Deputy O'Toole was in possession.
Private Members' Business. - Magill Magazine Allegations: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy FitzGerald on Tuesday. 25 November 1980:
Recognising its responsibilities as the primary democratic forum of this State, Dáil Éireann notes the allegations made inMagill magazine, in relation to present and former members of the Government, and seeks clarification of the matters raised by these allegations.
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute "considers it expedient that a Commission of Inquiry be established under the chairmanship of a Judge of the High Court to inquire into and report on the veracity of the allegations made inMagill magazine in relation to present and former members of the Government.
—(Deputy Browne.)
Last night when progress was reported I was about to make the point that the Opposition had not only a right to raise this issue at this time and in this way but indeed a duty to do so because of the serious allegations recently made in articles published in Magill magazine. The subject matter of this motion being raised by us now, with all its gory details, is surely of more than academic interest. It has been raised because of the serious nature of the allegations made in the articles referred to, allegations made against people of influence, against people in this House and indeed against members of the present Government.
Even more important than all that is the fact that this public, topical issue has what must be seen as a direct bearing on our relationship with our fellow Irishmen in the North. One would have thought that this debate was a glorious opportunity for the Taoiseach, against whom allegations have been made, to shed from himself the ambivalence out of which, for political reasons, he has made a virtue. This same ambivalence is anathema to the people with whom we must do business on the basis of mutual trust if we are to solve the unfortunate problem here at any time in the future. Yet despite this opportunity afforded to him, the Taoiseach saw fit to stay away from this House during the debate, and we complain that Dáil Éireann is becoming more irrelevant every day.
Indeed, in our naiveté some of us expressed surprise at this development. I wonder now if we should express surprise because here is an issue where this House ought to involve itself, and yet the people of influence against whom allegations have been made see fit to absent themselves from this House. What we have witnessed so far — and I refer in particular to the contribution last night by the Minister for Justice — is an exercise in what I would call arrogance and indeed contempt for the traditions long held in this House, traditions which have been established down through the years, where, when an opportunity was given to a Minister or indeed to any Member of this House to clarify ambiguities, that opportunity has normally been taken. Indeed, in many cases it was initiated by the Member himself in order to clarify his position.
Now the Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, is not involved in this sordid affair at all, good, bad or indifferent. But the Minister for Justice had in front of him last night a very serious allegation that the gun used to murder a member of the Garda Síochana had been illegally imported through Dublin Airport. In the course of his statement last night the Minister castigated former Ministers from this side of the House who, he said had the same documentation and files available to them in their time in government and yet saw fit to keep their mouths shut on these matters at that time. That is a fair point. But they had not in front of them this recent allegation which arose out of the publication of the Magill articles, an allegation which should have been answered by the Minister, and I would hope that before this debate closes it will be replied to by him. By his failure to do so last night and his avoidance of this issue, he has struck a severe blow at the morale of the Garda who in the recent past, suffered three further murders within their ranks. It was unfortunate that the Minister chose to avoid this issue which pertains directly to his Department.
There are people here who, like the Minister for Justice, see this debate as totally irrelevant and feel that the time could be better spent in discussing the economy, security and other pressing matters. But surely, despite the fact that the matters being discussed took place over ten years ago, the consequences of what happened then are still with us and the legacy of dissent is still with us. One has only to recall last night's performance and to count the number of Deputies who sat in the Fianna Fáil benches and to name them to be in no dount as to the degree of dissension which still exists in the Government as a direct result of what took place over ten years ago so that the relegation of this issue to the dim pages of history which was being attempted by the Minister for Justice last night does not solve that problem and the consequences of not solving that problem are that we all suffer.
To me, the most amazing aspect of last night's debate — and I am not long in this House — was a quotation and a statement which followed the quotation made by Deputy Noel Browne. Having listened to the reaction, or the non-reaction, to that statement one could not but express amazement at what kind of Parliament or what kind of Government we have at this time. I quote Deputy Browne's statement from last night's debate when he said:
Deputy Haughey on May 25 said: "I now categorically state that at no time have I taken part in any illegal importation or attempted importation of arms into the country".
Deputy Browne went on:
Does anybody believe that now? Does anybody now seriously doubt that he was lying then and that he lied and perjured himself later on in the court?
Here was Deputy Noel Browne standing in an Irish Parliament accusing the Taoiseach — my Taoiseach and yours. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle — of perjury in the courts and yet not one of the Taoiseach's colleagues was prepared to stand up and defend him. This is the most amazing reaction or non-reaction I have ever witnessed.
Do we take it that the allegation made was incontrovertible because that is the interpretation of the ordinary man in the street — indeed it is mine. In the normal course of events you. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, would not allow that allegation to go unchallenged from your point of view. In this case — I am not blaming you — all I am saying is that the silence from the Fianna Fáil benches to the allegation that their leader was a perjurer is nothing short of amazing.
