Confidence in Government: Motion.

The Tánaiste

I move:

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

I think we should begin by asking ourselves why we are having this debate at all. At a time when the volume of business to be progressed through the Dáil is as large as it has ever been, we are obliged to take two days to sit through a debate which I believe is totally unnecessary. For the next two days, we are going to have to listen to Opposition speaker after Opposition speaker, each one puffed up and sanctimonious, indulging in abuse and name calling, and using the privilege of the House to slander as many of us on this side as possible. At the end of it all, with not a single solution brought forward to any of our economic or social problems, the combined Opposition parties will lose the vote.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Each speech is confined to 30 minutes with the exception of two which are confined to 45 minutes. It is reasonable that each speaker should get a hearing. I intend to do my best to see that he does and I ask for the co-operation of the House.

The Tánaiste

We have lost the team who were so anxious to bring down the Government a few minutes ago. Surely people outside this House will be entitled to ask why we have to go through this charade. The reason, of course, is simple. We have a main Opposition party of distinction and of genius. The one thing that has distinguished the Opposition in the last three years has been their unerring capacity — indeed their genius — for cheap and tatty politics. Once again, in the next two days, they are going to excel themselves. Instead of even attempting to address our problems as a country, with even the slightest degree of constructive criticism, we are going to witness a Fianna Fáil their founders would be ashamed of. Whatever one might feel about the policies and attitudes Fianna Fáil used to represent in the thirties and forties, and right up to the seventies, at least they managed to avoid going in for the "cheap shot" politics that have become the order of the day in the party now.

The abuse is not even going to be original. At the end of it all, we will not be able to identify a single member of Fianna Fáil who has stood out from the crowd. One after the other they will all troop in to try to impress their Leader with the quality of their venom. That is the way of things with them now — no independence of thought, no openness of mind. The ones with any grace left will only have the grace to stay silent.

Well, I can say to the Opposition benches, I have not come here to apologise to them for anything I have done in the last three years or to apologise for anything in which the Labour Party have participated in that time, or to apologise for the work and the substantial and significant achievements of this Government. I am proud of my own record in that period; I am proud of the role the Labour Party have played; and I am proud of the achievements of the Government. Far from apologising, especially to the cynical opportunists over there, I have not the slightest hesitation in asking the House to reaffirm confidence in the Taoiseach and in the Government.

I want briefly to suggest that an examination of the record of this Government fully justifies that confidence. When we came into office, a number of things became apparent. First, a whole series of shady and sinister events had undermined public confidence, particularly in the Garda Síochána. Many of these events, which were, to say the least of it, suggestive of a willingness to manipulate the gardaí for personal and political purposes, were suspicious in the extreme. I shudder to think what the consequences for democracy might have been had this process been allowed to continue. Happily, it was stopped with the removal of Fianna Fáil from office, and the level of public confidence in the Garda — and, I would suggest, the morale of the force itself — is now at the high level that is necessary.

Secondly, we inherited a budgetary situation which had brought the country to the brink of collapse. In the year before they had lost office, Fianna Fáil had fraudulently misrepresented the estimates of expenditure, in a desperate attempt to hide the extent of the damage they were causing.

Mr. Haughey

The Tánaiste is one to talk about that.

The Tánaiste

The Deputy will get his chance, his last chance I suggest. If that situation had been allowed to continue, the result would have been — and I assert this solemnly — that our country would have faced bankruptcy, and dependence on the goodwill of foreign banks and the International Monetary Fund. The consequences of that for our social services, for the unemployed, for education, health and housing would have been unsupportable.

A Deputy

We are living in cuckoo land.

The Tánaiste

Without planning permission. We moved quickly, as we had to, to avert that situation, in the interests of protecting those very services from the more drastic consequences of Fianna Fáil's criminal lack of responsibility and we have been working ever since to ensure that we retain control of this country's economic independence. We have been doing so while, at the same time, ensuring that the modest reduction in public expenditure which are essential are carried out with regard to the need, in particular, to protect the poor from their effects. We have achieved a situation where expenditure is being controlled, on the one hand, and on the other hand we have produced the best record of any Government in Europe in regard to pensions, unemployment benefits, and assistance to those in need.

Fianna Fáil's contribution to this in that time has been to describe us as "miserly book-keepers" when we reach our targets, and as "reckless spendthrifts" when we soften or modify those targets. Typical of their concern for credibility!

Thirdly, we inherited a situation in Northern Ireland where progress towards peace had become bogged down in the pettiness of Fianna Fáil's position. Relations with the British Government, which are an essential prerequisite to progress, were at an all-time low, and again, the consequences of that unhappy situation were being visited on ordinary men and women on our island.

We set about rebuilding those relationships and fashioning a new commitment to progress. We worked hard at building a consensus among Nationalist politicians on the whole island, and moved on from that to achieve the first real breakthrough for peace, and for the rebuilding of trust, in many years. Much remains to be done if that task is to be successfully completed, and I do not believe there is anyone on this side of the House who wants to walk away from it. There would be many on the other side of the House, despite their frequent hypocritical calls on us to resign, who would be among the first to criticise us if we walked away before consolidating the progress made.

Fourthly, we inherited a PAYE sector which was heavily over-taxed, and about which the outgoing Government had done absolutely nothing, except by way of making the situation worse. They abolished a tax on wealth which was beginning to produce substantial revenue; they funked the need to get even a modest contribution from farmers; and in their pursuit of gimmicky politics, they did away with a range of revenue-creating measures.

Because of the financial situation they left behind, it took us time to get to grips with the excessive taxation of the PAYE sector, but we have made real progress in this area. Last year, for the first time in many years, the overall tax burden fell slightly: and the relief announced in the recent budget will be felt by workers at every level of the economy.

We need to do more in this area. Can we rely on help — even constructive criticism — from Fianna Fáil? The answer is no. They will oppose, as they always have, any reduction in wasteful expenditure, any widening of the tax base, any attempt to collect from evaders or any effort to bring more people into the tax net. They can be relied on absolutely to parrot the cant and special pleading of any and every pressure group they meet. If the pressure group are looking for more expenditure, Fianna Fáil will promise it; if they are looking for tax cuts, they will be promised that as well. You cannot indefinitely be all things to all men, and still stand for something, but Fianna Fáil have no interest in learning that.

Fifthly, Fianna Fáil left us a serious and growing unemployment problem. They robbed us, at the same time, of the scope to do all the things we wanted to do about it, with the result that that problem now represents the most serious we face. However, we have made progress — though not enough, not nearly enough to satisfy me. We have created many of the conditions to facilitate a faster growth in job creation.

At the same time, we have ensured that the level of support available for those without work has at least kept pace with the cost of living. We have introduced arange of new and imaginative schemes, and they have all been successful in bringing new opportunities and hope to those in search of work. The National Development Corporation Bill is at present being debated in the Seanad, and that body will soon be in a position to provide a new impetus to the search for self-sustaining jobs through commercial public sector involvement.

I should mention in relation to the NDC that I feel most strongly that Fianna Fáil have behaved disgracefully. Despite the fact that Deputy Haughey, when he met the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in December 1984, promised fulsome support for the NDC — he even went so far as to claim credit for the idea. Fianna Fáil have sneered at the NDC throughout the debate in the Dáil, with not a single thought for the jobs that are so desperately needed.

These are just some areas in which real, substantial progress has been made in the last three years and several months. I am satisfied that the record of this Government, taken as a whole, can stand up to objective scrutiny. We have grappled with very large and complex problems; we have faced the need to reconcile conflicting aspirations and groups; and we have done this against the carping, venal posturing of a main Opposition party hardly worthy of the name.

I want to say a few words now about the achievements of my own party in the last three years, because I am proud of the role we have played. I believe that we have played a very active part in Government, while maintaining the independent identity that we cherish.

We entered Government, if you like, against the advice of many who were well-disposed towards the party. It was not a good time to be in Government — there were too many tough decisions to be taken. We were all conscious of this problem but we decided, democratically, to participate anyway, and we decided to do that for two main reasons. In the first place, we felt an obligation, placed on us by the election result, to provide a measure of stability in the wake of three elections in quick succession; and secondly, we had a constituency to represent and to protect. That constituency had no one else to speak for it. There was then a real possibility that our constituency could become a victim of the enormous financial pressures in the economy, and a victim too of the pressures being exerted by a whole range of groups.

We have provided stability, at a time when the interests of all the people of this country demanded it. Yes, there have been stresses and strains in the last three years of Government, and yes, problems have arisen that at times have been very difficult to resolve, but these stresses have always been about issues — never about personalities — and they have usually been about issues that were complex in themselves, and around which there were genuine and committed views on both sides. The problems that have arisen have been solved, usually on a basis considered reasonable on all sides.

This is a two-party Government, not an authoritarian one. Debate has been free, and it has often been constructive. The decisions that we have taken have frequently been the better for that debate. Within the Labour Party we have had similar debates and even occasional stresses, but no one has walked out of the party since I became leader, claiming that it had become a dictatorship; no one has been expelled for expressing a point of view; no debate has been stifled; and no unilateral declarations of wholly new policies have been made by the leadership of the party.

(Interruptions.)

The Tánaiste

The stability of the Government is underpinned, in the final analysis, not by any fear of each other, or by a craven capitulation to more forceful personalities, but by an overall commitment to social justice, and to meaningful reform, enshrined in the Programme for Government. Despite my own conviction that the people of this country need a period of stability in which necessary decisions can be taken and implemented to address the economic realities which we face, I remain also steadfastly committed to the principles underlying that programme. Should I feel that those principles were no longer shared, then I would readily accept that there is no place for me in that Government. There is plenty of room for disagreement and debate about specific approaches to individual problems, but the underlying commitment of this Government has not changed since the day they were formed, and it must not change.

In this connection, I should take this opportunity to set out my position in regard to some recent developments in Irish politics. The emergence of the recently vanished Progressive Democratic Party has been widely acclaimed in the media as a new party which breaks the moulds in Irish politics, but it is clearly too soon to say whether the new party will make anything like the necessary electoral impact. What has not happened in Irish politics is that any party which has been weaned in Fianna Fáil has developed with any level of success.

Fianna Fáil are the Irish political party with by far the most inherent contradictions in Irish politics. They developed from the radical party of the early thirties into the highly conservative Taca-backed party of the sixties and seventies without any great difficulty and moved from the anti-Treaty party into the party that under Deputies Lemass and Lynch sought "reapproachment", at least, with the Northern Unionists. They achieved all this by demanding unswerving loyalty to the leader and a ruthless application of party discipline. Ironically it appears that it was for precisely these reasons that the Progressive Democrats were formed.

In fact, their very existence may owe more to personality clashes and the authoritarian leadership which Fianna Fáil have cultivated over the years than any policy differences which have emerged. A party without a policy is to my mind bizarre and can hardly hold any optimism for the development of improved politics in this country.

The Progressive Democrats' deputy leader recently advocated the "rolling back of the State" on television. This as with other issues needs a great deal of clarification. Would it be the schools or the hospitals that would be rolled back? Would it be the grant support schemes for industry or farming? Would it be unemployment payments or widows' pensions, or would it be the train service to the west of Ireland?

Mr. Sheehan

It would be the service to the south-west.

Mr. R. Burke

What train service to the south-west?

The Tánaiste

The Deputy would not have used it. To say that these issues need clarification would be an immense understatement. Loose talk of "rolling back the State" is no substitute for serious policy options. It may seem attractive to those who believe that large scale tax reductions are easy but the reality is that there is little room for major expenditure reductions without increasing unemployment and causing real hardship.

As a nation we can take a certain pride in our health and education facilities which have been built up since independence and which compare favourably with any country in the world with similar resources. Fianna Fáil and Deputy O'Malley's uncle played their part in that development. Do the Progressive Democrats now intend to repudiate these achievements?

The present Government have ensured that in dire economic circumstances the State has increased social welfare spending in real terms, an achievement unique in Europe over the last three years. Would the Progressive Democrats cut the old age pension or the children's allowance? This, I think, is a relevant question to ask them. Let me be blunt. No one in this House should fail to welcome the emergence of any kind of politics based on economic analysis. But if the politics of the Progressive Democrats represent a rightward swing — and at this stage, from what we know, we can only assume they do — we in the Labour Party will fight them. We will fight them in the Dáil and Seanad, and with every democratic resource available to us.

As Leader of the Labour Party, I do not feel that I can let this occasion pass without paying tribute to my colleagues who have represented the party in Government. I would like to say a special word of tribute to Deputy Joe Bermingham, who recently resigned as Minister of State at the Department of Finance. Deputy Bermingham was and remains a hard and dedicated worker both for party and for country and I believe he carries with him the respect and affection of every Member of this House.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Tánaiste

I believe I should conclude by saying some words about the future, and about the challenges that we will face. First and foremost of these is the challenge of unemployment. We have, as I have already said, taken a number of steps which will have the effect of positioning our country to take maximum advantage of recovery. The economic indicators that suggest a recovery is possible are all in place.

Our task is to turn any recovery into jobs. The measures announced last October, some of which fall due for implementation in the Finance Act, will be of very considerable benefit, particularly in terms of investment in the inner cities. The commencement of operation of the NDC will also have an impact in the medium term.

There is no room for any complacency in this area. I believe strongly that a substantial proportion of the energy of the Government must and will be dedicated in the months ahead to addressing the question of job creation. I also recognise that there is not a magic wand that can be waved, but remain convinced that through a combination of public, private and co-operative enterprise, allied to a harnessing of community spirit, we can resurrect hope in this area.

