Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1986

Vol. 363 No. 15

Confidence in Government: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Tánaiste today:

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

Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute therefor: "has no confidence in the Taoiseach."

— (Deputy Haughey).

Dr. O'Connell

This is the Taoiseach whose leadership has been irreversibly flawed, according to Bruce Arnold in this morning's Irish Independent. This is the Taoiseach who prided himself on his integrity, a man who would never deliberately mislead the public, a man who would not make election promises, a man who had an abhorrence of the politics of promise; this is the man who promised to promise nothing. This was the most evocative of all — his abhorrence of the politics of promise, but his Programme for Government of December 1982 contained a promise more heady than the abolition of rates or the building of airports, and that was the promise to phase out the current budget deficit by 1987. This unrealistic promise appealed to a diverse group of people.

This self-righteous individual, this man who made a very vicious and venomous attack on the Leader of the Opposition on 11 December 1979, now finds himself in the dock, facing the bar of public opinion, finds himself under attack because of untruths and deceptions and because of his lack of courage in carrying out his duty as Taoiseach. In his speech on 11 December 1979 he made a plethora of sanctimoneous attacks on Deputy Haughey, unprecedented in the history of Dáil Éireann. I will not go into too much detail about this, but in my view this Taoiseach set the precedent for arguing the merits of an individual Taoiseach and he is a justifiable target for such comments now. I would like to quote what he said on 11 December 1979, because his comments are very apt in today's context and in today's debate. At column 1335 of the Official Report he said, when referring to the then Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey:

...He has shown himself, especially and most relevantly in this decade, more concerned with public relations and less with achievement than is acceptable in a Minister.

That is equally relevant to this Taoiseach whose tenure of office as Taoiseach has been propped up by the national handlers who created an image which he has not lived up to unfortunately. In 1979 he had the temerity to say that Deputy Haughey had a flawed character. I am not discussing flawed characters but I am discussing what Bruce Arnold described this morning as flawed leadership. This Taoiseach set high standards for others, standards which he has not lived up to despite his media image as Mr. Clean. On 11 December 1979 the present Taoiseach said he did not have political ambition as such, but rather that he had ambition with conviction. He did not have the courage of his convictions last week when he was making his Cabinet reshuffle, and the reason would seem to stem from naked political ambition.

In that same speech at column 1331 he said something which is very important in the context of today's debate:

For the mixture of men and motives artificially concocted to create a formal majority for Deputy Haughey when this debate ends must be frail and fragile; it cannot survive indefinitely the pressures on it imposed by his — I must say it — flawed character.

I see that as being very relevant to the present position. This man has not shown himself capable of exercising his authority as Taoiseach — his authority has been undermined by one of his Ministers and he has not taken appropriate action against him. He has shown himself to be as volatile as some of the opinion polls. He has shown himself as incapable of making firm decisions. At column 1328 of the Official Report of 11 December 1979 the present Taoiseach said, and I think it is very relevant to today's debate:

Formally, of course, he will secure a majority of votes. He will fulfil the constitutional requirement to form a Government...

— in this case to continue a Government—

...As democrats we must respect the forms of democracy, even when the true spirit of the democratic system is not breathed into these forms but though we must respect these forms we are entitled to comment on the emptiness of this formality.

Today's formality is empty.

The feet going through the lobby to support his continuation as Taoiseach will include many which will drag — those of the Ministers he sacked, those of the Ministers he demoted and the Deputies he failed to promote. The hearts of many who will climb those stairs before turning aside to vote will be heavy. Many of those who may vote for him will be doing so in the belief and the hope that they will not have long to serve under a man they do not respect. These men and women who may give their formal consent will withhold their full consent in the interior forum.

This is very apposite to the position in which the Taoiseach finds himself today. It is ironic that we should be discussing this subject today, a Taoiseach whose leadership is flawed, a Taoiseach who has not been able to command the respect of his Ministers, a Taoiseach who failed to exercise his authority under Article 28 of the Constitution, a Taoiseach who failed to bring to the attention of the President the fact that a Minister refused to obey him. In those circumstances this Taoiseach has no alternative but to resign, if he has any honour. This Taoiseach has an obligation to come into this House and clarify what he said this morning. When Deputy Haughey, Leader of the Opposition, asked if a Government meeting had taken place last Thursday, he said yes, but he did not say whether the meeting took place before he made his announcement here at 4.50 p.m. That is the question we would like answered.