One would have expected that even that would have provoked our Taoiseach into coming into this House tonight to listen to this debate and — hopefully — participate in it before its closure at 8.30. I would hope that he will be present. It would seem now that even that will not provoke our Taoiseach into coming into the House and that this policy of ten years of silence is still to be pursued by him leaving in its train the many doubts that now linger in the minds of many people.
This motion was put down in order to facilitate the people directly challenged to clear their lines and make some effort to rescue their characters. Fine Gael, it would seem, have not succeeded in what they set out to do. I say that more in sadness than in any other tone simply because the principals involved have decided to continue in their silence to the allegation made by Deputy Noel Browne. To me this performance is nothing short of amazing.
The Labour Party at their Parliamentary Party meeting in discussing this motion before the House decided to leave it to me as to whether we participated at all in the debate for the reason that we have no light to shed on this sad and sordid affair. We cannot tell who told lies, who committed perjury, who was or was not involved. We do not know who the victim was and who was the perpetrator of the act against the other. We decided that because it was a three-hour debate, a limited debate, we would give the maximum time to any member of the House who could throw any light on the issue. That included members of Fianna Fáil and Deputy Blaney. They are the only members who could state what the truth is — we could not.
I want to make clear at the beginning — I stated this in a previous debate in the House — that as far as the arms trial itself is concerned and the charges that were made and the people who were in the dock this party are not attempting and will not attempt a retrial. We accept that any man who was brought before the courts and acquitted is acquitted and that is the end of the matter. We would not lend ourselves to a retrial of any person. Taoiseach, Minister or ordinary individual. What we are discussing here is other new matter that has come to light and which was not considered at the trial and was not the subject of a verdict by a jury. In fact one of the reasons why I rose to speak was the utter contempt with which the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Government have treated the Dáil and, through the Dáil, the people of the country.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Here is a situation where, as was mentioned previously, a Member of the House stood up last night and said it had been established that the Taoiseach committed perjury. One of the new issues which it was sought to discuss in this motion was the Magill articles which stated that as a result of looking through the Berry papers one could not escape the conclusion that the Taoiseach had committed perjury. Can anyone envisage any other Parliament in a democracy where the Prime Minister is openly in Parliament accused of committing perjury and he treats that Parliament and the people it represents with such utter contempt that he does not even attend the discussion not to mention that he does not see fit — or at least has not up to now — to come into the House and refute the charge made both inside and outside the House?
I am not aware of any libel action pending against the editor of Magill, the author of those articles, and I find it staggering that in a parliamentary democracy a Taoiseach and a Government could believe that they would get away with treating the whole Parliament and the electorate with such utter and total contempt. That is one of the reasons why I rose to speak. A number of questions were asked last night by Deputy Garret FitzGerald and repeated by Deputy Browne and other speakers. They involve very serious charges against Members of the House.
In addition to perjury there were involved such matters as a meeting between the man who is now the Taoiseach, but who was then facing criminal charges, with the then Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley, and also charges concerning the former Taoiseach who knew, before he claims to have known, of the alleged conspiracy to import arms. There were all sorts of charges.
Contrary to what Fianna Fáil have tried to make us believe, there are no good guys or no bad guys in that party. In the light of last evening's performance, it is possible that all the members of that party concerned told lies and are continuing to tell lies but what has emerged very clearly during the past ten years — and this was highlighted last night in this House — was that both individually and collectively those people will put party before country.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
When one has regard to the subject matter of the trial that took place, to the subject matter of this debate and to the circumstances that exist in this country at this time, can anyone think of a more serious charge against a public representative and a member of a national parliament? I have heard the comment on radio that the whole episode could be compared with the question of who shot JR. Last evening's scene reminded me far more of Sicily than of Dallas. No-one on this side of the House is in a position to throw any further light on the subject but there are a couple of observations that should be made. We know without doubt that either the present Taoiseach or Deputy Gibbons was guilty of perjury. Deputy Lynch knows which of them is the guilty party in this respect. As Taoiseach he was in possession of this information but he appointed both men to the Cabinet. Was that the act of a responsible Taoiseach?
Let us consider the position of the Taoiseach who tonight stands charged, both inside this House and outside it with perjury and let us consider also the position of Deputy Gibbons. We are talking not only about the Dáil but about membership of an Irish Cabinet. If the Taoiseach is the man who committed the perjury. Deputy Gibbons knew that because the perjury would have been committed against him. Yet he saw fit to sit in the Cabinet with the man who is now the Taoiseach. On the other hand, if Deputy Gibbons was the man who committed the perjury. Deputy Haughey saw fit to accept office and to sit in the same Cabinet as Deputy Gibbons. This is all very elevating for the Irish people and for our young people in particular.
