First of all, I wish to inform the House that on the adjournment of the Dáil last Thursday I went to Áras an Úachtaráin and tendered my resignation as Taoiseach to the President, who accepted it. I also would like to propose that, as no agreement has yet been reached for the election of a Taoiseach, by agreement with the parties the Dáil would adjourn today until — and I am suggesting this — 3 p.m. on Thursday, 6 July, in order to enable further consultation, deliberation and discussions to take place.
Nomination of Taoiseach (Resumed).
Last Thursday we adjourned this House until today in order to allow further consultations to take place between the parties with a view to electing a Taoiseach and permitting the formation of a Government. Before commenting on the consultations that have taken place, I want to put those consultations, Sir, and the role of Deputy Haughey in their proper perspective.
On 26 April last, Deputy Haughey returned from Japan to find that an issue on which the Government faced defeat had not been resolved. I am given to understand that he had instructed at least two of his Ministers to resolve the issue and on hearing that the Government faced defeat on the issue, Deputy Haughey threatened a general election. The Government were duly defeated on the issue, as they deserved to be, and the threat of an election was maintained. Having issued the threat, Deputy Haughey prevaricated on the issue for four weeks before finally deciding to seek a dissolution of the Dáil on 25 May. The issue then was not the one on which the Government had been defeated, nor was it indeed any subsequent defeat. It was allegedly Deputy Haughey's fear that the Government might be beaten again in the future on matters in respect of which he had, to my knowledge, no consultation with other parties.
The election campaign began. The central theme proposed by Deputy Haughey and his colleagues was that it was necessary to have a Fianna Fáil majority Government. That was set out in a massively expensive media campaign. In the event, the electorate refused to give Deputy Haughey and his colleagues an overall majority. Fianna Fáil lost seats.
It was immediately clear from the election results that the traditional responses of the Dáil would not produce a Taoiseach or a Government. It was clear also to any well informed political observer that there were not enough Independent Members elected to this House who would be of a mind to support Deputy Haughey and his party. The election of a Taoiseach and the formation of a Government with the support of Independent Deputies, as had been done on a number of occasions in the past, was not possible. It was clear to anybody with any political sense that a new approach was needed.
That was the context in which consultations began in the week following the announcement of the general election results. Deputy Haughey's approach to those consultations has shown not the slightest acceptance or awareness of the political context in which they are taking place. Of course, the full context is not solely political. While threats of an election, prevarication and a general election were followed by consultations, other things were happening in the world that affected the daily lives of our people. We had seen the rate of inflation increase. That poses danger to economic development, to employment and to living standards. Interest rates had gone up, adding further to all those difficulties.
On the other hand, looking forward, I can see prospects for growth which, if skilfully and sensitively managed, will allow us to continue to make financial progress and give us resources to deal with the social damage done by the last Government. That damage came about because that Government persistently ignored the reforms being urged on them by this House. They failed to grasp the opportunities presented to them by a unique consensus in this House, a consensus which Deputy Haughey alone wilfully and without any justification shattered.
It is clear that we need a stable Government drawn from a majority in this House, and who have the support of a majority in this House, to manage our affairs for the next four years. The consultations which began in the week beginning 19 June should have been directed at that objective. Deputy Haughey's approach, however, has been totally different. His approach in discussions with me and — as far as I know in discussions with the leaders of other parties — has been that first, his is the largest party and, therefore, should form the Government; secondly, another party should support that Government from outside the structure of government and, thirdly, he proposes a number of changes in relation to committees in this House and in consultation procedures which would be put in place in order to give that supporting party a greater input to the formation of Government policy and legislation.
Those proposals in relation to committees and procedures in this House do not in any way constitute a part of the negotiations that should have been taking place. As far as I understand them, they are proposals which I regard as useful in themselves. They might well amount to practical and desirable improvements in the way we do our business in this House but they do not constitute a serious contribution to the process of electing a Taoiseach and forming a Government. Indeed, any value those proposals might have had has been reduced by the clear implication contained in remarks made by Deputy Haughey in the course of an RTE interview yesterday. The clear implication was that he would not give any Government that might be put in place by this Dáil the kind of support which he has been seeking for his party over the past two weeks.
During the course of the past two weeks, we have seen Deputy Haughey make two attempts to get around clear provisions of the Constitution. The first such attempt was last Thursday when he tried, on the basis of a very thin argument, to avoid resignation. The second attempt came yesterday — again in the course of an RTE interview — when he attempted in a most unprecedented manner to prejudge the response the President might make to advice on a dissolution.
Neither Deputy Haughey nor Fianna Fáil have made any serious contribution to the resolution of the issue before this House. The logic of the position is inescapable. Our clear duty is to accept the result of the general election and elect a Taoiseach. Sixty-one Members of this House have shown their willingness to face those responsibilities. Others, including the 77 Members on the Fianna Fáil benches, have totally failed to do so. The alternative to electing a Taoiseach in the 26th Dáil is a general election in which the people's verdict on a single party Fianna Fáil overall majority will not have changed. In the aftermath of another general election, caused yet again by Deputy Haughey, the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party will be faced with the same challenge which faces it today. There will be only one material difference, they will certainly have fewer seats.
