Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 1983

Vol. 346 No. 9

Nomination of Member of Government: Motion.

The Taoiseach

Tairgim:

Go gcomhaontaóidh Dáil Éireann leis an Taoiseach d'ainmniú an Teachta Ruairí Ó Chuinn chun a cheaptha ag an Uachtarán mar chomhalta den Rialtas.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approve the nomination by the Taoiseach of Deputy Ruairí Quinn for appointment by the President to be a member of the Government.

Before announcing the Department which will be assigned to Deputy Ruairí Quinn, subject to the motion being approved, I would like to take this opportunity to place on the record of the House my appreciation and that of my colleagues in the Government of the valuable contribution which Deputy Cluskey has made as Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism to this administration. Members will recall in particular his prompt and effective action in relation to the PMPA. We respect the reasons and sense of integrity which led him to take his decision and wish him well in the future.

Experience in Government over the past year and in particular of the problems facing it and the country have led me to certain conclusions as to the way in which functions should be redistributed among the Departments of State.

First, I intend to merge the functions of the Department of Trade, Commerce and Tourism with the industry functions at present in the Department of Industry and Energy. The new Department will then be retitled the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism. This will bring together again within the sphere of responsibility of one Minister and one Department functions relating not only to manufacturing and a wide range of commercial semi-State bodies but also to prices and distribution, which must form an integral part of any industrial policy. The change will reduce certain problems as regards the definition of responsibility particularly for foreign trade and will facilitate action in relation to tourism and other services which will also be within the ambit of the new Department.

The new Department of Energy will retain the functions in relation to energy matters at present undertaken in the Department of Industry and Energy. The Minister in charge of the new Department will oversee and co-ordinate Government policy in this area which has become increasingly vital to our economic success. Deputies will recall that imports of oil alone over the past decade have risen from about 2 to 3 per cent of GNP to about 8 per cent — or almost £900 million in 1982. The Minister will pay particular attention to questions like the efficiency of energy generation and distribution and the effects on employment of present investment and other policies. Offshore developments earlier this year increased exploration prospects and the consequent possibility of yet more finds of oil or gas now demand the exclusive attention of a Minister. The necessary Government orders relating to these two Departments will be made at the earliest possible date.

As to the Ministerial appointments involved, I propose as soon as the Government orders are made, and subject, where necessary, to the terms of the present motion, to terminate the assignment of the Department of the Environment to the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and to assign to him the new Department of Energy. I propose to terminate the assignment of the Department of Trade. Commerce and Tourism to myself and assign the new Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism to Deputy John Bruton. I will terminate the assignment of the Department of Labour to Deputy Kavanagh and assign to him the Department of the Environment. I propose to assign the Department of Labour to Deputy Ruairí Quinn as soon as possible after his approval by this House and appointment by the President to be a member of the Government. The Deputy will, of course cease to be a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment on his appointment as a member of the Government.

I also propose to recommend to the Government to appoint Deputy Séamus Pattison to be a Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare.

Deputies will recall that when making the appointments of Ministers of State I indicated that I intended to recommend a policy of rotating them as between Departments, so that they could acquire a wide and as varied an experience as possible of the working of the Government and the various Departments of State. In line with that policy, I propose to recommend to the Government that they should appoint Deputy Edward Collins to be a Minister of State at both the restructured Departments of Energy and of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism; Deputy John Donnellan to be a Minister of State at the Departments of Health and Social Welfare; Deputy George Birmingham to be a Minister of State at the Department of Education in addition to his post as Minister of State at the Department of Labour; and Deputy Fergus O'Brien to be a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment. The areas of special responsibility of these Ministers of State will be indicated shortly.

As well as the proposals I have just announced the House has before it a Bill for the establishment of a new Department of Communications in place of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Department of Transport.

Subject to the enactment of this legislation, it is my intention to assign the new Department to Deputy Jim Mitchell and to recommend to the Government to appoint Deputy Nealon to be Minister of State at that Department. The Minister for the Public Service will be dealing in this House with the changes proposed in this Bill — which arise from the setting up of An Post and An Bord Telecom — and the transfer to them of large numbers of serving personnel.

All of these changes have the objective of achieving what I am sure every Deputy in the House will regard as a worthwhile end — greater efficiency and effectiveness in public administration.

Mr. Haughey

I am sure that many people in the political arena would expect that we in Opposition would be very happy to see the discomfiture of the Government at this time, but I want to assure the House that we are not because we are deeply and seriously perturbed at the developments which are taking place, developments of which I believe we have not yet heard the end.

When this Government was being formed and negotiations were going on which led to its formation, I gave a clear warning to the country — indeed, I have repeated that warning on a number of occasions since — that this Government was in herently unstable. That instability is not related solely to disagreements on aspects of particular policies but derives from a fundamental disagreements on political philosophy and ideology on the way in which our economy should be run and managed and on the whole basis of economic and social policy. The resignation of Deputy Cluskey from the Government underlines and re-emphasises that warning. This Government consists of two deeply divided factions and their arguments and disagreements have now reached the stage which renders them totally incapable of dealing with the many difficult economic and social problems that confront the country at present. It is no secret that Cabinet disagreements culminating in the resignation of Deputy Cluskey have gone on for several months and relate to many other policy issues as well. The fact is that this Government is now torn apart with internal wranglings and dissensions and there is no coherent policy approach by the Government to the issues of the day.

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the changes which the Taoiseach has announced is the decision by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, to leave the Department of the Environment and take over the new Department of Energy. The Tánaiste has been exactly one year at the Department of the Environment and the most charitable thing that can be said about his brief tenure of office is that he failed to make his mark. He has left the construction industry in a disastrous state through a complete failure to keep to the commitment by Fine Gael and Labour to maintain capital spending and provide an extra £100 million for urgent infrastructural projects. Unemployment is 12,000 higher this year in the construction industry when according to the best economic forecasts in November 1982 it should actually have fallen. We must acknowledge that under Deputy Dick Spring as Minister for the Environment the building and construction industry has fallen into one of the most disastrous situations ever in modern times.

The Tánaiste's handling of local authority finances has also been a disaster. All in all, the Tánaiste's first experience of an important Government Department, which I understand he almost certainly chose himself, has been less than successful. It is now said that he has sought less onerous duties so that he can devote himself more to the Labour Party. There are two observations that can be made about that. It is my experience that all Departments carry onerous responsibilities and that Ministers are expected by our citizens to give a full commitment to their particular Department. Ministers are not paid by the public to look after their parties; they are paid to do a job of work in a particular Department on behalf of the country and if the Tánaiste finds it difficult to continue leading a relatively small party with serious Departmental responsibilities, then perhaps he too should consider withdrawing altogether from the Government or, alternatively, handling over the leadership of the party to someone else.

The resignation of a former leader of the Labour Party, perhaps their most experienced Minister and someone who represents a centre of gravity in the Labour movement, must have implications for the Labour Party's continuation in Coalition. I will put it no stronger than that. It is very hard, despite the best efforts of Deputy Cluskey to convince us otherwise, to see his resignation as simply a personal matter or a result of strong personal views. On the contrary, it is Deputy Cluskey's contention that he resigned on a decision which was repugnant to the Labour Party. If Deputy Cluskey has resigned from the Government on a matter of principle, how then can his colleagues who support, or allegedly support, the same principles remain in that Government and continue to support the particular policy over which Deputy Cluskey thought it necessary to resign?

There is another aspect. It is generally recognised that Deputy Cluskey had a key role in persuading the Labour Party Conference to agree to Labour participation in this Government. Deputy Cluskey now finds it impossible to continue in this Government because of the policies which they are pursuing and on principle. In what position does that leave the decision of the conference to participate in Government? The key person who persuaded the conference has now decided that he cannot continue and, presumably, the decision of the conference to participate in the Coalition is no longer a valid one. How are we to interpret these different moves in ministerial responsibility which the Taoiseach has just outlined to us? Are they dictated solely by party political needs, simply party political manoeuvring, or are there more serious policy implications? The key question is — why has Deputy Bruton been kicked out of the Energy portfolio? This is the second time that the present Taoiseach has seen it necessary to move Deputy Bruton sideways. How are we to interpret this latest move? That is the important thing. What policy implications has it?

The Department of Energy will become increasingly significant and important, but not for the reasons which the Taoiseach has given us, because we are now importing more oil than we used to. Does everybody not know that crucial issues will arise in the whole field of energy of which Dublin Gas and Kinsale Gas are perhaps relatively minor? What implications has this for the future of our oil and our other natural resources? These are questions to which the public are entitled to an answer. There is, somehow, a great air of mystery surrounding this whole question of the handling of our natural resources. There are aspects of it which require explanation. There are people in the area which will be affected who are very close to the Fine Gael party. We will have to be very vigilant as to how this situation develops. I warn the Taoiseach and the Government that we will watch very carefully indeed every single move made.

