Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 8 May 1970

Vol. 246 No. 7

Nomination of Members of Government: Motion.

Tairgim:

Go gcomhaontóidh Dáil Éireann leis an Taoiseach d'ainmniú na gComhaltaí seo a leanas chun a gceaptha ag an Uachtarán chun bheith ina gcomhaltaí den Rialtas:—

Diarmaid Ó Cróinín,

Roibeárd Ó Maoildhia agus

Gearóid Ó Coileáin

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approve the nomination by the Taoiseach of the following Members for appointment by the President to be members of the Government:—

Jerry Cronin,

Robert Molloy and

Gerard Collins.

I may say that, subject to the approval of the Dáil of the present motion and the President duly making the appointments of these additional members of the Government, I propose to assign Departments to them as follows: the Department of Defence to Deputy Cronin; the Department of Local Government to Deputy Molloy; and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to Deputy Collins.

I shall also make the following consequential changes in the assignments of Departments: the Department of Social Welfare to Deputy Brennan, Minister for Labour; the Department of Finance to Deputy Colley, Aire na Gaeltachta; the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to Deputy Gibbons; and the Department of Industry and Commerce to Deputy Lalor.

That implies that Deputy Brennan continues as Minister for Labour and Deputy Colley will continue to hold his portfolio as Aire na Gaeltachta.

Would the Taoiseach be kind enough to let us have copies of the appointments he has made because it was extremely difficult to hear them? He spoke rather fast.

I shall. If the House will permit I will repeat them slowly. I have assigned the Department of Defence to Deputy Jerry Cronin, the Department of Local Government to Deputy Molloy and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to Deputy Collins. These will involve, as I have indicated, consequential changes. As the House is aware, Deputy Boland held the portfolio of Social Welfare with Local Government. I now propose to assign that to Deputy Brennan, who is Minister for Labour.

I propose to assign the Department of Finance to Deputy Colley who, as well as being Minister for Industry and Commerce, is also Minister for the Gaeltacht. He will continue to be Minister for the Gaeltacht as well as being Minister for Finance. I propose to assign the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to Deputy Gibbons and the Department of Industry and Commerce to Deputy Lalor. The motion, in fact, is for the appointment of the three new members of the Government and what I have said subsequently is for the information of the Dáil.

The motion that has now been brought forward to add additional names to the Government is really of no significance in present circumstances. It does not really matter what Fianna Fáil Deputy occupies temporarily any Department. It is of no significance whether he is in one Department or another but what is of significance is the absolute lack of credibility in what was said here by the Taoiseach on Wednesday night.

I want to bring this House, and direct the attention not only of the House but of the country, through the press and every organ, to the completely false picture that was presented here in the plausible statement that was read out. I want to bring the House back to the remarks that I made at approximately 4 o'clock last Wednesday when I said: "Can the Taoiseach say if this is the only Ministerial resignation we can expect?" The Taoiseach's reply, and I am quoting from volume 246 of the Official Report, Column 519, was:

I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.

I went on to ask:

"Is it only the tip of the iceberg?"

The Taoiseach: Would the Deputy like to enlarge on what he has in mind?

Then Deputy L'Estrange intervened and I said:

The Taoiseach can deal with the situation.

The Taoiseach: I can assure the Deputy I am in complete control of whatever situation might arise.

That statement implies and confirms that the Taoiseach's statement to this House on Wednesday night was not a true picture of the facts. The facts are that according to that statement no other resignations were in the offing; no other resignations had been asked for.

At approximately 8 o'clock on Tuesday night I went to the Taoiseach's room and gave him the facts that I have related to the House. By 10 o'clock two Ministers had been dismissed or an attempt had been made to dismiss them, and at approximately the same time a third had resigned. I want the House and the country to decide, once and for all, if we can believe anything from any Fianna Fáil Minister or Deputy.

The facts are that the Taoiseach misrepresented in that statement the true facts of the situation and the real facts were suppressed from the House elected to serve the people until I felt it my duty to disclose the facts as I knew them. Now we have the statement as reported in today's papers from Deputy Kevin Boland saying: "I am sure that the ex-Minister for Justice was asked to resign." When the ex-Minister for Justice was asked what the situation was, he said: "No comment."

When will we get the truth? When will we get the truth without consideration of face-saving of Ministers or the Taoiseach or of ex-Ministers?

This is the greatest scandal that has hit this State since we won independence. I am not given to verbal exaggeration. In fact, some of my friends in the press have probably thought that I have been unduly mild in my remarks during my political career. I am not given to exaggeration. The facts as presented in this disclose a deliberate attempt to conceal the true situation. It is irrelevant to give the plausible story which was given with such brevity by the Taoiseach the other night.

He gave a short litany of events that concealed the true picture, that is completely refuted by the times and statements contained in the Official Report. This country is entitled to get, and entitled to expect, from whoever is head of the Government and from the Ministers elected to serve this Parliament, at least the truth about their actions. What does it matter what Ministers are added or subtracted from this Government? What does it matter what Department any Fianna Fáil Minister is assigned to? They do not know what is happening. They are not telling each other the truth. One is giving one picture now and another picture at a later stage.

It is no wonder that when the Tánaiste and Minister for Health was on radio and television he was bewildered. He was bewildered because, to put it in his own words, it was a complex problem. He did not know the situation that existed. He did not know what his colleagues were doing. They did not tell him. They did not tell the Taoiseach. When they were asked to resign or asked to explain their attitude, they denied participation and refused their resignations. Two of them refused their resignations. Have the House and the country analysed this? Two refused their resignations and the third resigned in protest because the other Ministers had refused to accept the request of the Taoiseach.