In all the circumstances, I agree with the proposal to adjourn this House for 72 hours so that negotiations can take place. I stress "negotiations", not consultations. I insist that real negotiations must now be entered into and they must be based on a clear and realistic acceptance of the verdict which the people gave on polling day, just over two weeks ago. To help in preparing those negotiations I now propose that we call together this evening or tonight a forum of the leaders of the parties in this House, under an independent chairman, to identify clearly the options available to us so that real and substantive negotiations can take place and the country can be given the stable Government which it needs.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
In relation to the proposal before us regarding the length of the adjournment, I find the proposal from Deputy Haughey unacceptable and I should like to outline to the House why I do. This House, as representative of the people who elected us, is absolutely entitled to a full and frank explanation of the dilemma now facing the country. By that I mean we are entitled to be told what discussions have taken place and with whom. We are entitled to have outlined to us the degree of progress made in the formation of a Government and the obstacles that emerged in the process.
The public, like many Members of this House, have been forced to rely on a diligent media for their information as to how this potential crisis is being handled. That is not good enough. Every Member of this House is of equal standing and will remain so until a Government are formed. However, the acting Taoiseach has treated this House and the community with disdain since the general election result became clear. He has done so because he has made no serious effort to solve — or even to address — the problems which he and he alone has created. There is nothing in the result of the general election which entitles Deputy Haughey to say to any other party that he is prepared to accept their support only if it is given on his terms. In fact, the opposite is the case. The people sent Deputy Haughey a message very loudly and clearly in the general election that they did not believe he should have unfettered control of the leverage of power. If the people had reason to believe that was the correct message to send a couple of weeks ago, they have even more reason since the result became clear.
Last Thursday this House witnessed the unseemly spectacle of the then Taoiseach trying to hang on to his constitutional office by stealth. Yesterday we heard the acting Taoiseach trying to tie the hands of the highest constitutional officer in the country — the President — and using the national radio station to do so. Article 13.2.2º of the Constitution states quite clearly that the President of Ireland has absolute discretion in dealing with the advice of a Taoiseach who has lost the confidence of this House in the matter of a dissolution. For Deputy Haughey to attempt to subvert the discretion the President has, by alluding to an entirely fictitious accepted wisdom on radio, can only serve to undermine confidence further in Deputy Haughey. There is no such thing as accepted wisdom in this matter, there is only the absolute discretion of our President. For Deputy Haughey the term "accepted wisdom" appears to mean that the President should exercise his discretion in whatever way Deputy Haughey wishes him to.
Deputy Haughey is, after all, the same man who on the night of 26 January 1982 made very strenuous efforts to persuade the President that he should not dissolve the Dáil after the then Government had been defeated on a budget. It was an Alice in Wonderland character who said "words mean what I want them to mean, no more, no less". The actions and statements of the acting Taoiseach in the past few days raised two important questions. Has the Taoiseach sought or received any legal advice on the extent of his powers since he resigned from office last week? If so, will the acting Taoiseach tell the House what is his advice? Has the acting Taoiseach had any consultation with the President that would enable him to draw the conclusion that the President will dissolve the Dáil on Deputy Haughey's advice? If so, will he please inform the House about those consultations?
A Deputy pointed out in this House last week that the House is not a courtroom. That may be technically true but it is a place where democratic values and institutions are, and must continue to be, cherished and protected. The duty to do that falls more heavily on the person elected as Taoiseach than any other and it can only be a source of sadness to realise if those values have been tarnished in the last week, it is the person who was elected last as Taoiseach who is responsible.
It is now becoming clear that the options are somewhat limited even if only as a result of the intransigence of Deputy Haughey. There remain three parties in this House willing and able to work together and sharing sufficiently their philosophy at least to guarantee a period of stability. However, the leaders of those parties have yet to sit down together and to have serious discussion. Surely now is the time for a tripartite initiative involving those three like-minded parties?
One of the options Deputy Haughey put in front of us is the possibility of another general election. Even Deputy Haughey must know how irresponsible that option is at present. The people were asked to choose three weeks ago and they did not choose a Fianna Fáil single party Government. Fianna Fáil now have a bounden responsibility to come to terms with this fact. They must come to terms too with the knowledge that no one man is big enough or important enough to hold this country and its Constitution up to ransom.
I am proposing that if the House must adjourn it should adjourn for no more than 24 hours. Thereafter, I believe that the House should sit once every day to ensure that each Member of the House is fully informed and involved in the crucial process of resolving this crisis. Each Member has both a right and a duty to be so involved.
I want first of all to move a motion in my name, and that of the other members' of The Workers Party, as an addendum to the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Playing politics while the country is going down the drain.
My motion reads:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the lack of progress towards forming a Government and recognises that, in the present circumstances, responsibility to form an administration rests with the like-minded parties which received the support of the majority of the electorate in the recent election, and primarily with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
I should like to ask the House to support that motion. It is clear that in the few days since the Dáil adjourned on Thursday the painful adjustments I referred to on that day have not yet been made, that the three conservative parties in the House have yet to find a formula on which they can agree to form an administration. It is only fair to say that all three of those parties, the Fine Gael Party, the Progressive Democrats and the Fianna Fáil Party, went to the electorate on the basis that they were offering Government. The electorate chose not to give either of them individually, or the Fine Gael-Progressive Democrats pact sufficient seats to form a Government. However, what they did was to give all three sufficient seats to form a Government between them. They should accept the mandate which the electorate has given them and settle down and discuss ways in which they can implement that mandate.
