Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Nov 1994

Vol. 141 No. 9

Present Government Situation: Statements.

I thank the House and particularly Senator Norris for agreeing the Order of Business. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Taoiseach. As he said today, he does not know what title he has at present. It should be put on record that Deputy Reynolds, as Taoiseach, was a friend to the Seanad in two respects.

The Seanad will be aware that over the last 20 months many Bills were initiated in this House. This was encouraged by the Taoiseach. A Chathaoirligh, you will be aware that on every occasion this House asked for a debate on Northern Ireland, it was encouraged and supported by the Taoiseach.

As Leader of the House he gave me a free hand. It is worth putting on record that his role and achievement in bringing about peace in Ireland will be a testimony to his political life. It will stand the test of time and historians will be very kind.

I thank the Taoiseach for seeing fit to appoint me to this House and, more importantly, for appointing me Leader of this House which I deemed to be a great honour.

Before I call Senator Manning, I would like to express, on a personal level, my regret at the events of this morning. As the Leader said, Deputy Reynolds was a good friend of the Seanad. He was a friend of mine for 30 years or more, long before he entered politics and became a member of Longford County Council in 1974. He was a good friend and friendly with most people; that was the nature of the man. Above all, he was an outstanding family man. I wish him well in his career as a backbencher. I have no doubt that Listowel, Cheltenham and such places will see more of him in the future, which he will enjoy.

I thank the Leader of the House for honouring his commitment this morning to allocate time for statements on the current political situation.

What makes politics different to virtually any other occupation or vocation is its element of sheer drama and theatre. During the past few days we have lived through a real life drama with elements which nobody could predict and with outcomes nobody could foresee. Even as we speak today elements of this drama have still to be worked out. That is what makes Parliament the theatre in which great national dramas take place.

Those of us who had the privilege of being present in the other House this morning for a moment of history cannot but have been moved by the way in which Albert Reynolds announced his resignation as Taoiseach. He did so in a manly, open way. He confronted the situation and explained himself in his own straightforward language. He explained his reasons for resigning with good humour and fortitude under what must have been very trying and difficult circumstances.

Like the two previous speakers, I have a great personal regard for Albert Reynolds. He has been a good friend of this House. He spoke here on some important occasions. He took this House seriously and shared his views with us at a number of important junctures. He will be remembered as the person who gave the peace process its dramatic and extraordinary impetus during the past couple of months. Each Taoiseach in recent years brought his own particular approach to finding a solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. Whether it was Liam Cosgrave at Sunningdale or Jack Lynch in his patient efforts to combat terror or Garret FitzGerald in the Anglo-Irish Agreement or Charles Haughey's historic breakthroughs during his term of office, each brought his distinctive mark to furthering the peace process. However, Albert Reynolds' contribution was different and, perhaps, greater in kind. It was he who cut the Gordian knot. He opened the gates which made possible the start of a process which we all hope will lead to lasting peace and reconciliation on this island. He will be remembered for that.

He will be remembered as a Taoiseach who was direct, open and accessible and who had a common sense approach to anything he tackled. He was a Taoiseach who was always willing to be helpful to anybody who approached him with a constituency problem. I have reason to be grateful to him for efforts he made when I approached him with constituency problems or with problems which would be helped by his intervention. His door was open. He was direct and told one if something could or could not be done. Enoch Powell said that all political careers end in tragedy and it is tragic that Albert Reynolds' career as Taoiseach came to the abrupt and painful end we witnessed this morning. All of us will be glad we were here during his term as Taoiseach and we will have positive yardsticks by which we can measure his performance.

Some of his daughters were my students and his daughter-in-law runs the crêche which my son attends, so I have a close personal relationship with the Reynolds family. I wish them fortitude through this difficult time. All of us are human and we know what it is like when things like this happen. None of us, however, will have to experience the publicity or the intensity of scrutiny which will beset that family during this time. I wish them a return to calmer waters to pursue the many enjoyable pursuits which weld them together as a family.

On the broader political front, we face a moment of extraordinary political crisis. We do not have a Government at present and we might have to go to the country to secure a new Government. However, we have learned from the experience of the past number of years that it is possible for talks to take place to see if an alternative Government can be established. My party for its part will approach talks with the leaders of other parties in an open and constructive manner. We will have just one concern, that the national interest shall supersede everything else. If we can form a Government with other parties we shall do so constructively and openly. There will be no hidden agenda; everything will be out in the open. I wish to put on record our willingness to engage in constructive discussions and our determination to do so openly in a structured way. I hope and I believe that this particular crisis can be resolved speedily and in a manner which is to the satisfaction of both Houses of Parliament, but most of all in a way which is in the best interest of the country.

I have no doubt that the best interest of the country lies in a Government led by Deputy John Bruton, a partnership Government involving all parties except, I am sorry to say, Fianna Fáil. It is my strong view that the Fianna Fáil Party needs a period in opposition to sort out and refocus itself. A period absented from Government would be good for Fianna Fáil and would be in the national interest. It would be our privilege if we can be part of and lead in partnership an alternative Government. Fine Gael has a reforming zeal which it could bring to any new Administration. However, that is a matter for the days ahead and will be resolved one way or another.

It is also important to put on record the debt of gratitude the country owes to the new Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, who is a colleague of mine from our days at university together. I have known him a long time and he has always been a strong Fianna Fáil supporter. However, this did not deter him from doing his duty as he saw it, even it meant that friendships of many years were sundered and great damage was done to the party which appointed him. He has been a model of extraordinary integrity in the way he approached his task. He restored a sense of integrity to the battered public reputations of our institutions when he acted so speedily. Irrespective of party. we are fortunate that our public life can produce people of the calibre of Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons at times such as this.

The peace process, despite what the "thiar" Tánaiste, as he was described this morning, said yesterday, is still fragile. However, one message must go out clearly from all sides of the House, which is the utter commitment of all parties to maintaining the peace process. We all remember the debates in the House on Northern Ireland. We, in conjunction with all outside observers, must have been struck by the extraordinary degree of solidarity and national unity, expressed in this and the other House by party leaders and spokespersons. At this moment of crisis, this solidarity will be a source of great strength to the preservation of the peace process.