We also have a major job to do in working through the application and implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The agreement has already achieved much in restoring a certain amount of faith in the constitutional process among Nationalist people both North and South. But mistrust still holds sway among the Unionist population. We may feel that mistrust is unjustified, but we must not delude ourselves that it is not real. We have to work to break that mistrust. Our task is to persuade all the people of Northern Ireland that what we want is not domination, not any situation where we can lord it over anyone, but equality, mutual respect and co-operation.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Tánaiste

In addition, we have high hopes that we can begin this year, in the context of the Inter-Governmental Conference, the task of economic reconstruction among the devastated regions on both sides of the Border. It will give us, I hope, an opportunity to demonstrate in a concrete way our commitment to equality and to an even-handed approach. If we have made a substantial start on the road to peace on our island by the end of this term of office of this Government — and I believe we will have — then I think we will deserve to be seen as having made a contribution to the future generations who will live on this island.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Tánaiste

In other ways, too, I hope we will be seen to have made a contribution to the future. The programme of reform in the economic and social areas undertaken in the last three years has made a dramatic impact. I am confident that by the time we leave office, we will have consolidated that work and extended it significantly.

The care and protection of children; the removal of the stigma of illegitimacy; the reform of our company law; the reform of anomalies relating to house purchase — these are just some of the areas in which a great deal of work is in hand. I am confident that even before the end of this year these reforms and others will have made a considerable mark.

I remain hopeful too that this Government, unlike the one that went before it, will seriously address the other most difficult social issue, that of marital breakdown. It is my intention to speak at some length on this issue in the debate on the Labour Party Bill when it resumes next week, so I will say no more than a few words at this juncture. But I do believe it is past time that the Irish people were offered a choice on this issue. That, it seems to me, is their right and I would therefore take this opportunity to appeal for maximum support in this House for the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill on the Second Stage vote.

I have said already that I believe a general election is about 18 months away. In the time remaining, my colleagues in the Labour Party and I will be working wholeheartedly with the Taoiseach and his colleagues. I am confident that the co-operation we have enjoyed and the determination we share to build a solid base for the future of this country, will pay dividends.

When the election does come, the two parties in Government will go before the people, sharing a common record of significant achievement, but offering independent policies and philosophies for the future. For my own part, I will be apologising to no one for the record of our term of office. But I will be putting before the Irish people an independent set of policies, which will be different from those offered by other parties.

I will conclude by asserting again that I am proud of the role my Party have played in Government and the co-operation and determination of the Taoiseach and his colleagues and I am confident that, despite all the hollow jeers at the start from the Fianna Fáil benches, which then emptied in the usual manner, the record of this Government will stand the test of time.

I commend this motion to the House.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute therefor:—

"has no confidence in the Taoiseach."

My colleagues and I intend to approach this motion and discuss it entirely in political terms.

It is inevitable because of the issues involved and because the motion is concerned with personal performance, suitability and behaviour that the personality element will obtrude. I would like it to be clear, however, that in so far as these personal attributes may arise for discussion they should be interpreted entirely in a political context.

As last year drew to a close and we entered on 1986 there was a fairly widespread hopeless feeling that this Government were no longer in charge, that the economic and social situation was getting steadily worse and there was no hope that this particular Government could make any progress in tackling the nation's problems. The budget introduced by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Alan Dukes, was the point at which people finally lost all confidence in this administration and the desire to be rid of them became practically universal.

It was against this background that the Taoiseach embarked on what must certainly be recognised as having been a disastrous exercise, not just from his own personal point of view but for the country as well. The political events of last week, culminating in the Taoiseach's announcement to this House on Tuesday, amount to the greatest political fiasco which Dáil Éireann has ever witnessed. The extraordinary, frenetic atmosphere and the circumstances surrounding that announcement were without precedent or parallel.

The Irish people have been presented with an incredible spectacle and one which must cause grave doubts and serious misgivings about the way their affairs are being handled at national level. They have seen a situation unfold during the course of which the head of the Government has been shown to be unsound in his judgment, treacherous in his relationships, vacillating in his decisions, incompetent in the management of his party and his Government. The outcome of his burlesque performance has been to leave the country with a Government shaken to their foundations, uneasy and unhappy in their membership and obviously incapable of acting as a collective authority as they are directed by the Constitution to do.

We did not put forward this motion of no confidence lightly. It is the first such motion of no confidence in this Taoiseach or in the Government in over three years, even though there were many occasions when we would have been quite justified in putting one down. But we attach great importance to a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach because of his constitutional position. We believe, however, that last week's manoeuvring was an abject confession of failure by this Taoiseach and that it is our duty as Opposition to put the question of his suitability as Taoiseach to Dáil Éireann. In our view the Taoiseach has behaved in such a way as to forfeit all confidence in either himself or his Government.

No Taoiseach should attempt to continue in office who allows his capacity to rearrange his Cabinet to be disrupted by one single Minister who flouts his authority with impunity.

The farcical sequence of last week's events has been fairly well documented by the public media. The wheeling and dealing, the blustering, bartering and backstabbing went on into the early hours of Thursday morning, was resumed again later that morning and went on all day Thursday until finally, in frantic and undignified haste, the Taoiseach made it into the Dáil just minutes before it adjourned on Thursday evening, to announce a meaningless rearrangement of the same assortment of failures. What a pathetic sight that was, what a humiliation, what an insult to the Irish people and their democracy.

It is now known, for certain, that the Taoiseach totally failed to move Deputy Barry Desmond out of the Department of Health, that he was forced by the exigiencies of the situation to put members of the Government into Departments he did not want them in, that he failed to achieve the restructuring of Departments he sought, that in the end the Government were put together in a state of desperate panic. It is now admitted also that the Taoiseach misled the Dáil and the public over what took place.

The attempt by the Taoiseach to remove Deputy Barry Desmond from the Department of Health and the failure of that attempt is one of the central matters in this whole affair. Every Deputy in this House knows that the general public are aghast and incredulous at the fact that this Taoiseach is unable to move a Minister out of a Department and that a Minister of this Government can refuse to be transferred. A Taoiseach who cannot appoint and remove Ministers is no longer in fact the head of the Government, or any longer in a position to discharge his constitutional responsibilities.

The Minister for Health over the last three years has set about demolishing the health services of this country, as we have known them, with perverted zeal. He exercised his mandate as Minister for Health in an aggressive, confrontational, dictatorial and totally unacceptable manner. He has frightened and upset the patients, antagonised nurses, doctors, administrators and staffs throughout the health service. He should have been removed long ago. But the fact is that he had the full support of this Government and this Taoiseach in what he has been doing over the last three years.

There was never any public suggestion of disagreement by the Taoiseach or any other member of the Government, not, that is, until he caused consternation by his precipitate announcement without warning or consultation of the closure of eight hospitals. The story behind these closures is that on being asked to secure further reductions in the Health Estimate for 1986 he indicated to the Government that he would do so by closing these eight hospitals. In making these closures, Deputy Barry Desmond as Minister for Health was acting with the approval of the Government and the Taoiseach.

It is therefore particularly reprehensible for the Taoiseach, when the public anger burst forth, as he should have known it would, that he should try to throw his Minister to the wolves in an effort to keep them away from his own door. But it did not work and we are left with a Minister who insists that he is only prepared to serve the people of this country in one particular position on his own terms and conditions. "I will not be curbed", the Minister is quoted as saying in what amounts to open revolt. He has demanded that he be allowed to continue along the same path, which has led to a widespread breakdown and disruption of our health services and the Taoiseach has ignominiously capitulated.

I have seen references in some newspapers to the possibility that one of the principal reasons for the anxiety to get Deputy Barry Desmond out of the Department of Health was because of his insistence on pursuing the campaign to curtail the advertisement of tobacco products. From my own personal experience I know the sort of pressure that can be mounted by the tobacco lobby and I would not be prepared to dismiss these suggestions. Can we have the truth about this aspect? Was pressure brought to bear to have Deputy Desmond moved by Fine Gael big business interests? Is there a letter in the Taoiseach's office from the tobacco companies?

On Thursday night last on television, the Taoiseach gave the nation an untrue account of what had taken place and what the situation was. That, to put it mildly, was not in keeping with the standards which someone holding the post of Taoiseach is expected to uphold.

On Thursday, the Minister for Health was telling everybody, on the radio and elsewhere, how he had won the war, how he had defeated the attempt to move him. The Taoiseach, however, went on television and virtually pretended that none of it had ever happened and he specifically stated that he was very happy that Deputy Desmond was staying on as Minister for Health. Everybody knows that that was simply untrue and that he had spent the previous 24 hours trying to remove him. We now have a Minister in a key position, embroiled in controversy on many fronts, who does not have, but even more astonishingly does not need the backing of the Taoiseach.

I have here a transcript of an interview given by the Taoiseach on the "Today Tonight" programme of 13 February 1986. The interviewer asked the Taoiseach: "But could we be quite specific in regard to Barry Desmond? Is it the case that you wanted to shift him? Is it the case that he refused to be shifted?". The Taoiseach replied: "No, I discussed it with him to see what his view was.... So I'm very happy indeed for him to carry on there". That categorical "no" was a clear, specific untruth, uttered by the Taoiseach in front of the nation.

The Taoiseach stated in that same interview that it was absolutely necessary to divide the portfolios of Health and Social Welfare, because of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. He said: "I want to get that report as fast as possible implemented, and for the rest a clear direction given before the next election. That's why I have shifted Gemma Hussey". That is an untruth. The Taoiseach had already offered Deputy Hussey a post as Minister for European Affairs. Therefore, the reason the Taoiseach shifted Deputy Hussey had nothing whatever to do with the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. That "Today Tonight" interview contained a procession of untruths by the Taoiseach.

In the course of his announcement to this House on Thursday afternoon last, the Taoiseach said and I quote verbatim from the Taoiseach's announcement which I have in front of me:

In relation to Ministers of State I have today accepted the resignations of Deputy Joe Bermingham from office as Minister of State at the Department of Finance,

Deputy Michael D'Arcy from office as Minister of State at the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and at the Department of the Gaeltacht and,

Deputy Donal Creed from office as Minister of State at the Department of Education.

By making that statement the Taoiseach is guilty of most serious misconduct; misconduct which, in our view, is a resigning matter. He has misinformed the Dáil. The facts which he was aware of are different from what he has said they were. We have proof of this from two of the Ministers of State involved, Deputy Donal Creed and Deputy Michael D'Arcy.

In The Cork Examiner on Monday 17 February Deputy Donal Creed is quoted as saying:

If Garret FitzGerald said he had resigned, then the Taoiseach was telling a lie.

There is no grey area of room for doubt there. In the same paper, on the same date, Deputy Michael D'Arcy is quoted as saying that:

he had refused to resign and that the Taoiseach had told him that the decision was taken.

The Taoiseach has since admitted that what he told the Dáil on Thursday last was untrue and that neither Deputy D'Arcy nor Deputy Creed resigned. The national handlers, we are told, are busily promoting the notion that the Taoiseach was not lying but that he was using technical language in order to save the faces of the two Deputies. I am afraid, however, that subterfuge will not work. The Taoiseach had just sacked these two Deputies — dismissed them. In both cases, the dismissal was both selective and brutal and we can hardly be expected to believe in such circumstances that he was concerned about their feelings and wished to pretend that they had resigned.

Neither of the two Deputies wanted any subterfuge. They have both been very anxious to make it clear to the public that they did not resign, but that they were sacked. They did not want the Taoiseach to pretend something which was not true. Is the Taoiseach claiming that he misinterpreted their wishes, that he thought they would wish him to pretend they resigned? It is clear he had no grounds for thinking that and that he was telling an untruth for his own sake, trying to put a good face on his political manoeuvrings.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is going too far. "Telling an untruth" is not acceptable.

Mr. Haughey

I consulted your office and——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want any confrontation about it, Deputy. It is not acceptable.

Mr. Haughey

This was clearly the view of Deputy D'Arcy when he told the Sunday Independent last Sunday that:

he wanted to make it clear that while his resignation had been sought it had not been given and he was sacked from his post. Statements to the contrary are just an easy way out for some people.

In case there is still any doubt about it, let me state exactly what happened. The two Deputies in question, Deputy Creed and Deputy D'Arcy were picked out for naked party political reasons. I would not attempt to suggest to this House that Deputy D'Arcy and Deputy Creed were Ministers of outstanding ability or that they had performed brilliantly in their respective portfolios. But they were no better or no worse than most of the others.

In the case of Deputy D'Arcy, the reason for his dismissal was that Deputy Avril Doyle was thought to be in danger of losing her seat and was seen to need a political boost in the constituency. Deputy D'Arcy, therefore, had to go so that she could be promoted in an endeavour to save her seat. In the case of Deputy Creed, he had to go because Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan had to be appointed a Minister. That decent man, and I am glad The Tánaiste paid a tribute to him, with which I fully concur, Deputy Joe Bermingham, who was particular shabbily treated in this whole sordid affair was retiring. The Labour Party needed some boost in Cork and, accordingly, Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan was appointed.

We can be certain that the Taoiseach, who did not tell the Dáil the truth on Thursday last regarding the resignations of Deputies D'Arcy and Creed would not have come in here last Tuesday and admitted his untruth except for the fact that he was forced to do so by the weekend statements of Deputies D'Arcy and Creed, especially that of Deputy Creed who, in last Monday's Cork Examiner, was reported as saying:

If Garret FitzGerald said he had resigned, the Taoiseach was telling a lie.