We cannot come to a conclusion in regard to the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism. In the Magill articles and in this House also the charge has been made that as Minister for Justice he had a meeting with the man who is now the Taoiseach two weeks before the beginning of the trial in respect of the conspiracy to import arms illegally. There has been an allegation of a secret meeting between the two men but so far the Minister has not come into the House to deny this charge. I hope that he will intervene before the debate concludes. We cannot say who is telling the truth and who is telling untruths but if the people involved wish the truth to be established and if they have nothing to fear, they should support the amendment in the name of Deputy Browne calling for a public inquiry with a member of the Judiciary as chairman for the purpose of attempting to establish the truth. Any Member of this House who was involved in this whole sordid mess and who, irrespective of party, fails to walk through the lobbies with this party in support of the motion in the name of Deputy Browne, should be condemned so far as this matter is concerned and should be regarded as not wishing the truth to be known.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It had not been my intention to intervene in the debate and I would not intervene were it not for the fact that I consider it necessary to register my protest in the strongest possible terms against the arrogance and contempt with which this House and, as Deputy Cluskey has said, the country generally have been treated during this debate both by the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Justice.
This debate arises out of an alleged attempt to import arms illegally. As a result of that attempt four people, including the Taoiseach, were brought before the Central Criminal Court. To use a hackneyed expression. I do not think that any trial since the foundation of the State evoked such public interest and disquiet. It transpired that the four accused were acquitted by a jury but since that trial the Irish people have been suffering in one way or another from the events of 1970.
The Government have been in office for about six years since then and during that time many Cabinet Members suffered the ill effects of those 1970 events as a result of which they were not in a position to give of their best in government. However, the country had to put up with that type of service from those people. The matter continued to smoulder until this year when the Magill journal published three articles in which were made, both by implication and directly, very serious allegations against a number of people, the most important by far of whom was the Taoiseach.
It became evident that far from having lost interest in the 1970 arms trial the people were very interested to find out the truth. They hoped that the diaries of the late Mr. Berry, which it was said would solve the problem, would bring out the truth. I do not think there was ever such a demand for any publication as there was for the Magill journal. Last week very many people were wondering who killed J.R. but that was nothing to the intense interest in the Magill magazine. The magazine was passed from house to house. The articles in the journal made exceptionally serious charges against a number of people, both by implication and directly. It is not pleasant to have to say it but it must be said that they accused the Taoiseach of perjury. An article in the magazine stated that a member of the Garda Síochána was murdered by a gun that was illegally imported through Dublin Airport. It is not necessary to spell out all the accusations and allegations. They are well known. The general public expected that these disclosures would bring forth explanations or clarification of what happened in 1970.
Very little was said. Nothing was said by the man who had by them assumed the most important political position in the country, the Taoiseach. There was a deafening silence from that front bench and from that man. He was not elected Taoiseach by the people: indeed, although he was elected in the general election with a substantial vote it was not certain he would even become a Minister. However, after the resignation of Deputy Lynch he became Taoiseach.
It was in order to clarify the position and to put an end to the rumours, the disquiet and the unsettled state of affairs that this party put down the motion we are debating here. Our motion stated that "This House seeks clarification of the matters raised by these allegations". What did we find when the debate began and when the leader of Fine Gael put a number of very pertinent questions? The Taoiseach did not see fit to come to this House during the debate and he has not yet come in. He is not a shy man, he is not a man who shuns the limelight or the public. Nevertheless he has not come here during the debate.
The Minister for Justice, in a short and arrogant contribution, treated the House with contempt and relied on the verdict of the jury in a criminal prosecution. We know that such a verdict of a jury in a criminal prosecution simply means that the State has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It does not give its reason for acquittal, just as it does not give its reason for conviction. There might be many reasons but we do not know what they are. Extremely serious charges have been made since that trial and they have been made in the Magill magazine.
The Minister for Justice leaned heavily on the acquittal by the jury and on the respect that should be had for the courts. If what was printed in the Magill magazine is incorrect it is highly libellous, but as far as we know there has not been even a solicitor's letter sent to the proprietors of that magazine asking for a withdrawal of an article or for denial. We have no knowledge that any proceedings have been brought in the High Court by the Taoiseach to exonerate himself and to clear his name. He has not even come here for this debate.
As has been said here, the learned trial judge at the hearing stated that there was no question of doubt that either one of two people had committed perjury. He said to the jury there could not be any other way out. At least one of the two men had the guts to come to this House during the debate and stood up, even if only for a few minutes, to tell the House he had repudiated the charges against him on several occasions and that he stood over that repudiation. That was what was meant by the contribution of Deputy Gibbons. However, there has not been one solitary word from the other man who was included in the judge's remarks. If that is not treating this House with contempt, I ask what is it.