I have another point to make, which does not give me any pleasure. The events of the past few days have shown sections of Irish politics in a most unfavourable light and have raised many questions which have still to be answered. One question above all else must be answered before the body politic can be purged and before it can return to the job of Government building. This question is simple. It concerns the knowledge of Fianna Fáil members of the Cabinet of the conflict of evidence, what they knew when the Taoiseach went into the House to make his statement. Did they know? Were they complicit? If so, what action will be taken? We need to know: that question needs to be answered before any further progress can be made.

The lesson above all others from the past couple of weeks is that unless there is openness, transparency and comprehensive truth in public life clouds and question marks will hang over public life and will result in sores and abcesses which will poison the system. "Trust" and "partnership" are wonderful words but they can only exist where there is a deep foundation of truth and mutual respect. Until this question is answered fully and comprehensively — let heads fall where they may if the answers point in a certain direction — we cannot move ahead to the formation of any new Administration.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the time to put these thoughts to the House. We face into an unprecedented political crisis, a time of drama and uncertainty. It is not just the eyes of our fellow citizens which are on the Houses of Parliament; the eyes of the world are looking at the way we conduct our business; it is important we do so with dignity and mutual respect in a structured way so that we can move from this political vacuum and ensure that, whatever the outcome the country is moving ahead with the peace process in safe hands towards economic revitalisation and, most of all, a restoration of trust in our institutions of State.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this difficult matter. I appreciate more than most in this House the valuable contribution the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, has made to political life in Ireland, North and South. Deputy Spring was fair and honest this morning in recognising the Taoiseach's major contribution. It was more important to tackle the problem of the paramilitary campaign which lasted for 25 years than any other problem on this island. I come from a county which has suffered much — we could not record the deprivation — and a generation has grown up over the last 25 years not knowing a normal life. History will prove that the Taoiseach has made a major contribution and if he did nothing else it will be recorded as one of the greatest achievements of any Irishman over the last 25 years.

I had the privilege to be in this House under four leaders — Seán Lemass, Jack Lynch, Charles Haughey and Albert Reynolds. My judgment of Albert Reynolds is simple — he was a "decider". This is not a popular ability in Government at ministerial or leader level. All of us who represent rural areas recognise how difficult it is to bring a problem or a case to a Minister or a Taoiseach and get a decision. The popular approach is to drag one's feet, not to make decisions and to pass the buck; in the structure of Government and ministerial posts and their back up services, the civil servants who control a large part of the system, that is the order of the day. The civil servant who sits back and does nothing makes no mistakes.

On this occasion the Taoiseach made a serious mistake. He acted on the best information available to him. If one is a decision maker one will make mistakes occasionally. I have made plenty of mistakes in my life. Someone tackled me about one of my mistakes. I told him if he was ready to throw stones I hoped the glass was thick enough over his own head. This is part of the life of a public representative.

Deputy Reynolds was a decision maker which is a useful quality in Irish politics. Those who are far removed from the decision making process appreciate receiving a response, and we hear much criticism of the inability to make decisions. I record my appreciation of his kindness and approachability. He was one of the most approachable Taoisigh we ever had, perhaps too much so. History will judge him fairly. He made a serious mistake in making the appointment in question but he has paid the price. He leaves Fianna Fáil in good shape.

Many crocodile tears are being shed and a great deal of superficial sympathy is being shown but they come from people who hope to be part of Government in the future. That is understandable. However it is far from true to say Fianna Fáil is tainted or is afraid to go to the country. On the radio this morning members of some parties said they had called their conventions. Fianna Fáil also has plans to cover ground quickly should the occasion arise.

No one will get away at a canter in these circumstances. Fianna Fáil is the largest party in Ireland. The public will analyse those who have spent the last two days scalping Deputy Reynolds. Although Senators will not welcome elections to the Dáil and Seanad in the winter months, I agree with those who say we should clear the air. The only way to answer those who think Fianna Fáil has suffered is with a general election. Fianna Fáil will hold its ground and people will value the contribution it has made.

When joining with Labour in Government, Deputy Reynolds set himself two priorities: peace in Northern Ireland and tackling unemployment. The economy has improved: I should know because I live near the Border. I have spent much of my public life listening to people from the North saying they could not join us because we were ready to go bankrupt, our economy was in a poor state and our social welfare provisions were bad. Now the Irish economy is in a better condition than our British neighbours. Our social welfare payments are higher across the board.

We spent £1 million a day on Border security. People asked me where this money was coming from in our small economy and I could not answer. We had no major industry or resources, apart from natural gas off Kinsale. The Government has done extraordinary work in the last two years and Deputy Reynolds played a major part in that. The alliance with the Labour Party through the Programme for a Partnership Government was excellent.

Despite the criticism, we will surface again. We have taken our knocks — that is part of political life. However Fianna Fáil will be a major player in any future Government. If there is an election and different parties — Fine Gael and Labour, or any other grouping — decide to join together we will play our role in Opposition, or whatever we are called on to do. We will not disappear, we will be there in the future and we will make a major contribution.

I wish Deputy Reynolds and his family happiness. I am not sure he will not miss the hassle. Somebody said to me recently that Deputy Reynolds did not look too well on the television, that he was under much stress and strain. Everyone in the House recognises this. Hopefully, Deputy Reynolds will now have time to relax and enjoy life because there is life after politics. I am pleased Members have the opportunity to send him their good wishes.

I appreciate the sterling qualities which Deputy Reynolds has displayed in many areas regarding the operation of the Government. I also extend sympathy to his family, because this is a difficult time. It must be appreciated that Deputy Reynolds behaved with great dignity and courtesy this morning.

I also express sympathy for the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring, who made a superb speech in the Dáil yesterday. It was not easy for him either. This was a good Government and I greatly regret that Ministers, such as Deputy Ahern, Deputy Howlin, Deputy Taylor and Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, have been caught up in this unfortunate mesh of circumstances.

However, I also feel sympathy for the Irish people to whom we are accountable, and if the House had not met this afternoon we would have been failing in our duty to the Irish people who have elected us. I therefore have no apology to make to the House for helping to force this debate. We have a role in teasing out the issues involved, which is what I now hope to do.

It may be that the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation will find the present situation difficult but it will be able to deal with it and, in any event, it has already succeeded in one of its main functions, that is, the introduction of Sinn Féin representatives into the mainstream democratic political life of the country.