In the course of his now famous announcement to the House, the Taoiseach also used the following words:

The Government today appointed the following Ministers of State to the Departments mentioned with the responsibilities as indicated.

The words are important because many people may not be aware of the fact that while the President appoints Ministers of the Government, it is actually the Government who appoint Ministers of State.

There is fairly substantial evidence to indicate that there was no meeting of the Government on Thursday, 13 February. If a meeting was not held on that day to make the appointments that were supposed to have been made, then it would appear that we have another inaccuracy on our hands, another straying from the truth. I am asking that this aspect too be cleared up. Was there or was there not a meeting of the Government on Thursday, 13 February as the Taoiseach said, in this House there was?

The Taoiseach

There was.

Mr. Haughey

The Taoiseach's credibility is demolished by the combined effect of a number of different aspects of this affair. First, he told an untruth on television in regard to Deputy Desmond and the Department of Health. Secondly, he told untruths in the Dáil in regard to the removal of the two Ministers of State, Deputy Creed and Deputy D'Arcy. Thirdly, he attempted to mislead the public over the reason Deputy Hussey was appointed to the Department of Social Welfare. Fourthly, there is the question as to whether his statement on Thursday, 13 February about the Government appointing new Ministers of State on that day is correct.

The removal of Deputy Alan Dukes from the Department of Finance is an admission that the budget has failed. It will clearly do nothing to remedy the Government's economic failure on virtually all fronts. Deputy Noonan's position at Justice with anarchy reigning in the prisons, low Garda morale and crime of all kinds at unprecedented levels; was becoming untenable. Here let me say that I am surprised that the Tánaiste would go back on that old canard about interference with the Garda in our time in office. It is recorded fact that I took the preliminary steps to set up a judicial inquiry into that allegation and I have challenged this Government several times to continue with that judicial inquiry and that challenge has never been taken up.

Mr. Doherty

Hear, hear.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Hussey's tenure in Education was marked by cutbacks and by a complete breakdown in relations with the teaching profession. The Minister for Health had brought chaos to the health services. So in four crucial areas, Finance, Justice, Education and Health, the Government's policies are perceived and acknowledged by the Taoiseach by this exercise to have been a failure.

The most extraordinary feature of the so-called reshuffle was that nobody was dropped. This might have been accepted if we were looking at a Government who were even moderately successful. But exactly the opposite is the case. This Government is a disaster area. They have totally failed to deal with our economic and social problems. Why have there been no newcomers, no fresh personnel? Is it really the case that there is no one in the ranks of the 69 other Fine Gael and Labour Deputies who would be capable of doing a better job than most of the present tired, demoralised, dispirited collection of failures? Again let me put the true position on the record. The Taoiseach was afraid to risk the vote of the Dáil that would have been necessary to appoint a new Minister to the Government.

I know no precedent for the removal of the Minister for Finance between the introduction of the budget and the adoption of it by the Dáil. The Taoiseach had plenty of time last autumn to reshuffle the Minister for Finance, if that were necessary in the public interest, but he did not do so.

It is quite apparent what has happened to this unfortunate Deputy. He was allowed to try his hand at a budget to see if he could get away with it. But when the public rejected it as a failure and when the unpopularity welled up, then the lamb had to be sacrificed. It is significant in this regard, that the Taoiseach has not yet spoken in the Dáil debate on the budget, even though he would normally have done so long before now. Instead, he hung back, waiting to see how it would go. We might at least have expected that the Minister who had responsibility for the budget would see it through the Dáil. Moving the Minister for Finance out of that Department within two weeks of the budget can only represent a clear disavowal and repudiation of the budget itself. If the Taoiseach is not prepared to stand over the budget and the Minister who brought it in, then the budget should be withdrawn.

There were other things which resulted from this last minute political manoeuvring which have turned it into a complete farce. One of these is the totally illogical bringing together of the Departments of Defence and the Gaeltacht. The separation of Social Welfare from Health is most inappropriate. These two Departments are closely related. Their functions and their work overlap. That will be particularly the case if this commission is to be taken aboard by the Department of Social Welfare.

It is politically irresponsible to tack Tourism on to Forestry and Fisheries. This is quite deplorable. One of the areas where it is possible and necessary to undertake a major programme of expansion and development is the tourist industry. It is detrimental to move responsibility for this vitally important area of potential development around casually in this way. I am sure that it must be very depressing for the people in the tourist industry to see it being treated as a pawn in the coalition political game.

One excuse which there is an attempt to put forward for this blundering exercise is that it arose from the nature of Coalition; that a Coalition Taoiseach does not have the same authority or freedom to appoint the people he wishes as the Taoiseach of single-party Government does. If that is so, then these events clearly confirm our argument that Coalitions are inherently unsatisfactory and incapable of providing firm and effective leadership. Does this fiasco not emphasise that a Coalition, by its very nature, cannot respond to urgent and changing circumstances because it is inherently incapable of doing so?

I am sure most Deputies noticed that when the Tánaiste was speaking a short time ago he did not go to any great lengths to express particular confidence in the Taoiseach which this debate is all about. He spent most of his time defending Deputy Spring, Labour and that party's part in this disastrous Coalition.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy should start with his own party.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is not a national handler and he should not try to become one.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Haughey

Before it all blew up in their faces, the national handlers were making a half-hearted attempt to promote the idea that this event represented the biggest re-shuffle since 1939, no less. They do try, and they can nearly always get a least one taker, as they did this time also. But this was no re-shuffle. A re-shuffle is supposed to bring new blood into the Cabinet and get rid of the deadwood. But the Taoiseach has failed to remove one single Minister from the Government or bring in one new Minister. We have the same tired collection of failures moved around in the different chairs.

This was an attempt by the Taoiseach to rebuild his crumbling Government. It has done the opposite with a vengeance. We see this as the latest in a long series of demonstrations by the Taoiseach of his general ineffectiveness and failure under pressure. We had the humiliation of the nation after the Chequers Summit in 1984; his ambivalence on the abortion amendment; the thoughtless announcement of a half-baked constitutional crusade; the silly statement in mid-1985 about the Irish economy being the healthiest in Europe — all these add up to a fairly frightening profile of unreliability.

This re-arrangement was simply a diversionary tactic. It did not indicate any change of policy or direction in any area. It was nothing more than a devious attempt to deflect criticism and anger by moving a number of Ministers around in an endeavour to create the impression that it was they who were the problem and not the policies which they were implementing on behalf of the Government.

Can it be true that this futile exercise of last week was undertaken by the Taoiseach as a panic reaction to opinion polls? We are solemnly assured by political commentators, who are supposed to know about these things, that this is, in fact, the case. If so, then there is cause for deeper concern about our country's affairs than would arise naturally from the abject failure of a Taoiseach to carry out a re-shuffle. We are, it would seem, faced with a situation where the Head of the Government is so volatile and impressionable and so unsure of his purposes that he decides serious issues, like the membership of his Government, on the basis of the latest opinion poll.

Most mature and responsible people are aware that opinion polls are of doubtful and limited value; that the results can often be contradictory, as we have seen; can often merely reflect a transient mood in the public; they are open to abuse and manipulation. If we have now reached the stage here where polls can provoke a political crisis, then I think we are in a sorry state. If we have a Taoiseach who can be rushed into a major political undertaking with enormous consequences for both himself and the country, that has implications for our parliamentary democracy. Is our country and its fortunes to be subservient to the politics of the latest opinion poll?

Last week's fiasco must be set in the context of the dismal performance of the Taoiseach over the last three years. His period in office has brought the country near to a state of economic and social collapse. There is a hopelessness, a lack of confidence, that were never there before. Pride in their country has been taken from our people. The Taoiseach has given no leadership and no inspiration. The Government have let unemployment rise to 240,000 at least. Probably up to 30,000 young people are now emigrating every year with no sign that the Government have any idea of how to tackle the problem. Taxation has risen to exorbitant levels. The burden of public debt and cumulative budget deficits has soared. There are few families in the country that do not face difficulties in making ends meet.

It is our view that this Taoiseach is personally responsible, in large measure, for the present disastrous state of the Irish economy. He has pushed his own half-baked economic analysis and theories. He seriously misjudged the state of the economy when he first came into office and gave total priority, to the exlusion of all other economic objectives, to balancing the books through the imposition of higher taxes. As the failure of that approach became increasingly evident, instead of changing it as he should have, he blindly persisted in piling tax upon tax in every single year until we have reached the present deep-seated financial crisis which made it impossible for the Government to produce a credible budget this year. The Irish economy is now overall in a state of diminishing returns.

Deputy FitzGerald's influence as a Minister and as Taoiseach on the economic life of this country since he was the leading economic spokesman for Fine Gael in 1973 has been almost uniformly disastrous. In the 1973 general election, a Coalition programme, largely put together by Deputy FitzGerald, the present Taoiseach, offered a free spending bonanza for the first time ever to the Irish electorate, including the abolition of VAT on food, the phased abolition of rates, the abolition of estate duty. That first major effort at the politics of promise was largely the work of Deputy FitzGerald. As the Dáil record shows, Deputy FitzGerald used his influence in that 1973-1977 Coalition Government to encourage the running up of a large current budget deficit and heavy foreign borrowing. And as a result 1974 was a turning point in our economic history, the year when Ireland first ceased to be a creditor nation. Deputy FitzGerald, a Minister in that Government, was the prime mover in starting the modern financial difficulties of this State.

As Leader of Fine Gael he put before the electorate in 1981 a false and deceptive programme. He falsely promised the housewives of Ireland a weekly payment of £9.60 and to reduce the standard rate of income tax to 25 per cent. Prior to, and during that campaign and afterwards in office, he engaged in an immensely damaging political campaign to undermine confidence in the solvency of the Irish economy, from which four years later the country has not yet recovered. That campaign, had the sole objective of gaining political advantage, by blackening his political opponents and proclaiming his own economic virtue.

Now let us take a look at the long list of failed initiatives introduced by the present Taoiseach over the years. He promised tax credits to introduce equity into the tax system. They have never been introduced and it is now admitted that they are inequitable in their effects. A committee of costs and competitiveness was set up to determine wage norms. That exercise turned out to be a complete non-event. The family income supplement was another device promoted by the Taoiseach to prove that he had a social conscience. Its implementation was long delayed, and no sooner had it been introduced than its abolition was forecast in Building on Reality. In the event, the uptake has been poor and the impact minimal.

Then we had a Cabinet employment task force which has neither been seen nor heard of for a long time now. If it exists, its work has been more than useless.

He allowed himself to be pushed into introducing the residential property tax, a tax which yields minimal revenue, costs the maximum to administer with no positive impact on either the finances of the economy or the nation.

The National Development Corporation, up to the fourth year of this Government have created not one single job but displaced a reasonably useful and successful agency which we had established. In reply to the Taoiseach's vague complaint about the National Development Corporation I suggest that perhaps he looks at the Estimates because he will see that there is not one penny in them for the National Development Corporation.

Another cynical political expedient produced by this Government was the land tax, for which the little lamented former Minister for Finance could not enter a single penny of assured revenue in his budget calculations this year.

Yet another fiasco was the child benefit scheme, which was to be taxable, and to provide a big boost to low income families. When it came to the point, it was impossible to administer and has been scrapped.

We see that under this Taoiseach the Government have wasted time, energy and taxpayers' money on a series of half-baked ideas and proposals one after the other that were never properly thought out, while the real problems of the nation have not been tackled.

Let us look at the Government's principal policy documents. The Joint Programme for Government, has long ago been discarded, its main provisions having been breached within a few months. Building on Reality missed its main targets on employment, on public service pay, and the budget deficit long ago. The new industrial policy has to date not even succeeded in halting the decline in industrial employment.

Let us look at the cold reality of the economy as it is now. We have a live register figure of 240,000 unemployed. We have massive emigration though good care is taken to ensure no reliable statistics are given. There is no employment policy. The construction industry has been completely devastated, with employment virtually halved since 1981. Growth has been negligible with investment down to the level of 20 years ago. Agriculture faces a bleak future. The 1977-1981 Fianna Fáil Government did create jobs, 80,000 of them. Under this administration we have only lost jobs.

Even though the national debt has soared from £12 billion to £20 billion public capital programme investment has been cut by over a third in real terms. The current budget deficit at 8.2 per cent, is at record level. Since 1982, an extra £2 billion has been extracted in taxes from the public. More than half a billion pounds extra is to be collected in taxes this year, a rise of almost 10 per cent. A budget that was heralded as reducing income tax in fact will collect an extra £217 million in income tax in 1986.

The Taoiseach has approved and defended the introduction of a grossly unfair and inequitable provision this year whereby the income of old age pensioners and charities and the savings of children will be taxed for the first time.

This Taoiseach cannot point to one single success in economic management, and even though the Irish people will look back on the ghastly years of this Coalition Government with something close to revulsion, it would appear that he is already scheming to prolong the agony of this nation with another of his disastrous Coalitions.

In the difficult and dangerous circumstances of today, people would wish to feel that they have at the head of their affairs, a person who will not collapse in a crisis, who will not cave in under pressure, who will not lose his nerve when things get difficult. There are many areas where it is essential that our interests be strongly protected by someone who is able and prepared to stand up to even the most intense pressures when this is necessary. No one can predict these days when a domestic or an international crisis will occur or a matter of life and death arise. After the events of last week, can any of us, either inside or outside this House, feel confident and reassured that all is safe and well in this country under this Taoiseach?