Mr. Prendergast

This motion calls on us to reaffirm confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government and I am speaking in total support of this motion. I cannot help but reflect on how many of the people I have to deal with every day and every week in my constituency will view putting down a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach at this time when there are nearly 240,000 unemployed.

Mr. Haughey

That is why we put it down.

Mr. Prendergast

It is sad to reflect that this House meets somewhere in the region of between 90 and 100 days in the year and we are devoting two full days to a vote of no confidence in the Taoiseach. The motion is divided into two parts, one referring to the Taoiseach and the other to the Government. The Taoiseach is not the leader of my party so I can speak about him with a reasonable degree of objectivity. On the one hand his achievements on the international stage have been considerable. On the other, his performance on the domestic scene, while it inspires confidence in most respects, has had its share of ups and downs.

I was glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition preface his remarks this morning by saying that he would not speak in a personal manner about the Taoiseach but in a purely political sense. Not even the Taoiseach's most vitriolic political opponent could truthfully allege that the Taoiseach was anything but a very worthy person and worthy representative of this nation.

As an international statesman the Taoiseach has embellished Ireland's reputation abroad. The Taoiseach's performance as president of the Council of Ministers in Europe has been very distinguished and has resulted in an increased awareness not only of Europe in Ireland but of Ireland in Europe. On the signing of the Lomé Convention which tied in a number of African countries with their former colonial masters in Europe now under the EC, when there was a danger that the negotiations would break down because of the refusal of some of the EC countries to deal with their former African colonial powers, the Taoiseach intervened and stated that with the kind of arrogance which is common to colonial powers, the powers in Europe like France, Italy and other countries formerly involved in the colonies, did not understand the meaning of what it was to be a subject people but that we understood that well. That Taoiseach relayed that to his counterparts in the EC and by his statesmanship in that situation managed to avoid hurt and to assuage the feelings of the people who had been hurt by some of what went on there, and he was able to pilot that agreement through. That agreement was of major benefit to the countries concerned and vicariously, to this country through the actions of the Taoiseach.

It is one of the ironies of this debate that Fianna Fáil have chosen to table a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach within days of the award to him of the highest honour that can be bestowed by the German people. Hugh Leonard said in his cryptic humourous fashion that no one in this country would ever die of a swelled head. Being an insular people we have a natural characteristic of being more critical and more vicious in dealing with ourselves and we are often less generous in our recognition of the achievements of our own people than other people abroad. I need hardly remind the House of the remarks of Dr. Johnson when he spoke about Ireland and he said: "They are a remarkably fair people, they never speak well of each other." That is a characteristic that has not lost much of its potency 200 years after Dr. Johnson.

At home the Taoiseach's great achievement has been his capacity in the talks on Northern Ireland and his work in bringing the people together and in binding together the New Ireland Forum, of which I had the honour to be a member for 15 months. I regard that as being one of the greatest experiences of my life. It certainly rewarded me and justified my involvement in politics. After the New Ireland Forum we saw the emergence of the Anglo-Irish agreement which was due in no small measure to the tenacity of the Taoiseach. I come from the oldest city in this country, a city three years older than the Charter of London under John on 18 July 1175 in Limerick. During those 800 years the energies of the Irish people have been directed towards getting Britain to withdraw from this country. For the first time in eight centuries we saw an admission by Britain before the legislators of the world, America, the UN and the EC, that she was prepared to withdraw from this country when the majority opinion of the people in the North so determined. Agus is cuma cé chomh fada an oíche, sa deireadh tagann an lá. It does not matter how long the night, in the end the morning comes. Already we have seen a very faint but definite symptom of a change in the mentality of our Unionist brethren in the North that would have appeared unthinkable a mere two years ago.

When I was speaking at the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism yesterday — we were speaking about obscenity and violence and the impact of television on the behaviour of some of our people — I commented that the most awful obscenity I saw on our television was the shovelling of Irish corpses and their arms and limbs into plastic bags to be taken away, when they had been dismembered by bombs placed by Irishmen, however well intentioned they might think their actions were. It will be recognised in history that no other person in the history of this country made a greater effort to stop that carnage and obscenity than Deputy Dr. Garret FitzGerald coming from a family that has given distinguished service to this country for generations. Indeed, it was his people who built the very house we are sitting in.

