Vol. 337 No. 2
I move:
That the Ceann Comhairle direct the Clerk of the Dáil to issue his Writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy which has occurred in the membership of the present Dail consequent on the death of Deputy John Callanan, a member for the Constituency of Galway East.
Is it appropriate for me to intervene on the motion?
It is.
Last month there was a by-election in Dublin West. During the course of that by-election promises were made, which if granted, would cost around £30 million. These promises include the provision of eight or nine schools, an Irish college in Inchicore, the building of certain roadways and a community centre in Ballyfermot. All our inquiries showed that there were no funds available to meet these promises. When I raised the matter in the Dail subsequently by way of a question to the Taoiseach the Government seemed to be ashamed to furnish details of the costings of these promises. In fairness, I should say the Taoiseach was not there and the question was dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture. Now that we are moving the writ for another by-election caused by the death of the late lamented Deputy Callanan, I would like seriously to suggest to the Government that it debases the political process when a Government indulges in this type of election activity. On the day I had the question down to the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture, apart from refusing to furnish any details of the cost of these extravagant promises, seemed to indicate that promises which were made were not going to be met——
I did not say that.
He gave no indication of where the money would come from to meet these promises. This type of activity does nothing for the political and democratic process. Now that we are about to embark on a further by-election——
I seem to be touching a raw nerve.
Would Deputy O'Keeffe relate his remarks to whether or not the writ should be moved?
The people opposite seem to be tuning up their throats for the church gates. I should like to remind them that we are in Dáil Éireann and that I am making a serious point. I do not think it is in the interests of democracy that we should have a repetition in Galway of the type of approach adopted by the Government in Dublin West. I saw questions on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Molloy which seemed to indicate a message of the same kind. I urge the Government not to repeat in Galway the type of political exercise they engaged in in Dublin West. It can only lead to total cynicism on the part of the electorate.
First of all, by way of reply to the points raised by the Deputy, may I just point out that the motion before us is simply to decide whether or not a by-election should be held. I would submit that, apart from any other consideration, the Deputy was out of order——
Can they afford it?
——in endeavouring to fight the by-election in this House. I suggest to him that we fight the by-election in East Galway and that we discuss these issues down there in front of the people. I should also like to say that this Party and this Government are prepared to go before the people when a by-election arises and are not prepared to skulk behind a majority in this House to avoid going before the people, as the Fine Gael Party did in the case of Cavan-Monaghan. I was very interested——
I notice that Deputy Cluskey is very interested in this too. In connection with this motion before us I was very interested to hear Deputy FitzGerald say recently, or rather a report in the press as his having said recently, that he believes that by-elections should be held as soon as possible. I would be very interested to know where the change came on the road to Damascus between his attitude in regard to this by-election and his attitude in regard to the Cavan-Monaghan by-election last year. I would be interested to hear an explanation in regard to that factor. But, as regards promises to the electorate, I believe that the Fine Gael Party, rather than making those sorts of unfounded allegations against this Government, should hang their heads in shame because of the fact that, in an unworthy power grab here in this House on the Finance Bill, they were prepared to throw the finances of this country into complete and utter chaos.
I have risen to my feet in response to Deputies' remarks because, whatever about reports in the media in the course of a by-election, they have now stitched into the record of this House a statement that we are supposed to have committed or promised eight or nine schools in the course of a by-election for which apparently no money is available. I want to make it quite clear that there were no extra schools promised other than ones that would have arisen as part of the normal schools programme.
The night before the election.
What about the community school in Lucan?
I love the democratic way in which apparently the only people who are expected to speak are those on the other benches.
I am saying that any school building that takes place this year will be provided from the budget funds available for this year. If Deputy O'Keeffe feels that he has any information to the contrary I challenge him to bring it into this House.
Hear, hear.