I am pleased that this was a Coalition Government and that the Labour Party was riding shotgun on the Fianna Fáil Party. In addition, I do not believe Fianna Fáil will ever again be given sole responsibility for Government because the people of Ireland want the Labour Party, or some other party, riding shotgun on such a Government arrangement.

Has any Member of the House teased out the implications for the Seanad if a rainbow Coalition Government is put together, which may leave a majority of the previous Government in the House? This could lead to antagonism between the two Houses, which may be healthy. These are the kind of problematical issues which the House should address today.

There will be attempts made to put Governments together and, for this reason, there may have been a reluctance to consider this matter. A similar situation has arisen in respect of Northern Ireland, a subject which the Seanad has been advised it should not discuss as it was too sensitive. Northern Ireland has survived such discussions, and very good discussions they were.

There are a number of questions which should be asked during the process of putting a Government together. One cardinal question has already been referred to, and I raise this matter with the greatest regret. The Taoiseach was apparently in possession of information on Monday. He did not disclose this information on Tuesday for reasons which may or may not be understandable. The Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, decided that she had to resign because she was also in possession of this information. If the other members of the Cabinet present at that briefing by the Attorney General were also in possession of that knowledge, and cognisant of its importance, then it is difficult to see how the Labour Party can construct an effective coalition with those members in prominent positions. I would regret this because they are among the most talented people in the country.

The Taoiseach said he did not realise the significance of the information with which he was provided orally on Monday. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. This may be true. I witnessed the Taoiseach in the Dáil on Tuesday. He was obviously flustered and was looking for scraps of paper. Perhaps he did not realise the significance of the matter until he saw it in writing. That is the charitable explanation, but the uncharitable explanation would suggest itself in a case parallel to this in which a previous holder of your office, a Chathaoirligh, suppressed information supplied to him by legal officers, which led to a crisis of confidence in the House, and he was also a senior member of the Fianna Fáil Party. This comparison would seriously worry people.

In addition, the Taoiseach clearly disregarded information in notes supplied to him which indicated that there was no precedent for the automatic promotion of the Attorney General to the position of a Judge, let alone President, of the High Court. In his statement the Attorney General stated he was not aware of the situation with regard to the Smyth case until recent weeks. I find it astonishing that he, a lawyer, did not specify the specific dates on which he became aware. I have been involved in a number of court cases, one of which I won because I made detailed notes of precisely the days on which certain information came into my possession. If I as an ordinary member of the public did this, why did not the Attorney General do so?

The Senator is from Trinity College Dublin.

Absolutely. The Taoiseach in response to questions, listed nine attempts by the United Kingdom authorities to contact the Attorney General's office. The interesting thing about this is that the traffic all appeared to have been one way. In other words, over a period of seven months the UK authorities were ignored. Why was there a failure to find the exceedingly important Duggan precedent, which paralleled in every single respect the Fr. Smyth case? If it was so difficult to find, why could the new Attorney General find it in one day? Does this not clearly call into question the competence of the then Attorney General?

The Taoiseach attempted to place blame on the system. He said it was a systems failure. That neatly exculpates everybody involved. A good workman does not blame his tools. The family business of a person I like to regard as a friend, whom I will not name, had a very high reputation because if a problem arose that gentleman's father, whatever the source of the problem, would say his name was above the door and he therefore accepted responsibility. Neither the Attorney General nor the Taoiseach were prepared to operate on that basis.

The language in the Attorney General's statement was extremely offensive. It accepted that people would compare the alacrity with which a 14 year old girl, who was raped by a neighbour and subsequently became pregnant, had been injuncted with the tardiness with which a case of child sexual abuse was to be treated. It drew a technical comparison between these situations and planning legislation. It was stated to be like the difference between a historical monument being demolished and an application under planning law to demolish a series of buildings of secondary importance. The insensitivity displayed there is absolutely mind boggling.

I was very surprised by some aspects of the Taoiseach's statement yesterday, in particular, the unprecedented impugning of the Judiciary. That called into question the separation of powers in this State. Having placed this material on the record of the House, it must call into question the position of the President of the High Court. I understand that parents of the children involved are contemplating legal action. What will this do to the position of the President of the High Court if this all comes once more into the public arena as a result of an action by parents? One of those children has apparently attempted suicide. The credibility of the office of President of the High Court has been called, in my opinion, into question. What would an ordinary citizen appearing in front of the President of the High Court feel having read that the Taoiseach feels the President should have resigned as Attorney General and that he misled the Government? Would an ordinary citizen have any confidence that this man, through human weakness or error, was not capable of misleading or misdirecting a jury?

If a case is heard before the President of the High Court, may it not be appealed on those grounds or on the grounds that the appointment was not properly made under the Constitution because it breached the question of appointment by the Cabinet acting collectively? There is a question mark over the judgment of the former Attorney General. It appears that an overweening ambition to attain an appointment meant that a senior officer of the State was prepared to sacrifice the national good and to propel us into this dangerous, unpleasant and problematic situation.

I suppose it would be inappropriate for me to speak about what everyone saw on television, the body language in the photographs and in the television coverage of the appointment of that officer. As President of the High Court, the former Attorney General is the second highest legal officer in the State and has a role in the appointment of judges and in assigning cases. There is a record of accidents, such as the Beef Tribunal, the intervention which succeeded in establishing Cabinet confidentiality. What about Cabinet confidentiality over the past two or three days when everyone, from the Taoiseach down, were leaking like sieves?

Open Government.

I am all in favour of open Government; I thought that decision was most regrettable.

I thought the Senator was in favour of it.

One must also consider the question at the Beef Tribunal that, according to the then Attorney General, legal people, paid for by the State, were representing the Government and not the State, i.e. not the people of this country. Having read and listened to the opinions of senior legal people, both academic and profession, I must ask if the legal profession will once more, close around one of its own. I believe that the President of the High Court must resign. If he had resigned in the national interest to spare this country the turmoil through which it has been put in recent days, he would have done so without any question mark over his judgment. He must resign now, but, regrettably, with a question mark over his judgment. I regret that because I know him to be a decent man. I would also like to extend my sympathy to his family for whom this series of happy days must have turned into a deeply tragic and problematic time.

On a point of order, what is the situation as regards speaking in this House about a member of the Judiciary?

Could you repeat that question?

I am talking about privilege as regards criticising the President of the High Court.

This House has and always had privilege, although I do not want Members to go overboard in their comments.