This is a situation, as I said the other night, unparalleled in the history of this country. In the past, in different stages of our history, either during the '98 period or during the period when Michael Collins eliminated those who were informing on the Irish people, at least it was British secret service money that was being used to betray the Irish nation. Today the people who are elected and paid to serve them are betraying them with money provided by the Irish people.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

It does not matter to what Department any Fianna Fáil Deputy is assigned. The fact is that a deliberate and calculated attempt was made to conceal the facts from this House and that every Member from the Taoiseach down is involved in that effort.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

They were concealing from each other the plots, the intrigues, the subterfuges. I do not ask anyone to accept anything I have said —although my information has been dead accurate. I draw the attention of the House and of the people, and in particular the attention of the press and every organ of communication, to the facts as presented here when I asked at approximately 4 o'clock on Tuesday last:

Can the Taoiseach say if this is the only Ministerial resignation we can expect?

The Taoiseach said:

I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.

and I asked:

Is it only the tip of the iceberg?

As I said the other night it was a modest comment.

The Taoiseach said:

Would the Deputy like to enlarge on what he has in mind?

It was not until I presented the situation as I knew it that the Taoiseach and those of his Ministers who were left with him knew that the game was up and they could no longer conceal the true facts of the situation from the people. The game was up. They had run their course. Now, having disagreed amongst themselves, they are all starting to talk and give different accounts and different reports of what happened, including the concern Deputy Boland has had about 'phone tapping. No one can accept, nobody can believe, a single statement by any Fianna Fáil Minister. I regret having to say that because I agree with Deputy O'Higgins that there are many decent men in the Fianna Fáil Party, there are some decent Ministers in the Fianna Fáil Party——

They are getting scarcer.

——but they have not been able to come to the surface. This is not merely a serious question for the Fianna Fáil Party. What is serious is that it reflects on the whole fabric and the whole character of the nation. I want to assure those not merely in this part of the country but in the Six Counties of the north as well, that people need not be unduly concerned. They have here a realistic and capable and patriotic alternative Government composed of men of integrity, composed of people who, totally disregarding self-interest, are prepared to serve the nation.

For the second time in the past half-century, in our long and checkered history, this country and our people may thank God that they have this party to maintain and defend and assert the people's rights.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Only for this party there would be a real danger of civil war, civil war of the worst kind, of a religious character. This Taoiseach and this Government must now resign and dissolve this Dáil and let the people elect a Government in whom they can have confidence and who will guarantee their lives and liberties, their homes and hearts and show to the world that this country, this State established by Griffith and Collins, is fit to and will govern itself.

This country is still in a state of shock over what has been disclosed here during the past few days. The fact that the Taoiseach and Ministers have made statements on radio and television and in the newspapers that there is no crisis only makes the matter much worse. Let me try to put the facts as we see them.

It is alleged that two Senior Ministers of this Government who were pledged to uphold the State and whose job it was to see that the State was properly run, made arrangements to have imported into this country large quantities of arms for the use of an illegal organisation. One of the objects of that illegal organisation is the overthrow of this State. The fact that the organisation concerned have refused to recognise the right of Stormont or Dáil Éireann to govern in either part of the country is known to everybody. The fact that the Ministers concerned have agreed apparently, to help to bring arms into this country to further that organisation's objects makes the statement of the Taoiseach that there is now unity in his party and that those Ministers have agreed, as backbenchers of his party, to uphold the Constitution of the State and to support him as Taoiseach, look very, very thin indeed.

The real seriousness of this case does not appear to have been brought home to the Taoiseach, and I shall endeavour to do so this morning. He has stated again and again that there was an attempt to import arms and that that attempt has been prevented from coming to fruition. Is the Taoiseach prepared to stand up here and say that no arms have been imported into this country by that illegal organisation with the collusion of the Ministers concerned?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Does the Taoiseach say it is a certainty that arms have not been coming in here for quite some time under various guises, and have been channelled through to the people concerned? Would the Taoiseach care to say where the money came from to buy the arms? Surely the Taoiseach should at least know where the £80,000 paid for this consignment came from and who got it? Does that £80,000 represent the price paid for the arms, or is there a further substantial sum involved for the hire of aircraft and to pay agents for the purpose of seeing that the arms came into the country? Would the Taoiseach care to say if that £80,000 and the other money, which assuredly was spent, came from State funds? Does he know whether it was covered up in the Budget passed in this House? Are we paying for ammunition and arms which can be, and may be, used yet against this House and against this country? Would the Taoiseach say whether or not he has any evidence to disprove that suggestion?

Was the money produced by individuals who bought arms, in the typical Middle East way, for the purpose of re-selling them at a profit in this country? Was it just a business transaction? We know some people have been involved in business transactions involving vast sums of money —people who wanted to make a "quick buck" and were not too particular how it was made? Or—and this is a horrible thing, the most horrible thing of all—was this money the proceeds of the bank raids in this country? Was it collected by an illegal organisation in bank raids and raids on the pay packets of workers? Was it handed over for the purpose of supplying arms here, with the collusion of members of this Government? It must have been handed over or the arms would not have been put on the plane. If so, is there truth in the rumour that because of this no effort whatever was made to try to capture the people who so foully murdered a member of the Garda who was attempting to prevent them from carrying out the raid?