There has been no change in the stance of The Workers' Party in relation to this. We made it clear during the election what our position would be as a socialist party and, given the number of candidates socialists were offering to the electorate, that the majority would be held by the conservative parties. We said that it was, therefore, their responsibility to form a Government and that under no circumstances would we either by way of our vote or abstention assist Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Progressive Democrats in forming a Government. That remains our position. It is the one consistent position in the House. I should like to ask all the conservative parties in the House to recognise that reality and to work accordingly. There is no point in waiting, as some of them appear to be doing, to see whether or not The Workers' Party will break ranks and either abstain or offer support for one or other of their proposals. We do not intend doing that.
Another point I should like to make in relation to this matter is that all discussions to date have been in the corridors and, indeed, in private rooms. As Deputy Spring has said, by and large the public have had to depend on the media for what information is available on how those discussions are going on. Indeed, all the Deputies, other than those directly involved in contacts with different parties, have had to depend on the media. There is a need for a debate in the House on what has happened so far. There is a need for all Deputies to put on record their attitude to the current situation.
I do not have any objection to the adjournment until Thursday because sufficient time should be given for the parties I have referred to to come to terms with each other. However, when the Dáil resumes on Thursday, there should be an opportunity for a full debate and Deputies who want to contribute should be enabled to do so.
I should like to make another point in relation to the fact that all the talks so far have been about whether or not Deputies can support a minority Fianna Fáil Government, a coalition of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael or a coalition of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. There has not been any discussion that I am aware of, from what I read in the media, about how any Government will tackle the real problems which were brought home very strongly during the election campaign. I am referring to the health services and how that crisis will be dealt with, the education service and who will deal with the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio, who will ensure that the schools we need are built. A whole range of other issues need to be dealt with urgently and seriously.
It is time for the three parties concerned to settle down and discuss those issues and say how they intend to cope with them rather than arguing about how many seats will be available to them in the Cabinet. I should like to make a point in relation to the proposal put forward by Deputy Dukes that a forum of all party leaders should meet to discuss the options. Frankly, I am not adverse to discussing any matter with any party leader in the House either individually or in a forum but it must be clear that the options are very limited at this time. The options are either that Fianna Fáil accept members in a Cabinet who are not of the Fianna Fáil Party or that Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats accept a minority Fianna Fáil Government. The final alternative, if those options are not acceptable, is to call a general election. It takes very little discussion to realise that they are the options. It is clearly the responsibility of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats to sit down and sort out the extent they intend to compromise on those options.
The role of the President has been mentioned from time to time and it would be worth while if the forum referred to by Deputy Dukes addressed the question of how the President could be invited to participate in such a forum to see in what way he could use his good offices to assist the three conservative parties I have referred to to reach an accommodation.
The outcome of the general election confronts this House and its Members with both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to respond to the people's verdict as true democrats. The opportunity is to turn our backs collectively on the politics of failure and to put in place what the Irish people want, a consensus Government which is composed of more than one party of like mind; like minded on basic economic strategy, and able to lead this country during four vital years of political, economic and social transition and development.
We now need leadership to cut through a legacy of history, of past rivalries and of personal feelings to bring Irish politics onto a new plane. "Breaking the mould" may be an over-used phrase these days, but it still remains a fundamental political imperative. Whether we envisage ourselves as "breaking the mould" or "casting off shackles", the political facts remain. The people have spoken, emphatically and decisively. The people have changed the political order and, as democrats, we must accept their will.
To dissolve the 25th Dáil in the circumstances, and on the pretext that it was done, was within the rights of the then Taoiseach. At great subsequent cost to himself and to others, he rejected a political order in which, as a minority party leader, he could supply Government within a consensus. The people knew that and resented it, and expressed their resentment at its being thrown aside. His party sought a mandate for majority Government and was decisively rejected. Even now, is this remotely realised? When will it be accepted?
We heard after the election that Deputy Haughey was confident that he would form the next Government. Was he so confident? On what was this confidence based? It was not based on a democratic evaluation of the election result. It was not based on any process of consultation. It seemed to arise from a belief in some sort of pre-ordained right to power in almost any circumstance.
The activities of the then Taoiseach last Thursday in attempting to evade his constitutional obligation to resign, and his more recent attempt yesterday to suggest that what he termed "accepted wisdom" would cause the President not to exercise his constitutional functions, are both wrong and disturbing. Deputy Haughey was obliged to resign. He has no right to belittle, prejudge or pre-empt the clear and real role of the President. His defiance of the Constitution yesterday in trying to dictate how the President should exercise his only unfettered and totally discretionary power is every bit as serious as his refusal to resign last Thursday.
Deputy Haughey's present attitude to the President's powers and absolute discretion contrasts sharply with his actions in January 1982 when he sought unsuccessfully to persuade the President to reject the request of the then Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, to dissolve the Dáil. In my view it is neither logical nor acceptable that the President should be urged to exercise discretion in 1982 but be publicly encouraged to think in 1989 that, if he has such discretion at all, he should not exercise it but should automatically accept the advice of a caretaker Taoiseach.
