Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Nov 1956

Vol. 160 No. 10

Adjournment Debate. - Statement at Kilkenny Meeting.

Mr. MacEntee

To day I asked the Taoiseach whether he is aware that, as evidenced by public reports of a meeting in Kilkenny on the 13th instant, there appears to have been a breach of the principle of the inviolability of Cabinet proceedings in relation to the decision to provide £1,000,000 for the relief of unemployment and, if so, if he will make a statement on the matter. To that question the Taoiseach replied in the following terms:—

"The suggestion contained in the Deputy's question is unfounded and the answer to both parts of the question is therefore in the negative."

The reply which I have quoted, given to me by the Taoiseach, immediately puts in issue the substance of my question. It is necessary for me, therefore, to call attention to the evidence on which the question is based.

In the daily Press of the 13th of this month there was published a report of a meeting at which the Tánaiste was present. Not only was the Tánaiste present on that occasion but he also spoke. Another Deputy, Deputy James Larkin, also spoke, and spoke in the presence of the Tánaiste. According to the Press report on which my question was based, here is what Deputy James Larkin said at that meeting in the presence of the Tánaiste:—

"Mr. Larkin explained that a Labour Party deputation had approached the Taoiseach about providing £1,000,000 for relief work. Cabinet difficulties. ..."

Mark the term "Cabinet difficulties"

"...were developing and Mr. Norton had made it plain that if the money was not forthcoming there would be sharp and bitter division within the Government."

Again, mark the significance of the phrase "there would be sharp and bitter division within the Government" Quite obviously these statements of Deputy James Larkin related to the difficulties of which he had knowledge, difficulties which had arisen between the factions within the Coalition Cabinet.

Otherwise, why speak of Cabinet difficulties, why refer to "sharp and bitter division within the Government"? According to Deputy James Larkin these difficulties had arisen between the Tánaiste on the one hand, as representing Deputy Larkin's Labour Party and the Minister for Finance as representing the Fine Gael faction on the other. The difficulties spoken of must have been very marked. "Sharp and bitter" was how Deputy James Larkin described them. But sharp and bitter as they may have been, that is not the aspect of the matter to which I wish to call public attention.

Deputy James Larkin's statements were either true or false. I cannot say which they were but I doubt if Deputy James Larkin, in the presence of the Tánaiste or indeed elsewhere, would make a statement which he knew to be untrue and, in the words of the Taoiseach himself, unfounded. So, unless the statements which he made were contradicted by the person who, according to Deputy James Larkin, had threatened to create sharp and bitter division within the Government, we are entitled to assume that Deputy James Larkin's statement was true and that the suggestion contained in the question which I put to the Toiseach to-day was well-founded. I can only approach the matter on the basis of prima facie evidence.

How did the Tánaiste, who was on the platform with Deputy James Larkin, deal with that Deputy's statement? How did he deal with the statements made by his own Party's member? You will note I am not dealing with the merits of providing £1,000,000 for the relief of want and destitution which, for the first time in 24 years, will be widespread this Christmas. I am dealing only with one narrow aspect of the matter, an aspect of it which is the special responsibility of the Taoiseach. Under the Constitution, the Taoiseach is responsible to this House for the Government as a whole and for the behaviour inside and outside the Cabinet, in relation to public affairs, of every member of that Government. May I say again that I am dealing only with the narrow question as to how it came to pass that Deputy James Larkin was in a position to broadcast that the Labour Tánaiste had got the better of the Fine Gael Minister for Finance.

Let me repeat again what Deputy James Larkin said:—

"Mr. Norton has made it plain that if the money was not forthcoming there would be sharp and bitter division within the Government."

I am not going to express a view as to whether or not the £1,000,000 would be forthcoming or where the Minister for Finance would get it from, whether by borrowing or out of normal taxation or by special taxation. All I want to know is, not where the Minister for Finance will get this £1,000,000 but where Deputy Larkin got his information. What I might say in the next three or four sentences may be a matter of surmise. We have seen the Tánaiste in this House. We have seen his conduct, his aggressiveness, sometimes his offensive conduct here towards members.

An Ceann Comhairle

The activities and personality of the Tánaiste do not relevantly arise on this question.

Mr. MacEntee

It is his inactivity, it is the taciturnity of the Tánaiste to which I shall address myself. We have seen the Tánaiste here——

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy persists in that line I must intervene firmly.

Mr. MacEntee

What I am going to say might be a matter of surmise, but we can imagine the Tánaiste—surely I am entitled to imagine, surely it is not now beyond the bounds of order to imagine the scene which took place when the Tánaiste met Deputy James Larkin and his colleagues in the Labour Party after he had threatened the Fine Gael Minister for Finance that there would be a sharp and bitter division within the Cabinet if the money were not forthcoming. I can imagine what the Tánaiste said: "I showed Sweetman where he got off. I told him not to be daft." That is a favourite expression of the Tánaiste here in the House. "I told him if he did not give this £1,000,000, this Government of Mr. Costello, the whole Coalition Government would be rocking and rolling," to use an expression which the Tánaiste himself used yesterday. I said that, unless Deputy James Larkin's statements were contradicted by the person who must have given Deputy James Larkin some ground for making the statements, then we are entitled to assume that the statements of Deputy James Larkin were true and that the suggestion contained in the question which I put to the Taoiseach to-day, contrary to the terms of the Taoiseach's reply, was well founded.