Democracy can stand a lot. Democracy has stood a lot from time to time but there is a limit. The treatment of this House by the Taoiseach, his Minister for Justice and by the Fianna Fáil Party — because they are all behind him, as far as we know — is damaging democracy and is reducing the institutions of the State and this sovereign Parliament to a very low level. We are experiencing difficult times. The economy is in shambles, unemployment is increasing, inflation is double what it was a few years ago, for the first time in living memory county council roadmen are being dispensed with or are put on a three-day week. We have in charge a Government who are more concerned with their internal troubles than they are with solving the economic problems besetting us.
The Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, spoke long about the courts and respect for the courts. Since being appointed, the Taoiseach tried, without any jury and without any court, Deputy Gibbons, the former Minister in the previous Government, and sentenced him in connection with the arms trial. I ask you, how could a Government who are labouring under troubles like that do the country's work? I shall sit down on this note. I believe a very bad day's work has been done for the democratic institutions of this country, for this Dáil and for democracy by the fact that a man, head of this Government, who is charged subsequent to the trial with the offence of perjury, does not see fit to come into this House to take part in this debate, or to deny the charge, and will simply walk around here, with the force of feet, in a short time and say to our people "You will get no clarification. You will get no explanation. I will not tell you whether Magill is right or Magill is wrong, but I am here and I am going to stay here.”
I had the firm conviction of not participating in this debate whatsoever but, having heard a little of what has been said here tonight and being aware of a great deal that has not been said here tonight or last night. I come in to ask all three parties in this House this question: ten or 11 years after the event have they nothing better to do, with 200,000 odd unemployed in the entire country at the moment and the position worsening gradually? Should we not be devoting the time of this House to trying to find some ways of curing the economic chaos which has now overtaken us? With seven hunger-strikers dying above in Long Kesh should we not be concerning ourselves in this debate about what the future of this country will be if those men are allowed to die? Instead of this there seems to be a competition, particularly from the two main Opposition parties, in regard to how much blame they can put on the Fianna Fáil Party or individual members of it for their alleged participation in what has been written up in a glorified sort of way in order to peddle the circulation of a particular magazine, subscribed to by a journalist who has not in the past been particularly concerned or anxious about getting to the truth, but rather about getting the sensationalism across to the public. Should we not be thinking about what these things imply? Should we not be asking ourselves here tonight, who of all of us, who of any party in this House can stand up and say that back at the end of 1969 or the beginning of 1970 they did not encourage what they now condemn? I say this from my knowledge of that time, not from hearsay or from what somebody has told me to say.
When the delegations came down from Belfast after August of 1969 they did not just visit a few of the people then in Government. They visited the leadership of each of the other parties as well. I, as a northerner, had more contact with those people because of my being from the North than almost anybody else, particularly in the early and late days of 1969 and I was careful when they came not only to direct them to my colleagues in Government but to direct them to the leadership of each of the other two parties. In no case were they turned away. In no case were they told to get back up there again and behave themselves, as apparently they would be told today if they came down. No, they were encouraged to go on and to press the Government of the day. Fianna Fáil, to give them the assistance and the aid which they then so badly needed and which everybody in this country then recognised that they did need if they were not to be wiped out.
Now we have this approach, ten or 11 years later. They were not satisfied, a year or almost a year ago, with damaging the country by the personal attacks then being made on the incoming Taoiseach. whom I am not here to defend — far from it — but if you were outside the country, as I was, at the time that debacle of a debate took place here you would be ashamed that you belonged to this House, as I then was. I am ashamed tonight that I am a Member of this House, listening to all this hypocrisy which is being talked here by those who now accuse others of attempting to help our own people in the Six Counties at that time. And what was wrong with that? How has it become unfashionable? Why is it not the "in" thing which it was 11 years ago? I shall tell you why and how. The British propaganda machine which has engulfed this country and all around and outside it has got through to the minds of so many of you that you are now almost afraid to recognise the fact that you are Irish. We have here a Parliament calling itself Irish which is not prepared to stand up, as the Constitution dictates it should, and talk for its citizens, whether they are in the North or South, whether they are in British jails, Six County jails or Irish jails. We are not prepared to do this now. It is not fashionable any more, because the great British propaganda machine has brainwashed the lot of you.
I have said that I am ashamed of being a Member of this House. I am thoroughly ashamed of being a Member of this House to find that we have nothing better to do than to try to apportion blame, to try to blacken the people at this particular time, out of total context, with no regard to what the atmosphere then was or what encouragement of each of the parties was given to those who came South at that time looking for our assistance and, if that assistance was ours, who said to them that they should not have it? How many of the parties that they visited told them to go back and have sense, as they would do now, and take credit and make a virtue out of it as they would do now?