One aspect which greatly disturbs people right across the political spectrum is the startling revelation that on a crucial, major issue of policy the Taoiseach did not vote in Cabinet. I find it disturbing, in any event, that an issue of this sort would actually be put to a vote in Cabinet — an issue which affects the basic approach to economic management and the philosophy which inspires that economic management. What sort of Government have we that on a central, crucial issue, which the Government spent apparently all summer and autumn debating, when the crunch came the Taoiseach did not vote? Was this because he had no views, or because he did not want to vote against some of his colleagues in favour of others? He used to lecture us, when he was in Opposition, about courageous and inspired leadership. Some leadership — a Taoiseach who dodges a major issue in front of his own Government. I have spoken about confused Government but I did not, up to these current events, have any concept of how confused this Government really are, or the manner or type of leadership which this Government are getting on a crucial issue. The Taoiseach not alone cannot give leadership to his Government, but cannot commit himself to either one side or the other by voting.

There is an important side issue to all this which is that Deputy Pattison will now, presumably, vacate the seat in the European Parliament. Everybody acknowledges and recognises that up to now the behaviour of the Labour Party with regard to the European Parliament has been a national disgrace. I only hope that the record will not be sullied further. I hope that somebody during today will deny that there is any truth in the rumour that the seat which Deputy Pattison will now vacate will be handed over as a little donation or present to former Deputy Justin Keating.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Haughey is a fair dab hand himself at sending people to Europe.

Mr. Donnellan

And not just from his own side of the House.

Mr. Haughey

That interjection by my good friend Deputy Boland has all the hall-marks of whistling past the graveyard.

A Deputy

The Deputy is some tombstone.

The Taoiseach

It was Deputy Haughey's graveyard, not ours.

Mr. Boland

A fair few of Deputy Haughey's corpses are in there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies, please, order. Deputy Haughey, without interruption.

Mr. Haughey

When one has been in this House for some length of time, one develops a sort of sixth sense about its affairs. It is possible to get a feeling when something very major is approaching — a sense of atmosphere, trouble, crisis, even though there is little tangible or visible evidence to fasten onto. Everybody knows that that is the atmosphere that prevails today.

Mr. Flynn

It is all up.

Mr. Haughey

There is an atmosphere of very deep and far-reaching crisis in the air. This Government's days are numbered.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Haughey

The hollowness of the laughs speaks for itself.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Do not hold your breath.

Mr. Haughey

All the Members on the Government benches know that they will be only acting out empty, meaningless roles from here on. What we are witnessing today is the beginning of the end. The Government Members may continue playing the game for some time yet but, in effect, the game is over. They are now sliding down the slope to disintegration. That is an irreversible — and I can tell you from historical experience——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy Haughey should describe that a bit further. We have never had the experience, he has.

Mr. Haughey

They are buoying themselves up with a certain false enthusiasm, but everybody knows that only a general election can bring the present disarray which prevails in this Government to an end. The situation has deteriorated beyond redemption. The Government are deeply and fundamentally divided. They are incapable of dealing with the major economic and social problems which confront us. This latest revelation of their inherent and basic incompetence proves what we have always said — that they have not the political capacity to deal with the problems of our country at this time. Everybody know that they are refusing to face up to the issues. Everybody in this House and the general public know that. The sooner the Government acknowledges that the only solution and the only way out of our present difficulties is a general election, the more we will respect them for their honesty.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I would like to commend Deputy Cluskey for his stand on an issue of principle which may feature again with the Government, that is the use of Government funds for private companies when funds are withheld from State companies who are being brought to their knees. I remind the Leader of the Labour Party of a meeting I had with him on 8 December 1982. I am sure he will recall that we discussed the options open to the Government following the election which had taken place and the emphasis I placed on the fact that there was very little difference between the policies which the Fine Gael party would be pursuing and those which had been pursued by the Fianna Fáil Government. I said that while the Labour Party might get some concessions in a Coalition Government, in fact there would not be any basic change in the manner in which the economy would be run.

My hope at that time was that the Labour Party would stay out of Coalition and that by an alliance with The Workers' Party we could build a strong left Opposition in this Dáil, which could be quite effective in changing policies and in building a strong leadership for the working class people. The remarks I made at the time have proved to be true. Fine Gael have dominated the Coalition and their policies are paramount. It is still my hope that in the future The Workers' Party and the Labour Party can co-operate in building such an alliance. I will not waste any time or tears over the Labour Party's decline while they still fail to face up to the realisition of their true role and what their purpose should be until they do, as Deputy Cluskey did, get out from the clutches of the Fine Gael Government. With regard to the Labour Party's plea that they are giving stability of Government, I can only say that stability for conservatives can only mean harder times for workers.

I would like to refer briefly to the new face in Government which the Taoiseach has announced, that of Deputy Séamus Pattison, MEP. Is he an MEP? It is very difficult to recall at the moment who the Labour Party MEPs are. We had two elected in Dublin, Deputy O'Connell and Deputy M. O'Leary who were replaced by Deputy Frank Cluskey and Mr. John Horgan. They resigned and were replaced by Senator Flor O'Mahony and Mr. Brendan Halligan. I presume that Deputy Pattison will be resigning. This whole procedure of elected members resigning, being replaced, the new people resigning and being replaced besmirches the whole concept of democracy, which was supposed to apply to the European Parliament. An election is due in six months. Very little credibility in relation to them is given to the general public if the people they elect are gone in six months and people they never heard of can be appointed in their places. It will be interesting to see if any new procedures have been decided upon by the Government or the European Parliament to avoid this sort of charade which has been going on for so long. It seems to be an indication of the shortage of talent within the Coalition or possibly within the Labour Party that they had to pick Deputy Séamus Pattison for this job. Maybe it is not on talent those decisions are made but on electoral success or something else. It is bad judgment by the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste on behalf of the Labour Party to nominate Deputy Séamus Pattison.

I wish to refer to the move of Deputy Ruairi Quinn from the Department of the Environment. It seems that an architect in the Department of the Environment would be of great benefit. He would know his job and would be able to talk back to the civil servants. Deputy Kavanagh had similar knowledge and experience so that he would be able to deal with the civil servants in the Department of Labour. Is the switch more a sop to the civil servants than a decision by the Government? It does not seem to be putting the right talent in the right place to, as the Taoiseach said at the end of his statement, create more efficiency. I do not believe this switch makes for that efficiency.

Mr. McLoughlin

I would like to pay tribute on behalf of the Labour Party to my colleague, Deputy Frank Cluskey, former leader of the Labour Party, a man of very high ability. I admire his decision to come out of the Cabinet on principle. I am amazed, 12 months after we win an election, to hear Deputy Haughey come in here and make an attack on the Leader of the Labour Party. The Deputy leader of our party has not been offered any bribes to step down and change the decision to elect a leader. We had no Ministers coming out of Cabinet because there were phone taps on one Cabinet Minister by another one, checking what was going on on the internal affairs of that Department.

Deputy Haughey said that Ministers were elected to run the Departments. What happened his two Ministers who came out of the previous Government? Were the phone taps, which were put on them, to watch what was happening within their Departments or to watch what was going on in the leadership crisis? I can tell the Deputies opposite, as a backbencher of the Labour Party, that Deputy Dick Spring has the full support of this party and none of us would stand idly by and see a man like Deputy Charles Haughey, attack the Leader of our party. If Deputy Haughey was honourable and if there was any other Leader in the Fianna Fáil Party he would be gone long ago. They cannot get rid of him. That is what is wrong with the Fianna Fáil Party. The longer Fianna Fáil hold on to him the better it is for us because he is a liability to that party. The sooner the Fianna Fáil Party realise that the better. Words from Deputy Haughey's mouth in an attack on a man of the calibre of Deputy Dick Spring fall on deaf ears.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McLoughlin to continue without interruption.

Mr. McLoughlin

Fianna Fáil and The Workers' Party have attacked the Labour Party. The people decided at the last general election the number of people who were returned to this Dáil. The Labour Party have only 9 per cent of the votes of the country. Our Party was not and is not responsible for the deplorable financial position in which we found this State when we took over Government. I call now on the press and those who criticise the Labour Party to go back and look at the figures they were given by the previous Coalition and the way money was subsequently transferred from one Department to another without any Cabinet decision. What this country wants is leadership and that is what the country has now. We are not responsible for the financial state of the country because when this Coalition came into office the finances of the country were in an appalling mess. The Labour Party know that a job has to be done and we are prepared to support tough decisions provided those decisions are equitable and provided the workers get a fair crack of the whip.

I was annoyed listening to the Leader of the Opposition here this afternoon accusing the leader of our party of responsibility for the state of the country's finances at the moment. Now the Leader of the Opposition went on television and he identified the problems. Those listening to him thought that here was a man who would take the necessary decisions. What did they find? They found he had not the courage of his convictions and was not prepared to take the requisite decisions. He identified the ills but he was not prepared to administer the cure. A Front Bench Opposition spokesman comes along during the recent by-election and advises the people not to pay the water rates. Is that constructive opposition? To me it is the essence of hypocrisy.