The Taoiseach seems to be in rather provocative form this morning. When he goes to East Galway one of the issues he might care to discuss at the chapel gates is how he managed to convince his colleagues to spend £400,000 of State money in the past fortnight in the purchase of Tulira Castle. It would be interesting to know — and the electorate of South Galway and East Galway in particular would be interested to know — whether or not there was a valuation by the Valuation Office of the lands in question, whether it was up for public auction, that nothing more than, at maximum, £200,000 was available on offer, and that the Taoiseach found it fit to convince his colleagues to spend £400,000 on the purchase of the 285 acres concerned? With respect these are the kinds of issues which——
I will be delighted to deal with that.
If I may finish——
The Deputy is making misstatements to this House and I feel that they should be contradicted at the earliest possible moment——
Hear, hear.
——and I want to say——
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, in order that we might get the position regularised could the Chair tell me whether we are in Committee?
No, we are not in Committee.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Well, a number of things have happened. Two Members have been called from the Fianna Fáil benches in succession and the Taoiseach is now offering to speak a third time.
Fine Gael do not want me to have any right to reply to allegations in this House.
Deputy Bellew on a point of order.
As Deputy Fitzpatrick has raised it, would you, Sir, see that there is no abuse of all the stationery stocks taken out of this House last week——
It was those people over there who took them out, the incorruptibles.
That is not a point of order.
The incorruptibles.
Deputy Fitzpatrick, your point of order has been completed.
On a point of order——
It must be a point of order.
On a point of order, Sir, are we not now discussing a motion?
We are.
If so, are not the normal rules of debate in order and would the Taoiseach not take note of that?
That is asking too much.
It is getting more and more like the happy hour every morning. I was referring to the motion before the House for the moving of the writ. Since the Taoiseach said that he was anxious to debate the basic issues down below in East Galway, I suggested that that was one of the issues which could be usefully discussed——
May I reply?
The Taoiseach has replied.
Certainly, I have no objection when I have finished. I simply ask a number of questions.
Taoiseach, there cannot be a reply to a debate on this motion. There could be a point of explanation but not a reply to this debate. You can speak only once on the debate.
In accordance with Standing Orders can one not speak on a point of explanation, or is the Chair confusing a point of explanation with a personal statement?
No, I said there was provision for explanation.
A Cheann Comhairle, I shall accept your ruling.
Deputy Barry Desmond to continue.
The questions to be asked at the chapel gates in East Galway——
The Deputy will not be there.
Deputy Desmond to continue without interruption.
We are discussing the moving of a by-election writ. I suggest that the questions which should be answered should be: who approached the Taoiseach to buy Tulira Castle? Was there a valuation of the lands in question? Did the matter come before the Cabinet formally? Was the Valuation Office consulted prior to the purchase of the land? When the lands went up for public auction, in the first instance, was there a bid by the State on public auction and who authorised the X price finally decided? The final question I would ask the Taoiseach is: what purpose was envisaged for the use of those lands?
That is not relevant to the motion.
It is entirely germane and I base my case on that fact. I should like to have a reply to the question and, if there is no reply, I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment this evening.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Minister for Finance (Mr. MacSharry) rose.
A Cheann Comhairle, the Government are entitled to some say in this House. The Minister for Finance has not spoken yet.
I have not spoken yet.
I know he has not but we cannot have contributions from——
The Taoiseach has said that the people on this side of the House should hang their heads in shame. I believe that he is the man who should hang his head in shame. He is like the bandy little boy going to school who, when he got into a row with one of the other little boys, started shouting "bandy legs", "bandy legs" to the other little boy.
The Deputy's contribution should be relevant to the motion before the House.
He said we should hang our heads in shame. I believe he is the man who should hang his head in shame. He tried a master stroke in Dublin West in the national interest and it boomeranged on him. He accused us of endeavouring to bring the finances of this country into chaos.
He and the people on his side of the House are those who brought the finances of this country into chaos.
In 1977, after 55 years of government, the national debt stood at £3.6 thousand million. When we came back into power in 1981, after four short years, the national debt stood at £9,000 million; in other words, the Government who accuse us of putting the finances of this State into chaos borrowed in four years one-and-a-half times more than previous Governments in 55 years.
On a point of order, would Deputy L'Estrange's speech have anything to do with the motion before the House? I feel the questions he has raised would be far more appropriate to a church gate somewhere in East Galway.