There is another constitutional matter on which Deputy Haughey should now reflect. The Constitution created the Executive and the Legislature. There is no constitutional basis for the creation or development of ad hoc political bodies or committees to mediate or to affect the way in which the Government and the Oireachtas function. The right way to accommodate political realities is to have them reflected in the Government and in this Chamber, not elsewhere.
The case for a Cabinet that reflects the political base on which it was formed is clear, simple, logical, natural and overwhelming. Never in the history of the State have any party been asked or expected to give a commitment to support, over four years, an Executive of which they do not form part, and for good reason.
Participation in Government is not a privilege for those who support it; it is their duty and their responsibility. It cannot be shirked. It is at Cabinet that budgets are made, social policy formulated, foreign policy decided and the day-to-day business of Government carried on. That is constitutional fact and political reality.
The pressures of day-to-day dependence by a Government on another party would mount as every issue came to be decided. The pressures on both the Government and their allies on the Opposition benches would grow apace and would easily become unbearable.
Where would European politics stand if the arguments made by Deputy Haughey against coalition were to hold sway? If Chancellor Kohl and his predecessors had refused to work in partnership with Hans Dietrich Genscher and his colleagues in the FDP like Bangemann and Lambsdorff, what sort of Germany, what sort of Europe and what sort of world would we now live in?
If democratic politicians will not work together in Ireland, almost uniquely among the states of free Europe, why should "social partners" work together within our State? Why should democratic politicians be expected to work together north of the Border? What principles or models are being held up to our young people? Are we asking them to go to Germany to seek employment where there is political stability and sanity because we cannot even address the political and economic realities at home?
That Fianna Fáil have had a tradition of not offering or participating in coalitions is true, but they also had a tradition for nearly 50 years of obtaining working majorities. I am now calling on Deputy Haughey and the entire Fianna Fáil Party to overcome history, to look to their claim to be the "party of reality" to rise above rivalry and to join in giving this country a Government based on partnership, a Government with a clear set of legislative and policy aims and priorities, united in their determination to confront and overcome the problems Ireland faces and with the confidence to accept changing political realities both in Ireland and in Europe.
If the Progressive Democrats did not believe that such a Government based on partnership was possible, we would not have moved towards it. Intransigence is always easier than acting with courage. Statesmen are the authors of history, mere politicians are its prisoners. The people are watching our proceedings and are forming their judgments on our commitment to basic democratic values. These weeks are a testing ground for the democratic institutions we have. They are also a test of the democratic values of those who have been elected to these institutions.
There has been a series of miscalculations and misjudgments which ought not be underestimated for what they are. We have seen in the last months and days: (1) an unnecessary election based on a misguided view of party interest and a misjudgment of the electorate; (2) a deliberate and conscious rejection of political action based on informal consensus and a willingness to wound and exploit those who placed support for country and policy before party interest; (3) an incapacity to accept the result of the election; (4) an unwillingness to accept the spirit and letter of the Constitution; and (5) a misguided and deliberate attempt to bluff or to bully the hand of the President on the basis of a falsehood — a suggestion that what was termed "accepted wisdom" indicated that the President should lend himself to helping one party to avoid the clear decision of the electorate and in turn to bully that electorate into a different decision.
These issues and actions are grave matters because, viewed as a pattern and taken in conjunction with a refusal to accept realities and to work in partnership with others, they would, if persisted with, represent a grave threat to democratic values themselves.
This is not, however, a time for recrimination or division; this is a moment for those who call themselves democrats to turn to the task in hand. This is a time for determination to provide positive remedies for our national problems. This is, above all, a time for those who can work together in the national interest to do so. Words have been spoken and postures have been adopted without regard to the national interest. Some have even suggested that our offer of partnership in Government is made in the knowledge or hope that it would be rejected. That is completely untrue. Let me make it clear to every Member of this House that we are guided in these matters by our perception of the national interest and that we have consciously chosen to put considerations of party interest, party identity and personal feelings to one side.
I have sent a team to negotiate with the Fianna Fáil Party in the utmost of good faith. Their mandate and their purpose is to put in place a partnership that will give Ireland over the next four years a good and workable Government, with a programme of policy and legislation to transform our society from failure and conflict to success. We can do no more and we will do no less.
Let every Member of this House know and believe that we are not in the business of recrimination, of settling old scores, of forcing others to eat their words or political humble pie. We are not seeking to exact the highest political price from anyone or for anyone, except to secure what is best for the country. We have put both the past and party interests aside, to put in their place a partnership in the interests of the people. That required of us conviction, vision and courage and I now ask every Deputy in this House personally: "can you now do the same?"
On Thursday last I outlined my reasons for voting against the nominees of the Right Wing parties for the position of Taoiseach. I believe that the only valid role for myself and other Left Wing Members of the Dáil is to provide an effective Opposition to the conservative Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Progressive Democrats Parties
One example of how important the Left's oppostion role can be was undoubtedly very forcefully demonstated last week by Deputy Spring's intervention when he drew attention to a most significant constitutional issue. Deputy Spring's action on that occasion ensured that the Constitution was adhered to by the resignation of the then Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey. I believe the Left can continue to provide a real opposition in the Dáil. Despite their numerical disadvantage, only the Left have an alternative policy programme. For that reason I contend, with respect, that Deputy Blaney was wrong when he said last week at the opening session of this Dáil, that the Left could support a minority Fianna Fáil administration. There simply is no middle ground between the socialist policies of the Left and the Right-Wing policies of Fianna Fáil which were particularly evident during the last Dáil.