There are those who may attack the appointment of Deputy Séamus Pattison as a Junior Minister. Deputy Pattison has been in this House since 1961. He has represented the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny for 22 years. He has been a hard-working Deputy and a Front Bench spokesman of the Labour Party. His promotion is long overdue and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment and to wish him well. I would say to those who mistakenly think there may be a quick general election and to the Deputies over there on the Opposition benches who are hoping for such an election and, in particular, to the one man who would like to see an opportunity given to grab on to power again, hoping to keep himself there for the rest of his life: "Hold on a second, Charlie. Things are not going to go your way. This Government is here to last and we will serve the people until 1986".

Mr. Lenihan

The last contribution does not help in what should be a constructive debate about the sorry collapse which is now imminent for the Government as a result of the hasty departure of Deputy Cluskey in the last few days. What is the essence and the heart of this whole matter is the principle of collective responsibility. That principle appears to have been forgotten. Fundamentally parliamentary democracy cannot function without collective responsibility. What we have here is a situation in which Deputy Cluskey departs from Government on the basis of what he calls "principle". He will now occupy the back benches and there exercise political blackmail on the Government while leaving inside the Government four Labour Party Ministers and the Tánaiste who do not appear to share that principle. There lies the recipe for chaos in Government. There lies instability in the loss of investment, instability because of a loss of confidence, instability that can only lead to a further threat to the institutions of the State, institutions so dearly built up over the years, including even this institution here. The fundamental test of parliamentary democracy is to produce a Government representative of the majority which can govern the country with a sense of collective responsibility and any breakdown in that means an end to parliamentary democracy.

We have seen the first real erosion of the principle of parliamentary democracy in the undignified departure of Deputy Cluskey and subsequent newspaper comment where what now emerges is who voted for what issue in regard to Dublin Gas. For the first time in the history of the State we have got the figures to show how people voted within the Government, a Government which was supposed to have collective responsibility. We are told that four Labour Party Ministers supported Deputy Cluskey. We are told Deputy Jim Mitchell supported him. We are told the Taoiseach abstained. We have been given the complete scenario to show how people voted. The essence of collective responsibility, as the Taoiseach well knows, is to seek to achieve a consensus. Only in very few cases has there ever been such a thing as a vote. A Taoiseach, if he is a proper Taoiseach, tries to achieve a consensus after discussion. But a consensus is impossible in a situation where you have two ideologically opposed parties. Not only are they ideologically opposed to each other but they are ideologically opposed within themselves because, if principle means anything, you have the deep ideological cleavage within the Labour Party between those who support Deputy Cluskey leaving on a point of principle and those who remain in Government on the basis that they support the deal with Dublin Gas and disagree with Deputy Cluskey's principle in regard to it. There is a clear cleavage within the Labour Party, small as it is, and there is then the constant on-going cleavage that exists between the Taoiseach and his particular liberal Donnybrook set and the real rock hard old traditional Fine Gael represented by Deputy Cooney, Deputy Barry and Deputy Bruton.

Here we have the situation clearly identified for everyone to see, not just a Labour versus Fine Gael cleavage but a cleavage within the Labour Party and again a cleavage in the Fine Gael Party. The latter has now been dealt with on a temporary, transitory basis by simply stripping Deputy Bruton of the portfolio of Energy. For the second time he has had to eat humble pie at the behest of the Taoiseach. On an earlier occasion he was stripped of the portfolio of Minister for Finance. He is stripped now of Energy just when Energy is becoming so very, very important.

I would like to challenge Deputy Spring——

An Tánaiste

Any time, Deputy.

Mr. Lenihan

——as to where he stands in regard to our natural resources. Where does he stand on the principle which prompted Deputy Cluskey to leave the Government? This is something to which he will have to face up because he now has no other pretensions to be in Government except to look after his Energy portfolio. I am very glad they have stripped him down to a single subject because as Minister for the Environment he was undoubtedly a ghastly failure. We now have the building and construction industry at a standstill, an industry in regard to which no effort whatever was made to ensure that in difficult times it would be supported by central Government and local authority expenditure, an industry for which the Minister for the Environment had direct responsibility, an industry he should have supported in a difficult period. In fact, he did the direct opposite; he presided over its demise.

That industry was never in the sort of situation that it is at the moment since the bad days of the recession in the thirties. In the post-war period other Coalition Governments, bad as they were as the ideological cleavages were, managed to give some semblance of government in regard to collective responsibility and personal behaviour between Ministers. While Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Corish were in charge of a previous Coalition I know of no occasion where a Labour Party Minister departed from the Government or ex-Minister went on radio, as Deputy Cluskey did last Sunday, and proceeded to tell the nation how certain people voted on an issue. That sort of disunity, total absence of a sense of responsibility, lack of regard for collective responsibility was not there in the Coalition Government headed by Deputy Liam Cosgrave and Deputy Corish. This Government have plumbed the depths of disgrace in regard to behaviour.

I recognise the basic inherent instability in coalition Governments. Our opposition to that type of Government was that this fundamental ideological disparity prevented the proper functioning of these Governments. In due course previous Governments of the Coalition kind found that for that reason they lost the confidence of the people and not one such Government survived for a second time. Compounding that instability and making the situation worse than ever, an element of blackmail is introduced into this matter by the present Labour Party within the Government, the petulant blackmail that says, "If I do not get my way I will walk out."

The people know well that Deputy Cluskey did not walk out on the basis of the issue of Dublin Gas. That issue has been there since the present Coalition was formed. That long-standing matter had been under discussion before we left Government. It is well known that we were in the process of negotiating an arrangement in regard to Dublin Gas and Bord Gáis Éireann and Deputy Albert Reynolds was the Minister responsible for that. Therefore, when the infamous arrangements was made between Fine Gael and Labour to come together, that issue was on the table. There is no point in Deputy Cluskey at this stage resurrecting that as a matter of principle. That, as a matter of principle, should have prevented him going into the first Coalition Government. We would like to hear shortly whether Deputy Spring, now the holder of that portfolio, sees it as Deputy Bruton or Deputy Cluskey in his departure from Government saw it. Deputy Spring as Tánaiste and relevent Minister must face up to that issue within Government very quickly and though this House he must make a presentation to the people as to where precisely he stands. As Minister for Industry and Energy does he intend to continue to promote the arrangements that have been concluded by Deputy Bruton and the majority in Government or does he agree with his departed colleague who says that he disagrees and retires from Government on that basis? The lack of credibility of that issue of principle is underlined by the fact that Deputy Cluskey, Deputy Spring and other members of the Labour Party who took the shilling and joined the band were aware of it this time last year. That issue has been considered by the Government regularly over the past 12 months and is now paraded as a principle by Deputy Cluskey as an excuse to justify his situation and his apprehension in regard to the Estimates and the coming budget decisions that must be made. The first animal had left the sinking ship. Where are the other animals?

A Deputy

Over there.

Mr. Lenihan

Probably he has left the sinking ship because he is wise in his animal-like scuttling from the ship and in the milieu of the animal that scuttles from sinking ships. He sees the writing on the wall. He sees that he represents a constituency, Dublin South-Central, which is a duplication of the constituency of Dublin Central from which the Labour Party were practically eliminated in the past few weeks. It is not unkind to describe their performance as bringing about a complete elimination and disregard by the working people of Dublin of any pretensions that the Labour Party have to represent them. Deputy Cluskey, seeing that situation, decided to use the first issue at hand, clothe it in principle, announce it as principle and make his departure as fast as possible from the sinking ship. He was careful in his radio broadcast last Sunday to draw a distinction between the Estimates to which he had agreed and those Estimates as they will appear in budgetary form. I hope the Taoiseach and the Fine Gael Tánaiste — we must refer to him thus from now on — see the writing on the wall in regard to these Estimates and how they will survive in a budgetary context.

Allied to this lack of collective responsibility is not adhering to majority decisions, or consensus decisions which are the main ones taken by Government, is the other element essential to collective responsibility, which is confidentiality. Deputy Cluskey has breached the confidentiality already in his announcement of how Government personnel voted. We have seen Deputy Hussey distancing herself from the Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach and the Government recently in announcing from the Department of Education a confidential educational plan for the future. It was leaked and announced as a confidential plan which shows up Deputy Hussey — provided she gets the money — as promoting a marvellously progressive approach in education. That is lack of confidentiality.

The Taoiseach

On a point of order, I repudiate that allegation in this House. It was withdrawn and it is not in order to repeat an allegation that has been withdrawn.

Mr. Haughey

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Lenihan

There is a further lack of confidentiality on the part of Deputy Fennell, the Taoiseach's Minister of State, who apparently is announcing expensive reforms in regard to women's rights within the public service and the appointment of officers to supervise the implementation of the equality of employment of women in the public service. These are excellent schemes, but apparently they can be announced by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach without any Government agreement or any overall Cabinet responsibility.

