Adjournment of Dáil: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move: "That the Dáil adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 30 November 1994".

In tendering to the President last week my resignation as Taoiseach and the resignation of the Government, I decided not to seek a dissolution of the Dáil, as would have been normal in the past. It was my view then, and it remains my view, that it would not be in the national interest to have prolonged uncertainty and instability, until a new Administration could be formed after a general election in two or three months' time. I also believe the present Dáil provides an ample basis for the formation of a new Government.

In the era we are now in, we must be prepared, where possible, to form a new Government from the existing Dáil without premature recourse to the electorate. There have been six general elections in 13 years. It is not before time that we are now, for the first time, actively exploring an alternative method of resolving a breakdown in Government. Members of the Dáil will of course be accountable to the people within a maximum of three years, for whatever they decide at this point.

The peace process, since the IRA ceasefire, is only two and a half months old, and needs steady consolidation. It would be undesirable to have it stalled on our side, for the best part of two months, while an election and post-election negotiations take place.

After the dramatic events of last week, it is natural that all leaders would pause to reflect and consult with their parliamentary parties and their wider party membership. When all the parliamentary party meetings have been held, I would urge the parties to initiate talks with a view to forming a new Government without unnecessary delay. All parties must be prepared to play a constructive role and to take responsibility. While this process is going on, my colleagues and I will continue to provide a Government, and to carry out all necessary functions.

I propose that speeches on this motion be confined to the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party, the Progressive Democrats Party and the Democratic Left Party, who shall be called upon to speak in that order, and shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I take it that the proposal by the Taoiseach is satisfactory and agreed?

Miss Harney

I am sorry to have to disagree. It is only fair and proper that any Member of the House who wishes to contribute be allowed to contribute to the debate which will follow. It is not satisfactory to restrict the debate merely to party leaders.

The Taoiseach

I left this matter to the Whips of all parties to resolve. I thought it was by and large satisfactorily resolved but apparently it is not. I did not set out to prevent anybody from contributing.

Miss Harney

I ask other party leaders to agree with me. I understand a number of Deputies in the House wish to contribute to the debate. It is only right that they should be allowed do so.

Minister for Finance (Mr. B. Ahern)

A Cheann Comhairle, A Thaoisigh, a Airí, a Theachtaí Dála, is cúis mhór onóra domsa teacht anseo inniu mar Cheannaire ar Fhianna Fáil. Déanfaidh me gach iarracht mo chuid dualgaisí a chomhlíonadh chomh maith agus is féidir liom, sa Teach seo, agus taobh amuigh de. Táim buíoch de na Cinnirí eile, agus na Teachtaí Dála go léir a rinne tréaslú liom le cúpla lá anuas. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

Ceann Comhairle, Taoiseach, party leaders, Teachtaí Dála, I am privileged and delighted to come to Dáil Éireann today as leader of Fianna Fáil. I will make every possible effort to fulfil my obligations as leader of Fianna Fáil both inside and outside this House. I look forward to working with Members of this House in a spirit of co-operation so that we can, to the best of our abilities, fulfil the expectations of the electorate. I sincerely thank all the party leaders and all the Members of the Oireachtas who so kindly offered me their congratulations on my appointment as leader of Fianna Fáil. Both I and my family greatly appreciate all the good wishes. They will undoubtedly fortify me for the challenges that lie ahead.

The relevance of this House is central to our democracy, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that the workings of the Oireachtas are clearly understood, that the organisation of the business of the Oireachtas answers the needs of today and is clearly seen to do so. However traumatic recent events have been for the Taoiseach. Deputy Albert Reynolds and the Fianna Fáil Party, I do not think anyone can claim that this House does not perform its primary function. It certainly does. However, on a day to day basis, we must seriously consider how it answers the needs of the ordinary citizen in terms of openness, accessibility and relevance.

It is time for all of us to examine in detail the role and operation of all governmental structures, so that we can, 75 years on from the First Dáil, renew the energy and vigour of those institutions that have served us so well. We should undertake a review of the Government and Secretaries Act, 1924, so that we can establish the parameters of real and practical responsibility as well as real and practical accountability at every level of the public service, and the way the public service functions interface with public needs and perceptions.

New times demand a new approach. As the new leader of the Fianna Fáil Party I hope to forcefully express the perceived public perception of these processes. It is clear to me that we need to renew and restore public confidence in major decision-making processes such as Cabinet procedures and ministerial responsibility, as well as establishing clearly defined audit trails and public access to information that should be in the public domain. The machinery and operations of Government there to serve the people, are all too frequently seen as excluding citizens and putting obstacles in their way. It is important therefore when we seek to implement the strategic management initiative, launched by the Taoiseach, which seeks to focus the aims and resources of Government Departments and indeed of Government itself, that we also examine the other side — how this all interfaces with the public.

With regard to Fianna Fáil's plans for the immediate future, I have already announced that our public representatives would take soundings in their constituencies and convey the results of their soundings to me. At the meeting of our parliamentary party tomorrow we will make our conclusions. We are fully aware that among the public there is a groundswell of opinion against having a general election and a strong desire that the Dáil elected in November 1992 get on with the business of government. Since that time Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party have worked ably and well in implementing the Programme for a Partnership Government and it was not any item in the programme that caused the major political turmoil of last week. Both parties have worked together in a positive way during that time and that positive co-operation and mutual understanding could continue. I am sure the Fianna Fáil Party will consider that option, as well as other options the party may deem feasible. There are immediate priorities with which we must deal.

We all have to be deeply conscious of the urgency of consolidating the peace process. The new Government will have to continue to give that the same priority as the present one has been doing. It is vital that we maintain the confidence of both communities in the North in the peace process, based on the expectation that we will push forward political progress, complete the framework document and attend with urgency to all the other issues that now arise as a result of the two ceasefires.

This will involve continuing the close relationship that has been built up with the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, by the Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds. We must also keep up the unprecedented understanding, interest and support shown by President Clinton and develop our links with the new United States Congress. In Government terms, it will mean maintaining the close understanding and co-operation achieved by the Taoiseach and the former Tánaiste, who worked very closely and successfully together on all of this to bring us to the point we are now at.

An equally important priority is to maintain economic progress of social partnership. Our economy is expanding rapidly and creating 20,000 to 30,000 net new jobs per year. We need to maintain a steady course, making necessary improvements to our strategy, so as to increase the impact of growth on employment.

One element in our strategy must be to continue tight budgetary control. Improvements in services should be targeted where they can make the maximum economic and social impact for our citizens. If we are to create scope for the tax reforms and tax reductions demanded by those at work, we cannot afford further increases in Government expenditure that run away ahead of inflation.

Reductions in the tax burden must be concentrated on the lower paid, both to increase the employment incentive and to underpin the wage moderations that is part of the social consensus.

These and other matters will be the subject of our deliberations over a brief period. It is imperative that the country is not left without a Government for one day more than is necessary. It is our duty, as elected representatives answerablke to the public, to get on with the job we were elected to do.

Mr. J. Bruton

First I say well done to Deputy Ahern, not just on achieving the leadership of his party but on achieving it so positively and with such an obvious welcome throughout his organisation. In the days since his election he has been very open, frank and refreshing in his answers to public questions. We wish him well.

What happened in the Dáil last week has left people with mixed feelings. There is a great sadness at hard things said and about individuals and families hurt, but there is also a great sense that something new and better happened. Mistakes were revealed, issues were thrashed out in the open and, above all, the public were able to see — directly on their television screens — the Dáil working effectively.

Helping ensure that the Dáil not only works effectively but is seen to work effectively has been a lifetime priority throughout my political career. I pushed for committee work as a more efficient way of doing business, and for televising Dáil proceedings as a way of breaking down the gap between hat we do and what we are seen to do.

That is what happened last week. Parliament and people became involved with one another in a way that has never happened in the past. We must seek to continue that immediacy and that involvement of the people in our work.

This week and next week we have an enormously important task to undertake. We have to find the people a Government they will believe in, a Government they can trust and above all, a Government of truth. Without truth, there is no foundation for good government. Ministers must not conceal the truth from the Dáil, nor must they conceal it from each other. They did both last week. In the process those Ministers destroyed a Government and sacrificed their leader.

There is an interesting possibility shaping up. Individuals who concealed the truth last week, might, in effect, be rewarded with even better jobs in the next few weeks. There is no rhyme or reason to that. Out there in the real world, it could not and would not happen. If it happens in this House, then it sends an unmistakeable message back to the people that truth does not matter; all that matters is image; build up one person's image at the expense of someone else's; individuals can be scapegoated for the good of the majority; once we have found someone to blame we can move on as if nothing ever happened.

Something did happen here last week and the people of Ireland saw it as it happened. If the perpetrators are rewarded, then the cynics who see politicians as being without principle and as venal by nature will have new evidence to prove their thesis. None of us should be willing to accept that empowerment of cynicism.

People do not want more of the same. They want — and we must ensure they get — a Government that starts, not with image-building and cosmetic gestures, but with the real needs of real people like the young people caught in the vicious circle of unemployment, sitting at home, writing letter after letter, never ever getting a response, but knowing that without experience they cannot get a job and without a job they cannot get experience; real people like the 43-year-old woman locked within the walls of a house, hour after hour, day after day, looking after an elderly and incontinent parent, getting no carer's allowance because her husband's income is just over the limit and watching her life possibilities diminish with every passing week.

When I talk about the needs of real people, these are not invisible people. There are too many of them to be invisible. Too many PAYE workers, for example, are forced to retire early, because that is the only way to bring their income below the limit to qualify for a third level grant to put a son or a daughter or both through college. Not only are the needs of real people being forgotten — they are being actively frustrated by State systems and State insensitivity designed and tolerated in this House.

In some areas the State systems are so patently illogical that we have to wonder at their survival. I might give just one example — without employers you cannot have employment. We want employers to employ more people yet — and here is the catch — we force those who employ more people to pay even more tax. That is wrong and perverse, it can and should be changed. I want to see a Government that sets out to change things like that, deliberately and in a planned way, that sets out to meet the real needs of people, not to fulfil a predetermined agenda, not to lose contact with the changing patterns of deprivation here over the next three years or more.

One of the infrequent pleasures of Opposition is when someone like myself can genuinely congratulate and praise members of a Government team. The achievement of the ceasefire and the commencement of the peace process in the North provides me with just such an opportunity. The acting Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, was recognised nationally and internationally for his achievement in this regard. He has consistently, and quite rightly, underlined the solid and skilful work of Deputy Spring on this vital issue. I congratulate both of them and many other hidden contributors to this important and splendid development.

I want to be part of a Government that takes us to the next stage, when religious and political beliefs and old loyalties stop being the focus of division and instead become no more than the rich variety of thinking and of tradition appropriate to friends living together on the same island. I have always believed it to be my job to try to understand the hopes and expectations of all sides on this island, to speak at any given time, in any given place, for the point of view least represented there. As a result of having done that in this House in the past I believe I can help bring the peace process even further as part of a Government committed to making people feel safe in their own place. That is what the peace process is all about but it is also what the political process should be about — bringing peace nearer home. We need peace of mind for older citizens whose days are hindered and hemmed in by fears, locks and bolts. We need peace of mind for parents like myself who wonder whether they should allow their 12 year old to travel into town on the bus alone for fear that he or she might be mugged. This sort of problem can be tackled if we have a Government, a Coalition that works as a team, not taking any party, large or small, for granted, no dismissal of any point of view and a recognition that some issues are so important they can be decided only by consensus.

In these coming weeks Members will be at a very challenging juncture. We have a choice to make. We can choose to go for high standards and reject the possibility of rewarding those with lower standards. We can choose to create a Coalition in which personalities are not important but in which the needs of our people are crucially important. We can choose to create a Government of reality, not image. I pledge myself in the weeks ahead to work hard at any discussions which will allow that kind of Government to be formed, whether those discussions take place before or after a general election.

Mr. Spring

Let me again congratulate the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance Deputy Bertie Ahern, on his election as leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, a position which carries onerous and heavy responsibilities. On behalf of the Parliamentary Labour Party we wish him well in carrying out his duties.