The Taoiseach said we were trying to plunge the country into a financial mess. He plunged the country into a financial mess.
Will the Deputy relate his remarks to the motion before the House?
Fianna Fáil succeeded very well in plunging the country into a financial mess. Is it not true that the owner of this famous castle stated — this has appeared in the papers — that the Taoiseach stayed in this castle and was a great friend of theirs? Is this true? Would that have anything to do with the price they got, £400,000 for the castle?
Would Deputy L'Estrange confine his remarks to the motion before the House?
Has the Taoiseach looked up the Order Paper where he will see that there are respectable and responsible people in the Fianna Fáil Party who are prepared to see that the Taoiseach and his friends will not run riot, make statements in Galway and make foolish promises to the electorate like they made in Dublin? Has the Taoiseach read the Order Paper? Does he see where Deputy Molloy has a question down to every Minister asking what amount is in the budget to be spent in Galway this year? Will the Taoiseach take note of that? What action does he intend to take about it? We hope we do not see the spectacle in Galway of promising again to drain the Shannon, to build a ring road around Galway and to promise another eight or ten schools?
What about the airport Fianna Fáil promised in Donegal? We still have not got that airport. Fianna Fáil may have one in Knock but they did not fulfil the promise they made to the people of Donegal that they would build a new airport. I sincerely hope Fianna Fáil realise the state of the country today. It is on the verge of bankruptcy due to the bankrupt policy of this Government led by the present Taoiseach.
One can see now, from what has been raised in relation to Tulira Castle — Deputy L'Estrange has just raised it — that this is another effort at a smear campaign on the Taoiseach and members of the Government.
I suppose the Minister does not know anything about that?
I would not need to be long in here listening to the Deputy to know plenty about that. I will put the record straight so that those who are interested in reporting proceedings here can do so as well. Tulira Castle was offered to the Government. The Government have the matter under consideration. The Government have also asked the Valuation Office for a valuation of the property, which is in accordance with normal procedure. No more or no less than that has happened. We are sick and tired of people raising such issues for the purpose of smearing the Taoiseach and members of this Government and party by those who, as I said last week, can do nothing but speak ex cathedra on everything. They are infallible, they have never done anything wrong.
Deputy O'Keeffe rightly raised the point in relation to the attitude of the people to this House. Many commentators have given their points of view in relation to that matter. If there is disillusionment among the people in relation to the activities of this House it is because of the attitude of members of the Fine Gael Party. The time has come for the people to be made fully aware of the activities of that party. In relation to every single thing under the sun—let it be Tulira Castle, Údarás na Gaeltachta or anything else—this party, Fine Gael, speak ex cathedra. Nobody else knows anything contrary to what is being said by the Fine Gael Deputies.
The Minister is looking for a halo.
Will the Deputy allow the Minister to speak?
We have never looked for haloes unlike the people on the other side.
The Minister is very much wrapped up in himself.
I can only say, in relation to another point raised by Deputy L'Estrange—the financial difficulties of the country—that nobody has ever denied there are financial difficulties. The Government are proceeding along a budgetary course to correct those financial difficulties and are preparing——
The Government were dragged into it by Deputy Garret FitzGerald.
Deputy Garret FitzGerald and his spokesmen were opposing those sections in the Finance Bill last week and will be doing so again later this morning, measures which were proposed in the budget of 27 January and carried through in the budget of 25 March. Amendments, put down not by Fine Gael but by Members of other parties, were vehemently supported by Fine Gael which would have added additional expenditure to the budget this year.
I have served on various bodies with Deputy Harte over the years and his only interests are similar to the interests of his party here.
Will the Minister keep his halo on his head?
As far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, we never looked for haloes but unfortunately day after day Members of the Deputy's party considered themselves entitled to haloes on every single issue. They cannot be wrong about anything. I want to continue on the point of financial rectitude and the financial difficulties of the country.
The Minister must be relevant to the motion before the House.
I would love to be so, but you did not correct Deputy L'Estrange or others who raised items that were not relevant. As a matter of principle I am entitled to reply to the allegations and points made, which were raised in the context of the motion and the by-election. I am replying to them under that heading, if that is in order.