On top of the lack of Cabinet responsibility that fails to accept Government decisions is this additional lack of Cabinet responsibility where individual members of the Government feel free to announce policies costing enormous amounts of money, parade them before the public and portray themselves as magnificent people, all without any approval by the Government or the Minister for Finance. Indeed, the example comes from the Taoiseach himself whom I heard one Sunday morning some months ago in the most cavalier fashion I have ever heard on radio announce off the top of his head that he was proposing to introduce cuts of £500 million in the administration of the public service in the coming year. That was gaily thrown into the ring as the sort of cuts in expenditure that were quite feasible. It was evident that the Taoiseach then was talking off the top of his head without any sense of Cabinet or collective responsibility. He was, in effect, leaking in regard to himself apart from leaking in regard to his Government colleagues — and he had no realisation that he was leaking in regard to himself. We saw the result of that in the week that followed when Deputy Cluskey proceeded to sulk at the Government meeting. On the Tuesday after that Sunday radio performance Deputy Cluskey refused to attend the Government meeting because after the disastrous effort by the Taoiseach in announcing his cut a row-back situation followed at the request of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Dukes. The Minister for Finance started to row back on the Taoiseach who promptly issued a statement, through one of the press handlers in whom they specialise, that he did not really mean that. On witnessing the tension and the tug-of-war between the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cluskey in a state of sulks refused to attend a Government meeting. He had to be sent for by Deputy Spring and he was hauled reluctantly from Kildare Street to the Government meeting where something was patched up. As we can see now, it was patched up for only a very short period.

We have seen the Taoiseach denigrate and almost destroy the whole principle of responsibility. I am not referring to responsibility in the collective sense but to the genuine responsibility of the Taoiseach to the nation and to voluntary groups to whom he made commitments. I am referring to his U-turn on the referendum. In that case the Taoiseach managed to turn himself upside down several times but in the end the one thing that emerged was that he had diminished considerably the office of Taoiseach.

That is the kind of situation we have now. Members of the Government are leaking information all over the place. They do not understand the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. The Government are composed of individuals who are primarily concerned about themselves rather than the objectives of government. They are divided not just between the two parties but are divided within themselves and the situation was epitomised by the departure of Deputy Cluskey. Although I have been very hard on him, perhaps he was right. Perhaps the ship is sinking irretrievably, perhaps the Deputy is a very sensible man who can swim while the ship goes down. Down the ship is going and the public see it that way. What we are witnessing now is the gradual deterioration of standards in government which is leading to a total lack of confidence——

Mr. Spring

Hypocrisy.

Mr. Lenihan

It is leading to the destruction of the Government in the public mind. Irrespective of when the election is held, the electorate will never forget the recent events on the part of this Government. They are inevitably and irretrievably gone. That is bad for the nation because it leads to a lack of confidence in the institutions of State and of the Government and that will be reflected in a lack of investment in the country. In that unfortunate downward development which I fear will occur there is only one decent thing for the Government to do and that is to get out.

Mr. Cluskey

I should like to thank the Taoiseach and his colleagues in Government for the kind remarks he saw fit to make in his initial announcement with regard to my period of a member of the Cabinet. I should like to congratulate Deputy Quinn and Deputy Pattison on their new posts and to wish them well. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank Deputy Flynn, who was the main Opposition spokesman dealing with Trade, Commerce and Tourism, for his courtesy and consideration and the constructive way he approached matters that came before the House. Last but not least, because they seem to be the national whipping boy, I should like to thank the civil servants in my former Department for their dedication and hard work during the time I was political head of that Department.

I always enjoy the contributions of Deputy Lenihan.

Mr. Kelly

That is by no means an unusual taste.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy has the unique capacity of being able to put his foot down on the accelerator while leaving his brain in neutral and he surpassed himself today in that. In his contribution he ended up facing at least three different ways simultaneously and even for him that is not bad.

Mr. Haughey

What way is the Deputy facing?

Mr. Kelly

He saw the writing on the wall on the sinking ship.

Mr. Tunney

The Deputy is a political gadfly. He cannot come in here and lecture us.

Mr. Cluskey

We have heard a lot about Cabinet confidentiality and collective responsibility. Since I announced my resignation from the Government I made it quite clear on every occasion I have spoken since that I accept totally, absolutely and without reservation collective responsibility for every issue that was decided up to the one on which I resigned. Deputy Haughey on radio, Deputy Lenihan on television and radio and here this afternoon and other Fianna Fáil speakers have attempted to attribute all sorts of reasons as to why I saw fit to take the action I took. This was very predictable and perhaps understandable. We had the Machiavellian statements that this was the first step of an attack on Dick Spring's leadership. It was said that Cluskey was back-stabbing Dick Spring. Another statement was that I saw the writing on the wall and wanted to get out, that I wanted to protect myself and run for cover. Other motives have been attributed to my resignation. I am not surprised that Deputy Haughey, Deputy Lenihan and other members of Fianna Fáil see what I did in the light of political back-stabbing. They have operated at that level of politics for so long it is difficult for them to adjust their minds to the fact that there is another level of politics.

The reason I resigned was because I believe passionately that the natural resources of the country are the property of the people and should be used to the maximum for their benefit. Apart from the Dublin Gas deal there is, as Deputy Haughey pointed out, very considerable potential for the country in the whole energy area. I am somewhat reassured by the fact tht the Leader of my party is now going to be in charge of our energy policy. The point is that a deal has been done which gives a small number of people in the private sector the opportunity of becoming very very rich with little or no capital risk to themselves and with very substantial money provided by the taxpayer. I found that totally objectionable and if that was the criterion which was going to be used regarding our other natural resources, existing or potential, I felt it was an issue that justified my action, which I did not take lightly or with any relish. It is of such fundamental importance to the people and to generations to come that it was necessary to take this action to give me the freedom that I could not have as a member of the Cabinet when I had to observe confidentiality and bear collective responsibility. I believe that that purpose will be achieved because, unlike Deputy Haughey, I do not believe that the only people who are interested or concerned about the disposal of our natural resources are raving red revolutionaries——

Mr. Haughey

I do not believe that.

Mr. Cluskey

I do not believe you have to be a socialist in order to be concerned about this matter, although I am proud of being a socialist.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy cannot attribute that view to me.

Mr. Cluskey

I believe that this issue and the way it is debated in this House will be a matter of concern shared by people right across the political spectrum and that, irrespective of what Government are in power, the people will be so alterted that no Government will be able to dispose of our national resources to small groups of people whose only interest is to make themselves wealthy at the expense of the people.

Deputy Lenihan said that if this was a question of principle it was in existence when I took office. It certainly was there, it was negotiated by the administration of which he was a member and it was a worse deal than that which I am now rejecting.

Mr. Haughey

It was there when we came to office.

Mr. Cluskey

I will come to that later. I have a responsibility to be as fair to Deputy Haughey as to anybody else and I will give details. I first came into contact with this deal in early January of this year because its pricing mechanism was the responsibility of my Department. Having looked at the deal, which was very complex, and realising its full implications, I alerted the Government to my fears with regard to it. As a result of discussions within the Government it was renegotiated and improved on on two occasions. Therefore, it is strange to hear Deputy Haughey saying that he is going to watch the oil situation and all our other natural resources. He did not make such a good job of it when he was in office.

Mr. Haughey

I never gave them away.

Mr. Cluskey

Deputy Haughey's administration not only signed this deal but negotiated it after an unseemly row among the directors of Dublin Gas who had a dogfight to see who could get their hands on the loot.

Mr. Haughey

They were friends of theirs, not ours.

Mr. Cluskey

As a result of that, there was a supplementary agreement which gave them even more of the people's resources and that was initialled by the Fianna Fáil administration three days before they left office. There is no joy in this for Fianna Fáil. I do not regard this as a matter of party politics but it is important that the full facts are known and that the people know what has happened to a part of their natural resources and, more importantly, what could happen to the rest.

Mr. Haughey

I agree.

Mr. Cluskey

We have to talk in hundreds of millions of pounds because that is what is involved and my fear is that ordinary people who are trying to rear their families will find it so difficult to relate to this talk of millions of pounds that they will not realise the direct significance to them and their children of the approach we take regarding our natural resources.

Deputy Mac Giolla, on behalf of The Workers' Party, said nice things about the stand I took, but then tore into the Labour Party. I am sorry he is not here now, but I should like to remind Deputy Mac Giolla that when Fianna Fáil were negotiating this deal The Workers' Party kept them in office.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cluskey

They kept Fianna Fáil in office when the original deal was not good enough for the boys in the board room——

Mr. Haughey

We took over that deal from the first Coalition Government. The Deputy should not again be distorting history. We will put all our records on the table.

Mr. Cluskey

Everything will be laid before the House——

Mr. Haughey

That is what we want.

Mr. Cluskey

I heard Deputy Haughey looking for things before and when they were offered to him he was not too anxious to receive them, including general elections. Deputy Lenihan talked of the imminent collapse of the Government and asked why I left the Cabinet but urged my colleagues to remain on. The answer to that is that I have much more confidence in them than I would have in a Fianna Fáil Government.

Mr. Haughey

Why, then, did the Deputy leave them?

Mr. Lenihan

This is turning the truth upside down.

Mr. Haughey

Who is trying to ride two horses now?

Mr. Cluskey

I will not fall off.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy might fall between them.

Mr. Cluskey

The reality is that Fine Gael and Labour at conference entered into a Joint Programme for Government, a programme that did not include a commitment to the disposal of our natural resources to the private sector. Neither did it include other matters of significant importance. The country does not need a general election and I will go a long way towards avoiding inflicting such a situation on the people.