It should be made clear that there was agreement on all sides of the House to have this debate today, although we had difficulty with the time. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to it. It is a sad time for us all because we have come through a traumatic two days. I pay tribute, as others have, to the Taoiseach's contribution and, particularly, to the way he spoke this morning in the Dáil and the dignified way he explained his position and left his office. I also pay tribute to the fine, courageous and, in particular, tenacious role he played in the peace process because he needed confidence that the role he was playing would lead to what he desired and to what took place. Nobody should underestimate his role in that process.

This partnership Government, as others have said, has been an extremely successful and positive Government in terms of work and co-operation. I would also like to record the high degree of co-operation between our party and our Fianna Fáil colleagues in this House. The Government enacted 43 Bills in 1993 and 27 Bills in 1994 and there are 18 Bills at present before the Dáil and Seanad. It has been an active and productive Government in terms of legislation, but also in improving the structures of the committee system and so on. In that sense, it has been a fine Government.

The Programme for a Partnership Government was put together after detailed negotiation. It was based very much on achievement and on making real changes in the lives of our people. That programme has been achieved to a great extent in many areas during that relatively short period of time, but especially in the area of economic growth. We have a strong economy. The number of unemployed is 30,000 lower now then when we came into office and that was put on the top of our agenda. A number of changes, particularly within enterprise and employment, have been put in place such as county enterprise boards, changes in Forbairt, Forfás and the IDA which will continue to improve the jobs situation, and the establishing of the National Economic and Social Forum which has brought forward fine policies for social change and employment in particular. We discussed that in this House a short time ago. It has the real potential to improve the situation for the long term unemployed.

We have seen substantial changes for the better in the areas of health, housing and education. A large number of local authority houses have been built, which has been especially important to our party. We have seen improvements in waiting lists, the Child Care Act being implemented to a greater extent and the fine policy health document, aimed towards positive health in our community, was in the process of being implemented. We have seen a great deal of progress in all areas of Government. It was driven by those policies in the Programme for a Partnership Government and has worked extremely well.

The improvement in the situation as regards Northern Ireland has been the most important achievement of this Government. It brought together into the peace process all the parties in the South with those who came in from the North. That tremendous achievement came about because of the co-operation of the two Government parties. I have already paid tribute to the role of the Taoiseach in the peace process. I also want to pay tribute to the role played by my party leader, Deputy Spring which has been absolutely crucial to the way in which the process has developed. The Tánaiste played a central role in the discussions which led to the Downing Street Declaration and the ensuing debate. As Leader of the Labour Party in the Seanad, I am proud of his role in that process.

I am also proud of the Tánaiste's role in the past week. It has been a difficult one for all of us. The issues at stake were ones of public accountability. They were core issues of extreme importance to our party and the Irish people. The unacceptable seven month delay in the case in question by the Office of the Attorney General and the other revelations forced the Labour Party Ministers to take the course of stepping out of Cabinet and the Tánaiste to make last night's speech in the Dáil indicating that he would not be supporting a motion of confidence in the Government. It was a difficult step but it was the right one.

We do not know what the future holds for any of us. The Dáil is in recess, there is an acting Taoiseach and our party has withdrawn from Government. It behoves all of us to uphold the political process. While it has taken a knocking in the last few days, there have been many honourable performances. In the long run, the people will thank us for what has taken place.

In our party, we have stood on our policies and principles, and will continue to do so whether we go to the electorate sooner or later and whatever Government is formed in the future. We will also continue to work for the peace process as I firmly believe all parties will in whatever way they can. We will play our part as we have up to now. A period of reflection is needed in the next few days. We do not know what the future holds, nor what the situation will be next week but whatever it is we must all work together to restore confidence in the political process. Whatever Government is formed and whatever ensues from this, we must also work to ensure that the public and national interest will come first and that we will all represent our people. We in the Labour Party intend to represent our people in accordance with our policies and our principles.

Like you, a Cathaoirligh, I knew the Taoiseach on a personal basis for quite a number of years. Deputy Albert Reynolds, was elected to Longford County Council in 1974, he became a Member of the Dáil in 1977 and a Member of the Government in 1979. He subsequently became leader of Fianna Fáil and Taoiseach. It is tragic when one has to step down from any position, but to have to step down from the highest political position in the land certainly is a tragedy. However, all in politics are aware that it is a tough business. In 1979 I was elected to the Dáil to represent Longford-Westmeath, but the constituency was later redrawn and I lost my seat. As a TD, I saw the former Taoiseach, Deputy Charlie Haughey, step down with dignity.

I am amazed when I hear speaker after speaker talk about good Government. In the last 12 months, the people were asked in four Dáil by-elections what they thought of this good Government, yet they would not vote for any Government candidates to represent them. We have to be extremely careful when we throw bouquets at ourselves. The outgoing Government, like others before it, worked for the people. Its Members worked to the best of their ability to bring peace to this island and to distribute the wealth coming from the EU. In the end, however, public accountability was the issue on which this good Government collapsed. One has to be extremely careful how one uses the word "good" because if one emphasises how good the Government was, it suggests there were bad people in that Government and that is why it collapsed.

Perhaps the Programme for a Partnership Government is good but the test of a good Government is how it governs.

The Taoiseach has given a lot to my county, as a member of the county council, a Member of the other House, a member of the Government and as Taoiseach. His home place was always a high priority although I know and understand it is not easy for a Member of a Government, a Minister or even a Taoiseach to deliver on everything promised to his or her constituency. I worked with the Taoiseach as a county councillor, as a TD and as a Member of the Seanad. I always found him open, approachable and, as said here today, a man who dealt positively with the situation. He has done much good for County Longford and for the midlands and his departure from high office is a loss to Longford. I wish him well in whatever role he takes after politics and I wish his family well.

Many words, such as "good" and "fit" and "unfit" for office, are being bandied about. I have a great aversion to people who don mantles of goodness and saintliness in any political situation. All Members know each other well enough to realise that nobody has a monopoly on honesty, truth, or the welfare of the people.

As this House draws to an end, a Chathaoirligh, I wish to say that nobody could have served under a more honourable, decent member of Fianna Fáil than you who occupies the position of Cathaoirleach. The Leader of the House on behalf of Fianna Fáil extended generosity and co-operation to my party, co-operation which we valued then and now.

