of the country.

Mr. Reynolds

Like the Taoiseach and the Ministers for Justice and Local Government, I regret the words used by the Minister for Defence in Mullingar last Monday week, but at the same time we all must realise that this entire matter is a storm not in a teacup but in an eggcup being created and persisted in by the Opposition. When Deputy Lynch was concluding his remarks today he suggested the best way out of this was a general election, and he asked the Taoiseach to dissolve the Dáil. One cannot help but recall what he did in 1970 when a number of his Ministers were asked to resign and when some of them did. There was a greater demand for a general election then than there is today. As the Taoiseach said, it may have been for emotional reasons that Deputy Donegan uttered those two unfortunate words.

We have a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach. We must look at the record of the Taoiseach. He served in the Army during the Emergency, first as a private and later as a commissioned officer. He is a barrister-at-law and he became a senior counsel in 1958. He has been a Member of this House since 1943. Since then there have been a number of general elections. In those elections he topped the poll in his own constituency almost every time. He was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in 1945. He was Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce from 1948 to 1951. He was Minister for External Affairs from June, 1954 to 1957. He was chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1955. He was chairman and leader of the first Irish delegation to the United Nations. In 1965 he was elected Leader of the Fine Gael Party. At that time we held 47 seats. Under his leadership that number has gone up to 65, an increase of some 20 per cent.

There was no better man to judge what happened with relation to the Minister for Defence than the Taoiseach. He felt he should not accept the Minister's resignation. There must be a very capable, trustworthy and loyal Minister in charge of the Department of Defence. Deputy Donegan, as Minister for Defence, fulfilled all that. The decision of the Taoiseach not to accept his resignation was a correct one.

Fianna Fáil's calling for a vote of no confidence in the Taoiseach is a barefaced attempt to make political capital out of the President's resignation. Fianna Fáil by this move are dragging the Presidency down to the lowest level of mud-slinging politics. At the same time, they are using this to cover up their own inept performance as an Opposition. The Fianna Fáil front bench know that the rank and file of their supporters down the country do not agree with their attitude in the House. They are disappointed with their inefficiency and their miserable attempt at doing the work they are expected to do.

Fianna Fáil grasped the opportunity of putting on this ill-conceived show. This will not deceive the people of Ireland into thinking that at long last Fianna Fáil have become a worthwhile Opposition or that they have solved the problems that rocked their party during the arms trial. This coming together of the former Taoiseach and a Minister whom he sacked is not and could not be genuine unity. We know that this former Minister hated the present Taoiseach. This is because of the part he played in exposing to the House and the country the former Minister's evil dealings with arms dealers and subversives. One can understand this hatred but when it is covered up by a pretence of defending the institutions of the State it is disgusting. This power-hungry man believes that if he can succeed in discrediting the Taoiseach to the degree that he betrayed the confidence of the former Taoiseach, he will be much nearer his goal, to lead the Irish people to destiny or disaster.

Deputy Lynch suffered from a lapse of memory. If he has forgotten the misdeeds of Deputy Haughey we do not forget them. The people of Ireland do not forget them nor do they forget the cries at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis of "perjurer, perjurer" directed at another one of the Deputy's front bench members today.

Let us get this business into perspective. The Minister for Defence made an indiscriminate remark, a slip of the tongue, about the President. He was big enough to apologise unreservedly but, unfortunately, the President was not big enough to accept the apology. To err is human, to forgive divine. Deputy Donegan became Minister for Defence after the last general election. Everybody knows that he has raised the morale of the Army to a very high level and the respect in which the Army are held by making it crystal clear to the people that our Defence Forces are against those who would overthrow the State. In 1973, when the Opposition, who were shouting very loudly today about the Minister for Defence, were in power, 10,618 were in the Army. On the 13th September, 1976, 14,435 men were in the Army, an increase of 3,817, approximately 36 per cent.