I welcome the Taoiseach's contribution to history. I have no doubt that he will be recognised and remembered for all time for what he has tried to do in bringing together the worst and most virulent divisions in the world today, apart from those in the Lebanon. When people put down motions of no confidence in such a man can we look around and ask who by their words and gestures in the past trafficked in the human misery of our people in the North, by sloganeering for mean and base narrow political objectives and helped to perpetuate these divisions in the North of Ireland?

I cannot help remembering a slogan that was used some years ago in an American election: "Will you buy a car from this man?" When talking about confidence, there are two types of unease that can be generated in one. There is the type that can be generated if I bought a car from somebody and he forgot to give me its keys; there is the other type of person and if I bought a car from him I would ask myself was I buying the car with the original engine or if the mileage clock had not been tampered with. I do not think anybody would think in the latter way of the Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald.

What are we really talking about here? Are we talking about style or substance? A motion of confidence on the issue of style is highly questionable coming from Fianna Fáil — and it is a party to which for their achievements for the Irish people and the nation I give full credit. They seem to have lost their way and at present it is a matter of regret to most of us that the style adopted by that party in recent times sometimes borders on the fascist in that they are prepared to subjugate individual differences to the need for ensuring that the leadership is seen as almost infalliable. All of us would have our criticisms to offer of the present Government's style, especially those on the back benches who have to defend decisions in the making of which they are not involved and the rationale of which is sometimes very difficult to understand and accept.

In regard to reshuffles, I should like to put this on record as somebody who might have liked a different aspect in the reshuffle who would have understood or appreciated a greater degree of support in that regard. But enough of that, we accept the rationale of the changes that have taken place. I do not see anything wrong in bringing out the goalkeeper or fullback to play at centre field if it helps the team to give a better performance. The team itself was not changed but we can change the people in it. I am sure many of my constituents will understand what I say. The reaction I get from the people is that this is a rí-rá, a fuss about a situation that is all being “hyped” up artificially. I accept the need in a democracy for an Opposition to behave as an Opposition. I commend them for their attention to that aspect of their duties but we must be serious about what we are doing. The ordinary people are quite cynical about this two-day debate and feel we would be better engaged doing something about our real problems for which there are no easy answers. They want to know if, with the new line-up, this Government will be able to communicate their policies better and consult more often. They also hope it will concentrate the Government's mind on the key problem of unemployment. From the first day I was elected I have said that I believe our two major problems are unemployment and taxation. While unemployment may be the greatest social problem, the greatest political problem is taxation. Even if we had everybody in the country working we would still have the most unfair and inequitable taxation system in Europe, although there have been very welcome trends in the recent budget to ease the burden on the PAYE sector. I was very glad to note the imprimatur and welcome these aspects of the budget have received from my trade union colleague, Mr. Peter Cassells of the ICTU.

I should like to congratulate Deputy Michael Noonan in my own constituency on his appointment to the key portfolio of Industry. It is very important in the context of employment. In Limerick city in my own area, in an otherwise relatively good region as regards employment, there is a very large black spot. I hope he will be able to direct his energies, which are considerable, to the solution of some of our problems there. I put it to the Minister that it might not be untimely if, during his present mandate he would look at the situation which arose from changes made by one of his predecessors, Deputy O'Malley, now Leader of the Progressive Democrats, when he introduced the second job creation agency into the midwest region. I accept this was done with the best intentions for the region at that time but I think that all concerned would recognise that experience, sadly, does not bear out the expectations. It may be timely to give back the Shannon Development Company their original mandate as the sole job creation agency for the midwest region. That does not reflect in any way on the excellent work done by the IDA. There may be an unnecessary and wasteful use of scarce State resources in having two Government agencies working for the one region. Handling back the mid-west region to the Shannon Development Company for them to look after job creation in the area would be timely.

I should like also to congratulate our colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, on taking over control of Fisheries, Forestry and Tourism. This is an enormously important position. We should not under-estimate the potential for development in the national interest of these natural resource areas. May I question the wisdom of having several semi-State bodies urging the use of Irish airports? That is a wasteful exercise of scarce resources when it might more properly be left to the Shannon Development Company whose original mandate it was to promote Irish airports. That might be considered.