The course of action proposed by the acting Taoiseach in relation to the adjournment of the Dáil is sensible. It is clear that none of the parties is in a position to form a Government and that none of them has yet come fully to terms with all the traumatic events of last week. Therefore it is appropriate that we continue to reflect on the lessons of last week and talk to one another in an open and constructive way about where the interests of our community lie.

Whenever we are faced with a choice between doing something right and doing something fast we should resist the pressure to opt for too much speed. Clearly, the people we serve will expect us to make every effort to put a Government together as quickly as possible but nobody would expect us to cobble an arrangement of parties that does not serve clearly defined needs. The work we need to do over the next week or so is urgent but the shape and complexion of a new Government will cast a long shadow over the mediumterm future of our country and it is vital to get that shape right. We are operating against a background of strong economic growth and public finances in good order. The next Government will be faced with a challenge unusual in recent years. Instead of finding ways to save and retrench, its main economic task will be to ensure the continuation and acceleration of growth and a fair sharing of additional resources created.

We are also operating against a background of a Government programme and one would search the Official Report long and hard to find speeches attacking its intrinsic merits. Complaints were voiced on many occasions, on the record, about lack of progress in relation to certain aspects of that programme and about perceived tardiness on the part of the outgoing Government in respect of our efforts to implement that programme but I do not believe any party can mount a convincing argument for its radical renegotiation. Because of our adherence to the disciplines of the European Monetary Union the reality is that prudence will be the keynote of our approach to public expenditure for the foreseeable future and a commitment to social justice. We still have work to do in such areas as disability, mental handicap, housing, health waiting lists and, above all, access to education at every level. It is clear too that anomalies as a result of recent changes in social welfare will have to be addressed. In short, the work that needs to be done is work to which any Government likely to be found in the next couple of weeks will be more than willing to put its hand.

We have a huge task ahead to build on the legacy of the two cessations of violence. They are the foundation, and no more than that, of what can and must be a lasting and deep accommodation between the two traditions on this island. As I think the acting Taoiseach would be the first to acknowledge, a cessation of violence is not peace. Peace can come only from decommissioning all the means of destruction and commissioning new arrangements, structures and relationships. We are at the beginning of a new beginning in relation to Northern Ireland but we have a long way to go. Last night I called for the drawing up of a strategy for renewal to inform and underpin the philosophy of the next Government. Lest anyone be under any illusion, when I said last night that I was not offering that strategy as a precondition for negotiations, I meant just that. However, no negotiations involving the Labour Party will be successfully concluded unless there is agreement on a fleshed-out strategy to ensure the restoration of the most important relationship in democratic politics, an open and accountable relationship between the Government and the people it serves. I do not believe any party can deny the need to address that relationship urgently and in detail. That is why I indicted I am willing, with the support of my parliamentary party, to explore all the issues involved with each party that wishes to talk to us.

I said last week that I believe the responsibility now rests with all 165 Members of this House, apart from yourself, Sir. The people we serve are entitled to demand that we each make our best effort to set aside vested interest and give this country an accountable and effective Government for the next two and a half years. I do not believe any Member of this House should feel excluded from that process or that they should choose to exclude themselves from that responsibility. However long it takes, our job now is to do it, and do it right.

Miss Harney

At many levels last week was, up to a point, a good week for politics. However, the refusal today to allow people other than party leaders to speak is symptomatic of a wider disease that has polluted politics in this country. It is not fair that other Deputies who wish to contribute to this debate will not be able to do so. I regret that very much.

Last week, for the first time, ordinary people tuned into the events in this House. They saw for themselves what happened and made up their own minds. They no longer had to rely on a second-hand report but were able to judge for themselves. At one level I am sure many found it depressing but at another level I think we have raised their hopes and expectations because they feel that for the first time some people were held accountable. I pay tribute in particular to RTE for deciding to cover live the events in the Dáil last week. It certainly was public broadcasting at its best and RTE discharged its commitment to the community very well. People appreciate that. I never thought that friends of mine would switch over from "Basic Instinct" and other programmes like that to watch the Dáil.

Mr. Rabbitte

We were pretty basic.

Miss Harney

Perhaps the Deputy is right. However, it is a good thing that so many people were able to watch and make up their own minds, and they did do that.

I want to pay tribute also to the new Leader of Fianna Fáil. I telephoned him last Saturday to wish him well, and I genuinely do. It is a great honour to be chosen by any party to lead it. It places great responsibilities on the person chosen but it is an honour one should never shirk and an opportunity one should never flinch from. Bertie Ahern and I came into Leinster House together in 1977. He went to the Dáil, I went to the Seanad and we have both been here since. At a personal level and a political level I wish him well. I believe he will do a good job. That is what we all require, that we have in the leadership of every political party people who will seek to do their best.

There are many who feel mistakes were made last week and that people have paid the price. To some extent that is true. Individuals make mistakes. Groups make decisions, but a group of people made a decision last week and they have not yet paid the price. In the Dáil last Tuesday we were not told about the Duggan case. For whatever reason, that matter was buried. We were told that there had been a failure of the system. A whole web of excuses was put forward to defend the handling of the Fr. Smyth case. We must not forget that we still do not know why those warrants were in the Attorney General's Office for seven months; virtually no work was done on the file and counsel's opinion was not sought. We still do not know why, and we need to know. Neither do we know why so many people decided that the Taoiseach's speech should not contain reference to the Duggan case. I referred last night to a memo published in the Sunday Independent which is, apparently, a supplementary answer prepared for the Taoiseach that he was to read in the Dáil last Tuesday if he was asked if there was another case. He was not asked the question and so did not have to read the memo. It has not been denied that this was the supplementary answer prepared for the Taoiseach but it does not refer to the Duggan case. The question is “was this the first time that the section was applied?”. There is no reference to the Duggan case. What is stated is “this is the first case giving rise to delays of this magnitude.” If that were read out it would have given the impression, presumably, that there was no other case. Written in handwriting — I would love to know whose handwriting it is — for the Taoiseach's notice is: “if pursued on this matter keep repeating exactly the above”. Why were people afraid that he might deviate? Whoever wrote that and whoever prepared that supplementary answer did not intend that the Duggan case would ever come to light. Of that I can have no doubt. For that reason anybody who was a party to that decision was equally to blame for what happened last week. I understand all the Fianna Fáil Ministers were, except for Minister Andrews. Only the Minister for Justice saw the relevance of accountability and we have to pay tribute to her for that. Nobody else seemed to think it was relevant or significant. For that reason alone, given the expectations we have now generated in the public mind, given the hopes that this House will have at last become accountable and do the right thing, I do not believe it would be acceptable to return to Government people who were a party to that decision.

I would make one criticism of a statement made by the Tánaiste, Deputy Bertie Ahern, within the last few days. He said many things I welcomed, but one thing he said was that Fianna Fáil did not get it wrong but merely made an error. If somebody can tell me the difference between getting something wrong and making an error, they are really doing something with the English language. Yes, they got it wrong; yes, they made an error and they are all equally to blame. That is the fact.

What we need to put in place now is a Government that can be trusted, a Government that has a new forward-looking programme, a Government that will be accountable, for which accountability is not merely a buzz work, so that in everything we do we will be accountable to this House and, through this House, to the people we are honoured to represent.

I said last week, and I will repeat it today, that the day this House elects a Government is the day it loses control. That has been my experience. Only a few months ago the Opposition sought an opportunity to put questions on the beef tribunal report but was voted down by a majority in this House. Was that in the interests of accountability? Should we not have been able to put questions to the Taoiseach about that long-running and extremely expensive tribunal? What really concerns people about that tribunal is that nobody has been held accountable except, perhaps, an unfortunate journalist who helped reveal the truth, to break the story. She alone might be held accountable. What happened to some of the main players in that tribunal? Larry Goodman, for his efforts, got an amnesty. What do the victims of child sexual abuse get from the State? They get no compensation for their pain and suffering. The victims of crime get absolutely nothing.

I mention these two things because the hallmark of the next Government must be fairness and the creation of a fair society. Tax amnesties are the very opposite to fairness and justice because what tax amnesties do is tell those who do not pay their fair share that they will get a reprieve and will pay less while those who are compliant, who work hard, who make an effort and have a sense of public duty are told that they will be penalised all the way. The next Government must be creative and imaginative. We have to contemplate things we might not have contemplated in the past and contemplate doing business with people we might not have contemplated doing business with in the past.

There is a culture in Fianna Fáil, maybe because it has been in power for so long. I am not saying that the vast majority of people who support and belong to Fianna Fáil are not decent, honourable people — they are. Since 1987 there have been scandals. There was the export credit insurance issue when Fianna Fáil was in a minority Government on its own. There was the Masri passport affair which was only discussed here because Deputy McDowell brought in a Bill, having arranged with Deputy Rabbitte to oppose it so that it could be discussed on this floor because the Ceann Comhairle ruled out questions on that issue. I have a full file of questions I sought to put to the Taoiseach about his comments on property tax, the Masri passports, the beef tribunal, so many issues. Even last week questions on the Smyth case were transferred by the Taoiseach to the Minister for Justice before the Labour Party walked out of Government. Only last week we had a debate on the difficulties that faced the Government. That is not accountability and that must not be acceptable to any new Government that takes over. Accountability, openness, transparency and the fairness I spoke about earlier, have to be the hallmarks of the new Government.

We have a tax system that is not fair. People criticise me and my party for talking about the need for tax reform. The average industrial wage costs the employer £291. Out of that the employee takes home £173, while 40 per cent of the total goes to the Government in tax and PRSI. That is not a fair tax system and it is not acceptable.

Because of our social welfare tax regime a married person with four children living in a local authority house and earning £8,000 would lose £400 a year if he got a salary increase to £13,000. Is that a fair tax and welfare system? What we want is fairness and equity. What we want is the opportunity and the right for ordinary people to make a decent living without the Government penalising them all the time. In a country with massive unemployment our tax system helps to generate further unemployment and puts obstacles in the way of job creation.

The residential property tax, a tax on family homes, is unfair. Sometimes people own only 5 per cent or 10 per cent of their houses, but because the gross value is taken into account, regardless of mortgage commitments, they have to pay the tax. That is also unfair.

The victims of crime should receive compensation for pain and suffering which they used receive up to some years ago. It is no longer acceptable that all they receive is a sum to cover out of pocket expenses. It is unacceptable that all an old person, who has been beaten up, will receive, is, perhaps, the price of a wheelchair if that is what is required.

The new Government must be more vigilant on environmental matters. I am disappointed that the Bill to deal with waste has not yet been introduced and with some of the decisions made, for example, on urban designation.

The reason I am so critical of Fianna Fáil and why, I consider, its Members should be in Opposition is that they belong to a culture that if they can get away with something that is acceptable. Everything is done with a view to trying to get away with something. It is often said that if one is in Opposition and Fianna Fáil is in Government the Opposition need eyes in the back of its head. If a party is a Government partner of that party it certainly applies. That is the type of culture that dominates. In recent days what many people in the Fianna Fáil hierarchy regret is not really the issues involved, but that they were caught out. It is no longer good enough that we should return to Government people who simply want to get away with things and avoid being caught out.

The Leader of the Labour Party, the Leader of Fine Gael and the Leader of Fianna Fáil referred to responsibilities on all Members and I agree with those sentiments. We have a unique opportunity to restore public confidence in our political institutions. Many people have been shattered by what happened and is happening in many other institutions, but that is not a matter for us. All we can do is seek to restore confidence in this institution and that of the Government. We have a duty to do that more than anything else. That duty falls equally on all leaders of political parties. Everybody must be flexible and constructive, must be reasonable and be prepared to talk. Nobody should set down barriers to opportunities that could arise.

If we cannot resolve the difficulties through negotiation and discussion we will have a general election and we will be faced with similar decisions in a matter of weeks. I do not believe that any party will receive the majority support of the electors here ever again. We are into a future of coalition Governments, of having to work with each other, of having to build in this House and country respect for the political institutions and where there must be accountability and responsibility. It is no longer acceptable that issues can be swept under the carpet or that people can escape simply because others are prepared to prop them up in power at any given time.