It is not.
It must be relevant to the motion before the House.
You just said it is. If you added up the cost of all the amendments down to the Finance Bill we would be running into the order of hundreds of millions of pounds. The most costly one of those put down by the Fine Gael Party would cost £140 million with no alternative suggestion as to where the finance might be found. A sum of £140 million would have gone on to the budget deficit and would have increased the level of borrowing. That is the reality and the Deputies opposite do not like the facts.
If I may interrupt the Minister, could he make his remarks relevant to the motion before the House?
I will make them relevant in one more sentence.
Would I be correct in saying that this point the Minister is making would be more relevant on the Finance Bill? He will get his answer then.
I have brought it to the Minister's attention.
As usual, the Fine Gael Deputies do not like the facts. I have given the facts and I challenge anybody to contradict them. We will deal with the Finance Bill all day today and tomorrow. Fine Gael Deputies should make sure they stand by the principles expounded by them for the past couple of years and particularly as expressed in the media this morning by Deputy FitzGerald. If they do not do so, I hope those in the Press Gallery will take note and report accordingly.
We do not need any lectures from the Minister.
I wanted to take this opportunity of putting the record straight and giving the facts.
On a point of order, is it not now appropriate that Deputy Desmond should withdraw his allegations?
Character assassin.
Deputy Desmond, would you like to withdraw your allegation?
I made no allegation.
I am entitled to make a personal explanation to the House.
Deputy Desmond may make a personal explanation at the end of the debate.
We are here to decide whether or not the writ should be moved to fill the seat left vacant by the death of the late Deputy John Callanan. I am not very long in this House but it is obvious to me that Deputy Callanan was held in very high esteem by everybody. What has gone on today is an absolute disgrace. We have 150,000 people unemployed and we are showing utter disregard for the needs of our country. Could we act responsibly and proceed with business?
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister for Finance seemed to be very concerned about certain matters raised from time to time by this party and he interprets them as a smear campaign against the Government.
Exactly.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I was in the House for some minutes yesterday during Private Members' Time and had the opportunity of listening to a contribution made by a senior member of the Fine Fáil Party, a former Minister and Deputy for Carlow-Kilkenny, Deputy Gibbons. I am not exaggerating when I say that I have never heard a more scathing attack on the Government and on the Taoiseach than when he concluded his remarks by listing a number of cases in which there was preferential treatment and fierce discrimination and ended up by referring to the extraordinary performance in the Talbot case. I hope that the Minister for Industry and Energy, Deputy Reynolds, when replying to the debate will deal with that.
I think the Deputy will admit that we are drifting away from the motion.
(Cavan-Monaghan): If what we are saying is to be interpreted as a smear campaign, then so must the contribution made yesterday by Deputy Gibbons.
I had no intention of intervening until I heard the points made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education. The Taoiseach seemed to resent a mis-statement, as he put it, by Deputy Desmond in regard to Tulira Castle. I should like to remind the Taoiseach that I put down a question on the subject of Tulira Castle, possibly even before the death of Deputy Callanan. I was not concerned with the rights and wrongs of the proposed purchase but rather with the procedure, which appeared to be following an all too familiar pattern whereby decisions of this kind were made in his familiar Olympian way by the Taoiseach asking if it was correct, as reported in the papers, that he personally was "favourably disposed" to the acquisition of this castle. That question, had it been taken by the Taoiseach, would have been answered yesterday, but he chose not to take the opportunity to correct the mis-statement which from what he now says, was obviously implicit in my question and he passed the question to the Minister for Finance, who will find it at No. 88 on today's Order Paper.
That pattern of behaviour of passing on questions which it does not suit him to answer is also unhappily familiar, but it is not the case that it is Deputy Desmond's fault if he is under a misapprehension about this. Ever since that question was put down the Taoiseach has had an opportunity to speak and explain what his part has been in the matter of Tulira Castle.