No matter how he tries to shuffle off responsibility for the political crisis which has now overtaken the Government, no matter how he tries to shuffle off responsibility for the economic crisis confronting the country, no matter how he tries to apportion blame to other Ministers, no matter what punishment he metes out to those Ministers for their acts of omission or commission, he is the one who must carry the can.

No matter what kind of juggling or balancing act the Taoiseach engages in, the Irish people will rightly hold him accountable for the present unacceptable state of affairs. People are growing daily more impatient waiting for the opportunity, not for the reconstruction of this Government, but for their dissolution.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Haughey

The years 1983 to 1986 have been the wasted years, when the country went steadily downhill. Difficulties mounted, national morale sank lower and lower. It is not possible to disassociate this collapse from the ineffective and bumbling leadership of the Taoiseach. Characteristically he would like to shift the blame to others. That basically is what he tried to do last week. Does anyone believe any more, no matter how long he were to cling to office, that he can provide the effective or inspired leadership that is required to lift us out of this present deep depression and get progress and development going again?

Only yesterday we had another example of the erratic and unpredictable way in which the Government handled their affairs. Only a week or two ago the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated clearly in public that in his view we were not yet in a position to sign the European Convention on Terrorism, that not enough work had been done and that the time was not yet opportune. Despite that the Taoiseach rushed to London yesterday and announced that we would sign that convention within a week. He made his announcement in the House of Commons. This Dáil is not the place for this Taoiseach to make a major announcement.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Haughey

I must ask the Taoiseach, and I am sure others will be asking the same question: why this sudden change around? Why has he totally disowned what his Minister for Foreign Affairs said a short while ago about this convention? Was it that the Taoiseach was very anxious yesterday to make some little present to the British Prime Minister on the occasion of his visit?

Mr. Sheehan

He did not take a teapot with him.

Mr. Haughey

I do not know whether Deputy Sheehan has noticed that his county man, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is in a very glum mood these days. I wonder whether this has anything to do with the fact that the Taoiseach was hoping to take away from him about half his Department and give the responsibility instead to a favourite child. Is that why we have a depressed and glum looking Minister for Foreign Affairs in the House these days?

The Taoiseach must see the enormity and the gravity of what he has done by telling untruths to Dáil Éireann and misleading the House. By repeating these falsehoods outside the House and asserting that he was happy to see Deputy Desmond remain as Minister for Health, when the whole country knew that was not true, he has broken trust with the House and the people.

It is no longer of any avail, at this stage, for the Taoiseach to tell the whole truth about this disreputable affair. The time for that has gone. This Taoiseach no longer commands credibility either in the House or outside it. His duty is clear.

We have no confidence in him, the public have no confidence in him. A large section of this own party have no confidence in him. He should avail of this motion to tender his resignation before he makes perhaps some even bigger blunder, jeopardises our interests in some irretrievable way and inflicts even greater damage on the Office of Taoiseach and our parliamentary democracy and its standards.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Minister for Education (Mr. Cooney)

One must give Deputy Haughey credit for something and the first thing that comes to mind is nerve or that attribute referred to more appropriately as neck. When I see the Deputies opposite leaving I am reminded of a biblical allusion——

Mr. O'Kennedy

We still have a better attendance than the Minister has.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Minister cannot talk.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Cooney

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Minister is bereft of ideas.

Mr. Cooney

All in this House know that what we are engaged in is a ritual political exercise. There are certain movements to be gone through, gyrations to be performed, leading to an inevitable conclusion. It surprises me that the Opposition engage in it because they know, as well as I do, that they are not going to change the Government. They know, as well as I do, that what they are engaged in is an exercise akin to whistling passing their graveyard.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

They know, as well as I do, that the stance adopted by their Leader is incredible. If this fictional stranger to whom I have referred had the knowledge of the Irish political scene we have, and more importantly that the Irish people have, he would be well aware of the incredibility of the implication in the amendment the Opposition put down because in alleging lack of confidence in the Taoiseach, and by implication in the Government, they are asserting that their Leader and their party are entitled to confidence. We owe it to ourselves to take a little time to examine that implied assertion.

I recall the last occasion when there was a no confidence debate in this House — 1975 or 1976.

Mr. B. Ahern

November 1982.

Mr. Cooney

The Opposition would remember the November 1982 no confidence debate very painfully.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

The last no confidence debate I recall when I was on this side of the House was in 1975 or 1976, and Deputy Haughey was on the other side of the House. At that stage Deputy Haughey had not completed his rehabilitation. He was working at it. We did not hear much about him for the first years of that administration because he was engaged in a very appropriate, from his point of view, political exercise of touring the Fianna Fáil Cumann around the country, restoring his political fortunes with the grassroots——

Mr. Kelly

Handing out free toothbrushes.

Mr. Cooney

That came later.

Mr. Haughey

Is that when the Minister was running the heavy gang in the Garda, when the present Taoiseach threatened to resign?

It is fully documented. We will go back to those days if the Minister likes.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

As I said, the present Leader of the Opposition was not very prominent in party affairs when we last debated a no confidence motion in a Government when I was on this side of the House. He was beginning to become prominent. He was touring the country, restoring his fortunes with the grassroots, beginning to make speeches and to adopt a more public profile. Some of his speeches were regarded as being less than helpful to the then Leader, Deputy Lynch. One thing we must give Deputy Haughey is that he is a man of infinite patience. He was quite prepared to wait and he waited from 1970 to 1979 to unseat Deputy Lynch. It was a long, carefully planned, ruthlessly executed campaign. The one thing that shows is not just patience, not just cunning, not just ability but a certain ruthlessness and lack of loyalty which is unbecoming in a person who proposes to lead a country and set the standards for that nation.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

This gets back to one of the great flaws in the party opposite and to why the implied confidence they are seeking is such an incredible claim. That party are riven from stem to stern with divisions.

Mr. Lyons

Put is to the test.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please allow the Minister to continue.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

He should withdraw that remark.

Mr. B. Ahern

The Minister had a good day yesterday, but he is letting himself down today.

The Minister is being provocative. Let us have a positive approach.

Mr. Cooney

Deputy Brady is extraordinary. He says I am scraping the bottom of the barrel when I am merely referring to political facts which happened within the last six weeks and analysing them in the context of a debate of confidence in which the relative political merits of the two sides have to be put up and examined. There is no scraping the bottom of the barrel in that. It is a perfectly proper political posture and part of the normal political polemics of this House.

Mr. Haughey

Tell us about the ticking off the Taoiseach gave the Minister.

Mr. Kelly

This Minister has barely been let speak one sentence without interruptions.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask Deputies on all sides to allow the Minister to make his contribution without any further interruptions.

Mr. N. Treacy

When he is speaking to the motion.

Mr. Kelly

That is my idea of fair play.

Mr. V. Brady

The Deputy would not know much about that.

Mr. Cooney

After that traumatic division and rift in the Fianna Fáil Party, there was quite open speculation about the need to change the leadership in that party because the rift was perceived to be a direct consequence——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

—— of dissatisfaction coming——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Keeffe, I will not allow any further interruptions. Control yourself, please.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I am telling him a few facts.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have asked the Deputy to control himself. I know it is a problem at times.

Mr. Cooney

The difficulty in the party opposite is that Deputy Haughey stands head and shoulders intellectually above his peers. Let there be no doubt about it. The great difficulty is to replace him with somebody who could match him intellectually. I know there was speculation about who this might be and various names were put forward.

Deputy MacSharry was mentioned as was Deputy Collins and for various reasons they were found wanting. Deputy Wilson, a learned man with an avuncular personality, was put forward and was rejected because possibly the Irish people would want more than somebody who would be a political Santa Claus.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

Various other people were put forward including my constitutency colleague, Deputy Mary O'Rourke. That would bring great satisfaction to us in Athlone and we would be extremely flattered.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies, please.

Mr. Cooney

This goes to show the type of discussion and panicstricken confusion there was in that party after the emergence of——

(Interruptions.)

An Cooney

——that new political party. Deputy Haughey might smile, but I have no doubt that from his sources of information within his party, because his control of his party is total, he is well aware of what was going on.

Mr. Haughey

Can the Deputy not defend the Government?

Mr. Cooney

The Minister is not being a bit sincere.

Mr. Cooney

As an example, this morning when Deputy Prendergast raised this issue he was greeted with joyful jeers from the far side. One would have thought that the first reaction of responsible people would be to ask why it had to happen, was the institution gone beyond its time, or was it too expensive for our needs but instead the attitude is to jeer and take advantage of the difficulties of this nation not with a view to alleviating them or helping with a solution, but to improve their own political prospects.

Mr. Cooney

A lead has to be given in this institution.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Have we no Chair here, at all?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Keeffe you are being highly irresponsible. You are continually interrupting the Minister.

Mr. Haughey

Any time the Taoiseach approached me on a major issue, he got my full co-operation.

From that stem all our difficulties and when we took office in 1982 our credibility as a sovereign nation able to manage our own affairs was in serious doubt. This Government have stopped the rot, we have slowed down the drift into economic ruin that caused in 1977 the international money market and the international banking world to have grave doubts about our capacity to receive any more borrowings from their sources.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

We got rid of the awful economic policies which we inherited and we have brought inflation down. When we took office last year's £ was worth less than 80 pence this year. At the moment last year's £ is now worth 96p. That is a most significant change. The budget targets are being reached. Deputies might complain that they are the wrong targets; they might complain that the economic policies are mistaken; but they cannot say there has not been careful management of the nation's finances and the nation's affairs so that confidence has been restored in the nation's affairs and in the ability of the nation to handle its affairs.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

There is another 18 months to go and we confidently hope during that time that the groundwork we have been laying for the past three years will come to full fruition and that the objectives which the Government set out to bring the economy to a totally healthy state with falling unemployment will be achieved. The unemployment figures over a number of months past have gone up and they have come down. There has not been a consistent fall. However, in January the most significant fall for over 20 years took place, I hope that is the prelude to a continued trend in the downward direction of unemployment figures. That will be the big achievement of this Government, but it has to be done without any co-operation from the far side.

I consider the proposing of this amendment, by Deputy Haughey and his party to be an exercise in an incredible amount of political neck when one thinks of their record. When I think back on the conspiracies, the midnight phone calls, the messages from the country to the various party members who were said to have been on the opposite side to Deputy Haughey during the leadership crises — I use the word in the plural deliberately — over the last few years, Deputy Haughey has a great nerve and a hard neck to come into the House and make a speech suggesting that the Taoiseach, a person held in high esteem in the politics of the world and in the politics of this country, has been guilty of conduct of anything less than the high standard of integrity he set for himself and which he has always maintained.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

The gall of the party on the other side to try to do such a thing is quite incredible. Their Leader is a man of great intellectual capacity but he is standing head and shoulders above his colleagues on the front bench. They have failed to produce any policies; they have been riven by internal dissention.

Mr. Treacy

Not true.

Mr. Cooney

The evidence is on the back benches behind Deputy Treacy.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. Will Deputies allow the Minister to conclude his speech?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): It is a disgrace they are not thrown out.

Mr. Cooney

The party and the cumainn throughout the country are again riven for the same reason. This is the note I will conclude on, and, this is the theme of Deputy Haughey's attack on the Taoiseach. Why are the Fianna Fáil Party so uneasy and so divided about the one member of their party who is intellectually head and shoulders above the rest of them? The reason for that is they doubt his political integrity.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Aire Oideachais is dóigh liom. I believe the previous speaker was the Minister for Education but, however strongly I felt about the debacle created by the Taoiseach last week in his reshuffle of the Government, my worst fears have been compounded by the speech we have just heard from the Minister. Not once did he refer to the motion in the name of the Government. Not once did he refer to the confidence in his Taoiseach, but that is to be expected because we all know of the past differences which have existed in that Government and in that party between the Minister for Education and his Leader. Those differences are well known. Furthermore, this morning he indicated to me how much out of touch he is with public opinion, just as he was in 1977 when he was one of those in that disastrous Government who bit the dust and lost his seat. In my opinion the acid test of any individual Deputy is whether or not he can be returned to a seat in this House by the people who know best and who elect him.

He referred at length many times to this fictional stranger. Every time he referred to the fictional stranger I thought about the Irish taxpayer and about the Irish school boy and girl who were expecting something more positive, something more concrete, from the new Minister for Education. Surely here is another man who is destined to run down Marlboro Street even worse than was done by his predecessor. I am disappointed. I expected more. I expected a higher level of debate from a man whom I held in some respect, but he obviously decided to lower the tone of this debate to a low, mean, venomous personal attack on the Leader of this party and on the party as well. He set out to do that for obvious reasons. He has done so because he is so bereft of ideas as to how he can support the Government. He is so bereft of ideas that should come from a new Minister for Education. Surely if further proof were needed it is that the new Minister for Education has not one word of joy, hope or comfort to offer to the many thousands of school leavers who will come on the employment register in June.

I believe this is another one of the Taoiseach's hopeless failures, putting someone as venomous, as vicious and who made such a low personal attack into the most important Department from the point view of the future of our young people. God help our education system under his control. Understandably, in a debate of this nature there will be repetition and covering of ground that was covered by previous speakers, but we must pause and think about the lead up to the reasons why this debacle took place last week. It was an incompetent and panic stricken measure taken by a Taoiseach who obviously had lost complete control. It started with the resumption of this House after the Christmas recess when we first had a budget which was very quickly seen to be unhelpful and was the last effort by a Minister for Finance to arrest the decline in our economy and in our fortunes as a nation.