In the context of forestry and fisheries we all remember the recent controversy involving a proposition whereby private interests were talking about buying up our forests for the purpose of commercial exploitation. I am glad to say that the Labour presence in Government blocked that awful suggestion. I am more than glad that now we have a Labour Minister in charge of that area and that any development carried out will be in the interests of all the Irish people and the taxpayers and not just to make a profit for private enterprise and private money. For instance, it was indicated that up to £750 million might be on offer and that shows just how valuable this resource is. We must get maximum value for our people from that resource.

If we include energy we can say that a great deal of our natural resources are now under the control of Labour Ministers. While Fianna Fáil have been talking about expanding the natural gas grid Dick Spring, has been doing it quietly, maybe too quietly, yet very effectively. He has been doing it through the medium of public enterprise which under his general control and direction is becoming steadily more efficient. Let me say that as Mayor of Limerick at the time the announcement was made I welcomed very much Dick Spring's insistence——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Minister Spring.

Mr. G. Collins

I would suggest Tánaiste Spring.

Mr. Prendergast

I beg the Chair's pardon, the Tánaiste, my colleague Deputy Spring. I welcomed his insistence on adhering to the policies of our party that public enterprise would stay in public control. In Limerick city we had good reason to be aware of some of the lucrative and generous offers made, not entirely altruistically, by private enterprise sections, not ultimately for the good of the taxpayer but for themselves. Deputy Spring, Minister for Energy, blocked that and kept that enterprise in Limerick, in public control, for the benefit ultimately of the taxpayer and the PAYE sector because it is they who carry the burden of the taxation element in the budget. Eaten bread is soon forgotten and we may not be thanked for that, but it should not be forgotten that a Labour Minister saved that situation. The same will apply ultimately in Cork, Clonmel and Waterford. The consumers in those areas who are dependent on natural gas will have reason to be grateful to the Tánaiste.

It is also the responsibility of the Minister for Energy to ensure that the Irish people benefit to the maximum extent possible from any commercial discovery of oil off our shores. It is obvious to anyone reading newspaper these days that a major campaign is under way to try to extract major concessions from the Minister in this area. Like everyone else in this House, I want to see oil flowing ashore. The boost it would give to national morale and confidence would be enormous, but neither I nor my party are prepared to pay just any price. Obviously, especially if oil prices stay low for a long time, we will have to adjust our approach to the oil companies in a practical way. A slightly smaller share of some development is better than a big share of no development. I am absolutely confident that the Minister for Energy will approach this task in a way consistent with maximising the benefit for the Irish people, and I assure him that he will have the full support of the Labour Party and, I hope, the whole Government. I recognise that there are elements within the present Government who have a different philosophy from ours and that they would not share our views on that, but I hope we have their support in resisting unjustified pressure for unrealistic concessions from whatever source it comes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy, you have five minutes.

Mr. Prendergast

In trying to determine whether this motion is justified in terms of substance one must stress the Government's record in overall terms. The real achievements of the past three years will stand any critical scrutiny as time wears on. A great deal has been said about the Government's record in social welfare, for instance. This cannot be over-estimated. Any socialist government in Europe would be proud of that record. There is no element in social welfare where increases have not been better than inflation and in some cases very much better. It cannot be said too often that this is a major achievement of which both parties, especially the Labour Party, can and should be proud. I would like to think that certain backbencher Deputies in our party, through speech and action, have had an influence in maintaining awareness and sensitivity in Government on this issue.

When we came into office inflation was a burning issue. I remember campaigning in December 1982 and being asked on doorstep after doorstep what we were going to do about prices. Maybe it is a case of eaten bread being soon forgotten, but that does not seem to be remembered nowadays. That spiral of inflation which was regarded not only as a threat by housewives but was also contributing in a major way to a threat to jobs has been broken. Not all of the credit is due to Government policies but they have contributed substantially and that should be remembered.

I have mentioned the Anglo-Irish agreement but I believe it deserves fuller mention in any consideration of the Government's record. For many of us who care about the possibility of peace in Ireland and who have often felt powerless and frustrated about the possibility of achieving it, this last year has seen new hope of progress. In common with most Members of the House I hope that progress can be maintained and I have every confidence in this Government, far more than I would have in the main Opposition Party, that they will work with might and main to continue breaking down the barriers to peace and reconciliation.