That is a disgraceful statement. The Deputy should be ashamed of himself.

The one thing which I cannot take from the Fianna Fáil Party is the suggestion that anybody is acting "disgracefully". Fianna Fáil are the people who, led by the Taoiseach, last year told the people all around Ireland that if the Labour Party got into power and got support, they would bring in what he termed foreign influence. The Taoiseach used the words "alien philosophy". Down through the country, as Deputy M. P. Murphy mentioned, people like him had to put up with the henchmen of Fianna Fáil at church gates saying "Do you want to see your parish priest in chains? Do you want to see people going around carrying arms prepared to hold up everybody and to have an armed uprising in the country"? The Taoiseach stood up the day before yesterday and said—no doubt he will stand up today and say the same thing —there is no crisis in this country. The Fianna Fáil Party talked of an alien philosophy, yet they have in their ranks two people who can only be counted with Carson. Carson was a member of a Parliament which claimed to control this country, yet he brought in arms for the purpose of helping an illegal organisation. I subscribe to the view that, not alone are there decent Fianna Fáil Ministers, but there are very decent Fianna Fáil Deputies here, many of whom I am proud to claim as friends of mine. They are prepared to band together now to hold together an unholy alliance. As far as I can see they are only sticking together now because if they do not hang together, they will hang separately.

The people of the country have had just about enough. I do not know whether the Fianna Fáil Deputies here have had an opportunity of going round and talking with the normal Fianna Fáil supporters. The only word which has been mentioned to me and is repeatable in this House is "disgust". They are absolutely disgusted that the party which they had been supporting for so many years should consider there was no crisis when two of their senior members had apparently accepted the accusation which had been made. They accepted apparently their removal from the Cabinet without any protest about their being framed. They were apparently prepared to agree that they had got just punishment. These Fianna Fáil supporters are disgusted that their party are prepared to accept the support of these men for the purpose of remaining in office.

There is another serious matter affecting this issue: it appears that efforts are being made to smear the police force, the Defence Forces and anybody else, providing the Fianna Fáil Party are not smeared. I think there is necessity for the Taoiseach, who is a man for whom I have high personal regard, to disclose the facts. I think he is attempting to cover up for his colleagues. I regret to have to say that I agree entirely with what Deputy Cosgrave has said. I do not believe we would have heard a word about this, at least not for many months, but for the fact that there was a danger of its being brought out into the open in this House.

There is an onus on the Taoiseach to stand up here—galling and humiliating as it may be—to tell the House whether or not he has told the whole truth. People tell white lies in an effort to try to cover up from time to time. The desire of the Taoiseach not to humiliate his party even more has put him in the position of having to stall. I would not accuse him of being a dishonest man normally, but he is being politically dishonest now in this House because nobody can believe what he said here over the last few days. Nobody is prepared to accept that there might have been a suggestion these Ministers were involved, but no proof.

I was listening to the Tánaiste on television. He used the word "conspirators". One does not lightly use the word "conspirators" unless one is sure what one is talking about. The Tánaiste had not the privilege of the House when he was talking then. He spoke about these young men being carried away by the fear that the people in the Six Counties would find themselves in the position where they could be abused—in the position where they would need guns. The Tánaiste felt that these young men were carried away by that fear and the implication was that it was quite in order to do what they did. No, the Tánaiste did not say that they were right; he said they were wrong. The Tánaiste did not suggest they were wrong or hint they were wrong; he said definitely they were wrong. There was no doubt in his mind that the two Ministers who were asked to resign were involved up to their necks in it.

I am sad that somebody of Deputy Charlie Haughey's ability should be involved in this. He is a man for whom I had great regard. He did things with which I did not agree but, at the same time, he was a man who appeared to be prepared to stand on his own feet. I never thought Deputy Haughey would be a man of whom it would be told in this House that he plotted the overthrow of the Government of this country. There is no other description for this. If one succeeds, or attempts to succeed, in building up an organisation whose object is the overthrow of the Government and to take over completely the State for themselves, then one can only be accused of plotting against the State. The fact that the person concerned was in charge of the Department of Finance makes the matter even worse.

Over the past couple of weeks, we have heard stories. Perhaps the Taoiseach would be able to give a definite assurance on this. We heard about the boatload of arms at Dublin port, clearance on a note by the Department of Finance and collection by the Army. This is the kind of talk that is thrown about at the moment in relation to the Army. This is the common talk in Dublin. If this talk is incorrect, a definite statement to the contrary should be made.

We heard yesterday evening about arms coming through Dublin Airport and labelled as "Red Cross Supplies". This has been denied by the head of the Red Cross. Would the Taoiseach say if it is untrue? Would the Taoiseach say why the British Army in the north have been searching along the Border over the past couple of weeks? Surely it was not for the cargo of arms which never got into the country. Surely the Taoiseach must know there was a reason for that search, as there is also a reason for the search this morning in County Fermanagh? Surely the Taoiseach must know about the consignments of arms that came in here? He said he knew about it on 22nd April, 1970. MI-5 stated they knew of this conspiracy for the past seven months. They said they knew of an international ring which had arranged to bring arms into this country from a number of continental countries. You cannot do that on peanuts. It brings me back to the question of where the money came from.