For a Minister for Finance who introduced that budget to be moved before the budget debate had concluded and not be allowed to introduce the Finance Bill that would implement the proposals of that budget was despicable treatment of him by the Taoiseach. Deputy Dukes should have had no option open to him but resignation because those of us in public life have and must have some principles. Unsuccessfully though he had worked, I accept that he had worked hard there and to walk meekly out of that Department between the presentation of his budget in this House and the presentation of the Finance Bill was unforgiveable.

That budget was disastrous. It did nothing for jobs. It introduced a whole new penal Act and it introduced retention tax. Farmers and business were not helped and no confidence was given to the self-employed or those trying to rebuild our economy. The general public immediately perceived the budget to be unhelpful to the political fortunes of this Government. The unpopularity of the Minister for Finance was seen very clearly. I believe he had a more than rousing reception in Macroom on Monday night of this week when he went there to try to calm the turbulent waters of that constituency.

In the Budget Statement delivered in this House he cut the Estimates still further by £55 million. The immediate impact of that cut was seen in this House the next day when without consultation, discussion or any prior notice, the Minister for Health laid the hatchet to eight hospitals. Hospital closures were the next item on the rota last week. That was followed next day in this House by Deputy Mary O'Rourke exposing something that the sacked Minister for Education, Deputy Hussey, had been trying to keep quiet, the closure of Carysfort Training College of which we have heard so much since then. Consider the indelicacy of the handling of that and the unfair treatment meted out to a wonderful Catholic institution that has made such a great contribution. That was another step in last week's debacle.

As Deputy Haughey said, the final step was the polls that put Fine Gael down to 23 per cent. I am not a great believer in polls. Perhaps they represent a trend at times but they cannot provide conclusive proof of what an electorate will do at any time. I know well what the electorate will do now as do the Members opposite because they, like me, work in their constituencies and meet the people who wish to get rid of this inept Government at the earliest opportunity and never again to impose a Coalition on the Irish people. That poll obviously created panic and the Taoiseach decided immediately to reshuffle the Cabinet. He went ahead with what we saw last week. Obviously, he ran into early trouble because Deputy Desmond, Minister for Health, refused to move and he is now the subject of cartoons who put him down as being the real Taoiseach. That event created great cartoon fun, but more than that, it has done something that even these professional handlers failed to do. It has united the media, television, radio and the printed press on one thing, that this Government are no longer fit to govern, that this Government and this Taoiseach must go and the sooner for the Irish people's sake, the better.

With your permission, Sir, I will quote a few recent references. There are so many that I could be quoting for a whole hour and I have not that time. Continuing last week's trend, the leading article in yesterday's The Irish Press states:

Nobody will want to hear the word "coalition" used in polite circles for a long time to come after what we have seen happening over the life of this Government and in particular as the Left Right strains and tensions came home to roost in the shuffle that wasn't this week.

Dr. FitzGerald was quite obviously plainly told by the Left that if he wanted to stay in office, he had better see that Mr. Barry Desmond was right!

...was to give Mr. Noonan a chance by getting him out of Justice and to give everyone else a chance by getting Mr. Dukes out of Finance.

They referred to what was apparently a concealed hunger strike. The same leading article refers to the Taoiseach:

...For while he was telling the Parliament that Ministers of State Mr. Michael D'Arcy and Mr. Donal Creed had resigned, the pair had in fact staged the political equivalent of a sit-in from which they were only finally seen to be ejected yesterday.

This morning's The Cork Examiner described the Government as being national receivers and I quote:

The "close-everything-down" syndrome has now become so symptomatic of Government policy that its eventual repercussions must be viewed with the utmost concern.

In its indiscriminate and dedicated application there is apparently a blindness to reality, a preoccupation with the national bookkeeping, that can only lead to the conclusion that the country can go to the devil as long as the accounts are all right

The only thing wrong with that article is that the accounts are not all right. As Deputy Haughey said, the borrowing has gone from £12 million in 1982 to £20.5 million in 1986. That is the real position of the accounts.

I have a few more quotations. The Fine Gael-Labour Programme for Government of December 1982 refers to what is undoubtedly our biggest problem, unemployment. I quote:

The unemployment situation, with 170,000 unemployed, 50,000 of them under 25 years of age, and the state of the public finances facing a new Government taking office at the end of 1982, are alarming. Both require firm and decisive action by such a Government. The dual task of halting and reversing the growth of unemployment while phasing out the current budget deficit poses a greater challenge than any Irish Government has faced domestically since the early years of the State.

Surely the Taoiseach must appreciate that their failure there has been abject. They have made absolutely no inroads in any of those areas. The budget deficit is a record deficit. The 170,000 has become almost 250,000 and with, in addition, those people on the streets of London, New York and other American cities, God only knows the real figure of unemployment.

I have another quotation in reference to the Taoiseach's second appearance in this debacle in the House this week after he misled the House by statements the previous Thursday regarding the resignation of the two Ministers of State. I am quoting from a Fine Gael election document Fine Gael Priorities November 1982:

People have a clear choice: a Fine Gael Government whose record has shown that they tell the truth,

— think of those words—

regardless of unpopularity; are prepared to act, regardless of whether this may threaten their party interests; and are consistent in their approach.

We read that, then the Taoiseach came into this House a week ago and blatantly told the House that Deputy Michael D'Arcy and Deputy Donal Creed had tendered their resignations. He came back here almost a week later, on Tuesday of this week, to say that he was not right, the Government had terminated their service. I have known Deputy Creed ever since I came into this House. He and I served in the same constituency. I regard him as an honourable, hardworking colleague, an I am satisfied that his performance was no worse in Government than that of any of his colleagues. That treatment was undeserved and unfair. I say that very sincerely, not as a political comment. He had been working hard. If the Taoiseach's handling of that matter is an indication of what he means by honesty, I am afraid it does not coincide with my view of honesty.

For Ministers of State to be treated as both these men were was bad enough, but the matter was handled in such a way that both had to come out publicly and rebut what had been said in the House. They had to present the true picture and one is quoted in this morning's The Cork Examiner as saying that what the Taoiseach had said was a lie. For those two Members to be put in such a position is not helpful to hardworking constituency politicians, nor does it give one any confidence in the Head of a Government who handles elected people in that manner, particularly competent people working at their posts. If for no other reason, that man should now relinquish office.

Deputy Kelly will have his chance to speak.

Mr. G. Collins

And there is more that the Taoiseach could get.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Kelly, you will have an opportunity to contribute.

Mr. Kelly

You should have seen the performance during the last speaker's contribution.

An Ceann Comhairle

I regret to say that I was listening to it.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I was not here then.

Mr. G. Collins

It was a disgraceful performance on the part of the Minister, I admit.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Cork Examiner refers to the continuing efforts by this Government, even since this dreadful debacle, and the reason for confidence ebbing daily. The confidence of the people is disappearing.

I refer now to the decision of the Arts Council, or the unfortunate way in which the Government have allowed the Arts Council to be the whipping boys for the decision to withdraw support from many of our festivals. Understandably, I particularly refer to the Cork International Choral Festival due to take place in the spring. I want to quote one last paragraph from the editorial comment of today's The Cork Examiner on the subject of alternative ways of trying to fund this long standing festival, this festival that has been so well organised and directed by Professor Fleischmann who has done so much for the cultural life of Cork city and for the international song and dance choral festival. They are trying to find alternative ways to save the festival because of the Government's withdrawal of its support — not the refusal of the Arts Council to give financial support, because if they had the money they would give it.

The Cork Examiner reports:

Given an adequate response, (response to the local fund raising effort) we then suggest that it will be the solemn duty of every local politician to lobby the Government for additional funding on a pound-for-pound basis.

I am very clear lobbying the Minister of State now present in the House who has, I know, attended that festival over the years and respects and recognises it. If there is a worthwhile local effort, I ask him to start his lobbying so that for every additional £ raised he will ensure that the Government equals it. I am sure that like me he got his notice this morning, the usual appeal from Professor Fleischmann asking for our usual contribution to the festival — and because of the cutback asking for more. It is a tragedy that there are visiting groups, choirs from Wales, England, the United States, Germany, Yugoslavia, Finland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania and our Government see fit to ensure that there is no funding for that event.

The men have changed positions; I shall leave the woman until later. The former Minister for Finance should have honourably resigned his portfolio and left the Government when he was not given even the opportunity to introducing the Finance Bill. We have the former Minister for Justice now being assigned to Industry and Commerce. He left behind him in Justice a trail of destruction, of prison chaos, low morale in the Garda force, unprecedented growth in crime in our cities despite efforts by him to produce mickey mouse statistics and present a false position when numbers are reduced. Any of us who go around the streets will know how rampant crime is. Joyriding, which had diminished, is on the increase; it is certainly increasing in my city. We had the bizzare event of the wife of the new Minister for Justice having her handbag snatched almost in the precincts of the Dáil. He leaves the Department of Justice having commenced work there in the bright and breezy days of early 1983, having been appointed in December, trying to malign the Opposition and sneer in the same manner as the new Minister for Education was doing this morning. He ends with the same smear campaign with which he started. The wheel has gone full circle. He now leaves Justice having done himself much harm, to the extent that the polls carried out in Limerick show him to be losing his seat. This is why the Minister for Justice was moved from Justice to Industry and Commerce.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

He did his job there; he cleaned up.

Mr. D. Gallagher

He had the job done for his own friends.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The man who contributed enormously to the Taoiseach's difficulties and the one that is now said to be the real Taoiseach is Deputy Barry Desmond, Minister for Health. He was shorn of his Social Welfare portfolio and is left with the responsibility only of Health. I think it can be said that no man contributed more to the lack of confidence in this Government by his actions over a long period. It started when the medical cards were removed from the students and they will not forget him for that. It continued with the withdrawal of those cards from old age pensioners. As time went on, jobs were being put at risk. Here was a man for whom I had very high regard in his Opposition days in this House, a Corkman like myself, a hard working trade union official. Suddenly, because of this power thing, he became somebody of whom even Rupert Murdoch would be proud. He wielded the axe in every direction. He took particular exception to the health boards — they seemed to be his enemy. He wants to deny the rights to hospital consultants in a nationally negotiated contract. That is all part of his own ideology and part of his reason for the vendetta against the health boards.

In my time I was lucky to become a member of the Southern Health Board. There I dealt with officials of high integrity, of great competence, hard working and dedicated to providing the best possible health care service to our community in Cork and Kerry. During those good days, great efforts were put into the building of the fine regional hospital in Cork city. The same can be said about the Tralee Regional Hospital.

Suddenly all this is being attacked by the Minister for Health. The health boards are being told to cut their costs and, because they will not or cannot dismantle those essential services overnight, what has the Minister done? He ridiculed them here in the House. From anyone that is disgraceful, but from a union official it is even worse. What will they say to him when the day comes? About 300 jobs have been lost in Cork and Kerry in the past three years in the health services. Yet the Minister has told us nobody has been sacked.

The truth is that jobs are being lost weekly and daily and the numbers of workers are being reduced to a stage that is causing serious difficulty in the carrying on of basic services. The people of the country deserve much better treatment from the Government. This morning I heard the Minister for Education in a 30 minute speech: never once did he support the Taoiseach, or inspire confidence in the régime of which he is a member. He did not even refer to his new portfolio or his new job. I had thought that on a motion of this kind each Minister would come in here and give account not only of what he has done in his Department but of what he intends doing. That lowered the debate here to an unprecedented level.

It is years since we have had a confidence motion debate in this House. It was early in November 1982, before we fell as a Government. This morning the Tánaiste spoke about the venom being flung from this side of the House at the Government. If this Government performed properly we would not be here today throwing that venom. The Government have not performed in any aspect of decent government, even in the matter of the development aid. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, was cut substantially below his target. He knows that very well. In the interests of our young people particularly, I ask the Government to resign now, to get out and let the people decide. The people will give the Coalition the very same treatment as they got in 1977, and the sooner it happens the better. Fine Gael will come back with one seat from Deputy O'Keeffe's constituency.

Mr. Kelly

I would have approached this matter from perhaps not quite the same perspective as the Tánaiste did in a spirited speech this morning. I should like to do it this way: supposing I had a sneaking sympathy for the Opposition motion and was beginning to waver in my willingness to support the Government, I would have to ask myself what alternative was in sight. On that criterion, I do not think I would have any trouble in supporting, not Deputy Brady's amendment, but the motion put down by the Government Whip.

There are personal reasons for this which I will come to, but the main reason is that the Opposition, following a long established tradition for which this party in the past must carry some blame, have been engaged in the last three years in junk politics. It has the same relation to serious politics as an ice-lolly to a loaf of brown bread.

None of their contributions that I can judge, with very rare exceptions, contains a constructive suggestion. The moment one of them comes near saying anything new, challenging, interesting and true, he shies away from it because it may be a political hot potato. I marked with a red letter a date last October when Deputy Michael O'Kennedy said here that we should look to the EC as a place in which we might find a quantity of good permanent employment for the people who cannot find it here. When I applauded him he recoiled and said he was not saying that at all. It was the one interesting contribution he had to make but even that was not allowed to stand.

Last week we had the shouting and banging of tables about the bookkeeping on the one hand and the cutbacks on the other. That is not a serious way to treat the people who elected us or the Opposition; we behaved like that in the past but never with the same degree of recklessness or monotony. I dealt at some length with Deputy Haughey's contribution on the budget last week. I carefully combed Deputy Haughey's contribution for a single constructive contribution which might lead to any sort of concrete economic development. The only one I can find, and even that is not so clear, is contained in column 1637 of the Official Report for 5 February. He said:

Britain and France, though in the midst of an economic recession, are about to undertake one of the biggest construction problems ever. Should we not be thinking along the same lines with of course European resources being involved?