We are totally and absolutely removed from the realities which we faced in 1969 and 1970. This whole sorry debate has taken place here now against the background of economic near chaos and a background in which we may be facing greater turmoil and trouble in this country than we have even dreamt of in the past. Still we have time here to talk about who did what and about whether or not the accusations, innuendos or otherwise in the Magill magazine are correct and that it is an admission if one does not come into this House and deny it or come in to explain. The court before which I was not charged and by which, therefore, I was not exonerated is of course, sacred when it comes to using it in the way that you would wish. If it will support your cause you would be all clamouring over there about what it decided should be left untouched and unhindered in any way. Surely the fact that the court, whether by jury trial or otherwise, found the case unproved, should be enough for those of you who either did not have any knowledge of what went on at the time or have changed their minds since because of the brainwashing they have got from the British? How many Gerry Fitts have we got here in this House at the moment, the man who could not go to bed at night without four of the Provisional IRA being present, one at each corner of his house, and not so many years ago? We have a lot of those at present, those who forget what has gone and forget entirely.
I heard a Member speak about the non-justification for the actions of the people who are on hunger strike today and the organisation they allegedly represent. He said they had no justification for waging war and that any political recognition given to them as prisoners by this House would be authorising them to continue to wage that war. Who declared war? Was it not muddling Maudling who declared the war that he has never called off? Who did he declare in on except the Irish people of the north-east of this country? Who were the people who had to try to defend their rights and themselves against muddling Maudling and his declaration of war? Who was it who came down here and visited the heads of the three parties on several occasions in 1969 asking for help and asking for arms for the defence of the defenceless in the Six Counties? Are they the people, or the descendants of them, who are today rotting in Long Kesh? Many of them are. They were encouraged then by the leadership of all our parties, and rightly so. We then had a proper grasp of things but we have lost all that since. We now seem to see a virtue in securing the very Border brought about by Partition that should never have been put there. It is now virtuous to look after that, to secure as others have said, and as I have said on many occasions, the Border we do not want with the money we do not have and which we have to borrow in order to continue. We clap ourselves on the back and tell the British what good boys we are. That is the "in" thing today. It is as wrong today as it would have been in 1969, 1920, 1921, 1922 or 1925. It has been wrong all that time. The sooner the better that this House collectively gets around to the idea that if we are worthy of the name of an Irish Parliament we should act as an Irish Parliament on behalf of the Irish people making our demand and our claim — our rightful claim — that Britain get out of this country and give us the opportunity once and for all — an opportunity which was denied to us 60-odd years ago — of finding our own solutions as to how we are to live together without the overbearing intimidatory presence of the British and their army and all that goes with them.
We know all about this. Those of us who live beside it come through it daily, weekly and yearly. Many are more fully alive to the sort of situation that exists there. However, there is this creeping paralysis brought about by the almighty propaganda of the Lisburn machine manipulated by the British Government that has blinded us completely and absolutely to the fact that in all these things we are dealing with an enemy that has been occupying our country for more than eight centuries and still does not have, apparently, any reason to go. We in this House are certainly not asking her to go. We do not want to do that because we might upset people if we did it. We might not appear to be good boys in the European Community or in some of the other international forums we like to strut around and talk in.
Let us cop ourselves on. Let us realise that this country of ours, this Ireland of ours, is one country and that our people are one people. Let us realise that it is not impossible for our traditions to live side by side. I have lived among mixed traditions. I come from an area that is of mixed traditions and it does not make that part of the country any more unbearable than any other part of the country. If it can be done in parts why cannot it not be done throughout the country? Why are we not pointing that out to the British? Why is it that we do not have anything explaining our stance for world circulation when in every embassy of the British throughout the world there is the outpouring of propaganda handed out in order to cultivate the nations of the world to Britain's point of view that we in Ireland are an impossible lot, that we have never been otherwise, that we never will be otherwise and that they must keep a fatherly eye on us so that we do not do away with ourselves? Why can we not put our case? Why is it that we cannot in our embassies, fewer though they are than Britain's, put our case? Why is it that we do not have available our side of the case? Why is it not being put around? Why do we not put it in type and print? Why do we not give our version of what is wrong with this country as far as Britain and ourselves are concerned? Why should we take all the propaganda from behind all the time? Why is it that we do not have some of our embassy staff in the United States — I am not talking about the person the House might think I am talking about — putting our case?