The money came from one of three sources. It came (1) from the adventurer who wanted to invest for the purpose of making a quick buck; (2) it came from the taxpayers of Ireland —fiddling the State finances—in which money was transferred for the purposes of this illegal organisation or (3) it came from the bank raids. You do not find money like that on the street. You do not go out and pick up the hundreds of thousands of pounds required. The people responsible for doing that have been referred to by the Tánaiste to this effect: "No offence has been committed in the State. Therefore, no charges will be made against these people".

I did not say that.

The Tánaiste was quoted in the newspapers as saying that. Perhaps the newspaper people might be anxious to make the correction. I do not know what one has to do in this country to commit an offence. The fellow who parks his car for an hour on the wrong side of the street will tell you what you have to do. Very definitely, there appears to be one law for the rich and another law for the poor; one law for Fianna Fáil and another law for everybody else.

We had, of course, the statement from Deputy Boland that he was resigning from the Government. He was definitely entitled to do so. The funny thing about it—unfortunately, it is too tragic to be funny—Deputy Boland is not quite clear why he has resigned. Apparently his first reason was as a protest against the treatment of the other Ministers. This morning's newspapers suggest he resigned because the Taoiseach was attempting to find out, on Deputy Boland's telephone, what was happening; in other words, he resigned because the Taoiseach was tapping his telephone. Maybe Deputy Boland had another reason. I am quite sure Deputy Boland would love to be a Minister who could stand up and be counted if there are any haloes for heroes being handed out, particularly if we can shout about what we are going to do in the north.

The Labour Party subscribe to the policy that the Border cannot be removed by force. If at any time the decision in this country is changed— if a decision is taken that other means are to be employed—the place to take that decision is Dáil Éireann. If it is taken in this House, the Labour Party —as they always have been—will be the first in the van. We have always played our part and we shall continue to play our part.

Whether or not it is a ridiculous suggestion, if the Government and the people of this country want to take a decision on that matter, then they are entitled to do so. However, no penny-ha'penny Minister is entitled to come along here and decide, while drawing £6,000 a year salary with all the "perks", to have his own private army for the purpose of, according to what he says, fighting in the north and, according to what the general public says, destroying society as we know it in this country.

When the Taoiseach again goes to the country—it will not be very long until he has to do so—every time the word "alien philosophy" comes to his lips I am sure he will make a desperate effort to check himself from uttering the words. I am sure he will be very anxious not to allow those words to slip out. I am sure he will be equally anxious to avoid all reference to the holding up of anybody, to the imprisonment of anybody, to taking arms against them. In such circumstances, he will surely think of what has happened in this country over the past few days. Certainly, he will lose votes if he does not.

The only people who have been proved to be trying to import an alien philosophy here are the people who, the Taoiseach claims, are loyal supporters of his and who keep him in power. On television two nights ago, the Tánaiste gave me much material for thought. He said that, as far as this country was concerned, it was not the most serious thing that has happened. According to him, the inter-Party Government which he described as "the Coalition Government," had done much worse.

Did the Tánaiste seriously consider that anybody listening to him would believe that the crisis we are now experiencing can be measured in any way against anything that happened during the lifetime of either of our inter-Party Governments? How can we get it home to the Tánaiste, to the Taoiseach and to the responsible members of Fianna Fáil—I am sure there are some responsible members in that Government—that, even up to this minute, there is serious danger of civil war in this? Does the Taoiseach think that the people who swore fealty to him and to this State as recently as last June, on taking office, and now have been responsible for this scandalous situation can be trusted? Is it not a fact that the obvious action for people who have done wrong is to wait for an opportunity until they can get the better of their opponents and that such persons will be quite willing to sit back and to agree to anything in the meantime? If the Taoiseach could not trust these people when they were Ministers of this State, surely he cannot trust them now as ordinary Members of this House?

That brings me back to the suggestion by the Tánaiste that it was quite in order for these people to be Members of this House and that if any action was to be taken it was a matter for the Attorney General—who sat through this debate squirming, I am sure, at some of the things which were said. The Attorney General is a decent man. He must have known he was being put on the "hot seat". Does the Tánaiste or does the Taoiseach seriously suggest that these men should be allowed to remain Members of this House, members of the Fianna Fáil Party, with a possible chance of reappointment? Does he suggest that the Attorney General, even if he had the evidence, would dare to take any action against them? Is it not crystal clear from what the Taoiseach said when he accepted them back as supporters of his in this House that what he meant was "You are now safe. You will not be prosecuted no matter what you did"?

I am not one of those people who would blame a person for holding views. As I have said, I am surprised about Deputy Haughey, but I feel that if Deputy Blaney, in particular, Deputy Boland or Deputy Moran have views they are entitled to them. I suppose a substantial number of people throughout this country hold similar views. They are perfectly entitled to consider that the solution of the northern problem lies at least in supplying arms for people across the Border so that they can fight for, say, a couple of weeks and that it can be said that the Irish spirit is not dead. The fact that they will all be slaughtered a few weeks later is not taken into consideration. But people are entitled to their views.

That is the difference. Deputy Haughey, a few weeks ago, drew up a Budget which some people regarded as being great. On the evening of the day that Budget was introduced spoke to a man who said there was nothing wrong with it but on the following Friday evening, I spoke to the same man and he cursed solidly for five minutes. I have never heard such bad language for such a sustained period. He realised then as did the people that the Budget was aimed at nothing else but to destroy the country and to destroy the Fianna Fáil Government because, having made no attempt to deal with the balance of payments and having made everybody dissatisfied with his lot because of the particular way in which it was dealt with, the then Minister for Finance created the situation, accidentally or otherwise, in which the Taoiseach was put in the hot seat to present that Budget to the country.