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I commit myself to playing my part in that process. Others have said they will talk if other people want to talk to them. I do not know who will start all the talking. The Progressive Democrats is prepared to talk to other party leaders and to play its role because we believe it is our duty. We are prepared to be open minded, fair, flexible and reasonable in any discussions we have. All I ask is that everybody else responds in the same way.

Proinsias De Rossa

I congratulate Deputy Ahern, now Tánaiste, on his election as Leader of Fianna Fáil. He is well liked in this House and widely regarded as a decent and honourable man. However, the basic problem we face is not primarily the merits or shortcomings of individuals in this House or in parties, it is the culture of the Fianna Fáil Party. I wish the new leader of that party well in his declared aim to reform his party.

Deputy Spring's speech at the Riverside Centre last night set out a vision of Ireland which I could largely endorse. However, it seems that by signalling a willingness to consider Fianna Fáil as a partner, Deputy Spring is prepared to see it remain just that, a vision, because it will never become a reality while Fianna Fáil, with its present ethos, is the dominant party in any Government. There is as much hope of persuading Fianna Fáil to put accountability and transparency at the centre of our democratic institutions as there is of convincing Dr. Ian Paisley of the merits of the Roman Catholic Church.

We have had Fianna Fáil continuously in Government for almost seven years, as a minority Government, in coalition with the Progressive Democrats and, most recently, in coalition with the Labour Party. Each Government has probably been worse than the one which went before it. In the past seven years we have seen repeated once again the lesson of many previous decades, that the longer Fianna Fáil remains in power, the more arrogant it becomes, the more it believes it can do what it likes and the more it is prepared to tolerate low standards.

This is the second occasion in succession in which a Fianna Fáil leader and Taoiseach has left office under a cloud. The democratic and political interests of this country will best be served by Fianna Fáil going into Opposition.

Amidst all the political turmoil of the past week it would be wrong to lose sight of the fact that the original questions about the failure of the office of the Attorney General to process the Smyth extradition warrants, which led to the whole crisis, have not been answered. Many questions also remain to be answered by Fianna Fáil Ministers about their knowledge and involvement in the withholding of vital information from the Dáil.

Regardless of what Government emerges from the present crisis, the public, particularly Father Smyth's victims, are entitled to answers. Speaking here last week, the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, said there was no really satisfactory explanation for the seven month delay in processing the warrants. I continue to insist that the House must get a full and frank explanation of what precisely happened.

The new Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, quite rightly was praised for his role in drawing attention to the inaccuracies in the report of the former Attorney General. I want Mr. Fitzsimons to initiate a broader inquiry to establish the full reasons for the failure of the office of the Attorney General to process the warrants. That report should then be presented to the Selact Committee on Legislation and Security and Mr. Fitzsimons should answer all questions relating to it from Members.

The House is entitled also to answers to questions about the role of Fianna Fáil Ministers now. We know that Fianna Fáil Ministers, with one exception, were present at the meeting on Monday of last week when Mr. Fitzsimons told them that the Smyth case was not the first to have been processed under the lapse of time provision of the 1987 Extradition Act. A convincing reason has not been given for the decision to withhold that crucial information from the House when the Taoiseach spoke here last Tuesday. The Taoiseach pleaded that he had not been provided with speaking material on the matter. Other Ministers claimed that they had not appreciated the significance of it, others said that they simply forgot about it. An alternative version given was that they were ready to give the information in response to a supplementary question, but nobody asked it.

However, one of the most revealing pieces of information to emerge since the collapse of the Government last week was the document reproduced in the Sunday Independent. We are told that was the text prepared for the Taoiseach to use had he been asked the question, “was this the first time that the section had been applied?” The correct reply to that question, given the Duggan case, would have been, “No, this was not the first time the section was applied”. Of course, if that reply had been given, it would have made a nonsense of the Taoiseach's entire speech and his vigorous defence of Mr. Whelehan.

Instead the draft reply to the question that was never posed is a 19 line masterpiece of equivocation and obfuscation. It is a draft reply deliberately designed to confuse and to withhold information. Most revealing of all about the mindset of the Fianna Fáil Ministers, and others who coached the Taoiseach for last Tuesday's questions and answers session, is the handwritten note on the document which apparently advised him, "If pursued on this question, keep repeating exactly the above". Who wrote that note? Was it a civil servant? Was it the new Tánaiste Deputy Ahern, who sat beside the Taoiseach, helpfully passing him notes as he replied? What this note and the meeting on Monday indicates is that the Fianna Fáil Ministers must bear collective responsibility for what has all the signs of being a deliberate and premeditated effort to mislead the Dáil on a crucial issue for the sole reason of holding on to power.

It follows that if Deputy Reynolds was rendered unsuitable for office as Taoiseach by virtue of misleading the Dáil, then those who were parties to the misleading of the Dáil are equally culpable. While I, like other people, praise the Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, for tendering her resignation, it might have been more credible if she had resigned.

It is imperative that the new Government should learn the lessons of this affair and agree that all senior judicial appointments should now be moved out of the political arena, and replaced by new independent transparent procedures. I was surprised Deputy Spring did not refer to this issue in his speech last night. Under the Courts and Court Officers Bill the most senior judicial appointments, such as the President of the High Court, will still be made directly by the Government. Even in other judicial appointments the Government will be able to choose from a panel of names put forward by a board made up of a small legal and judicial elite. Ironically, had he not resigned from his position as President of the High Court, Mr. Whelehan would have been a member of the board advising the Government on other judicial appointments. The Courts and Court Officers Bill must be substantially amended to provide for genuinely independent and open procedures for all judicial appointments.

Over the last few weeks, and particularly since the Coalition came apart, both Fianna Fáil and Labour attempted to rewrite recent political history by repeated claims that this has been "a good Government". It has not been a good Government and there is nothing to suggest that the people regarded it as a good Government. On four occasions since January 1993 the Government parties put their record before the people in by-elections and on four occasions they were trounced. This is the only administration ever to have lost four by-elections in succession. Labour voters showed that they did not want Labour in Coalition with Fianna Fáil by transferring in far greater numbers to Democratic Left and other parties in both the Dublin South Central and Cork North Central contests than to Fianna Fáil.

The Government promised to ensure the highest standards in public life, but was characterised by a series of tawdry affairs from its very early days. The packing of the administration with advisers and handlers made up largely of party supporters or family members; the outrageous amnesty for tax crooks; the mishandling of the EU Structural Funds; the passports for sale scandal; the manner of the publication of the beef tribunal report; the abuse of the Government jet; the Arcon affair; the Whelehan fiasco; a persistent policy of refusing to come clean with the public and answer questions in the Dáil are the features for which this Government will be remembered.

If Fianna Fáil was the principal offender, too often Labour appeared only too willing to defend the indefensible. I am glad Deputy Spring has responded to the suggestion I made last week, that the members of any new Government should forego the recent huge salary increase, but many members of the public will wonder why just a few weeks ago Labour Ministers vigorously defended the increases and came onto the Dáil to vote for them.

It should not be forgotten that this is the Government which agreed to take £50 million out of the pockets of the sick and unemployed by taxing welfare payments. This is the Government which continued to dismantle the insurance-based social welfare system and refused to pay married women the arrears of social welfare payments to which the European Court said they were entitled. This Government promised to make job creation its priority, yet little or no progress has been made in this area. When the Government came into power in January 1993 the seasonally adjusted unemployment level was 15.9 per cent. Almost two years later it remains among the highest in Europe at 14.7 per cent.

Particularly lavish claims have been made about progress in the housing and health areas, but these do not stand up to scrutiny. There were 23,000 people on the housing lists when this Government was elected; there are now 30,000. The 3,500 house starts each year are not even enough to cope with the demands of those coming onto the housing lists, never mind reduce the overall levels. Public patients still face a 21 month waiting list for heart surgery, and even in the most modern of our hospitals those brought in often face long spells on hospital trolleys before even getting a bed.

I disagree with Deputy Spring's view that the Programme for Government does not need renegotiation. I agree with his call for a new strategy for renewal, but that will simply not be possible to achieve if Fianna Fáil is the dominant party in any Government. The alternative for him is to reject the lethal embrace of Fianna Fáil, and to give serious consideration to the possible formation of an alternative Government which would not include Fianna Fáil. I do not underestimate the tasks involved in the formation of such a Government, but we have an obligation to the Irish people to try. My party is prepared to enter into negotiations with others with a view to forming an alternative administration which would implement a left-of-centre programme for Government. We will enter such negotiation as an independent party, with its own policies and with key requirements which we would seek to have implemented by a new administration.

Our approach is to seek a genuinely reforming Government which will put people first. Our approach will be based on four pillars: institutional reform to bring about greater openness, accountability and public participation in political life; a national crusade to tackle unemployment, mobilising all the institutions of the State and economy to this end; an all out assault on poverty and the causes of economic alienation in society and full support fot the Northern Ireland peace process, based on the Downing Street Declaration and the continuation of the work of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.

Among the minimum requirements we would expect would be a commitment to an early referendum on the removal of the constitutional ban on divorce, the lifting of tax on social welfare payments, the payment of arrears of social welfare to married women and the abolition of service charges.

Recent events in political life underline the need for clean politics and straight talking. Concealment and evasion must end so that trust can be restored in politics, not just between potential partners in Government, but between the political parties and the people. Beginning with the events that gave rise to the arms trial, this trust has been steadily eroded. Extravagant election promises, unfounded claims of economic progress, exaggerated reports of European funding have become par for the course in the practice of politics. They are elements of a political culture that has served the opportunists, the chancers, the quick-buck merchants and the mediocre who sought success and financial security from having the inside track.

The elite of this culture constituted a "golden circle" whose activities eventually prompted the Taoiseach in 1991 to refer to "the reprehensible behaviour of a small number of individuals in the business and financial sectors". This in turn gave rise to what Deputy Reynolds referred to on the occasion of his resignation as "an erosion of confidence in our democratic institutions". That erosion has sadly continued as, for instance, in the beef tribunal. Deputy Spring's "failure of public policy" was the Taoiseach's "vindication". Arcon was an oversight. Passports for sale merely proved that old habits die hard. The sordid saga of the paedophile priest revealed the true extent of the failure by Government to act in the public interest. Public duty of the greatest urgency was left undone. Many questions remain unanswered and none of the principals has volunteered to enlighten the public.

We are facing an unprecedented crisis of confidence in our democratic institutions. The challenge facing this House is to elect a new Government, with a new approach, which will answer the questions and set about restoring confidence in our democratic system.

Mr. Sargent

I also congratulate Deputy Ahern.

Mr. J. Mitchell

On a point of order——

Mr. Sargent

I have been advised that it is in order for me to speak.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Deputy who has been called is a single Deputy in this House. Do I take it that the rights of all other Deputies will be upheld in similar circumstances? A proposal was put to the House, which I thought was agreed, that only the leaders of those parties which actually constitute parties under terms of reference will be heard.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will endeavour to clarify the position for the Deputies. The proposal as put by the Taoiseach at the commencement of business was objected to and therefore it is in order and indeed incumbent on the Chair to call Deputy Sargent.

Mr. O'Malley

Does that mean the Chair will call other Deputies who offer?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It means precisely that.

Mr. Sargent

I hope the start of Deputy Ahern's leadership of Fianna Fáil is not as stormy as the start of my contribution today. Nonetheless I wish Deputy Ahern well in his task. The events of the past week are unprecedented in the history of Irish politics. Deputy Ahern is a latter day Robinson Crusoe washed up on the shore who has to put the pieces together. I hope he will be assisted in this task by whoever decides to join him as Man Friday or in any other role.

It is important for us to bear in mind the views expressed last weekend on the type of Government people would like to see formed. In one opinion poll 22 per cent of those surveyed expressed the view that they would like to see a national coalition to allow the best in each of the parties in this House to contribute and serve the country. This view does not sit easily with traditional politics, as we witnessed last week and have heard so far in this debate, but it is not new internationally.