Given that there is no significant difference in policy between Fianna Fáil, their offshoot, the Progressive Democrats, and the Fine Gael Party there is an obvious responsibility on those parties to follow the Fine Gael election slogan and put the country first. The position of Fianna Fáil and Deputy Haughey, they say, is that coalitions do not work. Coalitions between opposites do not work but a coalition between Fianna Fáil and former leading Members of the Fianna Fáil Party could very easily work if the Members concerned were prepared to put petty personality differences behind them, draw up a programme for government and elect a government to implement that programme.
There is no justification for the Fianna Fáil refusal to act on that basis. The electorate have refused them an overall majority. The electorate do not want a Fianna Fáil Government in power. Yet Fianna Fáil refused to accept the decision of the electorate. It could be said that Fine Gael did put the country first in the last Dáil. It is understandable that the failure of Fianna Fáil to reciprocate and instead call what was believed to be an opportunist election makes it difficult for Fine Gael to put the country first on this occasion. It was just as difficult for me two years ago when on the basis that the country needed a Government, that nobody wanted another election, that in any event I intended to vote against that Government on policy issues, I enabled, by my abstention, Deputy Haughey to form a Government. But over the following two and a quarter years I consistently voted against the policies of that Fianna Fáil Government.
Regardless of whatever decision is reached by Fine Gael over the next few days one thing is certain: Fine Gael cannot fulfil a role as an Opposition party simply because, in their own words, Fine Gael share the general thrust of Fianna Fáil policy. If the Right-Wing parties refuse to elect a Government the electorate will not thank them in the inevitable general election that will ensue. What, then, if no party obtain an overall majority and I contend that no party will obtain an overall majority?
I support and will vote for the amendment proposed by Deputy Spring here today.
I have not come into this House today to lecture people or to deliver homilies. I could not because I am not in a position to do so; I have not the representation or the necessary strength. Nevertheless more than 9,160 people in Limerick East voted for me. They would want me to speak on this crucial matter today and make my position known. I am sure there are many other people who would echo some of what I will say in this House.
There is no point in my telling Deputy Haughey what he should do or should not do. I have no right to do so; I do not have that mandate. Nevertheless Deputy Haughey did call that general election; the general election was called at his behest. He called the general election in an effort to seek an overall majority. He did not obtain that overall majority, must now take the consequences of his action and recognise his position. That is the first thing he must do — acknowledge his position. I know his fighting qualities. I know what he has and has not done over the years but I do not see much point in a blind belief in oneself and one's strength when that strength no longer obtains. One cannot have an unqualified, blind belief in one's right to rule when one has not the requisite numbers in this House to do so. The reality is that things have changed. One cannot continue as though a general election had never been held. One cannot continue to ignore reality.
Of course it must also have been said by other Members of this House that nobody won the election, that no party won this election. As I have said before, we can learn from other countries on the European continent where coalitions are the common denominators. They are the norm in governments in those countries. Since World War II almost every European country, apart from Great Britain, had coalition governments, many of which have worked well. They have had vigorous coalition governments, vigorous opposition parties in which, as Deputy Gregory has said, the Left have played a role. There is no good reason why Ireland should be different from any of those European countries. Indeed we have seen the great traditional enemies within Europe come together, countries such as France, Germany and Britain who fought two world wars, who have been at war for centuries. They have resolved their differences around the table in Europe by sitting down together and working out common polities. Why can we not do the same. Why are we so different? Have we a different mentality, a different philosophy? Are we somewhat different because we live on the edge of Europe? It does not make sense to me at all.
The difficulty as I perceive it is with the very word "coalition" which, in Irish politics, has become a dirty word. Indeed Fianna Fáil have much to account for in having made it a dirty word, a word to be afraid of or about which to be ashamed. It is a simple word from which there is no need for anybody to run away or about which to be afraid. However, unfortunately, in the vocabulary of Irish politics in the past that word has been debased. Today Fianna Fáil are stuck with it, cannot get away from it; they are hoisted on their petard.
Petty squabbling is one thing — while the country and the world watch — but it will do nothing to resolve the problem confronting this House today. If one faces reality one will realise that all the parties are composed of coalitions of a type; not everybody will agree 100 per cent with the policies of any one party. That is why I contend that all parties are composed of coalitions of a type. They are practical; their function is to get on with their business by way of compromise. Over the last two years we have witnessed plenty of agreements, plenty of compromise, much coalition in this House in the conducting of its business.
Therefore it is not good enough simply to say that today things are different. They are not different in any manner whatsoever. The Mexican-type position we have obtaining in this House today will not solve any problem. Neither is it good enough for Deputy Dukes to stand up in this House adopting a high moral stance as though he had something different to say. Adopting a high moral stance or standing on high ground in any issue is one thing but there is no virtue in doing so in the midst of a crisis; that gets one nowhere. Since the foundation of their party Fine Gael have prided themselves on putting the country first. We hear constantly about the constituional party, this party of rectitude, of law and order. One can talk about such things but let us see some of those principles being put into practice today. Let us see a demonstration of these principles being put into practice rather than merely paying lip service to them. As I have said, there was a consensus in this House over the past two years. Where is that consensus now when we need it? I have not come into this House today to indulge in recriminations or petty abuse; I do not believe in adopting that type of attitude.