Because of what has happened since then the point has been made by a number of people, including some Fianna Fáil supporters, that it would appear that what Deputy Haughey put before the House was the one Budget which could cause the most discontent at any particular time. Of course, the old story is if you want to have a revolution—God knows we have heard enough talk here from certain elements about revolution—the thing to do is to make as many people as possible discontented. Deputy Haughey succeeded in doing that in the Budget that was introduced here by the Taoiseach.

I do not know whether the matter with which we have dealt over the past few days is to be glossed over and an effort made by Fianna Fáil to show solidarity so that they can hold on to the Government of the country. My suggestion to the Taoiseach is that in view of all we have been told and in view of the general views of which he must be aware, unless he is living in some sort of vacuum, that the people of the country are not satisfied with what has happened, the old game of trying to drag in a red herring, or of trying to introduce the question of 'phone tapping or something else as being important, will not work. What the electors want at this time is an opportunity to show Fianna Fáil that they have been caught out. At the conclusion of this debate this evening or, before then, the Taoiseach must make his way quickly to the Park. We shall leave aside the question of the new Ministers. These are decent enough fellows but they are being plugged in as round pegs in square holes, as temporary holders of their respective offices. Everybody, including the President, knows that the resignation of the Government must come so why not do it now?

A Cheann Comhairle—

(Interruptions.)

——I wish to make it clear at the outset that I fully subscribe to the opinion that the Taoiseach has full personal discretion to decide on the members of his Government and to decide on how long they should remain as members of the Government; that he is entitled at his own personal discretion to request the resignation of any member at any time that he sees fit and that, if any such member refuses or neglects to submit that resignation, the Taoiseach is fully entitled to take the necessary steps to secure the termination of the appointment of any such individual as a member of the Government.

I agree that the Taoiseach is entitled to do this for any reason which seems to him a valid one. I wish to make it clear that at no stage have I made any complaint with regard to any decision taken by the Taoiseach in this particular matter. It is his job to choose the members of his Government and at any time that he may feel dissatisfied with the constitution of his Government, it is obviously his right to decide that the Government shall be changed any way that he wishes.

It is completely untrue for Deputy Tully to suggest that I at any time stated that I resigned from the Government in protest at the decision taken by the Taoiseach. Deputy Tully knows that was never said by me and that I was never quoted as having made any such remark. It may be true that the papers reported that I resigned in protest at the dismissal of two of my colleagues but if the papers said so it is a lie.

I resigned as a member of the Government because conditions had been disclosed to exist in regard to the Government under which I, as an individual, was not prepared to continue to serve. If we include the vacancy filled yesterday it has become necessary to replace four members of the Government. I am the only one of the four who was not, in one way or another, pushed out of the Government or, at least, who was not overtly pushed out of the Government. I wish to explain just why I resigned.

I say I was not overtly pushed out because it is a fact that the reasons given and the events that led up to the course of action taken in the case of my other colleagues did, in so far as I was concerned, constitute a significant if indirect push. The position is that two members of this Government have been dealt with on a lettre de cachet basis, the penalty in this case being dismissal from the Government rather than incarceration in a modern Bastille. The Taoiseach has stated that he acted as a result of information received and even if we disregard the unreliability of the source of that information, since such source has established himself clearly as a man of no honour, I find that statement to be a most extraordinary one.

I find the position disclosed by the statement to be highly objectionable not to mention undemocratic and a violation of human rights. I find the conditions under which the Government have to operate to be intolerable in so far as I personally am concerned and, in my opinion, to be inconsistent with the dignity of a free man. Therefore, under those circumstances I could not continue as a member of the Government. What has been disclosed by the Taoiseach is that some person or persons unknown is or are in the position that he or they can lodge secret information with the Taoiseach and with anybody else who can bid enough for it, be he the leader of the Opposition or the leader of the coalition or whatever he may be leader of, in respect of any member or members of the Taoiseach's Government and that this information will be accepted and that the Ministers concerned will be dealt with on that basis as the Taoiseach has said these Ministers were dealt with. Deputies Blaney, Moran and Haughey have been dealt with in this way already and since the source of this information is so obviously unscrupulous no one can say who is likely to be next. There is no question, apparently, of the evidence or the information being evaluated in accordance with the normal rules of evidence or in accordance with the principles of justice. There is no question of the accused being confronted with the accuser. There is, in fact, apparently no question of fair play in this matter. Information can be lodged by some secret individuals, some unknown unspecified individuals, and on the basis of that information at least two members of the Government have been dismissed. I have no objection to make to the exercise of his functions by the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach is entitled to change the members of the Government at any time he sees fit but, so far as I personally am concerned, I would not be prepared to continue in a Government in which these conditions obtain.

I want to be quite fair in this matter. I admit that this is an effective method of establishing control and of maintaining control. It has the merit of absolute simplicity. The informer lays his information before whomever he likes to lay it—before the leader of the Government or before the leader of the Opposition or before anybody else that he likes. The decision is made on the basis of that information and the accused is informed of the decision. While I have no doubt about the effectiveness and the simplicity and the expedition of this method of making decisions I have considerable doubts about its justice.