What did the Tánaiste say on this occasion? He did not contradict what Deputy James Larkin had said. He carefully avoided referring to his very extraordinary statements. He did not endeavour to defend the Minister for Finance and say: "That is not so." He did not say: "The Minister for Finance is a member of my team and he was not overawed or intimidated by my threat to create sharp and bitter division within the Government." Not at all. He got up—and what did he say? I cannot quote in extenso, with the short time available to me, what the Tánaiste did say in relation to the statements made by Deputy James Larkin on that occasion, but there is one gem which I think should go on the records of this House. When he was asked: “What did you do for the Post Office workers?”, Mr. Norton actually threatened his heckler with violence and said: “I will hammer something into your thick head before I have finished.” But there was no reference at all to what Deputy James Larkin had said.

This is a very important matter. No country can be effectively governed, and no country can enjoy good government, if there is not unity within the Cabinet and if there is not, as between one member of the Cabinet and another, the fullest trust, and if the strictest confidence is not preserved between Ministers as to what one or the other may say or have said. It is different perhaps when members of the House are not in the Government, when they are outside the Government, when they are not members of the Government—I want to be quite clear—when they do not hold portfolios in the Government, when they are speaking on Opposition benches, when they are in the House as Independent members. Then, of course, what they may say about themselves between one another, while it is not very desirable from the point of view of Party unity and Party loyalty that it should be canvassed, nevertheless it might not be classed as highly reprehensible by some.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Dr. Browne, for instance.

Mr. MacEntee

I personally would regard it as highly reprehensible in any circumstances in which the trust or confidence or the loyalty that should prevail among people working for the same objective was imperilled.

In the case of the Government, however, it is very different because there is a principle which is enshrined in the Constitution and upon which our Governments are based. Article 8, Clause 4, paragraph 2 provides:—

"The Government shall meet and act as a collective authority and shall be collectively responsible for the Departments of State administered by members of the Government."

That is to say that the Tánaiste is just as responsible and must be just as responsible as the Minister for Finance if the Minister for Finance cannot provide all the moneys the Tánaiste demands. Similarly, the Minister for Finance is responsible for the Tánaiste, even if the Tánaiste as Minister for Industry and Commerce is guilty of certain foolish acts. So long as the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce—the Tánaiste—are in the one Cabinet confidence must be preserved between them, and the discussions which take place in the Cabinet or between members of the Government, whether in the Cabinet or outside the Cabinet, should be regarded as inviolable, should take place under a solemn seal of secrecy. Otherwise you cannot have collective responsibility.

You cannot have collective responsibility if one member of the Government is entitled to go out and say: "We would not have got that £1,000,000 only that I threatened that there would be sharp and bitter division within the Cabinet." You could not have any free and frank discussion at any council table or at any Cabinet table unless every Minister there, whether he belonged to this or that Party, felt himself free to speak his mind and knew that whatever he might say inside the Cabinet would not be used against him outside.

Let me repeat again that I do not believe Deputy James Larkin thought that statement of his out for himself. I would not for a moment believe that Deputy James Larkin imagined that scene within the Cabinet. I would not think he would use a figment of imagination relating to such a matter for the purpose of political propaganda. I do not believe he would. If there was not substantial foundation for that statement of his I am quite certain indeed that Deputy James Larkin would not have uttered those words on a public platform unless he had good reason to believe they were well founded. If I am correct in this, then Deputy J. Larkin must have secured that information from some member of the present Coalition Cabinet. If he did, then that is the end to the principle of collective responsibility. The doctrine of collective responsibility is the cement which binds a Government together. It is the very sinew that knits a Government together and contributes the framework within which it works— even perhaps within which a Coalition can work—as a team.

I think that, so far from trying to evade the grave and serious issue which was raised by the statements made by Deputy James Larkin the Taoiseach would have done a greater public service if he had said—and I am suggesting a way out for him—"I think it is highly undesirable and contrary to the conventions of our Constitution, and even to the very Article of the Constitution itself, that differences which arise within the Government should be canvassed outside by members of the Government with other people."

Mr. O'Leary

What happened in Kilkenny?

The Taoiseach

In reply to the question put down to me this afternoon by Deputy MacEntee, I gave a most categorical and unequivocal denial of the suggestion contained in his question. He has had the effrontery to state just recently in the course of his remarks that that statement is untrue.

I do not propose to comment on that allegation that I, knowing the responsibility I have, as Head of the Government, would deliberately state in answer to a question, however awkward it might be, something that was not true. I propose to confine myself to just one or two points of a positive and unequivocal character in reply to the Deputy's remarks. There was no division, sharp or otherwise, or at all, in the Cabinet on the question of the £1,000,000 for productive work for the unemployed.

Mr. Moran

Was Deputy Larkin's statement not true?

The Taoiseach

There was never so much unanimity in the Cabinet on any point as on that.

Mr. Moran

Was Deputy Larkin's statement not true?

The Taoiseach

There was never any threat by the Tánaiste to me, the Minister for Finance or any other of my colleagues on this point. The final point I have to make is this, that if there was as much unanimity in the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil as there is amongst all my colleagues, they would be better off and the country as a whole would be better off.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 28th November, 1956.