Deputy Blaney was the last speaker at the last sitting of this House. He is the father of this House and, I suppose, entitled to be the last speaker. He availed of the opportunity to comment on what I had said on Thursday last. In the process he delivered a number of homilies to me and to the Left in general. I am willing to take advice from anybody and to listen to homilies. I suppose that is why I have been elected to-this House; I have learned from people who know more than I and I have learned from some of my defeats. I have learned from my experiences gained in the difficult battle of the world outside. Deputy Blaney is not in any position to tell me what I should or should not do or indeed to tell the Left generally what they should or should not do. He has never been identified with the Left. Therefore he has no right to tell me how I should behave in this House. Even if one examines his relationship with Deputy Haughey and the Fianna Fáil Party in recent years one finds that it has not been very edifying. If Deputy Blaney wants to postulate differences let him start at the beginning and debate his differences with the Fianna Fáil Party where he spent most of his political life. That is something from which we could all learn. If he did so, then I would listen to him in this House but I will not listen to him today. Actions must speak louder than words in this and other areas also.
I must emphasise that I would not agree with Deputy Gregory if I thought something he said was wrong but I ask, as he has asked, what would the calling of yet another general election solve? What purpose would it serve? I contend it would serve no purpose whatsoever. I contend it would merely cause a series of general elections here as there was in France some 20 years ago. I contend another general election would simply produce the same result. We have got to learn to live with the present position and get on with the business of parliamentary duties; that is what we public representatives have been elected to do. We need to show some maturity, not demonstrated heretofore, in dealing with these problems. We need a new more flexible attitude and philosophy brought to bear on such matters. After all we must realise we are all public representatives; we have not come here to represent ourselves; we have been elected to represent the public. That is what public representation is all about — to get on with the job of serving the public who elected us. As far as I can see as a public representative, the public want to see a Government in this country, the best Government we can produce. Let us get on with that task.
Last Thursday in the House I voted against Deputies Haughey, Dukes and Spring for Taoiseach and upon reflection I am more than satisfied that that was the correct decision. I support the motion put down by Deputy De Rossa and I would also support the general tenor of the speech made by Deputy Spring. Finally, I would appeal to Deputy Haughey to respond in a meaningful way to the reasoned demands of both Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats.
I was elected by the people of Roscommon on an independent ticket, and more specifically on the hospital issues. I have a specific function to carry out while in this Dáil. At the outset I would like to state that I have absolutely no alignment with any party, major or minor. After my election I was interviewed on many occasions by the press, on the radio and on television. In almost all of them, I was asked who I would support in the Dáil and who would I support for Taoiseach. My answer on all occasions was that I did not know, but that I would listen to all the parties and when they had spoken I would then make up my mind.
I wanted to hear what would be the position of the different parties in relation to the hospital services in County Roscommon. I said that the party which would give me the best guarantees for upgrading the hospital services and the employment in question in County Roscommon would get my support on 29 June. When that day came my duty was quite simple. I said I would support the party that gave me the best guarantees for the hospital issues, and that is exactly what I did.
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy
What about maiden speeches.
We in this Dáil — the 166 of us — are in an honoured position, we are in an exalted position. We represent the country. We represent the views of the people who elected us. If we ask why we were elected and why we are here today, surely the answer must be that we were elected to govern, or to help govern, the country in as practical and in as sound a manner as possible. If we fail to do that, then we will have failed the people who voted for us.
I know time is running out and that the eleventh hour has passed, but even at this late stage parhaps we could update the guy in the gospel many centuries ago who arrived at the eleventh hour and got as much credit as the guys who arrived earlier. If this impasse, which I know can be solved, is solved even at this late stage, it would improve our image in the eyes of the people because we would be doing what they want us to do.
I would appeal to the leaders and the negotiators of the various parties to please bear in mind the views of the people who voted for them, and for the rest of us, when they negotiate again. If they do that, then this impasse, which appears to be insoluble at the moment, will no longer exist.
I, first of all, want to make it clear to the House and to the nation that the position of my party, Fianna Fáil, is that we are not negative. Our approach to this difficulty — I refuse to use the word "crisis"— is not a negative one. In fact, I want to suggest that I and my party are as positive in our approach to this situation as anybody else in this House, and perhaps more positive than most. We are specifically offering the people — as we believe it is our duty to do — a Government, albeit a minority Government, a Fianna Fáil Government, which will carry on the work, the successful work, of the last two-and-a-quarter years.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I believe it has not been disputed by anybody that the Government which was in office for the last two-and-a-quarter years was one of the most successful Governments this country has ever seen, if not the most successful. I believe that the results are evident. The results of our good management of the nation and its economy are evident in the constant stream of figures and indicators that are emerging.
Why, then did the Deputy go to the country?
I did not interrupt anybody in this House and I would crave——
(Interruptions.)
Let us have order.