I have always remembered a small incident from the time when I first spent an annual period of training with the Regiment of Pearse in Finner Camp. A rather famous and, if I may say so, well-loved and respected sergeant paraded the raw recruits, as we then were, and briefed us on the regulations to be observed in the camp and on local leave. We were informed that to get drunk was conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. We were a company of university students and we included in our numbers some potential legal luminaries. At the end of the briefing session the sergeant concluded in the normal way by saying: "Any questions?" One of the legal volunteers in the company ventured to ask: "How is it established that one is drunk?" I thought at the time that this was a rather difficult question that would prove not too easy to answer by the unlettered Army NCO but he found it quite simple. He said: "If an Army NCO says you are drunk, you are drunk." That might be a quite reasonable condition under which to expect soldiers to serve. It seemed to me at that time, when I considered it, to have a certain amount of merit. I gathered later from my legally minded and semi-legally trained comrade-in-arms that it was a somewhat different test to the test that would have to be complied with in a civilian court but it was certainly simple, it was conclusive and it seemed to me that if it was administered with enthusiasm it would be quite helpful in ensuring that people like myself and Deputy Loughnane would succeed in living up to the standards of dignity, decorum and sobriety that had been set by our predecessors in the officers' training corps, such as Deputy Pa O'Donnell. While it might be all right to expect soldiers to serve under the condition that if an Army NCO says you are drunk you are drunk I do not accept that it is reasonable to expect Ministers of a Government to serve under the condition that if Mr. Peter Berry says you did a thing, you did it.

The Deputy should not refer to people who are not in a position to defend themselves here.

That if an unnamed civil servant, or an individual employed by an unnamed civil servant, says you did a thing you did it and that the unnamed civil servant will employ an organisation to keep you under surveillance and to be able to report on what you did and what you did not do. I do not think that it is reasonable to expect members of a Government to serve under those conditions. In so far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to serve under those conditions and that is the reason why I handed my resignation to the Taoiseach. If the Taoiseach trusts me he can have me in his Government, if he does not trust me I suggest that the Taoiseach should tell me he does not trust me but I do maintain that if he cannot get people he can trust, without the surveillance of people employed by an unnamed civil servant, then it just does not seem to be possible to form a Government. Certainly, if I cannot be trusted to act as a member of the Government without this surveillance then I am not prepared to continue in the Government.

I have said that the source of this alleged information has established himself as being untrustworthy because trustworthiness involves loyalty but in this case the information, in addition to being lodged with the Taoiseach, to whom presumably the ultimate loyalty of the individual concerned is due, was also given to the leader of the Opposition. The fact that it was to Deputy Cosgrave it was given gives me quite a good hint as to the identity of the individual who was employed by the unnamed civil servant for this purpose. However, I suppose it would not be in order to mention the name I have in mind. As I said, this was disloyalty and it establishes, beyond any question of doubt, the informer as a man of no honour. It establishes that he has been acting in the despicable role of a double agent and it clearly establishes the information, or any information, in inverted commas, coming from this source, as being unreliable information, as being worthless in face of the denial of the allegations by Ministers who, over a period of years, have never disclosed any Government secrets or never in any way betrayed the trust that has been placed in them.

The individual or individuals employed by this civil servant, by acting in this totally discreditable way, has or have in my opinion lost all claim to credibility. I have seen newspaper suggestions that the whole fantastic story on which this whole business is based was built up with the assistance of the British secret service. I do not know whether that is true or not. I certainly hope it is not true; but if there is any truth whatever in that allegation then the story is surely still less credible because an organisation that have in the past descended to such vile methods as the forging of diaries in order to secure the execution of Roger Casement are obviously capable of embarking on the concoction of a fantastic story such as this, which lacks nothing except the introduction of a beautiful blonde or two.

Those, then, are the conditions of service under which I as an individual was not prepared to continue as a member of the Government. The reason given by Deputy Tully was never given by me and has nothing whatever to do with my resignation from the Government. I would respectfully suggest that the money spent on maintaining this Minister-watching organisation which, apparently works to two sources, would be more appropriately spent on trying to bring the murderers of Garda Fallon to justice.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

When I mention this I cannot help speculating as to why it is that those men are still at large.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I wonder is it a question, as I know to have been the case some time in the not too distant past, of keeping the pot boiling so that the need for and the dependency on this Branch would continue. With regard to the actual story itself is there any reason to believe that it is authentic? I see no reason to believe it is authentic. I do not know if anybody has seen any arms. Nobody has said that he has. If he has seen them, where and when? Can they be produced? Do they exist at all? Does anything exist except certain documents? On the basis of this so-called information from this tainted source working to the Taoiseach and working to Deputy Cosgrave, the Taoiseach has taken what can only be described as drastic action. The Taoiseach's interpretation of this is that the two Ministers concerned did not agree with the Government's policy on the partition of our country, as laid down at the Fianna Fáil Party's Ard-Fheis. I do not believe for one moment that there is any such disagreement. Certainly, in so far as I am concerned I fully subscribe to this policy and I believe my colleagues, whose positions are also being filled here today, also fully subscribe to this policy.

The objective of the party to which I belong is to bring about the re-unification of this country and this obviously involves the unification of the people of the country. This, of course, as anybody with any normal intelligence will see, cannot be done by force. This does not mean that I subscribe to the outburst of Daniel O'Connellism that has marked recent speeches in this House. Neither does it mean there is any acceptance of the right of any section of the Irish people to opt out of the Irish nation. It certainly does not mean there is any acceptance of the right of any foreign country to divide our country, to maintain an army in it or to legislate for any part of it. The fundamental fact is that the British are aggressors in our country and the responsibility for the existing situation of barely suppressed violence in the Six Counties rests squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Harold Wilson and his colleagues. The first requirement for the solution of the problem is that this fact be recognised by the people responsible for it, that the British guilt be acknowledged and that a decision to embark on what would almost certainly have to be a long process of disengagement and reparation should be taken in the place where the crime was committed and where it is continuing to be perpetrated to this day.