My second point arises from the statement by the Minister for Education that not one halfpenny of State money would be spent on schools in the Dublin West constituency in consequence of anything said from his side during the by-election campaign. I imagine the people of Dublin West would have been surprised to have had that assurance three weeks ago. The night before that by-election I was at a meeting in a hall in Inchicore organised by a group interested in providing facilities for an Irish language school. It was addressed by the Minister for the Gaeltacht; and I am sorry to offend him by saying that I have never heard as nauseous a performance from a Minister as he delivered that night. In a low, trilling voice he whispered endearments into the ear of the Irish language, in which no one ever knew him to have any interest until he became Minister for the Gaeltacht a few months ago. He promised the people that after consultation not only with the Minister for Education but also with the Taoiseach, who was daily on his tail to inquire what headway was being made on this matter, this school would now go ahead. All obstacles would be swept aside, the land would be acquired and the school would be erected. Naturally, the unfortunate, duped and bewildered people gave a hearty round of applause to the Minister, and they were encouraged by hatchet men among themselves, skilfully planted, to rise, propose, second and pass a resolution that everyone present would vote the following day for Mrs. Lemass. Witness to that episode can be borne by Deputies Jim Mitchell, Dinny McGinley and Paddy O'Toole who were present. I have never seen such a slimy performance, and we never want to see that sort of thing again in a by-election or in a general election.
If the Minister for Education has the nerve to assert that not a halfpenny will be allotted for extra schools on account of anything said last month in Dublin West, I want him to put on record in this House that if he has occasion to present a Supplementary Estimate during the rest of this year not one halfpenny of the money will be traceable or trackable to anything in the parishes of Inchicore. Ballyfermot or points west.
It was not my intention to intervene in this debate. I share very much the sentiments expressed by Deputy O'Sullivan in his intervention. While sitting here looking and listening, the reason for this debate here this morning struck me very forcibly. It is because there is nothing else which divides the people in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Deputy Kelly is quite correct in that assessment. When there is no fundamental difference, in political, economic or social terms, between the two major parties, it is inevitable that a debate will deteriorate into the kind we have heard this morning.
Undoubtedly, Fianna Fáil have been totally irresponsible in the management of this country's financial affairs. I believe sincerely that they have done irreparable damage to the future of the country and, in particular, of its children. As far as the political scene is concerned, what is wrong is that we have not matured politically as a country. We have put down the guns, but the two major parties are still fighting a Civil War. Because there is no fundamental difference between them, there has been no political advancement. It has been retarded by the sad incident which took place about 60 years ago. People must realise that there is a right and a left—some on the right being extreme and some a little more centre—to political, economic and social issues and that there is a left approach to these issues, a socialist approach. A look at the other European countries will show that, though they are not in full health, they are very healthy by comparison with us. That is because they recognise that there are two distinctly different ways of approaching these issues. We have not realised that.
We are talking about personal assassination. This is a substitute for real politics, because we have no real politics. The Irish electorate had better wake up to that fact very quickly. Character assassination does not come just from this side of the House, it comes from within Fianna Fáil's own party at times. Sniping is going on, engendered not for the good of the country, although I did hope at one stage that it was, but by animosities and rivalries within parties, differences which could be kept within bounds.
I supported a public statement by a former Tánaiste about three of four weeks ago because I thought it in the national interest to do so. However, many people on the Government side are telling the people week after week that the policies being pursued by the Fianna Fáil Party are extremely detrimental, to say the least, to the best interest of this country, but when the division bell rings, they walk into those lobbies. They must have political hernia by now, wondering which side they are on. That must stop.
There are serious economic issues before us, but they can be solved if serious political thought is given to them by the politicians and particularly by our electorate. A man's personality is not important, whether he is a glad-hander, slapping people on the back, shaking people's hands, kissing the babies and chatting up the women. Those things are not important. We must mature as a country and realise that what is really important are the policies to be pursued in the future and advocated by the different parties. Until we reach that day, the kind of debate which we have had for the last hour will continue as a substitute for real politics.
Would the Taoiseach or Tánaiste confirm a report in a Sunday newspaper over the weekend that the Galway East by-election would by used for the launching of an economic plan? Given the Taoiseach's record in this area of policy—the Department in relation to economic planning and development which is desperately important for the future of the country — would he now assure the House that during the by-election campaign important measures such as this will not be used as a campaign gimmick?