The tone in which Senator Manning started this debate is the tone in which I would like to continue. People in this State of all parties have done marvellous work and will continue to do so. It is not in the interest of the body politic to say in a global sense that an organisation is unfit for office. I reject that as a concept. There are probably people in all parties whom one could say are not suitable for office, high or low, but no organisation which the people send to this assembly can be classified in a global way as "unfit". To say that denies the right of the people to send their representatives to this assembly and to the other House.

I watched yesterday with great sadness the political demise of the Taoiseach. The thought that came to my mind was that a short two months ago I saw him trip down the steps to a standing ovation by Members in the other House. He had done a wonderful act on behalf of this country. He came to this House and we greeted him in the same spirit of generosity. The heads of all the political parties represented in this House were equally generous. The political system, if I could relate it to my good friend, Fergus Finlay's book, is indeed a cruel trade. We should always remember that when we deal with each other we should do so gently.

When we look at the highs and lows of political life, it is a source of great regret to the Labour Party that this Government has come to an end, despite what Senator Belton said. I concede that judgments delivered in the by-elections showed that mistakes were made, that the people's view of the Government was different from that of members of the Government and that certain things could have been done better. I believe that any fair accounting would show that this Government worked well together as did the two elements of Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party. It produced good policies and it affected the country, as Senator O'Sullivan mentioned, in a positive economic way.

The contribution of Albert Reynolds to securing peace on this island cannot be ignored by any party. Deputy Spring's role was generously acknowledged by Albert Reynolds and difficult as Deputy Spring's task was in the Dáil, in his contribution he paid tribute to the Taoiseach in a generous and decent manner. That was reciprocated this morning by the Taoiseach who, in his final act, has shown the greatness he had when he negotiated the peace process. It was by any standard a performance of heroic proportions. He could have taken other options which would have dragged this Parliament along for weeks in crisis, but he took a decision in the best interest of this country and, indeed, of his party.

I do not know what faces the political process in the weeks ahead. Perhaps the only option available will be to let the people decide. However, it should end forever the idea that a party clings to office irrespective of what is going on. The jibe thrown at the Labour Party time after time by media commentators who were pretty comfortable themselves about the "Mercs and perks party" should be laid to rest forever. When the Labour Party met last Sunday, no Deputy or Senator uttered one word of self-interest. They gave the Tánaiste a mandate to do what he wished in the interests of the country and the Labour Party."

I was proud of my party leader's decency and the way he behaved. Although the Government fell, he was not prepared to vilify the Taoiseach in ways which were not in accordance with the facts. In the process which lies ahead, it behoves everybody to behave with the same sense of decency and concern for others which was shown by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in the other House this morning.

May I share my time with Senator Dardis?

Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is a sad day in the House, it was sad also to listen to speeches in the Dáil in the past few days and to hear the changes in subsequent speeches. It would be a good idea if politicians got the same advice as doctors that when things start to go wrong to at once tell the truth, explain and apologise because the public accepts that more easily than a cover up. I was sad to hear people who were not in a position to answer for themselves being blamed for what might have gone on in offices. "Due to a clerical error" was not a suitable explanation in these circumstances.

This has been a very good Government but I bitterly regret the way it has taken disasters befalling ordinary people to introduce new social legislation. It took the Kilkenny incest case and that of Kelly Fitzgerald to get money for the Child Care Act. To get changes in methods of extradition of a paedophile — although I gather changes were not needed — required a case like this. Social legislation must be considered as important as fiscal and economic matters. Crimes against children and women must be considered of the highest importance and should be deal with immediately, not when there is a national scandal.

Yesterday afternoon it was interesting that Senators Roche, Enright, Gallagher, Honan and I, who spoke on the Maintenance Bill, 1994, which allows the State to sue for deserted wives support, were determined that that legislation would go through then because we knew how important it was to women and children. I deplore the fact that these issues are apparently so insignificant that they can be pushed into the background. It is a serious indictment of our political system that we can push social legislation back and that it takes disasters to ordinary people to promote it.

I hope Senator Magner will never treat me gently because I would be very worried if he did. He always treats me with the respect which I hope I afford to him but I would not wish for gentle treatment from him. We are living in historic days, we are privileged in this House to be firsthand witnesses to history and to be bit players on the stage of history. What we have seen over the past few days has been historic and it was correct to characterise the Downing Street declaration and the establishment of what we hope is permanent peace in Northern Ireland as historic. I salute the Taoiseach and his role in that process. However, I believe he was right to resign. He had a duty to the Oireachtas and the country to tender his resignation and he has done so with grace.

I assure Senator McGowan and anybody else who may say otherwise that there is genuine sympathy and no crocodile tears in any quarter about this matter. Obviously we have profound political differences with the Taoiseach and he has been subjected to the most searching political cross-examination, but that does not diminish the personal sympathy we feel for him, his family or his colleagues — it would be remarkable if it were otherwise. We acknowledge and salute the Taoiseach's central role in bringing peace and reconciliation to this island, it may well be what history will remember him for rather than for what happened over the past couple of days.

Truth and accountability are at the heart of the democratic process — its foundations. It was only by confronting the truth and by ultimately accepting that accountability that the Taoiseach arrived at this point this morning. Mr. Justice Hamilton said that if questions had been answered openly there would have been no need for the beef tribunal. It is probable that if questions had been answered openly there would have been no need for the Taoiseach's resignation. The fact that he did not say on Tuesday a mistake had been made was part of the problem. As Senator McGowan said, anyone can make a mistake but the fact that the mistake was not accepted was part of the problem.

Deputy Reynolds was described as a decider, which is an admirable personal and political quality. However, in a Coalition decisions must be based on consensus, otherwise how can trust which is central to that partnership and the partnership itself survive?

We find ourselves, for the second time in two years, on the brink of an unwanted election on the basis of an inability to accept the principle of common trust. If there has to be an election, then so be it. However, the public will expect us to resolve the crisis without a general election. The Progressive Democrats are willing to be constructive, co-operative and generous in seeking to provide the people with an alternative Government without the need for a general election.

I have spoken on several occasions in the House about what I regard as a contempt for democracy. There was a growing contempt for democracy whereby Parliament was regarded as nothing other than a cipher for decisions which were handed down to us. That is not what Parliament is about. I do not think I am unique in taking that view. It is a common view on all sides of the House that Parliament is a sovereign entity in its own right to which Government should be accountable. The Government must also regard civil servants as something other than their personal tool, people who can be expected to take responsibility. The ultimate responsibility lies with their political masters. I also find it extraordinary that a High Court judge can put personal interest before the interest of the country.