We should look beyond these shores, which sometimes appear very sleezy, and consider the procedures which have been put in place in countries such as Denmark. In 1970 the Danish people supported a national Government which devolved 70 per cent of the decision making powers of central Government to democratically elected local assemblies. That remains in position. I do not know of any person in this House who would find fault with the way in which the Danish Government devolved power and I urge people to consider this option, given the current crisis.

This option offers the prospect of stability which has not been possible to achieve under a single party Government. Practically every pragmatist in this House recognises that we will not have such a Government again but I suggest that such a Government would not have allowed information to be released from Government circles as happened last week. By its nature, a single party Government is self-protective. Information was only released last week because of the fact we had two parties in Government. While this may have prevented secrecy, it led to instability, the prospect of a general election and uncertainty in terms of the make-up of the next Government. In the context of a single party or a two party Government the choice is secrecy or instability, neither of which is conducive to the proper government of a country, rather they are more likely to lead to a greater cynicism and a sense of alienation.

There is another view which it is necessary to articulate today. As the former Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, said, each party and each Member of the House should consider the possibility of a national Government. In doing so we would be able to avail of the talents and skills of members of all parties. Such a coalition would offer the prospect of stability which has not been possible to achieve to date.

It has often been suggested that the smaller groups lead to instability in a coalition because the arithmetic allows them to make demands not in keeping with their strength. This would not happen if a Government had more than 51 per cent of the seats. I speak with my own party and would not have it any other way.

Should the next Government be a national coalition it would be important to consider providing for a fixed time to ensure stability. This is the case with the European Parliament and local authorities. When a programme has been agreed it would not be helpful if there was an uncertainty as is the case at present, understandable though that may be. I urge all parties represented in the Dáil not simply to look for their turn in Government or to exclude as many people as possible from Government; rather they should seek, as in the case of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation which has been mentioned many times as the antidote to what is wrong with the Government, to include those who have expressed a minority view. This would offer the prospect of diversity and stability and ensure that the least number of people, if any, are alienated. That is the way Government should work to ensure we do not marginalise or alienate people or create instability which has led to unprecedented cynicism.

Mr. J. Fox

I will be brief as I realise there has been much repetition during the past week and particularly today.

Given the number of those who have repeated themselves, it is like Sodom and Gommorah: it will be difficult to find ten just men. It has to be accepted that a mess was made in the Attorney General's office and the Taoiseach could have handled the matter better. If he had done so perhaps the Government could still be in office. The substantive issue may in time prove to be infinitesimal.

I offer my congratulations to the new Leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Ahern, and his party. As previous speakers have said, he has an onerous task. It is important that the major party has a leader with integrity and of the calibre of Deputy Ahern. I wish him and his party well. If the country is to proceed constructive opposition will be necessary. With the exception of one or two party leaders, this has not been forthcoming.

Scandalous allegations, without foundation and substantiation, have been made in this House. At a time of turmoil this is downright unhelpful not only in terms of the smooth running of this House but also the maintenance of a stable Government. As an Independent, I am in a better position to say we need genuine, considered and constructive criticism, but that has not been the case during the past week. We need stable Government, party leaders stated their party positions but I ask them to put the country first on this occasion. While there were hiccups during the past years, essentially we had reasonably good Government which delivered on the peace process and in the economic sphere, although the benefits derived from outside influences such as low rates of interest and the economic upturn in world economies.

If a Government is to be formed it will be necessary that every party leader puts the country before party. I believe that by tomorrow week we will have a Government. The last thing the public — never mind politicians — wants is a general election: the mathematics most likely will be the same as they were. Members must take a constructive view of the formation of the new Government.

Ms O'Donnell

As Justice spokesman for the Progressive Democrats Party it has been my responsibility to follow the extradition warrants for Fr. Brendan Smyth since the matter first came to light. It appears that accountability is all the rage, every member of the then Government refers to accountability as if it were a new issue. What we experienced last week and over the previous two weeks was a complete negation and denial of accountability to this House. When this matter was raised with the then Minister for Justice three weeks ago she gave minimum information. The Minister for Justice has not fully accounted for her role in this matter. The awful thing is that a new Government comprising Fianna Fáil and Labour members will simply be a rearrangement of the chairs. I will still be here at Question Time asking the new Minister for Justice questions that remain unanswered. This issue will dog a reunited Fianna Fáil and Labour Coalition Government.

Many questions must be raised on this matter as there is much unfinished business. It is akin to pulling teeth to try to get answers from the Taoiseach, who has direct responsibility under the Act for the actions of the Attorney General's office, and his Ministers, in particular the Minister for Justice. When I questioned the Taoiseach during the supplementary questions session last week he revealed that the file which contained the preparatory work, on which the Attorney General based his defence of his office's involvement in a matter, had a litany of unanswered communications. It bore witness to the fact that this file was not receiving any attention whatsoever. It was clear also that the RUC had made informal contact with the Garda Síochána that had not been passed on to the Minister for Justice. The then Minister for Justice has never given a clear account of her Department's activity, it had received copy warrants in this matter, but no action had been taken by her. There appears to be inconsistencies in the statement of the then Minister for Justice that pressure from the Northern prosecuting authorities would have activated her role. We now know there was pressure from the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland by way of the British Attorney General but still no action was taken by her Department. Many questions remain to be answered and I will question the new Government about them.

The Fianna Fáil Party has a propensity to reoffend in the matter of non-accountability. Does the Labour Party believe we have the memory of a goldfish and expect us to believe the same players can re-enter their previous arrangement? It beggars belief that those Ministers made a collective decision to mislead the House — a group of people cannot get together and make a mistake collectively. One presumes all the Ministers had brains and I believe they made a collective decision to omit the information from the Taoiseach's speech.

It is up to every Member of this House to put out feelers to encourage the formation of a future coalition as I believe that is what people want.

A reason for not dealing with the warrants was the lapse of time defence. This is a specific provision of the 1987 Act that allows a person whom it is sought to extradite to make the argument that in the interests of natural justice he would not get a fair trial because of the lapse of time. It is worth noting that in a case in this jurisdiction last week a similar defence was used in a similar set of circumstances — a child abuser was attempting to evade justice by using this defence but, fortunately, Mr. Justice Barr refused that and said it would be possible for him to get a fair trial. This device is being used in this jurisdiction. In July this year serious charges relating to paedophile offences were preferred against an individual — eight separate individuals had filed charges and sworn affidavits on these matters — but he sought to have disallowed by judicial review the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute him on the same defence of lapse of time. Sadly, that person has evaded justice and left the jurisdiction — I understand he is working with children in another jurisdiction. We need to debate these issues but there is no facility for me to raise the issue of that defence because it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Issues relating to filing charges and bringing prosecutions cannot be raised in this House because of the non-account-ability of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, as we have seen, of the Attorney General. The issues of accountability and culpability have not been resolved. The Fianna Fáil Party has not learned its lesson and still does not see what accountability really is.

The Taoiseach made a very clever attempt to reconstruct and revise the dictionary meaning of accountability in his speech last week, but it did not wash. We all know the meaning of the word "accountability". It means that there is a duty but if there is a breach of that duty and damage flowing from it, responsibility must be taken for the breach of that duty. We have not yet seen that in this House, we have seen a little of it and if the former partners in Government enter another arrangement, there will have been a denial of accountability in this House.

Mr. O'Malley

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in this debate. It would have been better if I had known a little earlier but even if I am a bit rushed, I am happy to have this chance to make some observations on the present situation in which the country finds itself with half a Government.

I heard the word "accountability"— to take up the word with which my colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, finished — more often in the last week than any other word. It has become, as Deputy Harney said, the buzz word but I do not see a great anxiety to do anything — other than pay lip service to it — to put it into practice. We are being told on all sides now — Labour and Fianna Fáil — about their commitment to accountability. May I give a very prosaic example of where this new found commitment to accountability could have been put into practice very recently?

On Thursday, 20 October I put down a written question in the same terms to the Taoiseach and each of 15 Ministers. It was to ask them the number of occasions since 12 January 1993 on which he or she or his or her Ministers of State, if any, travelled by air within the country in an Air Corps plane, helicopter or by a commercial flight and the gross cost of each flight, including the appropriate proportion of Air Corps overheads. Every single one of those questions — with one exception — was answered in exactly the same terms by the Ministers to the effect that the information sought by the Deputy was not readily available and that its compilation would involve a disproportionate amount of time and work.

The only exception to the refusal to give any information was from the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, who replied that he travelled by an Air Corps helicopter on one occasion but he did not know the cost involved. He went on to say that to compile the cost of his solo trip would have involved a disproportionate amount of time and work. It was obvious that the then Government as a whole had contrived this reply because every one of them with the exception of Deputy Taylor, gave, word for word, the same answer.

This was a perfectly simple, straightforward query. There is no question of me or any other Member of the House not being entitled to this information; nonetheless it was not given and the reason is that apparently the use — and I am talking about within the country — of these aircraft had become something of a legend. Some Ministers would not go home at the weekend unless they travelled on an Air Corps plane. We are told that this happened as recently as last weekend. I am told that the use of these aircraft by Ministers for a wide variety of purposes in the past year and nine months has been just incredible. The use by some individual Ministers would probably exceed 100 times but none of them would reply to my question.

Now that they have been won over to the doctrine of accountability, perhaps they would like to give us the information. Deputy Andrews is still in office as Minister for Defence and the Marine. He has all the information in relation to Ministers and this would be an opportune time to give it.

Mr. M. Higgins

To save the Deputy any trouble, I think it was about four times in my case.

Mr. O'Malley

We have answers from two Ministers now. We are making progress, 14 to go.

Mr. M. Higgins

It may be between two and four times. If I get the time I will——

Mr. O'Malley

I am not personally repeating it because I did not contribute last week. The proceedings last week were shortened by events that occurred more quickly than anticipated. As the Chair knows, I have spoken on several occasions over the last two years about the conduct and activities of the then Attorney General. I was very critical of him and often clashed with the Chair on whether I had the right to comment on him. Anything I said about him, including what I said as recently as 2 November, has been justified and come to pass. The House and much of the country now see that the appointment of Mr. Whelehan was not right.

As reported at column 1609 of the Official Report of 2 November I stated:

I believe it [by that I mean the Labour Party] is right in its objection to the appointment of Mr. Whelehan, the Attorney General, as President of the High Court. The question arises as to whether he is suitable for appointment to any senior judicial post or office.

In that context I draw the attention of the Chair to a matter that has troubled me for nearly two years but which I never had the opportunity to refer to before because I felt I would be ruled out of order. It is Article 15.10 of the Constitution which states:

Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, ...

In the latter part of 1992 my private papers, as a Deputy, were obtained in dubious circumstances by certain people. They were obtained apparently before I gave evidence to the beef tribunal. They were certainly obtained before the acting Taoiseach gave evidence to the beef tribunal. They were my private papers in my capacity as a Member of the House and were privileged as a result. They were doubly privileged because most of them consisted of communications from one of my legal advisers to me and vice versa. The then Attorney General purported to hold some form of inquiry when I made a complaint about the matter. He only heard the evidence for the defence from the barrister who claimed he had obtained these papers. He did not hear any of the people who had points to make to show that the papers were obtained. Having heard the defence only, he purported to dismiss the prosecution, to use that analogy. From that day, I was satisfied that man was not capable of acting in a judicial fashion. It was a disgraceful action for him to take. His view was clearly not shared by the professional body of the barrister concerned who took a very serious view of the matter and imposed a large fine on the individual.

I invite you, Sir, in your capacity as Ceann Comhairle and Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to look into the matter of how the private papers of a Member were obtained and use made of them in circumstances that were very damaging to that Member but useful to another Member of the House. It is most regrettable that it happened and it should never be allowed happen again.

It is said there are many aspects of the Fr. Brendan Smyth case and the Government's involvement in it that have not been fully explained. Undoubtedly that is true but there are many aspects of the events that led to the beef tribunal and of the tribunal itself that have not yet been fully explained. I hope those who are in a position to do so will now delve further and find answers to these questions and to those relating to the manner in which the Smyth non-extradition case was handled.