It should be remembered that on being asked for anything on the national question or the partition of this country people in America are being told that the embassy does not have anything but that if they went to the British embassy they might get something. That is a sad fact. It is that sort of thing we should be talking about, if we have the time to devote to such matters. We should be trying to get an understanding of our case across. We should be trying to get the influence of the world's people to bring to bear on Britain that her role in Ireland is long since past, that she cannot continue and has no reason or justification to be here and that no matter how she might stupidly continue to incarcerate, jail and torture Irishmen because they will not accept the British yoke she is only prolonging the agony, not curing it. Those of us in the South who have been misled into joining her in that attitude are further adding to the time it will take to get Britain to see the light and declare and decide that she is going before drawing herself from here in a nice orderly way. She has never done that anywhere she left. She has gone out of everywhere else except here and everywhere else she stayed too long and left too hastily.
Candidly, I do not give a damn if she goes out tonight. I would choose that rather than that she continue with the chaos she is creating at present. In order to try to be helpful I have over the years consistently asked — I ask this Parliament and Government to ask now — that she not only declare her intention to go but that she make it known a short time in advance, that she set the date of her withdrawal and that the interim period be devoted to finding out how we in the new circumstances of having to live without her — many of us could live a damn sight better without her; there may be a few who feel they could not — can govern our country. North and South in the future. That is a request, a demand that any Government, any Parliament describing itself as Irish should be making to the Premier of Great Britain, Mrs. Thatcher, and those around her. That way would lead somewhere. Our present attitude is not leading anywhere.
I can say — I have been all too accurate in the past — that if things continue as they are at present, if the men on hunger strike are to die because they are not given the human rights that are their entitlement, then we all will regret the time we have wasted fiddling, as Nero did, while Rome burned, fiddling in this House about who did what in 1969 or 1970, or told the truth, or told all the truth or has all the truth been told. At this stage I submit to the House that that is not important. What is important is that we get on with trying to secure our own social and economic ills and at the same time with the greatest possible haste bring to the attention of the British that their treatment of our Irish citizens in this and in their own country is wrong. It is of a nature which would not be allowed to happen in any other country in the world without there being an outcry about it. We talk about what is happening in Chile, Nicaragua and so on and so forth. When we hear what is said about those things, we wonder why do we not apply the same strictures to what is happening in our midst here? Why allow our people to die for a cause for which so many others have died in the past? Surely that is what this House should stand for, instead of rattling each other to see who did what, who can be blamed, and what political advantage can be gained.
I can see no political advantage in this debate. I can see a great deal of disadvantage outside the country. I can see a great deal of propaganda being made of it by the hard-line unionists who are ready to grasp at any straw to justify their not-an-inch attitude. I can see it being used by the enemies of this country far and wide. I can see it being used by those in Britain who want to retain their presence here, and we gladly give it to them when we come in here and take each other apart about something that is long gone and that is little understood now and of no consequence whatever when we are away from the realities of 1969.
We should be joining together in this House demanding rights for the prisoners who are on hunger strike and in Long Kesh. We should be joining together to try to pull our country together economically. As the lone voice of somebody who does not belong to any party in this House, and owes no allegiance to any party in this House, that is the plea I make here tonight. It was to make that plea that I took up the time of the House. I consider the whole episode of this debate, its setting, its tone and its attitude, as a total, complete and absolute waste of the time of the House which could have been better used. It will do damage to us outside the country in a manner we do not foresee.
On a point of personal explanation, I was the Leader of the Labour Party in 1969. During that time I met some people from the North of Ireland. I want to deny categorically the allegation by Deputy Blaney that I offered them any assistance by way of arms.
Might I just say——
Deputy Blaney has already spoken.
On a point of personal explanation, I did not say that Deputy Corish——
(Interruptions.)
Tell us what happened
I will give Deputy Blaney a minute for a personal explanation without interruption.
I will put it another way. I said the leadership of all the parties, including the Labour Party, did not tell those people to go back and behave themselves when they came down to them asking for——
(Interruptions.)
Let me get on record what I have said. I want to repeat it.
The Deputy was not in Fianna Fáil for nothing. His Fianna Fáil training has left some hints behind it.
Deputy Blaney is as crooked as a corkscrew.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Blaney without interruption.
He is trying to wriggle out of it now.
I know Deputies are disappointed at what I had to say. They are all hypocrites.
(Interruptions.)
Is Deputy FitzGerald offering to reply?
Deputy Blaney was a member of a Government who interned men for years without trial.
On a point of order——
Deputy Blaney on a point of personal explanation.
Three of them died on hunger strike under Fianna Fáil. The Deputy did not open his mouth then.
(Interruptions.)
If this debate is to continue, the Deputy is entitled to a minute for a personal explanation without interruption. The Chair had no reason to intervene before this, last night or tonight.
Deputy Lynch on a point of order.
Deputy Lynch will be called next. Deputy Blaney is in possession.
Perhaps it would be better understood by these people if, rather than quoting what I have already said, I were to state clearly that the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party leadership at the time these delegations went to them — and they went to them on many occasions on my instructions — told them to go to the Government and to the Taoiseach and they were not discouraged by anything said by the leadership.