Mr. Haughey

In the first place the Deputy would lose his seat.

Mr. Cluskey

I lost my seat before but I lived.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy will not get a seat in Europe either.

Mr. Cluskey

There are people here who would sell their souls for a seat.

Mr. Haughey

Nevertheless, Deputy Cluskey took a free seat in Europe.

Mr. Cluskey

I took a seat in Europe under an Act that was put through this House by I think, a Fianna Fáil Government.

Mr. Haughey

Will the Deputy go back again now? He need not lecture us on high-minded principles.

Mr. Cluskey

This Government are going through a very difficult time. There are some very hard decisions to be made and some very hard times ahead for the people. This is unavoidable. Deputy Lenihan was right. It will not be easy to clear up the mess left by the last Government but if an approach is made on the basis of the Joint Programme for Government, there is no reason for this Government not lasting their full term.

Mr. V. Brady

That is a warning anyway.

Mr. Cluskey

For so long as the Government apply themselves to the implementation of that joint programme, they will have my support. Fianna Fáil need not be terrified. A general election is not imminent. It is not only a question of my not having any confidence in a Fianna Fáil Government in so far as the country is concerned. I do not even regard them as an effective Opposition.

I have had to make a hard decision. As I have stated, the only reason for my making that decision is my belief that the motivation for it is something that can be achieved. Irrespective of which party are in Government, once the people realise what has happened to a limited extent and what could happen to the rest of our national resources, no Government will be able to hand over those resources to a small number of private individuals. That is the whole basis for my decision.

Mr. O'Malley

I take this opportunity of wishing Deputy Cluskey well in the situation in which he finds himself and to wish well also to Deputy Quinn. However, it is not the proposed appointment of Deputy Quinn to the Cabinet that is the most significant factor in today's announcements. By far the most significant factor is the departure of Deputy Bruton from the Energy portfolio and the filling of that post by the Tánaiste.

One can think of many reasons for this situation but in my contribution I wish to consider a couple of aspects of it. Without going into detail I wish to make a couple of general observations about what has been said by Deputy Cluskey and by newspaper commentators and others in the past number of days in relation to Dublin Gas. For several days I was mystified as to why the then Minister, Deputy Bruton, made no attempt to make the facts known or to seek to defend the Government's decision but on Sunday I discovered what the reason was. It was because of there having been a most peculiar vote within the Cabinet in which, apparently, the Taoiseach decided, incredibly, to abstain. In these circumstances it was understandable that Deputy Bruton should be reticent. It is understandable also, I suppose, that he should now have departed from the scene in the light of that. Obviously, the situation could not continue from either point of view.

There have been references by Deputy Cluskey and by newspaper commentators to figures of between £126 million and £174 million of taxpayers' money being invested in Dublin Gas. I understand that the actual amount in this regard is £600,000 and that the remainder relates either to contingent guarantees or to price rebates. If a price rebate to a premium user of gas is to be described as the investment of public money, we have a situation in which each year the Irish taxpayer is investing £60 million in NET because NET are buying gas at a rebate that is so great that the rebate price to Dublin Gas is three and a half times that at which it is supplied to NET. Is it perhaps for ideological reasons or for reasons of principle that there is no criticism of a rebate of £60 million per annum being made to NET? Is it because they are a State company or is there any other difference? Similarly, even the rebate price at which gas is supplied to the Dublin consumer is more than the price at which it is being supplied to the ESB but because the ESB is State-owned, this investment of millions of pounds per annum is considered to be all right while the Dublin Gas consumers, of whom there are 110,000 and of whom we hope there will be many more, do not seem to have any rights.

This has been described as a hand-over of that amount of cash to a small number of shareholders in Dublin Gas. If, as Deputy Cluskey and others would have us believe, the company are getting £126 million or even £174 million, why has not the share price of Dublin Gas shot up? Why has it not soared in the way that Atlantic Resources, for example, have soared? Instead, it has remained stable at 85 to 90 pence in the past fortnight while all these figures were being talked about. The market does not regard Dublin Gas as having got any great bonanza. In any event, the company exist for the benefit of the consumer. Are the consumers to be done out of a reasonable price level for the gas they will consume in Dublin? Are they wrong because they have to buy gas at three and a half times what NET have to buy it for? The investment, as I understand it, that was described as having been put in by the State into NET was £130 million or £140 million capital which had to go into the building of the plant and so on, a tragically large sum, but nobody suggested that the enormous price rebates which are three and a half times the size of this that will go every year to NET are investments by the Irish taxpayer. They are not, and if they are not for one certainly they are not for the other.

As Deputy Cluskey made clear today, and in interviews on radio, television and with the newspapers which I heard or read, he is obviously at least as concerned about the future as he is about the past. Perhaps the truth is that he is more concerned about the future than he is about the past because hopefully — we all touch wood at the very thought of this — we may be on the verge of a worthwhile significant oil discovery. We are entitled at this stage, when the Minister for Energy has been dismissed and is being replaced by the Tánaiste, to ask ourselves something about the way in which the preliminary aspects of the management of that find have gone.

The principal Irish company involved in that block, 49.9, is a company called Atlantic Resources. The company is of recent origin, having been formed in 1981, but already it has become the fourth largest company in Ireland. It is set fair to become perhaps the third, second or, for all I know, even the largest company within a short time. In 1981 the State got 5 per cent of that company but the State today has 2.3 per cent. In May 1983 the State had 5 per cent of the company but today it has 2.3 per cent. By allowing its holding in that company to reduce by more than half in the seven months since last May the Government of which Deputy Cluskey up to recently was a member have lost directly as a result of that more than £1 million for the Irish taxpayers. They have failed within the last week to take any of the placing of shares carried out by the company in rather unusual circumstances, to say the least of it. We are entitled to ask either the outgoing Minister for Energy or the incoming Minister of that Department why that is so. We are entitled to ask also the incoming Minister for Energy how the Government propose to vote at the AGM of that company on 23 December and whether the Government propose to give their further approval — they have already approved the issuing of the letter in relation to the placing — at the meeting to the placing of these shares in the rather strange circumstances in which they have been placed.

It is no harm to remind the House that these shares were placed privately by the directors of the company on 28 November last at £6 per share and after the placing the price of the shares still remained at £9 and the price of the shares last night was £9.35. On the 140,000 shares which the State then held they would have been entitled pro rata to a placing of 140,000. Their profit on each one of those would have been £3.35p as of today. They chose not to take them up.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has given Deputy O'Malley a good deal of latitude on this but the Chair does not think that a complete——

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy must be getting near to the bone.

An Ceann Comhairle

That comment is not worthy of the Deputy. The Chair does not think that a complete detailed discussion on the working of a company is relevant.

Mr. O'Malley

I will endeavour to move away from that into a more general area.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Cluskey gave us a lecture about protecting the resources of the State. It is no harm to put the record straight.

Mr. O'Malley

I find it difficult to get a way from this company because they have a very impressive list of directors, a copy of which I have before me.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair wishes to make it clear that the paramount item for discussion, and the one which is most relevant, is the suitability of the person who has been proposed for membership of the Government.

Mr. G. Collins

The Chair has a very short memory.

Mr. O'Malley

I remember a motion on myself on 5 May 1970 which went on for a day and a night and I hardly got a mention at all, apart from Deputy L'Estrange who was at the peak of his powers then.

Mr. G. Collins

We can get the record for the Chair, if he wishes.

Mr. O'Malley

In the course of the letter of 7 December from the company to shareholders it was stated that if commercial reserves are proved by well 49.93 the company and its partners hope to implement an early production system. That sentence encapsulates many of what I believe were Deputy Cluskey's worries. Why should they hope to implement an early production system and why should they want to implement it? About a month ago I made a speech, before I knew any of this was coming, as to the general approach we should make in relation to the development of oil if it should prove to be available in commercial quantities off Waterford. It was responded to, very interestingly, by Deputy Eddie Collins. Neither the speech I made, or the response, got much publicity.

Mr. E. Collins

On a point of order, will Deputy O'Malley give the source of his quotation?

Mr. O'Malley

I have already done so. It was the letter of 7 December 1983 from the chairman of Atlantic Resources Limited, page 4, last paragraph. The speech I referred to suggested in a general way how the State should approach the exploitation and development of the oil resources off Waterford and it was responded to in a slightly curious way. Perhaps I got nearer to the bone at a time than even I thought. One of the suggestions I made was that under no circumstances should a Government agree to any production method or system or licence which did not ensure that we took the 50 per cent of the oil to which we are entitled. I also made the suggestion that under no circumstances should we allow any of that oil to be landed other than in Ireland and that we should insist that it should be refined in Whitegate. My suspicions at the time of private talks that were going on at that stage between certain members of the Fine Gael party and that company tend to be borne out to some extent by what was said in the letter I have quoted. While I have no doubt that Deputy Cluskey feels strongly about Dublin Gas, this matter is essentially much more important. Suddenly this afternoon, with one sweep of the Taoiseach's hand, the whole ball game has changed. We shall have to wait some days, perhaps even weeks, for the equilibrium to be found again. Indeed it must be a worrying time in the boardrooms of certain companies at present to try to find out where the centre of gravity will be over the next few weeks. Apparently Deputy Cluskey certainly hopes — and he gave grudging acceptance, as I understood it from what he said here — that the centre of gravity will be very different.