One area not often thought of is the way the Government have dealt with public enterprise. I have a special interest in this as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies. In the case of Irish Shipping the discovery of trouble came too late and it was impossible to save Irish Shipping, but in other companies serious management deficiencies have been overcome and a new and welcome drive for efficiency, better planning and improved services has been initiated and jobs have been protected. The list of semi-State companies who have required remedial action is long and the reasons for the trouble usually date back to tax and irresponsible control in the late seventies.

However, the reaction of this Government has been positive and constructive. As a result the Great Southern Hotels, for instance, were rescued and are now in a profitable situation and I hope they will continue in that way. CIE remain in public ownership, and let me state that the Labour Party will do everything in their power to ensure that that company stay that way, despite pressures to privatise their profitable services. B & I are the subject of a rescue plan, like Irish Steel and NET previously.

If I had a major criticism to offer it would be that not enough has been done about unemployment generally. It is all very well to say that the rate of increase has been halved, and I welcome the schemes that Deputy Quinn, Minister for Labour, has introduced, but we need far more. I was glad to hear the Tánaiste this morning calling on the Government to devote more of their time to addressing this problem head on. It is a time bomb, not just in political terms, but also in terms of our whole social fabric. I make one small suggestion in this area from contacts I have had with other backbenchers, and I know that I am not alone in the belief that this is our most serious challenge. Backbenchers can contribute new thinking and new ideas on this task. Deputy Quinn, Minister for Labour, and Deputy Noonan, Minister for Industry and Commerce, might be willing to examine the possibility of meeting with the backbenchers more often to see what new ideas can be brought forward on this.

A great deal of work has yet to be done in the area of tax reform. The next Government, whoever they are, will reap substantial benefit from the measures this Government have put into effect to stamp out tax evasion and avoidance. The pity is that the Government who have done it are unlikely to get much credit for it. However, I believe that as the years go on the Government will get credit for the measures in the recent budget which shifted the burden of taxation away from the PAYE sector. Finally, I should like to go back to one of my favourite people in history.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You have gone over your time.

Mr. Prendergast

I will be very brief and I will finish on this. Edmund Burke on 23 March 1775 speaking on the question of reconciliation with America said: "Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom and a great nation and little minds go ill together." It behoves all of us to remember the wisdom of that maxim.

Mr. G. Collins

In a very brief comment——

Tomás Mac Giolla

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I have been offering all day.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I appreciate that you have been offering all day. I am sorry that we cannot get you in on the debate this evening. We had your name listed, but we gave no commitment. I regret that this evening we are not in a position to let you in on the debate.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I was offering before the proposed speaker, Deputy Collins, and before the previous speakers. It is for the Chair to decide on who is offering. It appears that people outside are coming in and handing around lists or whatever. Decisions are not being made here in the Chamber on people who are offering to speak, because I have been here previous to the last six speakers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Mac Giolla, the Chair makes the decisions on who is to speak next, irrespective of lists.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It does not seem that way from here in the Chamber.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You are not entitled to criticise the Chair. I have always been very fair to you and I have always allowed you to contribute in any debate, but on this particular evening I sincerely regret that I am not in a position to bring you in on the debate.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is in your power. You are in a position to do so, but you do not wish to do so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You are criticising the Chair and being out of order.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It appears to me——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You are being very unfair. You have made your position clear and I am making my position clear.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I simply want to make the position clear. I was offering before Deputy O'Connell and, as I have already pointed out, I was offering before any of those who have offered.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As I told you already, it is a two-day debate.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I am aware of that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Today is the first day. However, I am giving you no commitment about tomorrow. As of now, I regret that I cannot bring you in on the debate.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I must protest about the position.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I regret that I cannot bring you in on the debate and I am calling Deputy Collins.

Mr. G. Collins

If I may make one comment on the contribution of my colleague, Deputy Prendergast from Limerick, I do not think he would deem it unfair of me if I said that this must surely be regarded as an admission of the failures of this Government over the last three and half years in office. To ask the Dáil to indicate a lack of confidence in the Taoiseach is a very serious matter.

Tomás Mac Giolla

On a point of order, could I draw your attention, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to the fact that there is no quorum?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid there is not. Thank you.

Mr. G. Collins

I hope Deputy Mac Giolla will have a quorum tomorrow for the five or ten minutes during which he is allowed to speak.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is up to you to provide it.

Mr. G. Collins

If it takes half of the five or ten minutes off the Deputy he might not be obliged.