There are clearly different aspects of this affair which need further teasing out, for example, the refusal to answer questions relating to this matter. Today Deputy Harney showed the House a sheaf of questions on this and other matters she raised in recent months and which the Taoiseach refused to answer, which had been ruled out of order or transferred to other Ministers. Even the Official Report of 2 November last, from which I have already quoted, shows, at column 1378, that the various efforts made to get the Taoiseach to answer even the most simple questions, for example, whether the Attorney General was responsible for what happened in his office, met with no success. This consistent refusal to answer questions has been a feature of the Government and all its members.

The Smyth affair and its handling is so curious that among the many other unresolved questions is one which absolutely fascinates me. Will Deputy Higgins, the former Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht tell me what made it acceptable last Wednesday for Deputy Spring and his colleagues to go back into Government with Fianna Fáil and to apparently sign his name to that effect on a piece of paper? What was the consideration? Given that we are now into transparency, accountability and public information, about which we have heard so much from Fianna Fáil and Labour in recent days, will Deputy Spring, Deputy Higgins and other members of the Labour Party now publish the document they signed at 10.22 a.m. last Wednesday?

Mr. Molloy

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Malley

The public is entitled to see that document.

Mr. O'Malley

Those two questions are among the more obvious which should be answered by the Labour Party before negotiations on the formation of a Government go any further. I would have thought that, with one obvious exception, pretty well any party which wants to deal with the Labour Party will want to know the answers to those questions. Why can it find it acceptable that the seven people who wrote the speech and concealed matters of great importance from this House are not guilty? Why will it not publish the document signed on its behalf by Deputy Spring at 10.22 a.m. last Wednesday?

To give the public an idea of how deeply ingrained some members of the Fianna Fáil Party are in protecting their interests and perhaps not being over concerned with the truth, when finally on Wednesday evening last the Taoiseach made a rather confusing but sufficient reference to the Duggan case to enable one to conclude that the Government had known about this since the Monday, I interjected and asked: "Why did you conceal that from the Dáil yesterday?" The Taoiseach shouted back: "I did not conceal it". That may seem a small thing but there is nothing more obvious than the fact that he concealed it. That is the reason he resigned. Why did he, even at that stage, when he was supposed to be baring his soul and telling the truth, say something to the Dáil that was untrue, that he knew was untrue? There was no sense of revulsion or even a sense of disagreement or reservation among any of his colleagues. I suppose we should not be surprised. Is that the action of somebody who is truly accountable? Is it the action of somebody who is genuinely repentant for his course of action over a long period? I do not think so but even though it is a small episode it is indicative of the attitude, unfortunately, of so many people in the Fianna Fáil Party. The really interesting question that faces us comes back to the Labour Party and whether, unlike many of the rest of us and unlike the country as a whole, it finds that acceptable.

It takes moral courage to resign.

Mr. E. Kenny

Long before the ministerial increases the Deputy gave them back.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy Harney drew attention last night on a television programme and again in this House today to a matter which is consistent with what I have been saying here about the unwillingness of the outgoing Taoiseach and some of his colleagues to tell the truth. She referred to a document which appeared in the Sunday Independent of 20 November where replies were prepared for the Taoiseach to deal with all kinds of eventualities. Apparently those advising them, including his colleagues, did not have confidence that he could deal with the matters unless there was a reply. They were justified in that he complained about the lack of a speaking note being supplied to him when he spoke first about this matter. The reply to the question “was this the first time that the section was applied?” is totally misleading. To say that it is misleading and incomplete is probably the polite way of describing it; it would be more accurate to say it is untrue. At the bottom of the document, in handwriting and in capital letters, are the words: “If pursued on this question keep repeating exactly the above.” We saw examples of it this night week where the Taoiseach was so punch drunk towards the end, when he had to answer questions, that he read from the same sheet of paper twice. He was totally unaware that he was reading from the same sheet of paper again.

What is disturbing is that within the party of which he is a member and among those who advised him for that appearance in the Dáil last Tuesday there were people who prepared this reply in full knowledge of the circumstances, yet they prepared a reply that was untrue. Should that be acceptable to the House? I understand it is not acceptable to many Members. It will be interesting to note if the proposition that one can tell a lie and repeat it in exactly the same terms is acceptable to a majority of the Members of this House tomorrow week. That lie was not told by the Taoiseach, it was told by those who, on their own admission, spent day and night Sunday, Monday and Tuesday closeted with him. They prepared the lie for delivery to the House. It is fortuitous that it was not delivered, but it was prepared for delivery and responsibility for it does not lie on the head of anyone who is not a Member of the House. This is not a case where they can blame civil servants because I do not believe a civil servant prepared the document. It was prepared by the committee of camel makers who were closeted with the Taoiseach for three days and three nights. It will be interesting to note whether tomorrow week a majority of the Members of this House find that acceptable.

I do not wish to delay the House any further. I thank you, Sir, for your indulgence. If I had more notice that we would be allowed contribute to the debate I would have been more precisely prepared and had my notes more in order. I regret I did not have an opportunity to do that. I had to dash across the road to get my papers, but I am grateful for the opportunity to say what I did.

Mr. Flanagan

As other Members wish to contribute. I will be as brief as possible. On another extraordinary day in Irish political life and in the history of this House I listened with considerable interest to the comments of the previous speaker and look forward to a day, perhaps in the near future, when Deputy O'Malley has his notes in order and is willing to come into the House and speak on the matters of fundamental importance he raised this afternoon. He extended an invitation to you, a Cheann Comhairle, to have certain matters dealt with by way of examination before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If that is a proposal by Deputy O'Malley I would be very pleased to second it because he raised fundamental points relating to Article 15.10 of the Constitution. It is incumbent on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to examine the allegations made and the points raised by Deputy O'Malley so they can be seen through to conclusion.

There has been much comment on the doctrine and notion of accountability primarily because of the number of references to it by various spokespersons of the Fianna Fáil Party during recent days and reiterated this afternoon by its new Leader, Deputy Ahern. I will not recount many of the issues of last week, they have been dealt with significantly by Deputies O'Malley, De Rossa and others. I would like, however, to refer briefly to the present position. It is almost a week since the resignation of the Taoiseach and his Government, half of whom were brought back in an acting capacity. Deputy Reynolds is still carrying out the duties of Taoiseach. I am concerned about the status of the caretaker Administration. It is similar to this open ended debate. Nobody knows when the curtains are to be drawn on this debate. I was informed the Government Chief Whip threatened to come in here at 4.30 p.m. and bring the proceedings to a conclusion. He has not arrived, but he may do so at any moment. I understand from a conversation with you, Sir, that you will call on speakers as long as members of parties wish to offer, but I dare say you are not sure how long the proceedings will continue or if they will carry over until tomorrow. There is a motion before the House that the Dáil shall adjourn until tomorrow week but we do not have notice of the nature of proceedings on that day.

I am concerned at the length of time it may take to resolve the impasse. Article 28.4 of the Constitution states that the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann. We have a caretaker Administration, the like of which we have not had before, in many respects, we are in unchartered waters. I am concerned about the role of the caretaker Ministers. Before departing this afternoon the Taoiseach was somewhat blasé in the manner in which he reassigned his portfolios among former Fianna Fáil Ministers. I received a letter from the General Office this morning which stated:

In view of the resignation of the Government, all Questions yet to be answered are deemed to have lapsed.

Please find enclosed herewith copies of Questions tabled by you which have yet to be answered. If the nomination of another Government is approved by the current Dáil, they may, however, be retabled to the relevant member of that Government.

In that event, please return these same copies ... taddressing them to the appropriate Minister where there has been a change of Ministerial title.

That is an example of the unchartered waters through which we are paddling.

I did, but I made representations to the former Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach, on the matter.

Mr. Durkan

Deputy Browne is smiling in anticipation of the next announcement.

Mr. Flanagan

I am sure there will be further announcements as we move closer to the formation of a new Administration of some hue or, in the event of there being a dissolution of the Dáil, we have the Fianna Fáil Ministers hedging their bets in typical Fianna Fáil fashion to ensure that the grant-aid can continue to be disbursed to favourite sons and daughters. Yet, there is no accountability to us as elected representatives of the people.

The Taoiseach resigned last week, half of the Government had gone before him and the other half went after him. The Taoiseach was not defeated on a confidence motion or on a substantial Bill. It appears that the Government resigned on a probable counting of numbers. Yet, a week later we do not have anything other than a caretaker administration, the powers, duties and functions of which, at best, are confused. There was no confrontation through the division lobbies, as has happened in this House since this Parliament was inaurgated on the foundation of the State. Nonetheless, the new Leader of Fianna Fáil spoke this afternoon in glowing terms about responsibility, accountability and the notion of transparency. On the question of accountability, it is the duty of a Government Minister not to engage in the transmission of misleading information to the House.

We know of the Taoiseach's resignation and a little less about the supposed resignation of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn. According to the Official Report of 25 October 1994, column 520, when questioned about the extradition warrants in the Attorney General's office the Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, said:

I also understand that this case was the first in which provisions had arisen or consideration by the Attorney General's Office since the enactment of the 1987 Act.

That is a quote of what the Minister said. We know, and she knows, that that information was misleading. Were it not for the events of last week that quotation would remain on the record of the House with no sanction brought to bear on the Minister for Justice. That raises the question of accountability and ethics.

If a new administration is formed without an election, it is important that the answering of questions in the House be addressed by all Ministers. Deputy O'Malley, and others, referred to questions tabled in the Smyth case, about the Attorney General's office, about the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry, the major political issues of 1994. The agenda of the Dáil on each sitting day is designed for the lawful tabling of parliamentary questions to Ministers on what might be described as ordinary, run-of-the-mill matters, many relating to the legislative process and constituency matters.

The way parliamentary questions were answered on many subjects by Ministers in the outgoing Fianna Fáil-Labour Coalition was reprehensible. When questions were tabled on matters of public or local interest, the answers supplied by the Department did not represent the full story and full particulars of that reply were transmitted, without the consent of the Deputy who tabled the question, to a constituency colleague who might be a member of the party of the Minister answering the question. This is no longer regarded as any type of one-upmanship, as representing any type of stroke or whatever but rather as the common practice. The relevant departmental reply has been transmitted, sometimes in the week before being answered in the House, to an opponent in the constituency. The same type of standard being applied to the answering of parliamentary questions is that applied by the former Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications who saw nothing wrong in forgetting that he held a few shares in a mining company over which he had jurisdiction and power to grant a licence. The Minister who saw nothing wrong in that had the full backing of the Taoiseach and Government who withstood that storm.

What we witnessed in the lancing of the boil last week places an onus on every Member of the Opposition parties — in my view, on Members of the Labour Party also — to ensure that those Members of the Fianna Fáil Party who have enjoyed the trappings of power since February 1987 be given an opportunity to lick their wounds on the backbenches. Anything else on the part of the Labour Party would constitute a disservice to the electorate.

The next few days will be vital, exciting, traumatic and difficult. Having regard to the nature of the hiatus to which I referred earlier, the fact that there is great public confusion about the nature and form of Government we have, it behoves each of us to endeavour to form a Government in the interests of the democratic process because no Member can exact any element of pride or satisfaction from what we witnessed in the past seven days.

It is extraordinary to hear caretaker Ministers say there will be a solution, if for no other reason than that the Christmas season is approaching. That has been said on a number of occasions by Members who held ministerial office in the outgoing Government. It is extraordinary that politicians should use the festive season of Christmas in such a disparaging manner.

Mr. Durkan

That is nothing new.

Mr. Flanagan

It is nothing new as far as certain Members are concerned.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): The Deputy may be answering questions himself next.

Mr. Flanagan

We all accept that the Labour Party represents the key to finding an alternative Government. Therefore, the question the Labour Party must answer is whether it is prepared to go back into Government with a party that has discredited not alone itself but the entire political process over the past two years.

Mr. Rabbitte

I rise merely to make a few points in the belief that, by the time we next assemble, we may, and hopefully will, have a Government. In that sense the elements of the programme to be followed by that Government will be in place and it will be too late to intrude matters that my party, and I, think ought to be included in that programme.