It will be of considerable significance also perhaps in relation to the Navan zinc/ore body, which is a matter that we had out in this House at very great length seven years ago and which possibly we may have to have out again at great length in the not too distant future. It is worth reminding ourselves that the man who did what was perhaps the most disastrous deal of all ever in Irish natural resources — it is now accepted as such; I described it as such at the time but I do not think it was accepted but is now — was not the leader at the time but virtually Mr. Labour Party himself, the then Deputy Just in Keating, whom we are told may well hope to benefit from one of the subsidiary changes that were made today as a result of Deputy Cluskey's magnaminity of last week.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Cluskey was a member of that administration too.

Mr. O'Malley

It is interesting to look back with hindsight on what was done and the assurances given. If anybody wants interesting reading it would be to read some of the speeches of Deputy Keating at the time because the debate went on over 11 or 12 days and——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order to refer to somebody who is not a Member of the House.

Mr. O'Malley

——and compare it with the kind of situation that we have today.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would adhere to the motion before the House.

Mr. O'Malley

On two or three occasions such as this in the House in the last three years I made a suggestion to the Taoiseach that his decision of June 1981 to divide the old Department of Industry and Commerce in two was a very wrong decision, that it would have serious consequences for our industrial development and the development of our trade. I have been proven to be right. The decision was taken in the first place for the wrong reasons. It is being rectified today, albeit for the wrong reasons again, in order to place people suitably for political purposes. At least it bears the advantageous by-product that it gets back together again a Department that should never have been sundered, that the Department of Energy is left on its own, as was the original decision of December 1979, which proved to be a correct one and will prove to be a correct one again. It will prove to be a correct one in principle. Whether it will prove to be a correct one because the portfolio will now be held by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, remains to be seen. I do not want to criticise a man in advance of his undertaking a particular job in the Government. I wish him well in his efforts in the national interests. But certainly his efforts in the Department of the Environment over the past 12 months do not inspire great confidence in me as to how he will get on in the future. I hope for the sake of the country that he will be substantially more successful in the Department of Energy than he was in the Department of the Environment.

Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. J. Bruton)

I did not intend to rise in this debate but I wish, if I may, to comment briefly on some of the points made by Deputy O'Malley, not in regard to Dublin Gas but in regard to the general question of oil exploration and development.

The position is that no decisions have been taken by the Government, nor were they taken by me, even in my own mind, let alone expressed to anyone else as to the approach that one would take to the development of what may be a commercial oil find off the Waterford coast. The simple fact is that it is too early yet to know the extent of the find, the extent of its commerciality or indeed the marginality of its commerciality. Until one has that information it simply is and was not possible for decisions to be taken of any kind one way or another. Deputy O'Malley seemed to be inferring, from very flimsy evidence, certain attitudes on my part to this matter. No such attitudes have been formed. Therefore, there is no evidence for his apparent inference that some statements made by other people were indicative of my attitude in the matter.

Reference was made by him also, I think, and significance was attempted to be attributed by him to the failure of the Government to take up certain share options in Atlantic Resources. As the House is aware, the Government, through the Geological Office, have available to them inside information not available to outside investors about the nature of the find in question. It was a reasonable decision on the part of the various Government Departments concerned that the Government would not get involved in what one might describe as share dealings in a company, the true extent of whose assets, or the true extent of whose worth was not yet known. Its worth as a company is not known until obviously one knows the extent of the commerciality or otherwise of the oil find in which the Government have a share. Clearly I think it would have been misinterpreted, or open to misinterpretation, had the Government engaged in the purchase of shares in the company, even on an option basis, in that people would say: "Aha, the Government must know something. It must be a good idea for the Government to make these investments."

Mr. O'Malley

Equally I could jump to the conclusion that the Government must know something and did not go in.

Mr. J. Bruton

No, the normal situation for a Government in the course of their activities is not to engage in speculation in shares on the stock market. No Government usually gets involved or engages in speculation in shares on the stock market. It would have been a departure from normal practice if it were to so become, a particularly unwelcomed departure in view of the fact that things would be inferred from this decision on the basis that the Government had or were in a position to have information of a particulary privileged kind in regard to the matter by virtue of their control over the Geological Office and the petroleum affairs division of the Department of Energy. Those are the factual reasons for the attitude taken by the Department and by me in that regard.

It is important that I should reiterate, for the benefit of everybody in the House, that no decisions had been taken one way or the other in regard to the terms on which our oil resources, if commercial, would be developed because it would simply be too early to make such decisions in the absence of much more precise information as to the extent of the find. I merely intervened to put that on the record quickly before people might draw certain incorrect conclusions from some of the statements made by Deputy O'Malley.

Mr. Wilson

I want to make a few remarks on the motion before the House and to indicate a certain unease which has been growing for some considerable time in regard to the activities of the Government.

We were told that the present crisis was provoked by the gas deal. We were told, and to my mind this is completely without precedent, how the debate went within the Government, who voted for and who voted against. We did think that the country had a Government at which this kind of business would be conducted as it is supposed to be on behalf of the nation. Then we have the George Orwell 1984 element arising. It was leaked to the press that the Taoiseach did not vote. The Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party indicated what that meant from his point of view in terms of giving leadership in Government. I refer to the use of the media, because this piece of information was released, obviously did not go down too well with the media and then we had the people in charge of publicity for the Taoiseach and the Government coming out saying that he had a definite view and that he supported the deal that was made.

We have reached an Orwellian situation already as far as the media are concerned and it might not be any harm to say that people are aware of the fact that this is going on, even if the Taoiseach is not aware himself that he may very well be manipulated by very clever public relations officers who deal with the media.

Earlier, we were a little perturbed when we heard on a certain occasion that Deputy Cluskey was in Government Buildings, that he was in the Custom House, that the Tánaiste was in the Custom House, that the two of them then arrived at Government Buildings, all arising from a weekend statement about a cut of £500 million in the Estimates. It became difficult to know what kind of game was being played, whether it was hide and seek, and it looked like that, or blind man's buff. Deputy Cluskey said he was not leaving the Government because he saw the writing on the wall. I do not believe it was the writing on the wall that was worrying Deputy Cluskey but the writing in the Book of Estimates.

Many things worried the Opposition during the last few months about promises made by the Government and not adhered to. First of all they were rather surprised in farming constituencies that the Minister for Agriculture and the Taoiseach were falling down on the super-levy issue in Europe. Now we know why. Too much Government time and energy were taken up with this internal and very important ideological debate within the Government. That is why we had a late but heavy impact from the Minister for Agriculture and an itinerary by the Taoiseach at the very end of the super-levy campaign. All our constituents had been asking us what was happening, was there anyone standing up for them? Obviously, the people who should have been standing up for them were involved in an ideological row which only surfaced when Deputy Cluskey, on a point of principle he said, left the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

There will be an adjournment debate and perhaps that would be a more appropriate occasion for a general discussion.

Mr. Wilson

I am probing why certain Government action was not undertaken during a considerable period. It did not become apparent to me until I heard the speech of Deputy Cluskey and various explanations from the Government. I think Deputy Cluskey is going for several reasons, but the substantive reason is what we will be seeing in the near future — I do not know when we will see it. We were promised it in September when Deputy Bruton in his zeal told us we would have the Book of Estimates that month; we were promised it in October, in November and we are now in December but we have not seen it. I am convinced that Deputy Cluskey, a wily man, had a look at the book and he is running like hell so that he will not be responsible for what will happen when the Book of Estimates is published, because the areas that are under attack — we have been told they are under attack — are areas in which a Labour Minister should have special concern, particularly Education and Social Welfare.

Deputy Bruton has been deprived of the very important Department of Energy. I remember that grand old Cato of Fine Gael, Deputy Kelly, being stripped of power in order to passify the yearnings of Deputy Michael O'Leary to have important up-front portfolios in the previous Government. Deputy O'Leary was given charge of the very important Department of Energy. It was only a step from the Department of Energy to the Fine Gael Whip. Deputy O'Leary took that step. I do not want to try to be a prophet but it looks to me as if the Tánaiste is now being installed in the Department of Energy as a prelude to moving over to take the Fine Gael Whip. This also could be a reason for Deputy Cluskey removing himself as quickly as possible from the Government which, as he sees it, are compromising Labour Party policy.

Mr. Flynn

It would not cost him any heartache at all to take that step.

Mr. Wilson

The Programme for Government, I suggest, contains some of the philosophical elements of the Labour Party, some elements from the Fine Gael centre, and from those elements Government legislation and action were to flow.