I do not know why there is a great rush for a by-election at this stage. I am quite sure that the former Deputy, the late Johnnie Callanan, would never have wished his seat to have been filled as rapidly as is now proposed. Most of us would agree that by-elections are a good thing during the term of any Dáil and are a barometer. However, we have had the movement of that barometer within the last few weeks. The Taoiseach would have been well advised to let this seat remain vacant at least for the summer. There are precedents for seats being left vacant for almost a year. Deputy O'Kennedy's seat was vacant for a considerable time when he went to Europe. If we looked at the records we could find many more examples of this. However, the Taoiseach and his Government have seen fit to test the electorate in East Galway and I suppose the House will give its consent to that today, spoiling the holidays of many Deputies who have worked so hard and have been rigidly held in this House over the last few weeks. However, I suppose that is the life of a politician and we must live with it.
Like Deputy Cluskey, I too, wonder why we had this debate this morning, which has turned into something like an Adjournment debate. I have assessed the position somewhat differently from Deputy Cluskey. The development of this kind of debate has come because there are very many issues which the Government should be tackling and have failed to tackle. We would appear to have a caretaker Government who are prepared to sit back, do their public relations bit, but no real work. If we were to look through the records of previous debates on the moving of writs, I doubt if we would find any as lengthy as today's. That has happened this morning because Deputies, not only on this side of the House but on the other side—as Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out this was seen here last night—are frustrated at the performance, or lack of performance, of the Government.
I hope that some good will come from the moving of this writ. I speak particularly to the Minister for Education who has, unfortunately, left the House. I am sure, however, that he will get the message. Because of that Minister's directive to the VECs and community schools throughout the country, no appointment of teachers is now taking place. This may not be so serious where ordinary teaching posts are involved, but it is quite serious when new schools are being set up as are a number this year — six or eight in County Dublin. We in County Dublin find ourselves in the position of having held interviews, agreed on a candidate, who is also agreed on by the school board, but we cannot appoint that candidate. This is a most serious situation where a new school is to open in September and the principal is appointed. He cannot, however, give notice to his present school or take up his new position. The new school is to be opened in September, the children have been enrolled, the board of management set up, but no principal appointed. It is important that principals of new schools should be appointed——
You are drifting very far from East Galway.
I do not know if new schools have been set up in East Galway but I am sure we will hear about some in the next week or two. East Galway may very well become affected just as my constituency is, and if East Galway is not affected in this way, practically every other constituency in the country is. I ask the Taoiseach as a matter of urgency to discuss this with the Minister for Education today so that that directive will be withdrawn——
This is not relevant to the motion before the House.
If new teachers are not to be appointed the Minister should at least allow the principals to be appointed.
The Minister for the Environment to conclude.
I should like to contribute briefly to the debate. I do not want to delay the House. I was impressed by the remarks of Deputy Cluskey who restored a certain amount of sanity to the House, which had become necessary. As a Donegal Deputy I should like to put on record that during the Donegal by-election we had what could be described as a devolution of authority from the central seat of Government to County Donegal: the entire Cabinet and all the junior Ministers were there for three weeks under the stewardship of the Taoiseach personally and the Minister for the Environment. We had the spectacle of the Minister for Health going around the county tearing up Dunlop tyres at an awful rate opening extensions to hospitals and community units. We had the Minister for the Environment making promises about building houses in Donegal.
We are discussing the writ for East Galway.
I want an assurance that the tactics employed in Donegal will not be repeated in East Galway. Only a fortnight ago a young woman came to me and said: "When will my cottage be built"? That cottage was advertised during the by-election in County Donegal. To add insult to injury, on the reverse side of the paper carrying the advertisement was a photograph of the Fianna Fáil candidate with the caption "Vote Fianna Fáil for Prosperity". That house has not been built. At that time, 250 houses were advertised. They were re-advertised last week in the Donegal newspapers.