Notice taken that 20 Members not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Mr. G. Collins

To ask the Dáil to indicate a lack of confidence in a Taoiseach is a very serious matter indeed. It is essential that the Dáil, the Oireachtas and the country can trust the Taoiseach of the day. The truthfulness of the Taoiseach's report to this House, this Parliament, must be beyond question. Of course, his authority as Head of Government must not be in any doubt whatsoever. I regret, at the end of today's debate that no Government speaker as of yet has defended the activities of the Taoiseach in this present crisis of confidence in the Government.

Mr. F. O'Brien

There is no crisis of confidence in the Government.

Mr. G. Collins

Nobody on behalf of the Government party has in any way tried to excuse the Taoiseach's behaviour over the way in which he handled the so-called reshuffle of his team. Indeed, regrettably both the Taoiseach's truthfulness and authority are, since last week, not only in doubt but they are irretrievably tarnished, in the wake of his extraordinary failure to get the Cabinet that he wanted, by his disingenuous account to the Dáil and to the nation, through radio and television, of the events preceding his Cabinet reshuffle.

Members of this House — and members of the public more importantly — are indebted to the Tánaiste, to the Minister for Health and, indeed, to the two sacked junior Ministers for revealing the truth about the bungling and the pathetic performance of the Taoiseach and the extent of his falsity and prevarication in relation to the events preceding the announcement of his Cabinet.

According to the Constitution, the Taoiseach is the absolute authority in forming his Cabinet. Yet the Tánaiste unequivocally revealed that he and his party influenced — nay, even dictated — the composition of the Cabinet. The extent of the influence would appear to have been a very serious extension of what would normally be accepted as reasonable representations, even in a Coalition situation. On this occasion, the Minister for Health told the Taoiseach straight out that he was not moving and the Taoiseach had to accept that situation. He obviously lost the run of his reason then — not unusual once set off the leash of the national handlers and the media manipulators — and he proceeded to "butch together" a Cabinet which reflects anything but the careful matching of talents to responsibilities.

He has put a failed Minister for Finance back into Finance; he as put a disastrous Minister for Education into Social Welfare. Indeed, can anyone conceive of a more inappropriate appointment to Social Welfare than Deputy Hussey, whose inability to sympathise with teachers can only indicate a personal disposition that would suggest that the chances of her showing sympathy to the unemployed, the old and the poor are extremely remote? He had to rescue a failed Minister for Justice and it is obvious that he has not only cast personalities in inappropriate roles but, much more seriously, he has misrepresented the truth of what went on before his announcment of his new Cabinet.

While running around without his horde of advisers, the Taoiseach took considerable liberty with the truth in stating that Deputy D'Arcy and Deputy Creed had resigned. In an interview with The Cork Examiner on 17 February 1986, Deputy Creed is quoted as saying that if Garret FitzGerald said he resigned, then the Taoiseach was telling a lie. I am quoting what a member of the Taoiseach's party said on 17 February to The Cork Examiner. Moreover, Deputy Creed said, he was not asked to resign and yet the Taoiseach in his Dáil statement on 18 February clearly implied that he had verbal resignations but not written ones. The implication was there that verbal resignations had been given. One must ask whether this indicates that the Taoiseach has misled the House not once on this issue but twice. In his original re-shuffle statement he announced that he had accepted the resignations of three Ministers of State. How does this accord with Deputy Creed's statement? How does it accord with the statement made on RTE by Deputy Micheal D'Arcy of Wexford that he too had refused to resign, had refused to give a verbal resignation and, indeed, had refused to give a resignation in writing?

Mr. L'Estrange

It is not the first time that happened.

Mr. G. Collins

The Taoiseach revealed quite a bit about his personal qualities in this bizarre episode, obviously he panicked in a big way.

Mr. L'Estrange

Jack Lynch tried to remove Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney and neither of them could be removed. The President had to remove them.

Mr. G. Collins

Deputy L'Estrange can have his half hour to say what he wants to say and I will not interrupt him.

Mr. L'Estrange

You are the last man who should talk about this. Deputy George Colley told Deputy Haughey that you were to be made Minister for Justice and Pádraig Faulkner Minister for Defence——

Mr. G. Collins

Deputy L'Estrange even after 20 or 30 years in this House still does not know when he should not believe his own party propaganda.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. G. Collins

May I suggest to the Deputies, who would not be here but for Deputy Mac Giolla, that I did not interfere with anybody trying to make his contribution?