Recently a biography of Seán Lemass, former Taoiseach, was published and a basic question was very prominent when he was conducting the affairs of Industry and Commerce. It is important that a political party should have clear views on how they see the role of semi-State bodies and private enterprise in our economy. Seán Lemass had that clear vision and I maintain that the party on this side of the House still have that clear vision and will support and sustain semi-State companies when it is necessary, when private enterprise falls down in any sector in the economy. In such circumstances we see it as the duty of the Government either to sustain the semi-State companies already there or to create new ones. I am only making a pitch for an efficient, well run and if possible, having regard to the economic conditions prevailing, profit making companies which would help to sustain the State.

In his speech, Deputy Cluskey said that the disposal of our natural resources to the private sector is not part of the Programme for Government between the two parties now in Government. On that basis it is quite clear that what Deputy Cluskey said — its logic is overwhelming — is that his colleagues are remaining in Government and sustaining a policy which is not Labour policy or part of the agreed Programme for Government upon which the Government are acting.

The Tánaiste is a courteous Member of the House, a personable Member, but I am afraid that the same thing the Government, with a vast majority of Fine Gael members, have done in relation to Deputy Cluskey they also did in relation to the Tánaiste. The carpet has been worn in the last six months by delegations — and I was on two of them — to the Minister for the Environment to try to get some money for the local authorities to run their affairs. Did the Government see to it that that money was available to this Labour Minister who also holds the constitutional position of Tánaiste? They certainly did not. The Labour Minister for the Environment and Tánaiste was screwed by his colleagues in Government so far as the provision of finances for local government were concerned.

Deputy Cluskey is right to cast a sceptical eye on the activities of this Government in relation to semi-State bodies. I do not have to list the various semi-State bodies which have come under the strictures of this Government since they took office. It is not long since we debated the totally indefensible attack made on Udarás na Gaeltachta by another Fine Gael Member of the Government. The semi-State body which runs the Tuam factory is watched with a wary eye. If there is an ideological urge against public ownership or semi-State bodies in the Fine Gael Party and the Fine Gael Members of the Government, the Labour Party will have to resist it in the same way as Deputy Cluskey resisted it. There is no better way than to say: "That is not part of our policy. That is not part of our philosophy. We are leaving you to it."

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would leave the adjournment debate and come back to the resolution before the House.

Mr. Wilson

I maintain that I am making points very relevant to this debate. I have not time or I might argue with the Chair in a civil fashion that the basic problem is that of private enterprise and the semi-State sector of the economy. On several occasions this has surfaced as a cnámh spáirne within the Government.

In his brief contribution Deputy Mac Giolla said that stability in Government was good for the conservative element of our society but bad for the workers. I am inclined to agree with him.

The basic economic objective of this Government, as stated over and over again, has been to eliminate inflation. That is a desirable objective, provided everything else is not forgotten in the attempt to bring down inflation or eliminate it altogether. There was a period in the history of the world when inflation was killed over a decade and we had the largest number of unemployed people ever. I am talking about the depressed period of the thirties. At the end of the thirties, £1 would buy more than it would at the beginning of the thirties.

An Ceann Comhairle

Even Deputy Wilson would have difficulty in relating that line of argument to the resolution before the House. It is far wide of the subject of the resolution.

Mr. Wilson

It is not. I am talking about the Labour Party in Government and what they have to put up with. In Government the Labour Party should be concerned about unemployment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair would not seek to prevent a passing reference to that, but when the Deputy goes on and on in that strain it is very far from the resolution before the House.

Mr. Wilson

I submit that the 200,000 who are unemployed would not be satisfied with a passing reference. The 11 Fine Gael and four Labour Ministers who are charged with running the country should be addressing themselves to that as of now.

An Ceann Comhairle

There would not be enough copies of Standing Orders to go around the 200,000. Deputy Wilson has one of them and he knows he should keep to the resolution before the House.

Mr. Wilson

The resolution before the House is concerned with appointing a Labour Deputy to the Government to replace another Labour Deputy who had to leave the Government on a matter of principle, a principle which revolved around whether the method of funding the Gas Company was for the common good. The Ceann Comhairle must admit that we should be discussing basic and fundamental philosophy. We are not.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have an opportunity to do that for two long days, I understand, on the adjournment debate. That is what is troubling the Chair.

Mr. Wilson

I was in the House when Deputy MacLoughlin from Meath spoke abusively. I was sorry to hear him. He is a young Deputy. He was used as a tool in this debate. There was no intervention from the Chair. I am trying to take it at a different level and I am being blocked every moment.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think so.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy McLoughlin was allowed to be personally abusive.

Mr. Wilson

We are talking about an appointment to the Government which arises because of a resignation from the Government on what the Deputy called a point of principle. I am pointing out some of the illogicalities in his statement. He said there was an agreed policy for Government, and that this particular exercise was not part of that agreed policy between the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party. Everybody knows that. Everybody heard Deputy Cluskey saying that. Therefore the most important object of this debate must be to decide clearly in our own minds where we stand on that point.

It seems to everybody that Deputy Cluskey has come to the conclusion that a balanced view with regard to semi-State bodies will not be entertained by the Government due to the predominance of the Fine Gael Party in that Government. That is a recipe for the instability, the inertia and the lack of action we have had over a wide range of Government activities. That is the point I am making.

I did not wish Deputy Quinn well in his new portfolio. I do so now. I pointed out certain weaknesses which were apparent in that portfolio up to now. I pointed out what a change to the Department of Energy meant for the last leader of the Labour Party and I am warning the Tánaiste that he may he heading for the same fate.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I regret that the cause for the resignation of the former Minister, Deputy Cluskey, has not been explained fully. The public are not fully aware of precisely what the argument is behind Deputy Cluskey's resignation. I accept that he resigned on very honourable, high-minded and dignified grounds, but we have a right to know precisely what caused this step to be taken. I doubt very much that the public are aware of the reasons for the resignation. They have gone completely over everybody's head.

Today we heard contradictory arguments put by Deputy O'Malley who seemed to indicate that the matter is much more trivial than is being suggested. I do not know whether that is the case. We have a right to know and I hope the issue will be cleared up.

I want to congratulate the new Ministers on their appointments and the Ministers who have had different responsibilities transferred to them. I welcome the merging of the Department of Industry with the Department of Trade Commerce and Tourism. That is a very welcome move. It would have been welcomed in its own right without the resignation of the political head of the Department. I hope that only technical problems exist to prevent a change in the name of the Department from the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism to something more realistic like the Department of Trade and Tourism. That would be helpful.

In merging the Departments the Taoiseach might give some consideration to adding Fóir Teoranta to the agencies responsible to the Department. It would be helpful if one Minister had all these agencies under his own guidance and if the Minister having responsibility for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism would give all those agencies together a mutual sense of direction and orientation. I do not want to be critical of those agencies but it is very difficult when there are different agencies working for different Ministers to get the kind of efficient response which is needed from all three agencies when occasionally they are required to intervene if companies are being attracted to invest here or if companies are in difficulty.

I hope the Taoiseach will consider allocating responsibility for Fóir Teoranta to the new Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism and that he will charge that Minister with responsibility for bringing in an employment policy as part of an industrial policy which will preclude any inefficiencies or sluggishness on the part of the State, the Civil Service, legislative committees or agencies. All stops must be pulled out to ensure that the maximum is done for employment.

Instead of eliminating the current budget deficit over a fixed period as the Central Bank are suggesting, there is an argument to be made that the current budget deficit should be reduced to an acceptable percentage of GNP in favour of a fuller employment policy. I know that this is more relevant to the Adjournment Debate but I believe that the guidelines set down by the Central Bank in December 1982 were very worthy. However——

An Ceann Comhairle

This is hardly relevant. The Deputy is going into too much detail.

Mr. G. Mitchell

——we have to take account of social costing and social accounting. I do not believe that the division of responsibility for Trade and Commerce from Industry lends itself to the sort of accounting we should be doing. The new Minister should be given exceptional powers to deal with the unemployment problem and if that means a change of policy in other areas, particularly in relation to the current budget deficit, the Government should not be afraid to take that step.

The Government should govern strongly and the new Ministers should be given responsibility and made account for that responsibility so that the wishes and desires of this House and of the Government are implemented throughout the public service. Every possible power should be used to further the cause of employment and to eliminate obstructions to the maintenance of employment and the creation of further employment. I hope the Taoiseach will charge each Minister and Minister of State with that responsibility primarily. I hope procedures for getting ministerial recommendations before the Cabinet will be seriously overhauled and that a speedy machinery will be devised for bringing forward such recommendations, particularly when they relate to employment. I hope the Taoiseach and Ministers will take cognisance of the need to remove all inefficiencies and obstacles regarding employment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach to conclude.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I understand that we agreed as a concession that the Taoiseach would have 15 minutes to reply. Could I have one minute to put a series of questions to the Taoiseach?

An Ceann Comhairle

There is an order of the House and I have no authority.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Would the Taoiseach indicate in his reply where now stands the doctrine of Cabinet confidentiality in view of the statements that have issued from the former Minister and, more seriously, in view of the corrections to that statement by a spokesman on behalf of the Taoiseach? In view of what Deputy Cluskey said today, that the Joint Programme for Government made no reference—

An Ceann Comhairle

I must call the Taoiseach.