Deputy Lynch on a point of order.
I should like to make a personal explanation. In case there could be any implication in what Deputy Blaney said that I in any way promised arms to people who came to me from the North, I want to say categorically that I did not.
The Deputy did not refuse them.
Deputy FitzGerald to reply to the debate.
(Interruptions.)
Go over to your friends where you belong. With Gerry Fitt — that is where you should be.
We are proud to be associated with him.
Am I to reply, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
The Chair will adjourn the House and we can forget about the debate if Deputies are not prepared to obey the Chair and the ordinary rules of the House. Deputy FitzGerald to reply without interruption.
I hope you will not adjourn the House until I have made my reply. I have my rights. I do not want to dwell on what the last speaker said beyond saying that, if Deputy Kelly had not interrupted to make his comment. I would have made it at the outset because I can remember the days when we had people interned in the Curragh by a Government of which Deputy Blaney was a member.
I can remember the days when your folks were kicking us around the house.
Deputy Blaney has had his say. There should be no interruptions from any part of the House, the gallery or anywhere else.
We will return to the subject of the debate from the wide periphery to which Deputy Blaney has brought us. We sought in this debate to provide an opportunity for those in Fianna Fáil, against whom fresh allegations had been made concerning the events of 1970, to challenge or rebut those allegations and to vindicate themselves or, if they refused to do so, to demonstrate by their silence their inability or unwillingness to clear themselves.
How was this opportunity used? It was used by the Government to put in the Minister for Justice who demonstrated by his words and demeanour a lack of conviction in everything he said which did him and his Government no credit. He attempted to suggest that we were retrying 1970. The issues raised were fresh issues which were not tried in 1970. They include from one Deputy a charge of perjury which had been made in the Magillarticles. The Minister spoke as if he were unaware of the fact that both witnesses and defendants in a trial who give evidence on oath and who perjure themselves are guilty of an offence. That can be a fresh charge unrelated to and quite separate from the original trial. I will not waste my time on the Minister.
With regard to the people to whom questions were put by me through the Chair, arising from allegations made, several of them chose to speak. Deputy Lynch dealt in detail with the Berry hospital incident and made a statement which we note that he had no knowledge of these matters from any source before 20 April. We might have wished for a more detailed rebuttal of individual points put forward, but the Deputy made that overall statement and we note it. Deputy Lynch added one new fact to our knowledge, the fact that he had never heard of or known of the meeting between the then Minister for Justice, now Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism, and the present Taoiseach, then Deputy Haughey, on 9 September 1970, until he read about it in Magill. That is the only new element that has emerged from this debate.
Deputy Gibbons chose merely to stand on his previous testimony and did not under the privileges of this House develop it. We are left to wonder why, and another question is added to those that surround this whole mysterious affair.
The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism, who I understand is back in Ireland from Australia, and the Taoiseach, have chosen neither to appear nor to speak. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism has chosen to remain silent about his meeting with the present Taoiseach on 19 November 1970 about which he did not inform his Taoiseach either before or afterwards despite his recent declaration of loyalty to that Taoiseach. So long as the team opposite choose to hang together rather than hang separately we will have to wait perhaps for quite a while to find out whether this silence on the part of this Minister was felt by him to be necessary in order to avoid compromising himself or his Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach's absence and silence speak for themselves. The Taoiseach's absence demonstrates his contempt for the Dáil and for the people whom the Dáil represents. It is ironic that on the same day the Taoiseach was involved in exchanges about proposed interparty discussions on how to make the Dáil more relevant, a Dáil which he treated with the contempt of his absence, content to sit in his room and listen to the debate on the loudspeaker without showing his face in the House. It will be interesting to see if the Taoiseach comes down here for the division in due course when the speeches are over and there is no opportunity to say anything more, to vote with his feet against the amendment put forward by Deputy Browne. The Taoiseach's silence leaves us to draw our own conclusions. I do not attempt to spell them out. I can only say that I cannot conceive of myself or of anyone in my party innocent of perjury failing to proclaim and vindicate such innocence if the charge of perjury were levelled against me or anybody behind me.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The net effect of this debate, the silence from the key figures, has been to sustain the pattern of ambiguity which is the hallmark of this Government. It is an ambiguity which is maintained for presumed political advantage, an ambiguity we saw demonstrated here yesterday over the H-block question, an ambiguity that was demonstrated in Donegal after Deputy Sile de Valera's speech. This ambiguity is concerned exclusively with political advantage inside what Deputy Blaney calls this 26 county State. The Taoiseach must realise — and if he does so he clearly does not care — something of the effect of this constant ambiguity on issues of this kind within Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach must know that in seeking political advantage by ambiguity here he is having a deadly effect on relations between North and South, between us and the Unionist community with whom we have eventually to come to an accommodation.