The theme of this debate, and indeed the buzz word of discussions over the last weekend, has been accountability and there are practical things the House might address if it is serious in that regard. "Accountability" has been bandied around by politicians who showed no familiarity with it up to the events of last week. A great many of us were denied the opportunity of speaking in the confidence debate because of the collapse of the Government. Nevertheless, today is not the time to rake over some of the major issues that ultimately led to the fall of the Government. I will, therefore, confine myself to this narrow area of accountability which is critically important to the working of our parliamentary democracy.

I want to be associated with remarks about the new leader of Fianna Fáil and offer Deputy Bertie Ahern my personal best wishes and congratulations. He is an amiable and affable Member of the House. I had the pleasure of being Opposition spokesman on Labour when he was Minister for Labour and again, coincidentally, of being Opposition spokesman on Finance when he was Minister for Finance.

My colleague, Deputy De Rossa, dwelt today on matters that have a monetary cost associated with them concerning the attitude of my party to the formation of an alternative Government. He dealt, for example, with women denied equal treatment in regard to their social welfare entitlements and the necessity to target resources on economic or unemployment blackspots. He also dealt with institutional reform which does not have a financial cost. Perhaps it would not be a bad thing to start with this institution of which we are all proud to be Members because, really, all the apparent commitment to accountability rings very hollow indeed unless whoever comprise the new Government are prepared to make meaningful changes in running this House. Accountability should be more than merely the cosmetics to get us over the crisis of last week and on to the formation of another Government that will renew the same old bad habits that make sure there cannot be accountability to the people through the elected Members of this House.

Many colleagues commented on the impact that broadcasting the affairs of this House last week had on the public and the unprecedented extent of public participation in the affairs of this House and politics as a result. Tributes are due to the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for permitting the kind of debate and questioning that we had last week. I mean no criticism when I say that the Chair has not always been so amenable and that may well be because the rules of the House inhibit it facilitating the exchanges we saw last week. If that is the case, it ought to be addressed. It is worth contrasting last week's debate and its coverage with the debate referred to earlier by Deputy O'Malley. We had an equally critical debate starting on 1 September on the findings of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry and it is to be regretted that RTE, in its wisdom, decided that was not worthy of broadcast. Having regard to the happy coincidence, if coincidence it was, of the ceasefire in Northern Ireland, so much was going on outside that RTE found itself with other matters to cover with the result that there was an unprecedented shutdown in coverage from this House of what transpired in that debate. Whether we like it or not, it seems to be a fact of life that few people with an abiding interest in politics or in the subject of that report would have gone to the trouble of reading the printed media on what happened here that day. However, what happened here that day was equally important as what happened last week. I do not wish to trail over the entrails of that again. I will just say in passing I agree with Deputy O'Malley that questions arising from that have not been answered. I hope we will have an opportunity to come back to those issues, given that we all seem to be transformed and wish to give full answers in future. If there had been live television broadcast of the debate on the beef tribunal, I believe the tumult and catharsis we saw last week would have happened on the beef tribunal debate. I further believe that what happened last week is not unconnected with the affairs of the beef tribunal.

Whatever the configuration of a new Government, there are matters that the parties seeking to form a Government might take on board if they are serious about accountability to this House. The first stems from the issue of the beef tribunal. It also, ironically, involves the former Attorney General, Mr. Harry Whelehan and what has become known as the doctrine of Cabinet confidentiality. If the doctrine of Cabinet confidentiality as it has been enunciated to date is allowed to stay in place then we cannot have accountability in the terms spoken about here over the last week. When Senior Counsel for the State — in this event, it must be said he was acting for the Fianna Fáil part of the State, and it is important that people understand that because Fianna Fáil has a tradition of making its interests identical with the interests of the State, but other Members do not take that view — the Attorney General intervened when a former Cabinet Minister was being questioned at the beef tribunal by its Chairman to ascertain how the decisions were made in respect of putting at risk a great amount, of the order of £100 million, of taxpayers' money and what considerations went into making such decisions at Cabinet. The Minister in the witness box indicated a willingness to address these questions. However, on the directions of the Attorney General, the Senior Counsel, Mr. Hickey, acting for the State in the partisan fashion I have described, intervened as a result of which, in a subsequent challenge to the court, the Ministers were prevented from answering these questions on the basis that it would be a breach of Cabinet confidentiality.

Any new Government which does not legislate to narrow the definition of Cabinet confidentiality cannot be serious about accountability to this House. Because of the present position we have not been able to establish what motivated the then Minister for Industry and Commerce to make the extraordinary decisions he made, and it now appears that we will never know. Clearly, Cabinet confidentiality ought to apply in certain areas concerning the security of the State or whatever, but certainly not in the all encompassing fashion that is now the case.

Another question any new Government ought to consider is why the promised legislation on privilege and compellability of witnesses has not emerged.

Mr. Durkan

That is a good point.

Mr. Rabbitte

I wonder if that was also a factor in last week's dénouement and what Deputy Spring knew before he was advised of the Brendan Smyth affair. There must have been other reasons he opposed the appointment of the then Attorney General to the Presidency of the High Court. I do not know — I am speculating — but it may relate to the progress of legislation through the office of the Attorney General, the apparently speedy progress of some legislation and the tardy progress of other legislation or that some did not emerge.

Without privilege and compellability the committee structure put in place in this House cannot function effectively. Deputies Durkan and O'Malley, who are present, and myself are members of the Committee of Public Accounts. That committee has discharged its functions with distinction down through the years. In recent years it has been particularly fortunate to have had in the recently retired Mr. McDonnell a distinguished public servant as Comptroller and Auditor General. However, the work of the committee has been hampered by the absence of legislation on privilege and compellability, in other words, legislation to enable us summon before the committee relevant persons who have evidence to give and who, should they indicate a wish not to do so, as has happened in the past, can be compelled to do so while enjoying the same privilege as members of the committee. That is critically important to other committees of the House also. For example, regarding the Brendan Smyth affair, it is hardly good enough for the former Attorney General, Mr. Harry Whelehan, to tell us that he is now a private citizen and would be grateful if we did not disturb his existence as such. That is not acceptable.

Regarding recent events, we have had accountability. Apparently, parliamentary democracy has worked. Heads have been presented on a platter. However the one thing we have not had is explanations for what happened. I do not believe nor am I sure do the people generally, that it is acceptable that Mr. Whelehan can ride off into the sunset with those secrets and that we will never really know what happened, why a child abuser was at loose in this jurisdiction.

I have some sympathy with members of Fianna Fáil and with their voters because the impression has been given on occasions that aversion to paedophilia is the preserve of one side of this House. That is not the case. I believe all Fianna Fáil members and voters are disgusted and concerned about what happened, that they, too, want answers. The relevant committee of the House ought to be able to summon to appear before it Mr. Whelehan, among others, so that this matter can be probed and we can get answers with which the public can be satisfied.

When one looks at the history of politics in the past few years it is extraordinary the extent and frequency with which the former Attorney General keeps cropping up. Deputies O'Malley and Durkan will recall that the last time — prior to the events of last week — we came across the name of the former Attorney General was in the matter of the tax amnesty. During the normal close examination, paragraph by paragraph of the report presented by the Comptroller and Auditor General we found that Comptroller and Auditor General is debarred from examining the efficacy of the tax amnesty and publishing the findings of his study. What is at issue in that case cannot be exaggerated: it is the efficacy of the tax collection system. That is what the Comptroller and Auditor General wanted to examine, but the legal opinion he got from the law officer to the Government, the then Attorney General was that he may not do so. Some members of the Fianna Fáil Party on the Committee of Public Accounts seemed to learn for the first time how the tax amnesty operated. They said they were shocked when they learned that the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners knows nothing about the workings of the tax amnesty. The reason he knows nothing about it is because it is prescribed in the legislation they voted for that he may not know anything about it. In the words of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the beneficiaries of the tax amnesty are cocooned——

Mr. O'Malley

Ring-fenced.

Mr. Rabbitte

——sheltered from scrutiny so that anybody who availed of it got a little certificate. Then, if his or her affairs are inquired into at a future stage all they have to do is produce the certificate and nobody may investigate the circumstances. Those people may not share that information with the Revenue Commissioners. An office was set up in a special premises in Harcourt Street, headed by a special collector, who may not share whatever information he has with his colleagues in the Revenue Commissioners. When the legislation was brought before the House in its original form it contained a section that left the special collector open to committing an offence if he whispered about the details of that amnesty to his wife in bed at night. That is the most extraordinary position and yet the opinion of the Attorney General of the day was that even the Comptroller and Auditor General who is a separate and independent constitutional officer, may not investigate details of the amnesty or comment on what it tells us about the efficacy of the tax collection procedures. That seems to be another area that must be addressed.

The matter of the efficacy of the parliamentary question must be addressed also. What made last week rivetting for the people was the fact that the Taoiseach was made amenable in this House through a question and answer session and not necessarily because of any Agatha Christie scripts that may or may not have unfolded during the course of that debate. It was the exchange of questions and answers, freely permitted by the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that made it rivetting television. Until the efficacy of parliamentary questions is considered one cannot be serious about accountability. Deputies Harney, De Rossa and O'Malley have already referred to the example of last week and the claim now made by some Ministers.

It seems the Fianna Fáil acting Government has come up with a new concept, not of collective Cabinet responsibility but collective Cabinet collusion, which resulted in last week's events. What would have happened if someone in Opposition had been inspired to ask, as was planned for in this special question, was this the first time the section was applied, was the Smyth case the first case that came to light under the relevant section of the 1989 Act? I do not know why anybody in this House would have been so inspired because the Minister for Justice had told us categorically that the Smyth case was the first case. I am in the habit of believing the Minister for Justice of the day answering questions in this House. We were supposed to be inspired to ask whether the Smyth case was the first case in which the relevant section of the 1987 Act was applied.

The answer is a masterpiece of obfuscation. Deputies Harney, De Rossa and O'Malley referred to the instruction at the bottom of the page that the Taoiseach was to keep repeating it — that is no problem to the acting Taoiseach. Equally interesting — I do not think anybody put this on the record of the House — is what was to be said. The question being anticipated was whether this was the first case and the answer was:

The date of alleged initial commisison of a number of the offences, the subject matter of the warrants dated from as far back as 1964 giving rise to a lapse of time, within the meaning of the section, of 29 years. These — with more recent offences — were not reported until 1990. Other offences the date of alleged initial commission of which dated from 1968 were reported in 1993. Thus there was a delay of 26 and 29 years between the earlier date of alleged initial commission of the earlier offences and the date of reporting of them. The accused was interviewed twice in 1991. He was initially charged in respect of some of the offences in April 1991. These could not be proceeded with at the time. The warrants were issued in 1993.

Then a real masterpiece follows:

This is the first case giving rise to delays of this magnitude. [A lot of thought went into that sentence]. The possibility existed of a case being made in respect of these offences on the basis of the section. Accordingly, the view was taken that the legal issue that arose should be given very serious consideration.

That ought to be put on the record of the House.

Mr. O'Malley

They knew about the Duggan case when they wrote that.

Mr. Rabbitte

That is right. Deputy O'Malley reminds me that at that stage the Duggan case had been unearthed — it is a mystery to me how it was unearthed, and I congratulate the present Attorney General. Future historians ought to see that on the record of this House and not merely in the pages of the Sunday Indepenent. It is a masterpiece of everything that is wrong with parliamentary Question Time.

Mr. Justice Hamilton commented on this at the beef tribunal when he said that if Ministers answered questions honestly, truthfully and comprehensively in this House there may have been no need for the tribunal, but they did not, and it is still going on. There was the extraordinary revelation at the beef tribunal of the relatively junior civil servant on whose file was a letter from his superior congratulating him — I shall remember the words until the day I die — for the skill with which he had thrown the questioning Deputy off the scent. It appears we are living in a democracy whereby if one is inspired to know precisely the question to ask, one might be fortunate enough to get an answer like this. However, if he is not inspired and is just a little off the mark one will certainly not get an answer. Unless the way Question Time operates is changed and unless Ministers are required to answer questions fully and truthfully, talk about accountability is so much blather and when a new Government is put in place nothing will have changed.