The reference, I have no need to tell the House, was to the channel tunnel agreement signed a couple of days previously between the British and French Prime Ministers. Are we to take it seriously that he is now considering a tunnel not crossing the English Channel but St. George's Channel, the Irish Sea?

It is not unfair to ask somebody who has a very high opinion of his own skills in economic management to say exactly what he meant by that reference. Does he want to see a tunnel across the Irish Sea? It may well be that one day technology will become so cheap and available that that will be a serious proposition; but is it a serious proposition at present to mention something like this in the context of a budget debate, when this is his only concrete suggestion, except for the old talk which has been there from the time of Arthur Griffith about forestry and fisheries?

The trade and passenger traffic between Britain and the Continent is roughly 15 or 20 times greater than the volume of trade and passenger traffic between this country and Britain. It has still taken the British and French Governments the best part of a century to come to an agreement in regard to building a tunnel, although the techniques of tunnel building, even submarine tunnel building, were available as long ago as the 1860s or 1870s. It has still taken that long for them to feel that the thing can be an economically viable proposition; and the tunnel they are talking about will run across the shortest of all the sea passages in these islands except for the North Channel — 14 miles. That is about a quarter of the distance from Dún Laoghaire to Holyhead or from Rosslare to Fishguard. I do not want to be regarded as a stick-in-the-mud or as throwing cold water on a project which may indeed one day be viable; but is it sensible for a man who thinks so much of himself in this area to speak like that now?

That is the only concrete suggestion I can find in his budget contribution, and it is so widly ludicrous, so recklessly out of touch with any sort of reality, economic or for all I know even engineering — there may be problems about the Irish Sea that do not exist in the other channel — that one really questions his title to the rank of economic expert which he seems happy enough to have others bestow on him.

I look then at the other side of national policy, the electorally not very important but nationally important matter of Northern Ireland, and I have to look at how this substitute alternative Taoiseach conducted himself over the last two years and led his wretched party. Deputy Cooney said that he was head and shoulders above them intellectually, and that is so, because anybody comparable to him intellectually has got out of it or never joined it in the first place. He is able to reduce by bullying his footmen and lackeys to order and keep them there, and he was able to lay on during the Forum operation in 1983-84 a plot to sabotage what might come out at the far end.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think "lackey" is a word that should be encouraged in this assembly.

Mr. Kelly

Very well. He started that Forum operation off on a basis which was clearly unrealistic, and he took advantage of the Taoiseach's good nature and anxiety for success to load that Forum report with three impossible options which absolutely guaranteed that the Government and people of this country would endure the humiliation which Mrs. Thatcher inflicted on us in November 1984 at Chequers; which is why I did not sign it.

I said before that I think the Taoiseach was mistaken to seek consensus with Fianna Fáil on a matter like this. A maiden lady might as well be seeking consensus with a highwayman as to seek consensus with Fianna Fáil under their existing leadership on a matter of this kind. It would have been far better if we had had a minority report, or two or three or ten reports, rather than leave this Government holding an absolutely unviable, unfloatable document. I felt terribly bitter and badly about that. I could see it coming from the day Deputy Haughey made his first speech at the opening of the Forum; I cannot tell the House how badly and bitter I felt about it. An immense quantity of Government time was wasted on the Forum culminating in that report, the first four chapters of which are harmless and pacific and with which I had no fault to find, but the rest of which could not possibly recommend itself to anybody in the world except an Irish Nationalist — and we are dealing with people one million of whom would fight rather than accept that label.

I do not need to tell the House of the misgivings I have had all along about a Coalition of my party with Labour, but I could not support a motion of this kind. How could I vote no confidence in a Government the only alternative to which is that?

When I come to the style of the alternative Taoiseach I do not need to dwell on the autocracy which he enforces on his own party. There have been some comical developments in the last few weeks. There was some talk of declarations of loyalty being exacted from local units, on the style of the Oath of Supremacy which Henry VIII exacted. I do not know if that process has gone very far, but I remember it being signalled. I do not want to be run by a Government led by a person with that sort of political instinct. I would far sooner be led by somebody who is tolerant, as the Taoiseach is, who is willing to accept dissent in his own party without feeling it is a personal effort to undermine himself and who is prepared to be civil and courteous to those who have a different view about his Government strategy. I believe the people prefer that too.

I want to draw the attention of the House to another feature of the Deputy's style which, for some reason, never seems to surface here in a general debate. That is his treatment of this House and specifically of yourself, Sir. I have been watching him here over the last year or so, as everyone else has, and I have been contrasting it with his original declaration of good intent to tidy up the Dáil. He was going to be the cool, clean hero riding in from the prairie to clear the ill-conducted elements out of this House. We were going to have a little order at last. Anybody who compares the Dáil reports of virtually any day nowadays with the way they were under Deputy Joe Brennan, under Deputy Seán Treacy, or Deputy Pádraig Faulkner will see what has happened. Day after day — I am sorry to say this to you, Sir, you know that I combine this with a strong regard for you — you are forced to submit to bullying from the Leader of the Opposition. I have leafed through the reports since the beginning of the session before Christmas and there are at least a dozen instances in which the Chair——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order for the Deputy to discuss the Chair——

Mr. Kelly

Let me say this without discussing it. There are at least a dozen instances since late last autumn, when the House re-assembled, on which he was told on the Order of Business that he was out of order and on which he kept on talking. We are all out of order occasionally but this has been brought to a system and naturally his footmen imitate him and think they are going to get a good mark if they turn the Order of Business here day after day into a dog's dinner. We seldom start the real business here before 15 or 20 minutes have elapsed after the Taoiseach has announced the Order of Business. That is due to the example given by the Leader of the party who had put down a motion that he should step into the Taoiseach's shoes. Never.

He has an oh-so-well practised, urbane exterior but sometimes that exterior slips. Sometimes the front slips and then something not quite so pretty emerges. Let me cite, Sir, a passage between himself and yourself on 12 December last at Question Time. It started out from a wrangle which is common enough here about whether a Minister should or should not have used a tabular format when replying to a question. You said, Sir:

I am sorry but I cannot allow any debate on this.

The Chair is only a continuo to this——

Mr. O'Kennedy

We have a court procedure of appeal here.

Mr. Kelly

I should like to quote from the Official Report of that date which states:

Mr. Haughey: I am not terribly concerned whether you are sorry or not. I am going to insist on my rights here. I submit, on a point of order, that the Taoiseach has given a dismissive reply to three questions and you are availing of that to stop us asking supplementary questions. I think that is a disgraceful ruling on your part.

An Ceann Comhairle: If Deputy Haughey wishes to raise that there is another way of doing so.

Mr. Haughey: I am raising it now.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy may not raise it now.

Mr. Haughey: I want to insist on my right to ask supplementary questions.

An Ceann Comhairle: I will not allow the Deputy.

Mr. Haughey: You are muzzling this House and being disorderly in your behaviour.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will withdraw that remark. I do not want any unpleasantness or heat but I must request Deputy Haughey to withdraw those remarks.

Deputy Haughey, with surpassing insolence, said:

When we look at their overall performance there is nothing in the Opposition's record which will inspire any confidence in them. I would say that, even if I was trembling on the brink of defection, which I am not. Supposing for the sake of argument I was, supposing it would not take an awful lot to push me over, one look at the record of 1979 to 1981 would convince me that I am better off where I am from my own point of view, that of my constituents and the country. One look at the year 1982, a year sulphurous with political scandal, would persuade me that the one political imperative here is keep that front bench with its present leadership off this side of the House.

I know there are political correspondents who think that is a very smallminded way to behave. I have no doubt there were people in Germany in 1928 and 1929 who thought that the democratic parties of those days had a paranoia about the little Hitler who was coming up. There were no doubt some correspondents who said: "Cool it lads; he may after all get a few autobahns built, or an airport where nobody thought of putting one". I am afraid that is a priority I am not ashamed to confess. It does not come easily to me to abuse somebody. I would far prefer to be on civil and friendly terms with Deputies in the House, and Members opposite know that. I do not like having to do this.

I did not enjoy having to speak as I did in December 1979 when Deputy Haughey became Taoiseach. I genuinely dislike having to speak in this way about the person who is at the core of and behind this motion — because it was he who first announced that he intended to put such a motion to the House. If that Deputy was to leave public life, if he was in some other setting in life, I have no doubt that we would get on very well; but I regard it as essential, although I dislike having to do it, to draw attention to these characteristics which for me and for a huge majority of Irish people disqualify him from the leadership which he seeks.

The record of the years when he presided here speaks for itself. A couple of Deputies from the Fianna Fáil side, either by way of interruption or in the course of a speech, claimed that in the era 1977 to 1981 — the Government ran for three years and ten months — 80,000 jobs were created. That is a very curious claim because the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures show that there were fewer people employed in June 1981, seasonally adjusted, than there were in December of 1979 when Deputy Haughey first came in. When one goes down through the list of other economic indicators — inflation was left at 24 per cent, the trade deficit was out through the roof — one wonders at the nerve, as Deputy Cooney said, of a party who could seriously pretend to offer themselves, at any rate under their existing leadership and with their existing policies, to the people again.

I will keep repeating as long as I have a seat in this House, that the divisions between the two sides in here are unreal, that the true divisions are ones between — I say this without any hostility or animosity — people who think like Deputy Mac Giolla and people who essentially think about the economy in the way Deputy O'Kennedy and myself do. It is because of the unreality of this that we are driven back on this awful political dog-fight that is intensely boring to the people. They hate it. I cannot understand why Deputies opposite, or those on this side, will not get that into their heads. They go to their own Árd Fheis, see their party leader on the platform being wildly applauded by 6,000 or 7,000 people, but do not understand that that is a tiny minority of the people in the country.

It may be that they have left three times that number at homes who could not make the journey to Dublin or could not be bothered. It may be that there are 50,000 or 100,000 people who feel strongly about politics and would like to raise a cheer when they hear their opponents being lambasted. But the huge majority of people do not raise a cheer. They are sick and tired and browned off. If these two parties — I have the honour to represent one and Deputy O'Kennedy has the honour to represent the other — could face up to those facts and lay aside the style of contention which the Leader of that party seems anxious to perpetuate, I believe we would do a better job whichever of us was on this side of the House in the future than is now being delivered. The conceit of a party and of a leadership with that record behind them, especially their record of 1979-81 and of 1982, imagining that there is some national necessity for their recall to office is so monstrous that I will only say this about it: that it is, I suppose, compatible with sanity, but only just.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The motion to which Deputy Kelly has just spoken in the name of the Chief Whip of Fine Gael is that this House confirms its confidence in the Taoiseach and in the Government. It must be noted, that the Deputy has said nothing to commend in a positive way to the House any confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government. Regretfully, he has concentrated exclusively on attacking the Opposition and particularly the Leader of the Opposition. From a speaker of the experience and integrity of Deputy Kelly, one would have expected evidence to suggest that we have cause for confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government but the Deputy deliberately ignored that. I submit that the reason for that is that Deputy Kelly does not have confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government and that, apart from voting with his party which is the traditional pattern, he is not prepared to be on record as stating that he has confidence in the Taoiseach and the Government to do the job they are charged with primarily, to create a climate for activity and opportunity, to afford protection for the old and the sick and to create a better and a more just climate for all. If Deputy Kelly had addressed himself to those aspects, I would have been interested in taking greater note of the points he was making but he tended to follow a line which is recognised by all now as being a very regrettable line adopted by the Taoiseach some time ago in his famous flawed pedigree speech.

None of us should ignore the fact that the issues we are really concerned with are the issues of the realities outside this Parliament. It is time that all of us moved away from the personality attacks. When we table a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach we are referring to our having no confidence in his special responsibility as Taoiseach and as Leader of the Government. I trust that anything that will be said will not be in the form of personal vilification because regardless of what may be our personal attempts, each of us must recognise that none of us is perfect. No one here can claim a greater or lesser degree of integrity than any other but in our approaches to the various issues as they arise, we hope to demonstrate that we are concerned with the basic responsibility that we are all here to discharge, that is, the improvement of the lot of our people. Never was that more needed than at this time. The morale of the country is at an all time low. Some may say this is a predictable statement from the Opposition and especially from their Finance spokesman. I wish morale was not at an all time low and that we in the Opposition were not cast in what is essentially almost a constrained and some might say negative role of criticising the Government, of having to point week after week and month after month to the obvious shortcomings of the Government. Even in the face of these shortcomings what is required is to point to the essential strengths of the nation, strengths that are there to be exploited and developed but which this Government have failed totally to promote.

Often it is a matter of some considerable concern to those of us on this side that in having to point to the obvious we might to some extent add further to the frustration and the very low morale of the nation. But that is our obligation. It is an obligation that I propose to pursue with a degree of balance and fairness while pointing out the reasons for our being at this low level of morale, why this can be much improved and also how today's problem can be turned into tomorrow's potential.

When we talk of confidence in the Taoiseach the real issue is the view the people outside have of him and his Government. They will hardly be interested in what happened three or four years ago or in reading the various personal exchanges that we engage in here but they are interested in how the decisions taken by Government and sanctioned here impact on their lives and families. They are entitled to that interest. Because the Government are in the management position the people are entitled to expect from them a performance very much different from what has been experienced in the past three years and very much different from what they may expect under the leadership of this Taoiseach for whatever length of time this Government may last.