I hope that this morning's events herald a change which will mean that a consensus can once again prevail and accountability is restored and that we can get on with the business which we are sent here to do. There are decent people on all sides of this House who want to work for the interests of the country. I do not claim any particular corner of that or any particular high ground. That is something which we all share.

Yesterday I was privileged to entertain a group of people with Senator Wilson from Enniskillen. They stayed here for quite a few hours and listened to the debate in the Visitor's Gallery of the Dáil. I wondered at the end of the day, as they went back to Enniskillen, what they thought of us. Did we do anything during the day to convince them of the value of our democracy? That thought was left with me. Perhaps this morning's events have begun to rebuild what I believe to be at the core of what we are — openness, truth and accountability.

I am extremely proud to be a member of the Labour Party, to represent the Labour Party as a Senator, to have an opportunity to participate in debates and a role in shaping legislation. As Senator Henry said, even as late as yesterday afternoon legislation was passed which ensures that deserted spouses and partners have a facility to ensure that nobody reneges on their parental responsibilities and that the obtaining of funds and maintenance is facilitated by law. That and many other areas of legislation have been highly significant and I am extremely glad to have played a role.

I never felt as proud as I did last Sunday leaving Jury's Hotel. On that day the members of the parliamentary Labour Party spoke with one voice without prodding, coaching or drilling. The gut reaction of the Labour Party was to stand firm on our principles. No thought was given to what the media refer to as "Mercs and perks". We were all prepared to take a stand and risk losing to ensure that public accountability and responsibility came before private concerns. That is why I am a member of the Labour Party.

I often think that I could sit back in my solicitor's office and not have a concern for the public. However, it takes more than that to be a citizen of this country. I am concerned when I see a golden circle controlling areas of life. That is why I joined the Labour Party. It has a serious and important role to play in changing what I see as dominant factors in this society which ensure that certain people have a say, no matter who is in Government. I am extremely concerned about that. That is why I will continue to serve the Labour Party as I see fit for as long as I can.

In case there is still anybody out there who thinks that the Labour Party is fine at talking but poor in action, I invite them to the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, an area untouched by Labour hands until I broke the stagnation of the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael pond there in late 1992. Although I was not elected to the Dáil on that occasion, my election to the Seanad ensured a more balanced representation for the constituency. Not only was I the first Labour Party Oireachtas Member of the constituency, I was the first woman and the youngest. I, therefore, worked hard to ensure that people not represented up to then had a voice through me. In that I include real and proper representation for women, the unemployed, young people and people who seem to lose out by virtue of their position at birth and stay out by virtue of the golden circle which, sadly, still exists in Irish society.

During the period of this Administration, I am happy to report that health has become less of an issue, thanks to the amazing achievements of Deputy Howlin as Minister for Health.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think that the Senator might be straying away from the subject of the statements.

I think not. I feel obliged to say——

It is a party political broadcast.

——what this Government has achieved in a short term. It is reflected, in essence, in the constituency to which I am referring.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is not what the discussion is about.

The discussion is about what has happened in recent days and I am getting there, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. Do not worry, I have plenty to say. I believe that what has happened in recent times has opened the eyes of many people. Many people let politicians get on with their job and say "so what?" However, it makes a difference to know that the people who represent you do so in a democratic fashion. This Government achieved a great deal for ordinary people which was not attempted or pushed to the fore prior to this. People on the ground benefited greatly from this Administration. The good work, chiefly by the hard working Labour Ministers whom we were lucky to have, will be missed — at least for a short time. However, the chief role of a politician is not to deliver the goods. It is to represent the people in a system organised in a democratic fashion.

Recent events showed that the essence of democracy was not being well observed. I was saddened to see how events unfolded and resulted in the resignation of our Ministers. However, accountability for the actions of those in public office is vital and responsibility for errors must be accepted. This is what brings us here today.

I noted the Taoiseach's speech this morning. It might have been easier to deal with what happened at an earlier stage. However, what is done is done. Certain aspects were dealt with in the Dáil speeches. However, other matters remain outstanding. Chief among those is that the former Attorney General now sits untouched as President of the High Court. This matter was referred to in the other House and in this House, most recently by Senator Norris. It is not something which we should just accept. I believe that we have a duty as public representatives not to sit back and say it is a fait accompli. I do not believe it is and we as public representatives have a duty to examine our role in this case, unique as it may be.

I took the trouble to investigate the systems which exist in other countries and examples to which we could refer. It is important that the claim in the Taoiseach's speech that there was a precedent for the appointment be challenged. He referred to Chubb who is a politician, not a constitutional lawyer.

He is a political scientist.

There are reasons why there is no precedent for such an appointment, as is now accepted. Secondly, I question the actual appointment by Government. The Constitution says that it must be made by Government. I wonder if Government can be the Ministers from the majority party sitting in isolation making that decision. What would happen if the same ideal of democracy was transferred to Northern Ireland where we say that the minority must have its say? It does not sit very well on those who made the appointment in the absence of Labour Party Ministers. What happens now is crucially important.

A 1993 New Zealand publication, Public Law in New Zealand, by Chen and Palmer goes into great detail on the independence of the Judiciary. It looks at issues that would give rise to impeachment and lists several reasons for considering the impeachment of judges including misconduct in private life. It suggests that one can consider actions which are not taken by a judge in his role as judge. It goes on to say that another test for impeachment is public confidence in the administration of justice. I am entitled and obliged to refer to this issue. In Kenrick's case, as quoted in the publication, it was stated that:

the question before the House must be questions of degree and it was entirely for the House to consider whether the case was of sufficient magnitude, and whether it brought a sufficient scandal on the administration of justice; to require the interference of Parliament.

We have seen scandal enough to consider that reference. It also suggested that any form of misconduct which would destroy public confidence in the holder of the office is covered. That must certainly be examined. There is a case in the 19th Century Judges where, in similar circumstances, a Government after much negotiation expressed the view that it would be impossible to give a job to a particular person and another job was offered. The Government fell and, when it was defeated at the polls, the incoming Administration attacked the validity of the original appointment and the Privy Council held the appointment to be bad and overturned the decision.