This is not the time to deal in detail with the matter of policy. The motion before the House is the appointment of three members of the Government. I merely want to say that while force could never remove the deep, carefully fostered and massively subsidised divisions which exist in our country, and must be ruled out for those reasons as a policy in so far as we in the 26 County State are concerned, this does not alter the fact that the British are illegally in our country, that they must go and that stupid statements by Messrs. Wilson and Callaghan and other members of the Government that Partition is not an issue, indicate where the main difficulty lies in so far as peace in this country is concerned.

While a policy ruling out force is appropriate and almost unanimously accepted as far as I know for this 26 County State—certainly it is unanimously accepted so far as the Fianna Fáil Party are concerned—there is no doubt that the people in the Six Counties are, in fact, in the same position as the people in the whole country were in before 1916, and they are entitled to make their own decisions. While we here are both entitled and, I think, very well qualified to give advice on this matter, and the advice we would give would be that there should be no inclination to utilise force to solve the difficulties which exist there, and to try to secure the acceptance of our approach, it would be presumptuous for us to attempt from the snugness of this 26 County State to dictate to our fellow countrymen who are suffering under British imperialism, because that is what they are suffering under.

It would be unpardonable for us to take any action to frustrate the efforts of our people in the Six Counties to protect their lives and property. The objection I see to the approach of many Deputies who have been speaking here in this matter is the concern for what is described as the freedom we have achieved, the attitude that the over-riding concern must be to retain this State and this Parliament. So far as I am concerned I want to go on record as saying that I reject that attitude, that I do not see a 26 County State as an achievement. I see it as a retrogression. I see it as a situation resulting from the 1922 betrayal. While I recognise it as a situation which exists, and under which we must work, I also recognise that the national objective is to get rid of two States in this country not one. There is here in this part of our country an established situation of a democratically-elected Government operating under a democratically adopted Constitution and no such Government could tolerate the existence of an armed organisation not under the Government's control. No such Government could permit the importation of arms into this country for such an organisation.

I am absolutely certain that no one who was a colleague of mine in the Government believes otherwise. However, while such an organisation is clearly illegal here the position in the Six Counties is clearly different. The solution imposed on this country by the British, in addition to massive subsidisation by the British taxpayer and to the garrisoning by the British Army, requires the discrimination and oppression that is exercised by the ruling faction. This ruling faction must remain if what is called by British politicians "the integrity of the United Kingdom" is not to be disrupted. All the objectionable features that have marked this Six County State since it was set up, including the murderous attacks on the Nationalist population, are essential to ensure that the ruling faction continues in power and, therefore, that the British annexation of part of our country continues.

In so far as this question of the alleged attempt to import arms is concerned—and I repeat I have no reason to believe there has been any such importation—it is our obvious duty to ensure that any such importation to this part of the country is only carried out by official State agencies. However, we have no function in regard to the Six Counties. It is not our homes or our lives that are in danger. Since we are not in a position to supply protection to these citizens of ours and since the United Nations, to which we subscribe, acts like Pontius Pilate in regard to the situation, we have no right to interfere in any efforts our people in the Six Counties may feel constrained to make to defend themselves from the effects of British imperialism in that part of our country.

I know only what I have seen in the papers of these stories of arms importation. However, may I say that I do not believe them for one moment. As far as I am concerned my position is clear. Arms importation into this part of our country by any agency other than the State is illegal and should not be permitted, but arms importation into the part of the country in which the writ of this Government does not run is not illegal so far as I am concerned. It is our duty to advise against it but it is not our business to interfere and any co-operation with the security forces of the country that continues to occuply six of our counties is, in my opinion, intolerable.

The proposal before the House is one which I think should be unanimously accepted. It is a proposal that the nomination of three members of the Government be approved. The nominations are made by the Taoiseach who has been duly elected by this House with the clearest possible mandate from the people of the country. In view of this mandate the nominations should be unanimously approved. So far as I am concerned I consider the three individual Deputies whose names are before us suitable in every way for the positions for which they have been proposed.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

There is a certain dreadful fascination for all of us when we hear stories of self-immolation. The absolutely horrifying picture of a Buddhist monk or some other persons of that kind who lies down on the ground, empties a tin of petrol over himself, applies a match and burns himself to death is a fearful, fascinating morbid picture. I do not know whether today we are witnessing the political self-immolation of Fianna Fáil. However, it is certainly significant that the Deputy who has just spoken has told a story I never thought I would hear of conditions which he alleges to be intolerable operating inside the Government of this country. He has told it not only to Dáil Éireann but in the hearing of his own party members and has been accorded a clap of approval by Fianna Fáil Deputies.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

In an interview with the Irish Independent of today's date Deputy Boland is reported as saying that under no circumstances could he work in a Government whose leader kept members under Gestapo-type surveillance. He went on to say: “I could not see the events of the last few days happening in any other democratic country”, a statement with which I fully concur as would 90 per cent of the people outside who are watching the amazing developments which are taking place in this House. Deputy Boland stated in this interview that for a significant time past, under the direct order of the Taoiseach, a group of the Special Branch were directed and organised to “bug” ministerial rooms, to engage in phone-tapping of ministerial conversations, to listen to everything his own colleagues wished to say to one another and to others. This was done not by an unknown, unnamed, civil servant but by the leader of Fianna Fáil. No wonder the Deputy said: “I could not see the events of the last few days happening in any other democratic country”.