The sheer grinding burden of unemployment on individuals—let us not forget that we are talking of individuals, of people who have pride in themselves and in their communities—is something that this Government would do well to remember. Despite this in their budgets and especially in the recent one there is not a reference to employment as a priority issue.

The drain on the nation in terms of emigration is a major problem, too. We are allowing our young people who are not our problem but our potential to go away and make their contribution elsewhere instead of being given the opportunity of playing their role at home. In the past three years up to 100,000 of our best people have left us. That is a factor that we can no longer afford to ignore. Every Deputy must be aware of the intolerable pressures on family life because of the nature and extent of the inquiries we have been receiving in the past three years. The people are depressed. Sometimes they transfer that depression to us. This reality can be witnessed also in the almost breakdown of our traditional values. There is rising crime. Values are being questioned every day. Positive elements are being knocked while negative ones are being introduced. These are the issues that we face in terms of this motion of confidence in the Taoiseach and this is a motion of confidence in the Taoiseach who by definition presides over the Government and over the whole budget process which has given rise to the dramatic and damaging results witnessed in the past week or two in this House in terms of our democratic procedures.

You will be aware, Sir, as I am aware, that the budget exercise is an exercise in collective responsibility, presided over particularly by the Taoiseach. If there is one member of the Government who is party to every single decision, who is consulted before every decision is taken in relation to any of the major elements of economic policy, that member is understandably and rightly the Taoiseach of the day. He is the one who is as responsible for the Estimates and public expenditure, for the preparation of budgets and particularly for the passage of budgetary measures through the House, as is the Minister for Finance who under the Constitution is charged with the duty, on behalf of the Government of presenting budgets to the House. I have had considerable differences of policy and of points of view with the former Minister for Finance but what I find reprehensible is that a man who was acting with the full direction, authority and responsibility of the Government and particularly of the Taoiseach, as the Minister present must know, has been made to pay the price for doing what the Taoiseach and his colleagues in Government not only requested him to do but effectively directed him to do. Without one further statement from the Minister for Finance since his budget, without any other indication, apart from television interviews in which we both participated and radio programmes, the Minister who introduced the budget on behalf of the Taoiseach and the Government is suddenly jettisoned and cast aside as if he were the problem which had given rise to the Taoiseach's special difficulties at this time.

At the beginning of 1983 when Deputy Dukes was appointed Minister for Finance there was a tendency to suggest that the reason the then Minister for Finance was not reappointed was that he, Deputy John Bruton, had brought down the Government in his 1982 budget — when I was not even in this House. That too is totally fallacious. The Taoiseach of that day and the Taoiseach of today is one and the same person. The Taoiseach is today reversing the roles of the men who acted on his behalf and who acted at his behest. He is implying that the one man who is clear of any blame is himself, the Taoiseach who appointed and rejected each man in turn. This Taoiseach was party to every decision taken — from Estimates preparation to budget preparation and would have been party to the preparation of the Finance Bill, which has been interrupted.

What do we find? The day before he was removed from office for doing the Taoiseach's bidding, the Minister for Finance when discussing the Valuation Bill in this House said he would deal with amendments which I was putting down to the Finance Bill in a reasoned and, hopefully, open way. That Minister, understandably, expected that the third essential stage of his role — Estimate preparation, budget preparation and finally the Finance Bill — would fall to his lot to implement. When we were discussing the Valuation Bill, and the record will show this, that Minister expected to produce the Finance Bill. Yet what happened? He was sacrificed and was not allowed to conclude the job he had started on behalf of the Government. I do not want to criticise the person of that Minister. Far from it. I never did that, although I have very strong reservations about his failure in his role as economic manager on behalf of the Government. It is totally unacceptable to try to get me and the nation to believe that he was the cause of the Government's economic problems.

Similarly, the Minister for Education — who was doing no more and no less than the former Minister for Finance and giving effect publicly to what the Government had collectively decided, that is, that cutbacks in educational expenditure would be necessary — for doing what she was directed to do by the Taoiseach, was sacrificed when the Taoiseach saw the public response to many of the decisions which had been taken, particularly that applying to Carysfort which clearly had a shock impact throughout the country. She had to be sacrificed, not the Taoiseach.

The Minister for Health in the course of the budget debate announced the hospital closures as part of the Government's budget proposals. He too was to be sacrificed to protect the Taoiseach in the face of the swell of the opinion polls, but he determined that he was not going to be the sacrificial lamb and thus turned on its head the constitutional collective responsibility of Government and in particular the Taoiseach's authority.

The Chair will be aware that in Standing Orders there is provision for the Taoiseach to call on the President to terminate the appointment of a Minister who refuses to resign. He did not choose to do that. I find it totally unacceptable that a Taoiseach — I am not speaking personally of Deputy Dr. Garret FitzGerald — is prepared to go through these exercises of the last two weeks, which have not enhanced the status of political life, to protect himself and at a very considerable cost, to undermine the question of collective responsibility and, in particular, the status and authority of the Taoiseach.

Let me turn now to some of the matters in which he has been involved as Taoiseach. The Ministers have gone but the problems remain. The budget which the Taoiseach put through with his Minister for Finance is an unreal budget because, after the Estimates for Public Expenditure were presented, in the Budget Statement we found a bland announcement that there would be a further £55 million cut in public expenditure. How can anyone expect us to accept that this was the result of the proper constitutional discharge of authority? Clearly what happened, as was evident from some of the dramatic announcements which became the touchstone which caused the chaos of two weeks ago, was that the Government panicked and found they could not present figures in terms of budget deficits, spending and taxation that would be credible. They announced cuts of £55 million, details of which we still have not got.

Let me give some examples of the areas where we hear these cuts are to be made. We talk about developing our agri-food industry and the potential for food processing, but what happened in the Estimates? There has been a cut in the allocation to the Agricultural Institute of £800,000. No one will scream about that cut today, but tomorrow we will have to pay the price for that kind of easy reduction of which this House has not been officially informed by the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach asks us to accept that the unemployment pattern is improving. In his contribution on 18 December 1985 he took credit for that fact and said that the level of unemployment in the current year was dropping considerably. He went on to say that this was in sharp contrast to the pattern in recent times.

Since the Taoiseach is celebrating his 60th year I will compare his rate of increase in age with the rate of increase in age of a 20 year old man, so as to dismiss this level of argument which the Taoiseach uses from time to time. With each extra year a 20 year old becomes 5 per cent older and with each extra year the 60 year old becomes 1½ per cent older. The Taoiseach continues to engage in the nonsense of talking about percentages in relation to the proportionate increase in unemployment and undermines himself more than anybody else. If we were to get the same proportionate increase in unemployment as we might have been able to sustain when unemployment was at 150,000 the disaster that we apprehend will be more serious than we thought. It frustrates the people to hear that gobbledegook from the Taoiseach.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

What proposals have the Opposition?

Mr. O'Kennedy

In relation to the control of expenditure I will quote what I said at column 2814 of the Official Report of 18 December 1985:

Last year I was proved right with regard to the Estimates. Today the Estimates for 1986 were published and, as was the case last year, they are based on false projections and will be proved to be entirely unreliable as was the case last year.

How right I was. The Estimates have been so adjusted as to be totally out of line with the Estimates then presented. In the first month of this year we find that the actual receipts and issues out of the Exchequer in supply services are up 33 per cent over the first month of last year. While the projection of the Government for the whole year is an increase of 6.5 per cent the figures we now have is £563 million in comparison with £422 million last year. It is clear that what the Taoiseach did at the end of last year was to hold back the expenditure that should have been incurred at the end of last year to give a false impression of the budget deficit at the end of the year. The Government and the Taoiseach did that to present a picture of everything being in order despite the reality. I have no doubt that if the Government last that long there will be a similar exercise at the end of this year and they will pass on that huge increase to the Government which will succeed them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has six minutes left.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We have a major problem in the productive sector which the Government and particularly the Taoiseach has failed to deal with by sheltering behind the failures of former Ministers: the former Minister for Finance, the former Minister for Education and the Minister for Health. We have 55,000 more unemployed than are engaged in manufacturing industry. Recent surveys conducted by the Confederation of Irish Industry and the ESRI point out that as far as production expectations in industry are concerned home sales expectations this year have dropped a further 7 per cent over last year and last year was abysmal. Last year gross profit in indigenous industry on turnover, was 1 per cent and the people in industry now expect profits to be 7 per cent worse. If that is the view of our industrialists where can we seek hope? Certainly not in the budget, because this was from a post budget summary. The home sales expectations are such that at this point many people must be thinking of cutting their losses and terminating their activities, while we talk about creating a climate for hope and opportunity. As far as unemployment is concerned we have 240,000 unemployed on the register plus all those on schemes without permanent work and countless thousands who have left in hope or helplessness. The expectation in relation to unemployment is that there is an increase of 14 per cent in those who expect a more dismal employment picture this year in the manufacturing sector. Yet we are asked to have confidence in the Taoiseach.

The Government are seen to be totally anti-investment. The new Minister might talk about investment and a new climate for investment. I would ask him to address the changes in capital allowances introduced in the budget which are certainly reducing investment levels. I would ask him to look at this decision in the budget to implement in full the advance corporation tax without any traditional transition, a tax which will particularly hit those who put aside money for investment in productive enterprises some years ago and especially major native industry such as Cement Roadstone Limited who are asking only for the traditional transitional arrangements. The Government and the Taoiseach have decided not to use the traditional arrangements. The people who invested are those who are penalised by this decision. The change in the tax base lending without regard to the source of the funding, much of which comes from abroad, is a matter of which the Taoiseach should have been aware unless he was totally oblivious to what was being done by the Government. The damage is already to be clearly seen in every area of our economy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has one minute left.

Mr. O'Kennedy

When we should be encouraging spending we are penalising it. The Taoiseach who presided over all of this mess should now insist that the retention tax introduced to penalise savers, old age pensioners, young children, charities, voluntary organisations and those who would invest here to be immediately withdrawn. It is not just that it penalises those who are depositors.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy conclude?

Mr. O'Kennedy

What it is doing is that it is signalling to those who might invest here that this is no place for investment, no place for hope, no place for confidence.

I shall conclude on this note. Everywhere we turn this Government present our people as a problem; the young are a problem; the old are a problem; the farmers are a problem; and the unemployed are a problem. The only problem we have is the Government. I agree with the Tánaiste when he concluded this morning and said the record of this Government would stand the test of time. I believe, unfortunately, it will, in its time; the Taoiseach particularly saw that that record will be obliterated if possible and that a new hope and opportunity will be given to the people to realise the immense resources we have.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Deasy)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. This Government are now in office for three years and two months and this is the first opportunity we have had to debate a vote of confidence. That in itself is rather unique considering that it has been a very difficult time to be in Government. None of us will underestimate the difficulties we have endured in that period, particularly the difficulties we encountered when we came into Government. Also, we are a two-party Coalition Government and that creates problems of its own. I say, without fear of contradiction, that it has been a tremendously successful working relationship, far superior to the performance of some of the single party Governments we have seen in preceding years. I make no apology for saying that I seldom, if ever worked with such an outstanding team of people, 15 members of Cabinet totally dedicated.

We have an open form of Government which at times can be a handicap because it allows you to be criticised. It is not a presidential or a dictatorial form of Government such as we have seen in the not-too-distant past. It is a Government in which people are open to express their views, with the type of leadership so badly needed but so seldom seen in this country. We should be proud of it. I am a person who was and is never slow to criticise if I think criticism necessary, but I find this motion ill-conceived and unnecessary. There was only one Government in the history of the State, as far as I remember, who were brought down on a vote of no confidence, the last Government led by the present Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Haughey. That Government were brought down on a vote of no confidence in November 1982. It is rather ironic that we have the same leader in the same party wanting to bring down this Government through a vote of no confidence.

The Taoiseach is being criticised because he had a Cabinet reshuffle, the first in three years and two months of Government. I should like to point out that the Leader of the Opposition was Taoiseach for a total of 30 months or two and a half years and in that period we had four different Ministers for Education, including the extraordinary appointment of the Taoiseach himself for a period as Minister for Education while then Taoiseach. We had, during that period, three Ministers for Finance including that internationally renowned monetarist, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald. This prompted the remark from Deputy Kelly which continually needs repetition here that one could have got the impression during that period of Fianna Fáil Government that certain Ministries were being let out on conacre — it is rather appropriate that the Minister for Agriculture should repeat that classical remark and description.

During that period of Government two senior Ministers resigned because they could not accept that style of leadership being implemented by that Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey. In other words, there was not freedom of speech or expression such as the Irish parliamentary system had become accustomed to. They could not accept the position and two of them resigned. Now we have all this ballyhoo, all this fuss, because of a Cabinet reshuffle. It is a major reshuffle involving ten Ministers but I believe it will be for the betterment of the Government and the country.

May I reflect further on that period of Government by Fianna Fáil when Deputy Haughey was Taoiseach and remind people that memories can become blurred when it suits people? There were two Ministries in that Government where the appointments were vetoed by another member of the Government, not Deputy Haughey. These were the Ministries of Justice and Defence, two crucial security areas. A senior figure in the Fianna Fáil Party at the time had so little confidence in his own Taoiseach that he would not allow certain people to be appointed to those Ministries. That is known far and wide. What nerve the Opposition have, and particularly their Leader has, to come here proposing a vote of no confidence in the present Taoiseach because he reshuffles his Cabinet.