I am referring to these cases because it is important to show this is not necessarily a fait accompli. There is something that must be examined. Impeachment is available and is not ruled out. As public representatives, we have a duty to investigate it. That is a message which I hope will be taken on board by the other public representatives in this country.

This is an extraordinary political crisis. We have a caretaker Government at a time when we should be discussing the economic situation and other developments in this country and dealing with serious issues which affect the people.

It is quite extraordinary that a Government which was cobbled together less than two years ago should fall in such a manner.

It took six weeks.

Two years ago the Labour Party were forewarned and well advised even by their own leader. Deputy Spring, in October 1992, put clearly on the record of the House the weakness he believed existed in the leader of Fianna Fáil, the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, yet some months later, with his eyes open he went into Government with him. In removing themselves from anything Government has done, the Labour Party is dissociating itself from collective responsibility.

The opposite is the case.

It is dissociating itself from collective responsibility.

From our good economy?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Taylor-Quinn without interruption.

We are at least entitled to accuracy.

When the beef tribunal report came for discussion before this House and the Dáil the Labour Party accepted it. We now do not have a Government.

Serious questions must be asked about the constitutional functioning of the Government. The Minister for Justice admitted in the Dáil last night that on Monday evening all the Fianna Fáil Ministers except one were present at a meeting where it became evident that information had been found in the Attorney General's office which had not been available previously. At that time, this group decided it would not be put on the record.

Every one of those Ministers has to take responsibility for that. One Minister offered her resignation. She was the only one with a bit of honour and decency. Every one of the others should have offered their resignations but have not done so. Why did they not? Why was a meeting so hastily convened and why were decisions made before the Fianna Fáil meeting took place? It is not for us to question whether it was done to keep the skin of certain Ministers clean.

A Government cannot be formed until the full facts are known and there is accountability from each of the Ministers at that meeting last Monday evening. They will have to account to this House, the Dáil and to the Irish people.

The Taoiseach resigned this morning. It is a sad and sorry ending for Deputy Reynolds because, in fairness, he has done much good work. He was regularly here in this House which was not true of many of his predecessors. His involvement in and commitment to the Northern Ireland peace process was unprecedented and he did great work in bringing peace to this country. We must give him credit for this and it will go down in history.

The serious question now is who will be in the next Government. While some consider that to be a frivolous and entertaining matter, a good blood sport for the weekend, the people deserve something far more serious than the jocular approach adopted by certain people in this House and elsewhere in the corridors of power. A fundamental political crisis with constitutional and judicial implications has occurred. The Judiciary is centre stage and the appointment of the President of the High Court became the main focus.

It is history now.

One could say it is history but it is fundamental and relevant to what happens in the future.

He has just resigned I understand.

I did not realise that.

He heard my contribution.

If the President of the High Court has resigned from office, I clearly welcome that. He should not have been appointed to the position. A number of people throughout this country were amazed and astounded that he did not see fit to withdraw his name for consideration for the presidency of the High Court. If he has resigned that is a very welcome announcement.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

He heard Senator Gallagher's contribution.

I did not hear Senator Gallagher's contribution. That is a very welcome announcement.

The Attorney General's successor, Eoghan Fitzsimons has, in the few days he has been in office, done extraordinary work. I admire the honesty and integrity in his approach and his diligence to his duty. With people of his calibre in office we can feel secure in the knowledge that good work will be carried out in such an important constitutional position.

The people of Ireland now deserve an honest and decent Government whose first commitment is to the people. Fine Gael must be part of any future Government.

Now we are getting to it.

Senator Magner might consider this amusing. However, he has just returned from the streets of Cork and he heard what his supporters said to him there. I, too, heard what they said.

In which constituency is the Senator?

We should listen to the people.

Cork North-Central said something to Fine Gael.

I understand that Senator Magner, Senator Gallagher and the Labour Parliamentary Party will consult with their constituencies over the weekend. I have no doubt that if their consultations are serious and if they reflect accurately what their constituents have to say when they return here next week——

They will say "for God's sake, give us Fine Gael".

——they will be told not to go back into coalition with Fianna Fáil. That message will be very clear. It is important that this matter is not treated frivolously or in a jocular fashion. It should be treated with the constitutional respect that is expected.

We have been here since 3 o'clock this afternoon.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has one minute left. I ask that she be allowed to conclude without interruption.

Fine Gael has an untarnished record in Government. Never has a Fine Gael Taoiseach been forced out of office or forced to resign while he was Taoiseach. Our record in Government has been honourable, honest and full of integrity. We have made mistakes as everybody does. However, on the fundamental principles and issues of democracy and good government we have always had clear heads. That is important. We respect, understand and recognise the responsibilities of office, accountability in Government and honest government which the people of Ireland correctly and properly deserve. In this respect, Fine Gael has a serious role to play in the future.

That is not true.

Is Democratic Left in or out?

Senator Taylor-Quinn said "cobbled together". I do not know how she could describe something that was painstakingly put together over a period of weeks as "cobbled together". What does she expect? That we spend six years negotiating a programme for Government? I am proud of the Programme for Government. It was carefully constructed. It echoed many issues dear to the hearts of people in the Labour Party. I am proud to stand as a Labour Senator and say that much was achieved through the Programme for Government. Much progress was made in the areas of health, education, housing, law reform and in improvements in art, culture and the Gaeltacht. I am proud of that. I am also proud to sit on these benches.

I have found my Fianna Fáil colleagues to be honourable people. I have had nothing but agreement with them. Our colleagues in this House have been honourable. There is a view that the 40 per cent of the electorate who vote for Fianna Fáil are somehow corrupt. I do not hold that view. I fundamentally disagree with many of Fianna Fáil's practices in other areas. However, in this House the Senators with whom I have had contact have been honourable and decent. I have no disagreement with our colleagues on these benches. However, I also have little to say against my colleagues on the other side of the House. On numerous occasions, in this House in particular, there has been agreement across the House on many issues. However, that is the nature of this House as distinct from the adversarial attitude often taken in the other House.

Listening to Senator Taylor-Quinn, one would think that Fine Gael was the only party in the political process with any idea of fairness and decency. That is not their sole prerogative.

Deputy Dukes did not think so.

The high moral ground can be claimed by many parties. Fine Gael does not have a monopoly on what is just and fair. Like Senator Gallagher, I was proud walking out of Jury's Hotel last Sunday. We took a stand on a principle which we hold dear — public accountability.