Mr. Carey

But the Deputy interfered on other occasions. The last time the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke the Deputy interrupted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Carey is doing the same now.

Mr. G. Collins

The Minister for Foreign Affairs is well able to defend himself as are all Ministers for Foreign Affairs. I have no doubt that Deputy Barry will have no need to send for the storm troopers to defend him.

The Taoiseach, by behaving as he did, revealed weaknesses and a lack of authority. He revealed a lack of concern and respect for the House and the Office of the Taoiseach and he revealed contempt for the truth. I would like to quote from the leading article of The Irish Times of Friday, 14 February 1986. It stated:

Dr. Fitzgerald has given the impression of a general who has panicked under fire.

Mr. L'Estrange

We know what certain members of your party thought of The Irish Times.

Mr. G. Collins

I must be getting under the skins of certain Deputies. Nobody from the Government side has put up any defence of what the Taoiseach did. They can have all the opportunities they want of doing so. The situation has been chronicled in all the newspapers, not just The Irish Times but The Cork Examiner which said:

Oh, what a circus, oh what a show!

Garret's cover-up.

The Irish Press asked:

Whose reshuffle?

and had an inside report on a dog fight that led to a dog's dinner of a reshuffle. The Cork Examiner on Friday, 14 February said:

Cosmetic Surgery.

In the Sunday Tribune Paul Tansey said:

The Hard-Shoe Reshuffle.

John Healy in his Sounding Off column in The Irish Times said:

Barry Desmond now the real Taoiseach.

I am not on my own when I am making the facts, as I see them, known to this House.

Mr. L'Estrange

You had a good friend in the past in George Colley.

Mr. Carey

He put you where you were.

Mr. G. Collins

I want to try to put the facts before the Members of this House, so that they can rebut them and tell me where I am wrong.

Mr. Carey

You have a good photocopying machine.

Mr. G. Collins

If I am wrong I will gladly apologise for any misrepresentation of the facts I have given. There was panic, The Irish Times said. There was panic by the Taoiseach, The Cork Examiner said. There was panic according to all the Sunday papers and, indeed, The Irish Press and at last the Irish Independent in their more recent papers said there was obvious panic there. The Irish Times said:

Dr. Fitzgerald has given the impression of a general who has panicked under fire. He has responded to the unpopularity of the Budget, the bleak news from the opinion polls, and his troubles over teachers' pay and hospital closures, not by defending his fortifications to the best of his ability, but by abandoning them. He has sent Mr. Dukes to the guardroom, Mrs. Hussey to the commissariat, and taken away from Mr. Desmond half of his command.

The treatment of Mr. Dukes is nothing short of astonishing. He has earned himself a reputation as a harsh Finance Minister, but he has defended his policies — which after all are the policies of the Cabinet — with great fortitude.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. G. Collins

Deputy Carey, it is a little too late to impress your leader that you might be considered for any job in the future.

Mr. Carey

I have no aspirations.

Mr. G. Collins

I am surprised to hear that. I am listing for the House and members of the Fine Gael Party in particular, the facts of the situation as they arose which nobody on that side of the House has denied to date. Nobody has said that anything presented here is wrong. The Tánaiste spoke for half an hour this morning. He did not offer any defence whatever of the Taoiseach. There was no defence of the Taoiseach by the Tánaiste or by the Minister for Education. There are two articles in today's Irish Independent which up to now has been almost totally supportive of the Government which state that the Taoiseach must go.

It is obvious that the Taoiseach has lost the confidence of many of his own supporters. This morning the Tánaiste made a very feeble and unconvincing case for confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government. I should like to quote to him what a well known member of his administrative council said about the Taoiseach and himself:

Like Marcos in the Philippines talking to the Government about the job crisis is like talking to the wall.

The trade union movement, which is affiliated to the Labour Party, obviously does not have any confidence in the Government. They are not impressed by the role of the Labour Party in implementing Thatcherite policies. It is to be noted that the Tánaiste claimed credit, if credit is the correct word, for the shambles of a reshuffle that took place last week.

I should like to ask the Chair if I will be allowed injury time for the interruptions during the course of my contribution from the far side of the House.

Debate adjourned.