Conspiracy is relevant. Why not if that is the way they want it? I look forward to seeing the performance of a number of Ministers who have been moved about in this reshuffle. Deputy John Bruton will again be a tremendous Minister for Finance. I am glad to see that the media believe that also. They think he is going to do a tremendous job, and he has the capabilities without any doubt. Deputy Alan Dukes is Minister for Justice. Who better to implement the recommendations of the Whitaker report? I do not think there ever was a more brilliant studied or well organised Member of the Dáil.

Deputy Michael Noonan will bring much verve and imagination to the portfolio of Industry and Commerce and Deputy Gemma Hussey is the ideal person to bring about the type of reforms referred to by the Commission on Social Welfare. Comments have been made about Deputy Barry Desmond that half of his portfolio previous to the reshuffle has been taken away, but the enormity of the two Departments, Health and Social Welfare, is so great that it is almost beyond the bounds of any individual to manage the two at the one time. If anybody could do it then the Minister for Health, Deputy Barry Desmond, was the man to do it — a super human being in his work output and input. He is a tremendous individual and I would certainly contradict any criticism there might be of the Minister for Health. He has done wonderful work and has shown great courage. Probably the hallmark of this Government is people with a lot of courage. They are not taking the easy, soft options.

The Fianna Fáil Party in Government and in Opposition would remind one of a former leader of the unionist party in Northern Ireland, Lord Craigavon. He used to be compared with a cushion because the imprint of the last pressure group or deputation could be clearly seen on his way of thinking, once the deputation or pressure group had left. That is very similar to Fianna Fáil. They agree to doing whatever the most recent pressure group requests, but you cannot do that. It cannot be done, or if it is done the option for this country, quite simply, is that we fall into the hands of the International Monetary Fund. You cannot give way to these people. You must stand up to them. That is what people like the Minister for Health, Deputy Barry Desmond, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Hussey, have done and more than anybody else, Deputy Dukes when in Finance. These are people of tremendous courage and strength and they will continue to do that good work. They will not be daunted by criticism or by votes of no confidence. They are all excellent people.

I particularly look forward to seeing Deputy Boland in the Department of the Environment. I do not think there is anybody in the Government with a greater reforming zeal than he. He will absolutely revel in that position. I do not see why people should be critical of these appointments; they are enlightening appointments. They will give wonderful fillip to the Government. Three years and two months without a Cabinet reshuffle is almost unprecedented in the history of this State. I wonder if anybody has gone back over the records to check that. It is an extraordinarily long time. Yet when we have a reshuffle we get this clamour that the Taoiseach should resign. I fail to see the logic there.

There was a certain embarrassment caused by the manner in which the two junior Ministers, Deputies Michael D'Arcy and Donal Creed, left their positions. Let us be frank about that and not go behind the bush in referring to these matters. However, the traditional way of announcing such changes is to say that the person in question had tendered his or her resignation. The Taoiseach came into this House on Tuesday and explained that quite frankly and clearly. The technicalities involved are traditional and it is unfortunate that it was not perhaps taken in the right spirit. It is the normal traditional way of announcing such changes.

Deputy O'Kennedy referred to the reshuffle as a case of removal from office of the senior Ministers. I am not now referring to junior Ministers at all. That is not the case. Everybody in the Cabinet retained Cabinet level. It is purely a reshuffle. He also referred, probably because I was present at the time, to difficulties in the agri-business; particularly he was critical of the so-called lack of initiatives with regard to the food sector. He also referred to cuts in the budget which he said had not yet been revealed in agriculture. All those cuts have been revealed, discussed and debated.

What he forgot to say and might well have said in regard to agriculture in the context of the Taoiseach's participation is that in the last three years we faced the most major problem yet faced by any Irish Government since our accession to the EC. That, of course, was the question of the milk super-levy. I am in a good position to know what happened there and what might have happened if another individual had been Taoiseach. There is nobody who could have helped me as much as the Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, helped during that super-levy debate. I have no doubt about it and I think it should be recorded, although I have said it before, that we would not have got the concession that we obtained, or anything like it, if it had not been for the Taoiseach's lobbying of the Prime Ministers of the other countries in the Community. I do not believe that that is sufficiently appreciated in this country.

The concession that we got is worth hundreds of millions of pounds annually to us. It means that we are allowed a 20 per cent differential vis-à-vis the other EC countries. That is without exception. We have been allowed to increase our milk production by 20 per cent above that of the other countries in the Community. That was done largely by the Taoiseach's intervention when he toured the capitals of Europe and used his personal friendship and influence with the relevant Prime Ministers. He was a major influence in that. Any credit that he might get happens to be given in a rather backhanded manner. I state quite categorically that I witnessed the whole episode at first hand and he deserves the lion's share of the credit for that achievement.

I was most impressed this morning by the Tánaiste's address. He showed tremendous courage and guts. He was not afraid to call a spade a spade; he came straight out and said it. We and all the Members of this House know that we have had our difficulties. I want to pay tribute to the Tánaiste and to the Labour Party. Their involvement in this Government has been something wonderful. They have been the butt of much criticism and opinion polls would indicate that their achievements at the next election might not be so tremendous. You know, opinion polls can be wrong and if they are right, the trends can be reversed. The Labour Party deserve better than is being indicated at the moment. They showed tremendous courage in the face of adversity — and it is adversity because of the problems which we inherited; because of our massive borrowings abroad; because of the difficulties in repaying those borrowings; because of the difficult choice between cuts in public expenditure and reduction of personal taxation. They are all very difficult choices and I wish the Opposition and the public would show a little courage on a similar line by backing us when we have to make unpopular decisions. It is difficult for a socialist party to go along with those cuts, but they have done it and deserve credit for it, not derision or severe criticism.

They have been wonderful partners in Government and have never flinched from doing what needed to be done. That is not readily appreciated by the general public and perhaps by certain members of my own party at times. It is a time for all of us in politics to face up to the facts of life. There are no easy options. We should be prepared to support the Government who are taking the correct decisions no matter how unpopular. This Government are doing that; this Taoiseach is doing that and will continue to do it. We make no apologies. I fully support the motion expressing confidence in the Taoiseach.

Deputies O'Connell and Mac Giolla rose.

Tomás Mac Giolla

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I have been waiting to get in all morning. I have spoken to you already on this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The position is that six speakers only have spoken from both sides of the House. It is a two day debate. At present I cannot give an indication as to your position. Your name is being kept in mind but at the moment I am not in a position to call you in.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I have been here on this side of the House almost alone. I would point out to you that Deputy O'Connell came into the House only about half an hour ago. In fact, he did not even intend to speak when he came in. It was obvious. We saw Deputy O'Kennedy calling him down and handing him a script.

Two scripts.

Dr. O'Connell

The Government Ministers who have spoken have been rather disconcerted that there should be a motion of no confidence. That is the prerogative of the Opposition where they feel it is justified. I recall on 3 November 1982 Deputy FitzGerald, as Leader of the Opposition, put down a motion of no confidence. He said his justification for doing so was that a situation had developed over the previous seven months which made it timely for the Opposition to put down a motion of no confidence. He spoke about the record of internal disunity and division, indecision in critical policies and putting forward an economic plan which from the first moment it appeared was discredited by independent comment from every angle. That was his justification and it was his prerogative.

The events of last week justify a motion of no confidence. No amount of whitewashing can disguise the fact that there was mishandling of Cabinet decisions. The Taoiseach's authority was flouted by one of his Ministers. The Taoiseach was not truthful in saying that he had accepted the resignation of the junior Ministers in question. This morning the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Haughey, made it clear to the Taoiseach that only a Government could appoint junior Ministers and he asked the Taoiseach whether a Government meeting had been held last Thursday. The Taoiseach was very quick to point out that there was a Government meeting last Thursday.

The announcement was made at 4.50 p.m. Did a Government meeting take place before the Taoiseach's announcement? This is crucial. If a Government meeting did not take place, then the Taoiseach has misled the House again and the Taoiseach has no other course but to resign. It is incumbent on the Taoiseach to clarify this matter and to tell us exactly what time the Government meeting took place at which the decision was made to appoint the two Ministers concerned.

The Taoiseach has the authority under Article 28 of the Constitution to call for the resignation of a Minister. If a Minister refuses to resign the Taoiseach can bring the matter to the attention of the President and the President can terminate the Minister's appointment. Here was a blatant challenge to the Taoiseach's authority — Deputy Desmond's refusal to resign. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this Minister refused to resign. I will not go into detail as to why the Taoiseach should want to transfer him from his very sensitive post. We had a challenge to the authority of the Taoiseach. By virtue of the fact that he has not the support of his Ministers, the Taoiseach is honour bound to resign.

I always had the greatest admiration for Deputy FitzGerald from the time he came into this House. I thought we were seeing not a politician, as we had known them, but a statesman in the making. I was very happy to see him take over the reins of Government in 1981. I thought he would lead a crusade for better government and a better country. I thought he was a very honourable man. At the time I would have followed him in what he wanted to do for this country. I cannot say I hold a high opinion of him now. Some actions of his, some decisions he has taken, lead me to question this. I would not be exaggerating if I said that I think he is just playing party politics. He could not, by my reckoning, be described as a statesman. He has succumbed to the lure of power and by his decision to sacrifice his principles for political expediency he has been shamed; he has destroyed the image; he has destroyed the good name he had and he has shaken the confidence of his close friends. He has shaken the confidence of those in the media who stood by him loyally through the years.

We all agree that the media were very benevolent towards the Taoiseach in the three and a half years he has been in office because they were be bazzled by him. I can well understand why they wanted to see a statesman in office, a man who proclaimed he was on a crusade. One of his greatest supporters, down the years, one of those who has been most loyal to him, his unpaid public relations man, Bruce Arnold of the Irish Independent, a very honourable person whom I have known since 1973, has changed his opinion. Bruce Arnold has stood by the Taoiseach week in and week out. He has defended him at times when the Taoiseach needed defending. That columnist remained constantly loyal to the Taoiseach but this morning in the Irish Independent Bruce Arnold conveyed in an article that his confidence had been shaken. He indicated that he felt he had been betrayed by the Taoiseach. It took tremendous courage to write that type of article but Bruce Arnold is a courageous and honourable man. I have defended that columnist over the years when party political people described him as an enemy. My response was that he was an honourable man. He has now made a statement about the Taoiseach.

Mr. Prendergast

Did the Deputy say "Bruce" or "Brutus"?

Dr. O'Connell

An honourable man like Bruce Arnold would not lightly make a statement such as he did today. He weighed up the position carefully and deliberately for more than one week before writing the article, one that should be read by everybody who is concerned about our Government and about leadership in it. Bruce Arnold said:

The main political issue today... it is loyalty over judgment. Judgment must direct that Garret FitzGerald's leadership of the present Coalition Administration is now irreversibly flawed.

That is an important statement. I admit that Bruce Arnold's loyalty is to the Coalition and I do not question that because he has a right to do what he wants. I like to see an alternative to one-party Government, as I have preached for many years. I did not like to see one Government in power for 16 years and that was the reason why I tried to bring the Labour Party around to a form of coalition that would offer an effective alternative to one-party Government. Bruce Arnold is of the same opinion. We must have an effective alternative. That columnist now claims that the Taoiseach's judgment and leadership are flawed and he must go. I have read articles that were biased in regard to this matter but I do not think Bruce Arnold could be considered a biased journalist. He still commits his loyalty to the Government but, in essence, what he said in the article was that the Taoiseach was not the man to lead the country or Fine Gael.

We have ample evidence to support that view. In my view the Taoiseach has done a great disservice to the country and to this institution by what seem to me to be untruths. That is serious because this institution is under attack from outside. I would like to think that the political Leader of the country would not be guilty of deception and untruths. The most important thing is that he has brought the House into disrepute. That is what the debate is about. It is not an opportunistic debate. We have an obligation to ensure that we behave properly as legislators and that our Taoiseach is impeccable. He must be seen to be impeccable. The Taoiseach should not make statements such as he did on TV. He was guilty of deception and brought the House into disrepute.

At a time when we are trying to get away from this notion that we are party hacks who are prepared to sacrifice principles for political expediency our Taoiseach has shamed us all. He is not the honourable man I once thought he was. He is not a statesman, although on one occasion in the House I said he was. He is just a cheap politician who has sacrificed principles for political expediency. He had an opportunity to prove that he was a statesman and that the House was not brought into disrepute. He had an opportunity to say that he would rather sacrifice everything than sacrifice his good name, his honour and his integrity, but he failed.

When a Minister defied his authority the Taoiseach should have said principles were more important. We are not arguing about the re-shuffle. A Taoiseach has a right to re-shuffle his Cabinet and I would be surprised if any Member questioned his right to do that. He can put Ministers where he likes. If it is his view that a person should be in a particular Department, he has a right to appoint that person. He knows the person better than we do. However, this debate is about political expediency. The Taoiseach tried to sacrifice Ministers for Government policies and all Members are aware of that. Ministers were carrying out Government policies and not their own.

The Taoiseach changed his mind when he saw the opinion polls. He is a man who has always been very influenced by opinion polls. One flaw I saw in him was that he was identified as one of the mongrel foxes that tried to bring about the downfall of the Taoiseach in the last Coalition. What has happened is that the Toaiseach got alarmed and worried by the opinion polls and he suddenly decided that he must throw the lambs, the Ministers, to the wolves, do anything to put a new image on the Government. His authority was challenged and when that happened he bungled the whole job and came forward with a new set of proposals.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 20 Feb 1986