The contrasts in our Government are striking enough for anyone whatever their prejudice towards us and whatever their views as to what they feel are the mistakes we made. Nobody was ever in doubt as to where we stood, for example, on the issue of hunger strikes. That is why no hunger striker died in Ireland while we were in government or has died here since 1946 when Deputy de Valera as Taoiseach maintained the position which was maintained by successive Governments. Everybody knew since then where Irish Governments stood, until now. No one has ever died on hunger strike, or has attempted to push it to the extreme. Will that still be true in the future or will there be unnecessary deaths not merely in Northern Ireland but here because of the decision to choose ambiguity rather than clarity on this crucial issue where the lives of people are at stake?
There is also ambiguity in our approach to the North. There was none when we were in government. No one was in doubt about where we stood. It was the clarity of our position that brought people to the conference table and brought us as far as Sunningdale, which at least for a period, until wrecked by British weakness in the face of what was effectively a rebellion, got the two sections sitting down in government with each other. Can anyone imagine a Sunningdale with the participation of the Northern political parties, the British Government and the Irish Government taking place so long as this administration remain in power with the damage they have done to the credibility of this State?
The distrust that has been created during the past 12 months may long outlive this Government. It may take their successors years to get back to where we once stood with some measure of confidence existing between the Government here and at least a significant part of the Northern majority. To those of us who care about peace and unity here, whose involvement in politics derives from that commitment and to those of us who would put it before anything else, before the interests of any one part of this island be it this 26-county State, all this is an unutterable tragedy postponing, God knows for how long, the day when real progress can be made to bring the two parts of Ireland together. That is something to which many in this House on the other benches give lip-service and to which many of our people give lip-service, but it is something in which some of us actually believe and care about and wish, and have tried in government to do something about.
After this debate nobody can fairly say that the issues raised in it are dead. No one who saw the little band of Fianna Fáil Members who defied the anti-Whip to be here last night when Deputy Lynch and Deputy Gibbons were speaking could be in any doubt about the depth of the divisions of Fianna Fáil. How many more were there in Fianna Fáil who would have liked to be here but who had not the courage to defy that anti-Whip? We provided an opportunity for people to clear themselves if they wished. Two, notably rejected this opportunity. As a result, all the doubts and suspicions remain. The divisions in Fianna Fáil remain so deep that it has not been denied that the Taoiseach is not trusted by his own, with control over the two key security posts, so deep that many of his colleagues make no secret to the rest of us that they regard him with a loathing that transcends anything that has existed even between parties in this State since the embers of the civil war died down half a century ago, so deep that they are hopelessly at odds in economic policies at times, the State's finances are in ruins, its agriculture is in crisis and its economy stagnant. Given the contempt with which the House has been treated by the Taoiseach and the cloud that he has allowed to hang not just over himself but, through him, over all in public life, we shall support the amendment to our motion proposed by Deputy Browne.
I am putting the amendment in the name of Deputy Dr. Browne. Na Teachtaí ar thaobh an rún sin abraidís "Tá" agus na Teachtaí ina gcoinne abraidís "Níl".
Deputies
Tá.
Níl.
The motion is lost.
Believe that and you will believe anything. Where are they all?
We will have them here.
There are five people over there and one lone voice.
Where is the missing postman?
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 67.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies L'Estrange and W. O'Brien; Níl, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Boland, John.
- Browne, Noel.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- Lipper, Mick.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmons, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael. P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Moore, Seán
- Morley, P. J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies L'Estrange and W. O'Brien; Níl, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
|
Barry, Myra.Barry, Peter.Barry, Richard.Begley, Michael.Belton, Luke.Bermingham, Joseph.Boland, John.Browne, Noel.Bruton, John.Burke, Joan.Cluskey, Frank.Collins, Edward.Corish, Brendan.Cosgrave, Michael J.D'Arcy, Michael J.Deasy, Martin A.Desmond, Barry.Donnellan, John F.Enright, Thomas W.FitzGerald, Garret.Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan)Flanagan, Oliver J.Griffin, Brendan.Harte, Patrick D. |
Hegarty, Paddy.Horgan, John.Kavanagh, Liam.Keating, Michael.Kelly, John.Kenny, Enda.L'Estrange, Gerry.Lipper, Mick.McMahon, Larry.Mitchell, Jim.O'Brien, William.O'Donnell, Tom.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Toole, Paddy.Pattison, Séamus.Quinn, Ruairí.Ryan, John J.Spring, Dan.Taylor, Frank.Timmins, Godfrey.Treacy, Seán.Tully, James.White, James. |
Motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- de Valera, Sile.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South—Central)
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Haughey, Charles, J.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
Motion declared lost.