I was amused hearing Fianna Fáil talk about the economic situation about which we will have a debate next week when everybody will have an opportunity of speaking. The expenditure on the Defence Forces in 1972-73 was £29.58 million. The Estimate for Defence for 1976 is £72.96 million, an increase of £43.38 million. That clearly indicates to the House what the Minister for Defence has done and will continue to do for the Army. That increase is equivalent to 147 per cent. That is a fair record for any Minister for Defence. Deputy Donegan was chairman of the Louth County Council and has been a Member of this House for a number of years, and was also a former member of the Council of Europe. I feel we can trust him in the Department of Defence. Everybody in County Louth who knows Deputy Donegan knows that he is one of the best emspective ployers in the county. It is annoying that just because the Minister's tongue slipped and he uttered two words he is to be crucified by the Opposition party, even though he made every effort to apologise for his utterance.

The Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Defence have won nation-wide respect for their putting down of the gunmen, the assassins, the bank robbers and subversives. They did not stand idly by while the subversives were gathering strength as Ministers of the last Government did. Deputies Cosgrave, Cooney and Donegan with their colleagues in the Cabinet know that all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Is the President of this country above any type of criticism? Maybe it is a good thing that there should never be a word uttered about him. We have a number of people in the country at the moment who say that there should be no such establishment as the Presidency. Are they committing an offence by saying that? A number of the people in my constituency say these words regularly on various occasions. Should we live in fear of the President? How did Fianna Fáil treat these institutions in the past? In 1936 Fianna Fáil did away with Seanad Éireann because it would not accept a Bill that came in from this House. They are the people who are shouting today about the institutions of the State.

Fianna Fáil opposed a section of a Bill designed to help the Garda in their efforts to beat the subversives by enabling them to hold suspects for seven days. Fianna Fáil put the farmers of my constituency and every other constituency into jail and kept them there for as long as they could. During the regime of Fianna Fáil the magazine in the Phoenix Park was raided and guns and ammunition were stolen in large quantities. The Minister for Defence at that time was not sacked but was promoted and given a rousing title as Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures.

We now listen to the cries for a general election. Since this Government came into office we had seven by-elections. The Taoiseach gained two seats from Fianna Fáil, one in Monaghan and the other in Dublin. These were votes of confidence in Deputy Cosgrave's Government. In relation to the by-election in Donegal Deputy Lynch, the Leader of the Opposition, forecast that they would secure this seat; but the result of that election was that Deputy Lynch got into trouble with his former Minister, whom he had sacked. The percentage of votes in the Donegal by-election on examination will show that it was a vote of confidence in Deputy Liam Cosgrave.

Mr. Power

Will the Deputy state the percentages in Donegal while he is at it?

Mr. Reynolds

If I were the Deputy I would not talk about Donegal.

Mr. Power

Deputy Reynolds is the one who is talking about percentages. Two-thirds of the voters in Donegal rejected him.

Mr. P. Barry

If two-thirds of the people rejected the Government, more than two-thirds rejected Fianna Fáil in Donegal.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Reynolds

I remember that after Fianna Fáil had won a by-election an argument was put forward from our side of the House that we had increased our vote, and Deputy Boland, as a former Fianna Fáil Minister, said "You can have all the moral victories you want as long as we get the seats." The same applies today.

Deputy Cosgrave is very much respected outside and inside this State. Leaders of different sections in Northern Ireland have from time to time paid tribute to him. Leaders of the EEC States hold Deputy Cosgrave, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in high esteem. Even the Fianna Fáil Party will admit that nobody has done more for the farmers of this country than Deputy Clinton. When Deputy Cosgrave was in the USA last year he got a number of industrialists to come here. I represent a constituency which under Fianna Fáil suffered tremendously from emigration to America and to England. The people who went to America come home, not every year, but on an average every two or three years, and nothing that I can say here could equal the tributes I hear these people pay to Deputy Cosgrave. The Fianna Fáil Party apparently have nothing better to do at this stage than to come in here with a motion such as this to get some political shadow to safeguard themselves. The record in the by-elections shows the true situation and will continue to do so. I heard a Deputy on the opposite side of the House saying on this motion that, within two or three months, or six months at the outside——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. Perhaps he would like to move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.