Many people in my constituency have upbraided me and said that public accountability is high faluting talk. I have quickly pointed out that public accountability is the same for everybody whether one is the Taoiseach or an urban district councillor. If one makes decisions one should be responsible for them. The decisions one takes should at all times be fair and honest. Unless we have public accountability at the highest level we cannot expect it at the lowest level.

I am saddened that this situation has come to pass and that we now have a weakened and damaged caretaker Government. I hope this crisis will be resolved very quickly.

What is the Senator's preferred option?

My preferred option is for Deputy Dick Spring to be Taoiseach and for the Labour Party to have an overall majority in both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I am glad to see Senator Enright because Senator Taylor-Quinn's objective is to beat up the Labour Party.

What has taken place over the last few days is unprecedented. Everybody in both Houses must be careful and deliberate in their thoughts and actions. This is not a time for political point scoring. It is important, however, that we analyse what has happened and outline the developments of recent years.

Senator Magner spearheaded the campaign of the Labour Party during the last general election. He believed at the time that it was absolutely essential to get rid of the then Fianna Fáil Administration. His party leader made many comments in Dáil Éireann to the effect that Fianna Fáil needed a long period in opposition. He was particularly critical of the then Taoiseach and his views at that time are on record. People voted for principle and for change by voting for their party.

They got both.

To date, they have not seen either.

Whose head on a plate will you look for next?

Yours is an option.

With regard to change, there was a continuance of what Deputy Dick Spring criticised.

What does the Senator want? A revolution?

The Labour Party lent its name to it. Senator Gallagher asked about revolution. There was a revolution in that election in the sense that people came out, voted and revolted. They showed they wanted change.

They will again.

I do not have the ability to see into the future. I cannot forecast what will happen in the next election. However, at that time, the Leader of the Labour Party put on record what he felt about Fianna Fáil. I will not rehash those details; I dealt with the point regarding change.

In relation to principle, a decision was taken last Friday to appoint the then Attorney General as President of the High Court and the Labour Party Ministers walked out of the room. This is accepted and I understand why they did it. They had a strong difference of opinion from their Fianna Fáil colleagues and they left the Cabinet room. On Monday, it was obvious that they did not agree with what was happening. However, before the Dáil met yesterday morning, they signed a package, despite their criticism of what took place; they agreed to continue the Programme for Government. I cannot verify that they signed a document but this was reported in the newspapers.

The Senator should not believe everything he reads in the papers.

Perhaps that is incorrect. According to reliable newspapers, at least an agreement was reached.

Which one?

Bertie and Ruairí worked it out, a belief furthered by Senator Magner, etc.

Senator Enright without interruption.

Not alone can Senator Taylor-Quinn see into the future, but she is very familiar with the past.

Is it the future?

With regard to what happened last Friday, the Labour Party was taking a hammering in Cork and the then Taoiseach felt——

You did not do too well in North Central.

Acting Chairman

Senator Enright, without interruption.

The Taoiseach felt he could perhaps get away with this and he proceeded to make the appointment. After all that, up to noon yesterday, the Labour Party was still agreeable to continue to work with them. If they felt the appointment was wrong in the first place, surely it could not have become right later in the day. If the then Attorney General was suitable for high office, the question is was he suitable to remain as Attorney General? Was he suitable to be a High Court Judge? Apparently the Labour Party was quite happy for him to remain in either of those positions. They made no criticism of him as Attorney General or called on him to resign; they made no criticism of him being a High Court Judge. Their objection was to his appointment to the Presidency of the High Court——

Has the Senator listened to anything over the past four or five days?

The presidency of the High Court was the one point at issue. At present, the country has a caretaker Government. It is a sad situation and people in all parts of this country are most concerned. Many people across the world who are fond of this country and have high regard for our standards, are deeply concerned about what is taking place. A number of choices face the Labour Party.

They also face the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party. Why is it always the Labour Party? It is always our choice. What about your choices?

Acting Chairman

Senator Enright without interruption.

I thank Senator Magner. The choices open to all the parties in this House——

That is better. That is more accurate.

There are number of options open to all the parties in the House. One of the options is a Fianna Fáil-Labour alliance. According to the record and to the Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, information was made available and all the Fianna Fáil Ministers, with the exception of Deputy David Andrews, were present. They were all aware of the fact that there had been a case in which an extradition warrant was granted.

I accepted that we ruled that option out.

It is a matter for the Labour Party to decide if it would be possible for it to go into Government with a Fianna Fáil Cabinet led by any of those Ministers. The second choice is an alliance of different parties, involving Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Progressive Democrats and Democratic Left.

Only if Senator Taylor-Quinn is Taoiseach; otherwise it is not on.

A third option is a general election. If there is a general election the people will decide who they want. The point has been reached where the system needs a general cleansing and this can only come about through a general election. I have no axe to grind with anybody in any party in the House.

It is the Senator's job to convince Deputy Bruton of that.

It would be in everybody's interest to have a general election.

He does not think so.

With regard to who ever becomes Taoiseach——

I am for Senator Madeleine Taylor-Quinn.

——their duty is to serve Ireland——

And Clare.

——and to respect the wishes of the people. This should come about after a general election.

Convince your leader.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Before I announce the Adjournment of the House, I wish to make a number of points. Up to the last 15 minutes of this healthy debate, we did not believe we were holding an election debate. There were constructive contributions from all sides of the House in relation to the situation that prevails at present. In the context of this House, I would not presume, or even attempt to presume, what might happen in the next week. However, it has been my honour and privilege to hold the position of Leader of the House. I did so with great joy. This Seanad has been most effective in terms of the partnership involved in running it. The record will show that it has achieved status for the Seanad. I thank those who helped to ensure this — the Opposition, the Leader of the Labour Party in the House, Senator Jan O'Sullivan and Senator Pat Magner.

It was agreed by this side also.

If some of the options which have been suggested today mean that we must face the public in the future, I predict that the values and ideals that I and my party stand for will still represent the majority of the Irish people's views.

They have never had the majority of Irish people's views. When did they last have a majority?

I sincerely hope that those who have to make the decisions will do so, as the Taoiseach did today, in the national interest.

The Senator is as good as Finbar Nolan.

Faith healer.

It is intended to adjourn sine die.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.50 p.m. sine die.

Top
Share