Mr. O'Kennedy

This is very important.

An Ceann Comhairle

It may be but the Deputy should have made his case today when his party agreed to this arrangement.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I think the Taoiseach would want to reassure us as to where we stand on these issues.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is bound by an order of the House.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I hope the Taoiseach will address himself to the question of collective Cabinet responsibility and confidentiality since he himself, it appears, has seen fit to break that fundamental principle.

The Taoiseach

On behalf of those concerned, I thank Deputies for the congratulations offered on their appointments. The reallocation of functions in the area of industry, trade, commerce, tourism and energy has been carried out on its own merits in the light of experience and in the light of developments in the energy area. In fact, the changes involved and the reallocation of responsibilities were in contemplation for several months past and would have occurred in any event, probably in January, had they not been brought forward necessarily by the event of Deputy Cluskey's resignation. I would add that the range and importance of the functions undertaken by Deputy Bruton are unaffected in the redistribution of functions within the overall area and leave the position unchanged, contrary to suggestions made by some speakers.

On an extraneous point, the attack on the Tánaiste in relation to the building industry, while we all know that we are going through a deep recession which affects the building industry more than most, it is worth making two points. The drop of 7 per cent in housing completions that occurred last year under Fianna Fáil was halted in the first half of this year. Secondly, in the four months to November cement sales were 13.5 per cent up on the previous four months and the index of cement sales jumped from 119 to 136 points between October and November alone. That is not to say that the position of the building industry is satisfactory—of course it is not, inevitably in the present crisis. A one-sided picture has been given and it is right that I should correct it to that extent.

The allegation has been made that I abstained in the vote in Cabinet. I do not know the source of this allegation. There may be occasions when consensus in Government is such as scarcely to require a formal statement of his position by the Taoiseach. Very often decisions are arrived at easily or simply and it would be absurd to put one's position on the record each time. If any people think that an issue of this kind falls into that category, or that I would so consider it, they are totally mistaken. I do not know the source of this allegation; it is not correct. It would be improper for me to say more or to say anything as to how I judged this issue or what my view or the view of anybody else in Government was, but I am entitled to repudiate that allegation, upon which the Opposition based so much of their attack, although perhaps that is too strong a word.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Did the Taoiseach instruct or authorise his press officer—

The Taoiseach

I am speaking for myself alone here and I will say no more than that on the subject. It would be improper to do so. Deputy Cluskey has answered effectively the allegations that his resignation related to any issue other than that of which he spoke. The House knows Deputy Cluskey long enough to realise that he is a man who says what he thinks and does not hide his thoughts. I need say no more on that subject. He has made his position clear.

To return to the central issue which brought about his resignation, before we left office in 1982 we took a general decision. The Leader of the Opposition has tried to suggest that we had entered into a detailed agreement, by the terms of which they were then bound. The decision we took was a general one, that Dublin Gas Company should be encouraged to implement their modernisation programme increasing gas sales in Dublin by a certain factor within a five to eight year period and that, subject to performance being satisfactory, sufficient gas should be allocated to the company accordingly and that, subject to agreement on price and other details of the contract with Bord Gáis Éireann, an assurance of a supply of gas to replace the Dublin Gas Company's approximate present requirement of naphtha feed-stock should be given. That decision, in principle, was the only decision which we took.

The negotiations with a view to seeing whether satisfactory terms as required could be achieved was carried out by our predecessors in Government. They negotiated an agreement which they signed and a supplemental agreement which, if I recall correctly, they initialled and five days before the Government changed they authorised the sending of a letter to the Dublin Gas Company of indication of intent. We inherited this position and formed the view, on examining what had been done, that that involved an agreement onerous on the State and unduly favourable to the interests concerned. Accordingly, we set about renegotiating that agreement. That renegotiation has involved an increase in the State's share of ordinary profits from 50 to 56 per cent and the introduction of a totally new clause to transfer to the State a larger share of any profits made in excess of the stated rate of return.

The effect of these two elements of renegotiation are that in 1991 on the base case—that is assuming that things proceed in accordance with the estimates that have been made—on that hypothesis, the shareholders' proportion of profits would now be £3 million out of £30 million, as against the £6¼ million under the terms negotiated by Fianna Fáil. The scale of the difference between the two shows the gross inadequacy of the negotiation by the previous Government which left such a share of profits in the hands of private shareholders beyond that amount necessary to secure agreement. That has been proven by the renegotiation which we undertook, despite the disadvantages under which we laboured because of the initialling of the supplemental agreement and the issue of the letter of 9 December.

We also negotiated an increase in the State's voting rights, shareholding and board representation, the right to nominate the chairman of the board for the first two and a half years and the right to appoint an officer responsible to the Minister for Industry and Energy to oversee the implementation of the development and conversion programme so as to minimise the risks of the project to the State. These are substantial measures of renegotiation. They were reported to the Government at the meeting at which the decision was finally taken. There remains one matter in respect of which some dissatisfaction—

Mr. Haughey

On a point of order, with all due deference to the Taoiseach, he sought from us our agreement to a concessionary 15 minutes whereby he could reply to the debate. I put it to him and to the Chair that in going into the details of the agreement and the negotiations in this way, he is departing from what I took to be——

Mr. J. Bruton

Taxing your powers of concentration.

Mr. Haughey

——departing from what I took to be the purpose of granting him this concessionary 15 minutes. I want to suggest——

The Taoiseach

I am telling the truth. I would ask to be allowed the 15 minutes.

Mr. E. Collins

Let the Taoiseach speak.

Mr. Haughey

On the only document being made available to the House it is unfair of the Taoiseach to be going into these details with us at this stage.

The Taoiseach

I intend to continue and to tell the House the circumstances in which the resignation occurred. This renegotiation was carried out. There remained one matter in respect of which dissatisfaction was felt — that is the hardship clause in relation to a situation where the targets were not met under which representations could be made to the Government for alleviation of the terms. It appeared to the Government that this clause, because of its wording — another deficiency of the negotiation by our predecessors — might be open to some interpretation which would leave some obligation on the Government. That clause has now also been renegotiated following that Government meeting.

Deputy Cluskey took the view that, despite the improvements in the terms and despite the Government's renegotiation of the hardship clause which was under way at the time of his resignation, nonetheless the terms as finally agreed did not measure up to his criteria and he felt that they were not satisfactory, a view he was entitled to and an honourable view. On that basis, he took the honourable decision to resign from the Government. I am entitled to make quite clear the extent to which we found an unsatisfactory agreement and improved upon it radically during the period in office when we had the chance to do so. I am very glad that we had that opportunity and that the situation has not been left as it was when the Government changed a year ago.

There are some in Fianna Fáil who will find it difficult to understand a decision to resign on a point of principle. That is not true of all. There is an honourable record there. Deputy Smith resigned many years ago on a point of principle. More recently, Deputy O'Malley and Senator O'Donoghue did so. Others in Fianna Fáil——

Mr. J. Mitchell

Deputy Boland.

The Taoiseach

Indeed, the then Deputy Boland did so and I am glad to be reminded of that fact. Others did not so resign in similar circumstances and other action had to be taken. However, that tradition of honourable resignation on a point of principle, which is one that members of both parties at different times have taken very seriously indeed, has been pursued by Deputy Cluskey, as he was entitled to do. I respect that tradition.

Mr. Tunney

It does not seem to apply to those who remain.

The Taoiseach

The final thing which I want to——

Mr. Haughey

The Taoiseach was going to resign over the heavy gang and did not. Remember the time the Taoiseach was going to resign over the heavy gang.

The Taoiseach

Everybody is entitled to his or her own judgment.

Mr. Haughey

Tell me about that.

The Taoiseach

There is one final point which I want to make in the concluding couple of minutes. I listened carefully to what Deputy O'Malley said with regard to another aspect of natural resources. I am not too sure as to what implications might be taken from what he said. I am sorry that he is not present at the moment. I believe that I judge Deputy O'Malley correctly in that he would not wish to imply that in a matter of the use of our natural resources, the property of the people, this Government over which I have the honour to preside would do other than act in that interest and in no other interest whatever. I would hope that that is accepted by him and by others. That would be the sole consideration influencing the decision. It is open at any time to anybody to fault a decision taken, as we fault the decision taken by our predecessors with regard to Dublin Gas which we had to retrieve. Mistakes can be made and may have to be retrieved.

Mr. O'Kennedy

He is the greatest chancer. He never said a word about it before Deputy Cluskey resigned.

The Taoiseach

I would simply like to say that I believe Deputy O'Malley would not wish to reflect in any way on the honourable character of our carrying on of the business of the State in the interests of the people.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is motion No. 4 agreed to?

Mr. Haughey

No. To approve of their little squabbles?

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá. 83; Níl 73.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Myra.
• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bermingham, Joe.
• Birmingham, George Martin.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick Mark.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Crowley, Frank.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Martin Austin.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McCartin, Joe.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Ryan, John.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Dea, William.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Francis.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzsimons, Jim.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Geogheghan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gregory-Independent, Tony.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• O'Keeffe, Edmond.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and V. Brady.

Question declared carried.