Let us take the incident last week, just before the Government fell, involving the Minister, Deputy Andrews and me. Deputy John Bruton and I put down questions to that Minister about the cost of the Government jet that is causing so much angst.

Mr. McGahon

Labour is going to sell it.

Mr. Rabbitte

I think Labour is not in favour of the sale of State assets, but we will see. I hold the Minister, Deputy Andrews in high regard and I do not wish to impugn his integrity, but he has not explained why two different answers were given to the same parliamentary question. It was not a complicated question; it asked how much does it cost to keep this plane in the air — Deputy Bruton's question was the same. We got an answer, prepared for delivery in the House, stating that it cost £670 an hour, but when I collected post from my pigeonhole I found a reply stating that it cost £4,000 per hour. Both answers cannot be right. We seem to have progressed from non-answers, ambiguity and obfuscation to two answers to the same question.

Mr. Deasy

That civil servant did not get a letter of congratulations from his superior.

Mr. O'Malley

Mr. O'Malley

Does the Deputy remember that two and a half years ago the light was going to shine in?

Mr. McGahon

It has gone out.

Mr. Rabbitte

Listening to Deputy Burton this morning — I have listened to her a good deal recently — one of the things that confused me was that she seemed to agree with the Opposition on the areas we singled out for criticism — export credit insurance, the tax amnesty, the passports for sale affair, the Whelehan affair and so on. I am prepared to accept this at face value and as long as the Labour Party has a firm purpose of amendment I am prepared to support it.

I am interested in one matter. The Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, had conveyed on his behalf that, when the disgraceful tax amnesty went through Cabinet, only the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern objected. Deputy Burton said this morning it was a majority decision, that a number of Ministers had objected to it——

Mr. O'Malley

That is a breach of Cabinet confidentiality law.

Mr. Rabbitte

That seems to be the case but Cabinet confidentiality was a temporary phenomenon and extant for the duration of the beef tribunal; I do not think it has applied since. The question of the tax amnesty is central to the character of the debate and I would like to know the truth about what happened. As far as I know, Deputy Burton may well be correcting the record and that may be what happened.

I have made these few remarks about accountability in the knowledge that the next time this House meets it may be too late. I would like to think that someone is listening and will include them in the new transparent and accountable Government. It is necessary that this House and the public are given answers to the questions which remain uppermost in people's minds as a result of last week's affair. It appears that what we got from the remaining Fianna Fáil Ministers, now the acting Government, was collective Cabinet collusion in concealing critical information, not collective Cabinet responsibility. If it is otherwise, I hope some Minister in this debate will explain how it happened and set out to the satisfaction of the public precisely why it happened. It is the view of the public that we did see parliamentary democracy at work last week but we still have not been given critical answers to critical questions on a fundamental issue of public interest.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. M. Smith)

In a flagrant abuse of Dáil privilege Deputy Flanagan accused me of making a decision in the Department of Education to approve a grant of £350,000 for a sports facility. That is groundless, a total fallacy. The only approvals that will issue from the Department of Education are those which were approved before my appointment. The normal business of the Department will continue. I reject in this important debate those untruths which cannot be substantiated.

I also reject the accusations levelled at the Taoiseach and other Ministers who were present last week by Deputy Rabbitte in his presentation and others of deliberately concealing facts from this House. I say with sincerity that this did not happen. I hope some day it will be accepted——

Mr. McGahon

What did happen?

Mr. M. Smith

——that the new Attorney General, four hours in office, attended a meeting and indicated to a number of my colleagues that he had new information. He also indicated that there was a violent disagreement in his office, particularly with one senior law officer, in relation to this contention. He was asked by the Taoiseach to clarify the matter and ascertain the facts. The Taoiseach stated that he would present these to the House no matter whom they hurt.

I have never deceived or told a lie in this House and I never would. Neither has the Taoiseach deceived the House and he never would. Clarification was received in a detailed letter the following afternoon when the Taoiseach was in this House. That is a matter of fact and no one is in a position to deny it. The insinuations and character assassination have had dreadful and bruising consequences for the Taoiseach.

There was a reference again this evening to the beef tribunal. It is and has been contended that a deal was struck between the Taoiseach and the former Attorney General on the question of Cabinet confidentiality and the subsequent High Court action. In the report of the beef tribunal — it seems some people in this House, including Deputy O'Malley, want to reject this — Mr. Justice Hamilton, who had all the Government papers available to him, stated that the decision relating to Cabinet confidentiality worked against the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Reynolds. Those of us who served in Cabinet know that there are times when it would be easier if all the facts were made public. The decision of the courts, however, has to be accepted. It would be better if we laid some of those contentions to rest and faced reality.

In the formation of a new Government or, alternatively, in Opposition, Fianna Fáil under its new leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, will continue and reinforce its commitment to responsible and open Government. In this party we adhere to an ethos which has commanded unprecedented public support over a long period. No other political party has been able to command for a very long time that strength of public support. We have not commanded that level of public support by not being idealistic, truthful, energetic and conscientious. We do not play second fiddle to Deputy Rabbitte who repeated unfounded allegations and rumours that he could not substantiate. Is that a search to find where the truth lies, is that integrity?

Mr. Rabbitte

Call it a search to ask who put out the rumour, which is more pertinent.

Mr. Durkan

That is right.

Mr. M. Smith

Our vision, ideology and ethics are grounded on the principle of serving all of the people of this country——

Mr. McGahon

Hitler said the same.

Mr. M. Smith

I am annoyed that there will not be a general election and I know I differ from the vast majority of Deputies in that regard. The acting Taoiseach should have requested the President to dissolve the Dáil because the deception and sleaze hanging over it will never be dispelled unless there is a general election. Commentators and interviewers would have an opportunity to question those who have been in control of this country over the past two years and ask how they could mislead and deceive the public. Without an election we will not get answers to the relevant questions.

I do not believe we know half the truth about the Father Brendan Smyth case or its handling by the Attorney General or the Government, nor do I believe it will ever come out unless we have a general election to clear the air. The former Attorney General, Mr. Whelehan, should have been in the House to answer questions. If he had, the crisis might not have arisen or, on the other hand, it could have led to a greater crisis in that the answers to the questions could have been not only enlightening but damning to many. It would be interesting to know if Mr. Whelehan was put under pressure by forces within or outside the Government to ignore the extradition warrant by the UK Attorney General.

None of us likes to fight a general election, particularly at this time of the year but that is irrelevant. What is important is the truth. We want to get to the bottom of the matter and should request the acting Taoiseach and the President to dissolve the House. Let the public adjudicate where the truth lies in an ensuing election. I know an opinion poll at the weekend indicated that over 70 per cent of voters do not want a general election but that should not influence us. We should be mature enough to stand on our own two feet and make our own judgment. Over 90 per cent of Members do not want a general election but that does not mean we should not have one. We need a general election. It would be a cleansing process. We would probably lose 25 per cent of members in the process but so be it. If the questions which need to be answered were answered, the election would be justified. I am annoyed that there will not be an election because we will not receive the answers to which we are entitled.

I listened with interest to the acting Minister for the Environment and Education and his commentary on the events of Monday and Tuesday last week. Harold Wilson made the famous comment that a week is a long time in politics but two weeks has been an exceptionally long time in politics here. On 8 November we were campaigning in Cork where two by-elections were fought. In the aftermath of the by-elections on Friday, the Taoiseach rubbed the nose of the Tánaiste in the muck as a result of the Labour Party's poor showing in the by-elections. He did so by appointing the Attorney General as President of the High Court. That stupid precipitated action started the crisis in which we are now embroiled. The next major event was last Monday and then we had three days of unsurpassed suspense and bizarre events in the House.

Let us recall what the acting Minister told us about those events because they do not add up or explain the Taoiseach's actions satisfactorily. They indicate there was a massive attempt to cover up. The acting Minister indicated that on Monday there was a difference of opinion in the office of the Attorney General between the newly appointed Attorney General and a senior civil servant as to whether the Duggan case had any relevance to the Smyth case. What remained of the Cabinet — eight Members of the Fianna Fáil Party — sought clarification on the issue, according to the acting Minister. That clarification depended on whether the new Attorney General or the senior civil servant was right. The new Attorney General, Mr. Fitzsimons, was of the opinion that the Duggan case was relevant in relation to the Smyth case and the overall crisis.

On Tuesday that further clarification, which we are told the Taoiseach sought, was given and the acting Minister tells us that when the information came to hand on Tuesday the Taoiseach was in the House. He was in the House on two occasions on Tuesday for lengthy periods — first, when he made his wishy-washy, woolly statement early in the day which told us nothing; it was a half baked apology to the Tánaiste for trying to rub his nose in the muck on the previous Friday and, secondly, when he answered questions from Members late in the evening. I would like to know at what time the clarification came to hand on Tuesday.

From my experience over a number of years, I am aware that the procedure is that when a Minister or Taoiseach is given information which materially alters a case discussed in the House, the Taoiseach or Minister in question must make a statement of clarification to the House and, if necessary, apologise for misleading it. No such statement was made at any time last Tuesday. If this statement was not to be made on Tuesday, the Taoiseach should have arranged to make it on the Order of Business on Wednesday morning. The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, told us clearly that clarification was sought on Monday and the information came to hand on Tuesday. Yet the Taoiseach made no effort on Wednesday morning to give us an explanation or to apologise for the statement he made on Tuesday in terms of its incorrectness about the clarification which had also been given by the new Attorney General on Tuesday.

A blatant and major case has to be answered not just by the Taoiseach but by the Fianna Fáil Ministers who were still in Government. No attempt was made to give further information until the former Tánaiste, Deputy Dick Spring, questioned the Attorney General on the basis of what we can only conclude was a tip off. We do not know where this tip off came from and we are entitled to know. Was it from one of the six Ministers at the meeting on Monday evening when they were told about the Duggan case or from a civil servant in the Attorney General's office? The former Tánaiste has a case to answer here. For the past few days he has been talking about accountability. Two weeks ago the in-word was "sleaze" while this week it is "accountability". If you will excuse my vulgarity, a Cheann Comhairle, it is a lot of bullshit. There is no other way to desribe it. We have not been told where the information came from.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

The Deputy has used unparliamentary language.

Mr. Deasy

It is much better parliamentary language than I have heard lately. It is more to the point and does not circumvent the issue.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

The Deputy should not worry; he does not frighten me in the least.

Mr. Deasy

We are entitled to know from the former Tánaiste where he got his information about the Duggan case. Who tipped him off? Was it an inside political job or did he get the information from someone in the Attorney General's office? We need a general election so that the people involved in this case will be required to answer questions. If Fianna Fáil and Labour form a new Government I have no doubt that the cover up will continue forever and we will never find out the truth.

However, when it learns it does not forget. That was Albert's problem — he learned little tricks in the dance hall business which he brought into politics. He got away with them for a long time——

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. Aylward)

The Deputy learned a few steps himself in the dance hall.

Mr. McGahon

The tango.

Mr. Deasy

I would not like to put myself into a category which Democratic Left would describe as sleazy. We would not figure in those stakes.

Last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday a major attempt was made at deception. The question and answer session last Tuesday was televised live. The new leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, said he had a list of 40 tailor made answers to 40 possible questions. He has admitted that one of the 40 answers referred specifically to the Duggan case. Because that question was not asked — we did not have divine inspiration — the Government did not fall. That evening the fate of the Government depended on whether the question relating to the Duggan case was asked. Nobody can tell me that is above board, and no reasonable person could be expected to believe that it is above board. The fate of the Government depended on somebody asking a certain question. That was a total evasion of responsibility.

This is similar to the many unanswered questions in this entire episode, about who knew what and is why we need a general election. There will always be suspicions about people in high places until such time as all the matters are clarified. If Fianna Fáil and Labour go back into Government the matter will never be clarified, there will be a complete cover up.