Then, we had the spectacle of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs going around with a spade in his hand turning sods for automatic telephone exchanges in County Donegal. Some of them have not been opened yet. We had promises from the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry about piers and harbours that would be attended to. A trowel has not been used on them yet. We had the Taoiseach talking about cross-Border trade and traffic and about a cross-Border study between Donegal and Derry. No money has been spent on that. We had the then Minister for Education, Deputy Wilson, going around promising extensions to schools. There was not a national school in County Donegal that did not want an additional classroom.
The Deputy can make only a passing reference to these things. He must relate his remarks to the motion.
I want an assurance from the Taoiseach that these tactics will not be employed in Galway. If we are to fight a by-election in Galway let both sides do so honestly and not make promises that cannot be fulfilled. They fooled the people in County Donegal and I hope they will not get away with fooling the people in Galway.
I can give the Deputy an assurance that the East Galway by-election will be fought by this Government on issues, and I would be very grateful to have an assurance from Deputy Harte on behalf of the Fine Gael Party that it will not be fought on the basis of low accusations—
The Taoiseach is not in order.
The vacancy we are about to contest in Galway arises from the passing of the late John Callanan. Many of us admired his independence of spirit and the manner in which he epitomised service to the people. As far as I am aware there is a long tradition in the House that we would have a certain amount of respect for the families of the people involved in terms of the length of time that would be allowed to pass before the writs were moved. The haste in this case, as far as I can gather, is unprecedented. Therefore, I ask whether at least the courtesy of consulting the Callanan family was followed before taking this decision. That should have been done and I hope it was. After all, we are about to try to fill the vacancy caused by the death of one of our colleagues who worked hard for people of all political persuasions in his constituency, and I suggest that any action we will take should not besmirch his record or cause any worry to his family.
On the last point raised by Deputy Keating I assure Deputy Keating and the country that he need not have any fears whatsoever. The Fianna Fáil Taoiseach and Party did the honourable and decent thing with regard to the feelings of the family of the late John Callanan, a man whose contribution to this nation, in debates here and in his work at local authority level, is something we are all proud of, proud that he was a member of this party. This matter was not only discussed with the Callanan family, but Mrs. Callanan said that in the national interest the by-election should proceed as soon as possible, as Deputy Callanan himself would have wanted. That is what we would expect from the Callanan family.
We have had here this morning a disgraceful debate, with the continuing smear and innuendo that we have had from that side of the House for some time. We have had the blanket of respectability wrapped around the members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party. They attempted to point the finger at Fianna Fáil——
What about Deputy Gibbons last night?
—— and particularly at the Taoiseach. I will have the opportunity during the East Galway campaign to answer Deputy Harte, in particular, on the different issues he raised. On one single issue alone, that of cross-Border co-operation, £200,000 was allocated to it recently. I do not want to get into it. We heard about the rake's progress debate last night. We have had that debate here all morning from that side of the House. If we are talking about promises and Dublin West, the River Liffey runs through that constituency, and in the general election exactly this time last year that party under that leader came forward with a Dublin policy. What were they going to do? We were to have gondolas going up and down the Liffey. We never heard a word about it after the general election.
Is it correct for the Minister to refer to a person as "that leader"?
Do not get stuffy.
It is in order.
Deputy FitzGerald, that leader of that party.
It is to the manner that we are objecting——
Deputy Harte is good at handing it out. Let him take a little bit of it.
If he cannot stand the heat let him get out.
Within the last week we saw responsible Opposition. We had it from Labour who put down considered amendments, and from The Workers' Party who put down considered amendments, but we have seen nothing from Fine Gael but their typical approach of latching on and talking about responsibility for the financial affairs of the country but trying to vote through motions that would add hundreds of millions of pounds to the national debt.
The Minister should read the list of amendments again.
Last week, or the week before, they voted against a Gaeltacht Estimate, an Estimate which they published when in government in January. They were their own figures, unaltered, but yet Fine Gael voted against them. Where is the responsibility there? Who are they to lecture Fianna Fáil and a Fianna Fáil Government on responsibility? Their action was totally irresponsible.
The Minister must be allowed to reply without interruption.