As I said, during the course of the general election we published one of the most comprehensive programmes of economic and social development every put before the people of this country. That policy, that programme, is still awaiting implementation. We are offering to this House and to the country to implement those programmes and those policies over the next four or five years and in so doing to transform this country and to go a long way, if not the whole way, towards solving our principal economic and social problems.
I reiterate and reaffirm that this party, Fianna Fáil, are positive and acting positively in this situation and we are asking for support for a minority Fianna Fáil Government on the basis of past performance, a record performance over the last two-and-a-quarter years——
Which was pathetic.
——and the programme and the policies that we outlined for the next four or five years——
It was a pathetic performance.
(Interruptions.)
I know it is difficult for some people to even listen——
Please, Deputy Mitchell.
The Deputy should hear what I have to say.
——but I think, as a number of Deputies have spoken——
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputies please restrain themselves. Let us hear the Taoiseach out.
——the responsibility is on every Member of this House——
The Taoiseach is suffering from delusions.
A number of Deputies have spoken about the eyes of the world being upon us, and I appeal to Deputies to keep that in mind.
With regard to consultations, at the moment the election results became clear I gave it as my view that it was the responsibility of all of us, and myself in particular, to accept without question the decision the people handed to us and to make every endeavour to make that decision work. That is what I have been about since the night of the election.
I have done everything in my power to endeavour to secure the best possible result. I have entered into discussions, consultations, deliberations and negotiations with all the party leaders in this House. In particular I have received, and I gladly acknowledge the fact, a constructive response from the Leader of Fine Gael and from the Leader of the Progressive Democrats. In regard to the Leader of the Workers' Party, he did me the courtesy of coming to see me, listening to what I had to say and explaining in very clear terms his position and the position of his party, which I fully accept. At least we did our duty, both of us, in having that exchange of views even though we looked on the matter and at the situation from entirely different perspectives. However, I find it a bit difficult in this House here today to take a lecture from Deputy Spring on consultation, deliberations and negotiations, when he, more than anyone else in this House has stood apart from the process, has refused to take part in any consultations as far as I know——
As the electorate wished.
——but nevertheless takes it upon himself to criticise me for refusing to accept the results of the election, for refusing to accept the political realities. I claim I have spoken consistently and acted consistently on the basis of accepting those political realities.
You are acting out a charade, you are playing those games.
I recognise the political realities in this House and I am endeavouring to the best of my ability to respond positively to them. I am not standing on the sidelines sniping as Deputy Spring is.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Interruptions.)
I read in the daily newspapers that Deputy Spring had offered himself as an honest broker. That is all I heard of it. I ask any other leader of a party in this House did they hear any more of that offer of an honest broker or was it simply another attempt to achieve media publicity? As far as I am concerned, if Deputy Spring wished to offer himself in any capacity, I am ready to listen. I am ready to meet him and discuss any proposal or suggestion he puts forward, as I am indeed prepared to meet and to listen to and discuss with any other political leader in this House.
I want to comment, a Cheann Comhairle, on the question of a general election. Implicit in what Deputy Spring was saying was the suggestion that I was prepared, perhaps irresponsibly, to go along with the suggestion of a general election. I have stated consistently and again and again that I do not regard a general election as a solution to our present difficulties. No later than yesterday on radio, I said it would be a doomsday solution to the present situation. I want to make it quite clear that as much as anybody in this House, I respond to the feeling of the general public that the last thing they wish to have is a general election. I want to reject that suggestion by Deputy Spring. I also want to reject the suggestion that Fianna Fáil are a party of the right.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I am not going to attempt to speak for Fine Gael or indeed for the Progressive Democrats. They will state their own political philosophies in their own way, as they are entitled to do but I want to reject any suggestion that Fianna Fáil is a party of the right or a party of any right-wing consensus. Long before the Workers' Party came into being, this party of mine, this Fianna Fáil Party, was in the vanguard of economic and social advances in this country.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
We have more progressive, advanced social legislation to our credit than any other party in this country, and perhaps we have a greater body of progressive social legislation——
A biased stand.
——than any other party in Europe — and I make that claim quite distinctly.
A question of viewpoint.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Dukes in his contribution talked about consultations. I would like to claim — and perhaps we could agree to disagree about this — that I did as much as I could possibly do to engage in reasonable discussions and consultations with him as Leader of the Fine Gael Party. Admittedly, we did not agree, we did not see things in the same way, but at least I hope he would acknowledge that for my part I put my position, fairly, openly and honestly before him. I gave him my view as to what was the right way to proceed and to the best of our respective abilities I think we engaged in a reasonable process of consultation. I want to say the same about the Progressive Democrats Party. They certainly put forward a reasonable and logical basis for discussions to which we responded and to which we are still ready to respond further, if that is possible and desired.
The question has been raised about my remarks yesterday on the Constitution. I find it strange that everybody else in this country apparently is entitled to go on radio, particularly people like the former Deputy, John Kelly, time and time again and give their views as to what exactly the Constitution means and what its implications are but I am not to be allowed to do so——
Professor Kelly gave the correct view.
What I said yesterday was a very simple statement of the truth as I saw it, and I have some experience in this matter. I have discussed these matters with Presidents since Seán T. O'Kelly's time. I know the views of many distinguished Presidents in the past on that issue, and there is nothing sinister about it. It is simply a question of looking at what the Constitution provides and where the exercise of this or that power might lead us. All I was saying was that I knew the views of a number of Presidents. I also made it clear that I had not discussed, or had no intention of discussing, that matter with the present President. I have nothing to apologise for to anybody in this House in that regard.