I do not like being at odds with you, a Cheann Comhairle, but I was at odds with you last year during the debate on the motion on Dáil reform. On that occasion I was emphatic that Question Time had become a sham. Deputies Rabbitte and O'Malley made the point this afternoon that I made in March last year during the debate on that motion. The Ceann Comhairle and I fell out on that occasion. However, Question Time has become a sham.

As I complained to you, a Cheann Comhairle, in writing and verbally in the House, questions I had put down to the Taoiseach were repeatedly transferred to other Ministers. I made that specific point during that debate but I got no satisfaction. I was told it was for the Taoiseach to decide who answered the questions. Nobody had control over it except the Taoiseach or the Minister to whom the question was originally addressed. That defeats the operation of democracy in this House because Question Time is the time when one can elicit information.

I do not relish the thought of the Dáil going into recess, particularly the summer recess for three or three-and-a-half months, because I no longer have the facility to ask parliamentary questions and find out the truth about specific matters. In recent years, even that right has been diminished because of the way questions are transferred. Parliamentary questions are the basis of democracy. Their transfer and evasion will have to stop. I want a general election, even if it means losing my seat because I want to see the public taking to task people who are openly deceitful in this House and in political activities. The greatest instrument of accountability both Government and Opposition Members have in this House is the facility to ask questions and receive answers to them. When we are frustrated in our attempts to ask parliamentary questions we wonder about the relevance of this House.

I was not surprised by the events of last week. The sleaze factor has been with us for a number of years. When the outgoing Taoiseach was Minister for Finance four years ago I raised the issue of Cabinet confidentiality which, from the foundation of the State, was regarded as a sacred cow. On the nine o'clock news on RTE radio, on the morning of the budget, the economic correspondent told the nation about the new tax bands for income taxpayers. That was absolutely irregular. I complained the following day when speaking on the budget debate but I got no satisfaction. That confidentiality is confined to Cabinet members and a few senior people in the Department of Finance. A Cheann Comhairle, you will recall that I asked for an investigation but there was no investigation; they laughed it off.

How could one be surprised at the events of last week in the light of that performance? As we saw in the report of the beef tribunal, Deputy Reynolds put hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money at risk despite repeated warnings and advice from his civil servants to the contrary. The Taoiseach, had the audacity to tell us that he was not aware of the investment of £1.1 million by an Arab gentleman in his company, saying he was not familiar with its day to day workings. Nobody in their right mind believed that assertion. How could they believe it?

While the events of the past week were bizarre, gave great entertainment to the general public but also disturbed a great many people, they were not a surprise. On his own admission, the Taoiseach said he was a gambler and a risk taker but in this case the risk did not pay off.

It is disturbing that there is no record that the other six Ministers in the Government at the time, who were aware of the Duggan case, expressed reservations about it not being revealed. They are all answerable and they will have to answer. If we had a general election each one of them would be put on the spot and they would have to answer. If a Fianna Fáil/Labour Party Government is formed those questions may be asked, but they will not be answered. I know from my experience of recent years that will be the end result.

The announcement of the peace process, the most momentous announcement in the past 50 years — we all welcome it and I do not wish to belittle it — coincided with the issuing of the report on the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry to muddy the waters and to take the spotlight off the findings of that tribunal. It fits in with the character of the people involved.

It is interesting to note that last week, the two people most anxious that the Government should remain in power were Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams. Everybody else, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the British Government hedged their bets and said they were not really worried, that no matter what party or group of parties is in power in Ireland, they were happy that the peace process will not suffer.

I welcome this opportunity — which may be my last — to speak in this House and unburden myself of some of my impressions of the political world. For many years I could not understand the reluctance of people to cast their vote, having visited countries in which there was not a democracy and people were not allowed to vote. Until recently I had strong views in that regard. I felt it was not too much to ask people to give five minutes of their time every few years to vote for their country. I also believed that people who did not vote should lose the franchise or, as is the case in Australia, have the vote taken from them. Two or three weeks ago, like other Deputies, I canvassed in Cork. The extent of the wrath of its people about the political set-up made a deep impression on me. I am beginning to understand the jaundiced eye with which the public view us. The events of the past week contributed to that public perception of politicians, and that is regrettable.

The calm atmosphere in the House tonight contrasts with the unbelievable scenes we witnessed here last week, scenes unprecedented in the history of the State. It was difficult to get inside the door with the scrum of hacks and television media on the plinth outside the House; it was even more difficult to get out. They were chronicling the most bizarre story that ever unfolded in this House. As a rather independent-minded Deputy I was saddened to see the public humiliation of a man I always found to be nice and friendly. I got no pleasure from his public humiliation, nor did I get pleasure from seeing his predecessor publicly defrocked in office. It is always sad to witness the death of a political fox.

The circumstances surrounding the recent events were unfortunate. The Taoiseach took the right course in resigning, but it is regrettable it was necessary. Like most Deputies, I came into this House as a political optimist, but after 12 years I am preparing to exit the scene as a total cynic about political life. I echo the sentiments of everybody on this side who voiced their cynicism and frustration at the method of Dáil questioning.

I have enjoyed a very warm friendship with the Ceann Comhairle. In 12 years, certainly in the past seven during which he has presided here, he has never had to take me to task. I do not blame him for the system he inherited. On some occasions he would need to be a lion tamer to maintain order in this House. The system has deteriorated. While I will not go so far as to say that lies are told here, certainly concealment or distortion of the facts are evident in replies to parliamentary questions. I am not saying that the party in Government invented that practice, rather it has evolved over the years because of bureaucracy and the influence and involvement of civil servants. Certainly it is a cause of frustration for Members. Question Time and the Order of Business are a nonsense. The Ceann Comhairle has my sympathy in trying to maintain order in what is at times a circus.

I am preparing to leave this House a total cynic about political life, the rhetoric and the bull, to which Deputy Deasy referred. It is very difficult for the public to decipher the coded political speech — and this involves all parties — which, for the most part, is ambivalent.

I congratulate the Taoiseach on at least one issue, that is peace, and I say that as a cynic about the North of Ireland. I have no doubt I would be joined in that sentiment by the Kerr family; one need not talk to them about peace and the hypocrisy of the IRA. The final tale has not been told about this so-called peace process. Will the incoming Taoiseach, whoever that may be, demand of Mr. Gerry Adams the return of the £130,000 stolen in the Newry post office robbery? On one occasion in this House I described Mr. Adams — I repeat it this evening — as the Irish Dr. Mengele, the Irish angel of death, in that he has been guilty, by association, of the deaths of hundreds of fellow Irish men and women. He is engaged in the greatest hoax of the 20th century. I hope I will be proved wrong.

I should like to pay tribute to the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, for his part in bringing about this temporary cessation of violence in the North. People have not been killed, with the exception of the late Mr. Frank Kerr, who fell victim to the Mafia that is the IRA, since the announcement. Nonetheless Deputy Reynolds deserves unstinting praise for what he did in that respect. However, he misled the House and took the right course in tendering his resignation.

I am not a great Roman Catholic or a regular Mass goer, but I view with great concern the increasing hostility to the Catholic Church here. Evidence of that hostility was represented in the appalling rumour that circulated last week, that his Eminence, Cardinal Cahal Daly, was involved in the Fr. Brendan Smyth affair. Any journalist or politician involved in that rumour should hang his or her head in shame. Talk about climbing on the popular bandwagon; it is my belief that the nation, certainly the political element of it, owes the Catholic Church an apology. Even as a lapsed Catholic. I contend the lurid press stories and the continuous bombardment of the Catholic Church here have gone over the top. It should be remembered that the Church has made a tremendous contribution to this evolving nation, a mere 70 years old. If a relatively small number of priests or bishops step out of line, are guilty of moral misconduct, does that mean we should brand the entire congregation with some of the sins or indiscretions of their fellow churchmen? I do not think we should because, in a human sense, churchmen are no different from, say, politicians or journalists, the sanctimonious people who pontificate and tell us how this country should be run in the Sunday papers. The same degree of frailty of human nature is evident in the political or journalistic world, indeed to a higher degree than that represented by the indiscretions of a few members of the Catholic Church, or any church.

The events of last week certainly were not an advertisement for political life or the political world. I view the future with great concern since so many people, particularly the young, are sceptical of politicians, believing we are all involved in wrongdoings, misdemeanours, or all receiving brown packets. There is a case for some type of course at primary level designed to teach young people that politics is necessary since so many people grow up believing that politicians and the political system are there to penalise them, which is an ignorance of the true position. The good work undertaken by so many politicians on behalf of this very young nation is at risk. Future generations will see a continuing decline in the numbers who cast their votes for democracy. I am concerned about that and steps should be taken to balance that public perception. I deplore the involvement of the media, print and visual, in effect setting the agenda for political discussions, who churn out articles daily creating a frenetic atmosphere such as was witnessed here last week.

Deputy Deasy referred to information leaks. Sadly such leaks are a fact of life and have become as prevalent here as they are in the Everton defence, for various reasons, because of different human failures, perhaps because a person who was not promoted leaked a sensitive document to another party. It happens all the time; it happened when we were in Government and will continue until somebody is caught and held up as an example. Leaks should not be tolerated in higher Civil Service circles or within any division of the Civil Service. Of course the jealousy always evident in political parties will ensure that politicians will rat on others if they can get a hitch up the ladder.

Having expressed my dismay at what happened last week, we should now look to the future and I echo Deputy Deasy's call for a general election. As one who has considered retirement it would suit me if this Dáil struggled on for another two years. However, the interests of the political world will be best served by a general election. We need a cleanout. If the political world is to have any credibility in future following the tragic and bizarre events of last week, the nation needs a general election.

Having expressed a certain amount of regret that a man I liked was publicly humiliated and who took the only course of action apposite, I wish to put some questions to the Labour Party, a party that sat here last week, certainly last Wednesday and Thursday, and sang dumb — I was going to ask the Ceann Comhairle if they were dummies. I should like to ask Deputy Spring, who is cast in the role of "Mr. Righteous" if he has been totally clean in unfolding his story. When did he hear about this? Was he told by Sir Patrick Mayhew on the morning or afternoon of Friday? Did he wait to spring a trap for a man that he has publicly criticised severely over the years? Was it an act of desperation born of the terrible rejection of the Labour Party in Cork where their candidate was a young woman, whose father tragically lost a courageous fight for life only four months earlier, lost 6,000 votes in just two years? Did Deputy Spring get the message of how the wind was blowing on Friday and was this a carefully staged plot to resuscitate the Labour Party? Given the image created for itself by the Labour Party in the last two years, I believe the circumstances of how information about the Duggan case was made available to Deputy Spring should be told. Was it mere chance that Deputy Spring happened to go to the newly appointed Attorney General or was he acting on a tip? Deputy Spring has in recent years made his name by acting on leaks and tip-offs. I want answers to those questions and I want to know what Labour's intentions are for the future.

Having paid lip-service to the need for a general election, are we now to be treated to another pantomime such as that indulged in two years ago in which the Labour Party will hold the country to ransom and waste up to six weeks talking to people and posturing? I understand that posturing is part and parcel of the political world, given the number of naive people. Excuse the language, a Cheann Comhairle, but are they going to shit or get off the pot? Will they tell the people what they will do, having engaged in the little ritual of posturing and the fan dance? As a Fine Gael Deputy I would be unhappy if they were to make advances to my party but, given the hypocrisy of the political world, will they go back to the party that Mr. Spring identified as a cancer in Irish society? Will he pull back the bedclothes and get into bed with some other Taoiseach? Will he get into bed with the party he described as a cancer in Irish society or, indeed, has the Labour Party caught that cancer?

If Deputy Reynolds was guilty of any wrongdoing or misdemeanour, were all the other members of the Fianna Fáil Party not equally guilty? Can "Mr. Righteous", that great crusader of justice and open-mindedness in Government, get into bed with what remains of the Cabinet of Albert Reynolds? I echo Deputy Deasy's call for a general election to let the people decide.

The Dáil adjourned at 7 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 30 November 1994.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 22 Nov 1994

Adjournment of Dáil: Motion.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Nov 1994