We will be delighted to discuss these issues with Fine Gael in East Galway and we will also be delighted to discuss relevant issues to that area with them, such as the Tuam factory and what the Coalition Government were doing to that factory.
And the drainage of the Shannon.
Unfortunately, Deputy Connaughton has left. He realises the embarrassment that was caused by contributions made about that factory and the embarrassment he will suffer in the campaign in East Galway. In the coming weeks there will be a debate in East Galway. The people there have always done the national thing and I have no doubt they will do so on this occasion.
I am calling on Deputy Barry Desmond to give a personal explanation.
My reason for raising the specific questions relating to the property concerned was that in The Irish Times there was a report by Michael Finlan — I have a copy of the report before me — about a specific statement by the Government spokesman to the effect that the Taoiseach was favourably considering that the State acquire Tulira Castle in south County Galway.
Did the Deputy read the report in today's paper about the Gaeltacht?
It is proper that any Member of the House should ask pointed specific questions relating to issues, for example in respect of the Valuation Office and, more particularly, when the State has indicated a favourable prospect of acquisition. I will continue to raise those questions here and I want to serve notice to those on the Government back benches, and the Fianna Fáil Party, that I will never be motivated in any way by a personal imputation against the Taoiseach or any other member of his Cabinet. We have got to get away from this business in Leinster House that when questions relating to State money, the acquisition of properties, planning permissions, development plans and a whole range of serious national issues are raised there will automatically be a cry that this is a personal attack. It is not personal and I would not waste my time in Leinster House trying to be personal on those issues. If the State wishes to acquire property I want to see acquisition carried out properly, effectively and on a net balance of advantage. If it is not proper I will oppose it vehemently in the House. That is my explanation.
I should like to contribute my personal observations by way of a reply to what Deputy Desmond said. In fact, I accept that Deputy Desmond did not intend any personal imputation against me and that he was asking questions which this side of the House would have to accept were legitimate. If there is a question of the State purchasing property then any such purchase should go through the normal channels and the Government should be answerable to this House for any decision to purchase any property. That is the way we have always done our business and that is the way we intend to continue to do so.
I have indicated to a few people who have asked me that I would be favourably disposed towards the purchase of this property. In fact, I am favourably disposed towards the purchase by the State of any such properties coming on the market if we can afford them and if they can be secured on the right terms. I believe that attitude was shared by the previous Government. We had the case recently of Adare Manor coming on the market and this Government, and I believe the previous Government, looked as favourably as they could at the possibility of acquiring that property for the people of the country, for the State. I am very much influenced in all this by something that took place in my own area some time ago. I will give full credit to Dublin County Council, and the Chairman at the time, Deputy Boland, for what happened there. We had a very beautiful historical piece of property in Malahide, Malahide Castle, and Dublin County Council in an act of unprecedented foresight and maturity — I said this several times in public — purchased Malahide Castle for the people of the country and, in particular, for the people of Dublin. In my view that was one of the most important things that has happened in the area of local government for a long time. Already the local authority, the people of the community and the Government have reaped enormous benefits from the purchase of that estate by Dublin County Council. I am very much influenced by the beneficial results which have flowed from that decision to acquire Malahide Castle for public purposes in my approach to any other properties of this sort that come on the market and which are offered under one set of conditions or another to the State for acquisition.
Provided the price is right.
Provided the price is right, provided the proper procedures are gone through and provided, as Deputy Desmond said, that the balance of advantage is in favour of the State and the people. We have — I think the last Government faced this issue also — a continuing situation arising in regard to such properties. Increasingly these types of fine historic old properties are coming on the market and being offered to the State. So far we have not evolved any consistent policy in regard to their acquisition by the State or local authorities nor do I think had the previous Government. In the interests of the nation, the future and the benefit to people in local areas we should try to evolve a consistent policy in regard to that. I want to assure the House, and Deputy Desmond since he raised these matters, that the procedures will be proper, accounting and valuation procedures will be gone through, and the decisions taken will be in the best interests of the country and the people in the area. Those decisions will be brought before the House, if necessary, and explained and defended.
I should like to associate myself warmly with the Taoiseach's remarks on that subject.