Am I not entitled to give my views on the appropriateness or feasibility of Coalition Government in this country? I have as much experience of both Government and Opposition in this country as any other Deputy in this House, perhaps more than most.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
On the basis of that experience, of the successes and failures of the past, from watching different Governments from time to time and the contribution they made to our affairs, surely I am entitled to give an honest opinion as I see it as to which is the best and most effective way of governing this country? That is all I do. I claim that right. There is nothing negative about that. There is nothing dictatorial about it. I just happen to believe, as I explained on the radio yesterday, that whatever about other political situations in my view the record shows and history shows — it may change in the future — that Coalition Governments are not as effective——
Rubbish.
It may be rubbish, but it is my opinion. Am I not entitled to it?
(Interruptions.)
Let us have order.
I am in a position to speak as I have more experience of Government and Opposition than most other Deputies in this House.
Tell us about 1979 and the Fianna Fáil Government?
I believe that the record shows that Coalition Governments have not the same capacity to be effective and decisive as one party governments have, whether it is a majority or minority Government.
I want again, a Cheann Comhairle, to point out that the last Fianna Fáil minority Government successfully managed the economy of this country. The Exchequer results which will come out today at 4 o'clock will prove conclusively that this economy is in good shape as a result of our management of it.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
There will be another general report on the economy by an independent body which will, I think, further confirm the successful management of this economy by a minority Fianna Fáil Government.
Mr. Noonan
(Limerick East): You threw it all away.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Did we have no part to play in that success?
I am quite prepared to claim that we are acting positively in reflecting the wishes of the electorate in offering to form a Fianna Fáil minority Government and proceed with our successful management of the economy and the social affairs of this country as we have done over the past two and a quarter years.
I also want to assure you, a Cheann Comhairle, and through you the Members of this House, that I am prepared after the adjournment of the Dáil today to immediately enter into consultations, discussions, deliberations and negotiations with anybody in this House, any leader of any party in this House or indeed anybody else who feels they have something to contribute with a view to arriving at a satisfactory resolution of the present difficult situation. I claim I have spared no effort since the election results came out in doing that. I also state categorically that before we resume I will make every endeavour, on the basis of my experience, with every other party leader in this House to come forward with some solution to the present difficulties which will be acceptable to a majority of Deputies in this House, and indeed which will be acceptable to the majority of the people. To those who say I do not accept the result of the election, I say that is rubbish. I have consistently accepted the result of the election.
Hitler did not accept it either.
People talk about who won the election and who lost it.
You lost it.
You did not win it.
(Interruptions.)
We can all make our own interpretations. Any impartial observer would have to acknowledge that the only coalition proposal put before the people was rejected by them.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
That proposal was for a coalition between Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats.
The majority proposal was also rejected.
Both those parties were perfectly entitled to put that proposal to the people. I do not deny them that right, even though some of those parties deny me the right to even say anything. I do not deny them the right to put that proposal to the people but I think they should also acknowledge that a proposal for coalition——
How many times do the people have to turn you down?
Please, Deputy Mitchell.
——has been rejected by the people. I also claim that the results of the election, if they showed any one preference more than anything else it was for a Fianna Fáil Government — a minority Fianna Fáil Government if necessary. Do not forget that is what so many commentators and pundits in the media suggested. I could quote editorial after editorial during the general election campaign: pundit after pundit, commentator after commentator, suggested what would be the right and valid outcome of the election, a minority Fianna Fáil Government.
(Interruptions.)
Would you wish me to quote from the editorials? I have a list of them here.
(Interruptions.)
Read today's editorials.
I come back to the original proposal before the House. I suggest that, with the agreement of the House, we adjourn until 3 p.m. on Thursday so that the maximum possible amount of consultation, negotiation, deliberation and discussion can take place. I promise you, a Cheann Comhairle, and, through you, all the Deputies in the House that I will do everything I can to play a full, meaningful and constructive part in any such discussions.
The motion is that the Dáil adjourn and meet again at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 6 July 1989. I have an amendment in the name of Deputy Dick Spring proposing that the House reconvene on Tuesday, 4 July at 3 p.m. I do not have that motion formally before me.
I move the motion.
I am putting the question: "That the date proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 133; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matttie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Browne, John.
- (Wexford).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Garland, Roger.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Currie, Austin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Davern, Noel.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ellis, John.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Finnucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Owen, Nora.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Roche, Dick.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick. J.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Bell, Michael.
- Byrne, Eric.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and D. Ahern; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Quinn.
Question declared carried.
We now come to deal with an amendment in the names of Deputy De Rossa and the other Members of The Workers' Party, to add words as follows:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the lack of progress towards forming a Government and recognises that, in the present circumstances, responsibility to form an administration rests with the like-minded parties which received the support of the majority of the electorate in the recent election, and primarily with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 84.
Tá
- Bell, Michael.
- Byrne, Eric.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matttie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Bobby.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies McCartan and Mac Giolla; Nil, Deputies V. Brady and D. Ahern.
Amendment declared lost.
Motion declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 6 July 1989.