The other night I said we were in danger of being turned into a banana republic. What have we now? Deputy Boland complains we have not Mata Hari but we have double agents, phone-tapping and "bugging" of ministerial conversations by a secret organisation organised, according to the Deputy, by his own leader. In the name of the Lord, in the interests of democracy and in the interests of common decency, why does the Taoiseach not dissolve this Dáil and go to the country?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Here we have a Government, members of one political party, none of whom can trust the other, members of a political party whose leader has no confidence in them and some of whom obviously have no confidence in their leader. This new Government will be held together by mutual fear, not by trust: mutual fear of one another, mutual fear that their inner thoughts will be known. The present Minister for Defence—the now designate Minister for Agriculture—and the present Minister for Industry and Commerce—the now designate Minister for Finance— will be kept together for fear that in their desks somebody will be listening through a "bug" and that everything they say will be told on them. What damage they will do to the country! What will happen to the Irish pound? What about the harm being done to the savings of our people by the Budget of recent weeks, by the clear lack of confidence in this Government? Having broken that trust they have caused harm to the country, to its savings, to its resources, to its assets, to the way of life, to the jobs and employment of ordinary, decent, harmless people who trusted them last June.

It is a sordid, disgraceful story that will not be solved by Kremlin-like declarations of loyalty after a quick trial and no doubt a public confession in the Fianna Fáil Party Room. This will not be solved by papering over the cracks. There is a responsibility, high and awesome, on any man who is entrusted by the people with leading this nation. That awful responsibility clearly dictates that, in these circumstances, with this sordid story behind—I am not surprised that Deputy Aiken leaves—that this Government, having no authority except such as is given to them by Deputy Haughey, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland, should go to the people to seek a renewal of their mandate. If this does not take place, if the people are not consulted, we shall have this Government endeavouring to control a situation which might well become uncontrollable.

We have a situation in which a leader who used to be called "Honest Jack", a leader who rejoiced in that soubriquet, has now clearly lost credibility. We find now from a former member of his own Cabinet, of his own Government, that for months back he had not trusted his colleagues, that for months back he had them spied upon and that for months back he had a secret dossier on each Cabinet Minister. We know now from this declaration in the Irish Independent and the speech today by Deputy Boland that it was not merely on the 21st April that an astonished Taoiseach came to learn that his Ministers were behaving suspiciously, if not disloyally. It was established yesterday that the facts of this attempted gun-running, this conspiracy to subvert the safety of this State had been in operation since last November. It was established yesterday, and referred to in the Irish Press, that this entire story was printed in a newspaper called The United Irishman before last Christmas.

Are we to believe that this could be common property in certain circles, among certain people, and that our Special Branch did not know it? If we are to believe, as Deputy Boland has said, that his leader, the Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, had the Special Branch reporting directly to him and to nobody else—not to the Minister for Justice, not to the Minister for Defence but directly to the Taoiseach himself —and if, as it is now known since last November a plot was being organised by two members of the Government and their relatives to bring arms into this country, I suggest it stretches our patience far too long to imagine an astonished Taoiseach getting this information for the first time on the day before the Budget. I suggest the Taoiseach has a lot more to say and that the people are entitled to ask him to come clean now. He either knew or had the means available to him of knowing that some of his colleagues were concerned in a sordid plot against the security of this State and he took no action at all; in fact, quite contrary to it, he moved a writ in order to force a by-election in South West Dublin and claimed, having got some 30 per cent of the votes, that he had a renewed mandate for his Government from the people of South West Dublin.

Would the Deputy give way for one second? The first indication I got was Monday, 20th April. I do not know what the Deputy is relying on for asserting otherwise.

If the Taoiseach says that I accept it. The Taoiseach will agree that it is quite contrary to what Deputy Boland has stated.

I have only heard what he said today. I have not had time to read the papers this morning.

The Taoiseach says the first information he got was on the 21st April.

Monday, the 20th April.

That is two days before the Budget. I understood the Taoiseach to say the other night it was 21st April. However, there are very serious matters involved here. If what the Taoiseach has said is correct, the Taoiseach learned of this on 20th April.

I said that to the House already.

I shall deal with the immediate consequence of that. That means he permitted his Minister for Finance to attend a Government meeting and to finalise the last Budget on either Monday or Tuesday or on Wednesday morning, assuming he did not have an accident on Wednesday morning. This colleague, who the Taoiseach was informed was involved in a criminal conspiracy against the State was, nevertheless, allowed to present to the Government of this country this year's Budget.

On a point of order. The Deputy well knows what the implications of a criminal conspiracy are and he should be fully aware of what is involved.

I am not going to be told the Rules of Order by Deputy O'Kennedy.

They should be in jail. They should be charged.

(Interruptions.)

In my considered view what I have said is perfectly justified. The Taoiseach was given information on 20th April which indicated that his Minister for Finance was suspected of being involved in a criminal conspiracy against this State and, nevertheless, the Budget was presented to his colleagues, I assume by the Minister for Finance, a Budget which was dealing with a very grave economic crisis. The Taoiseach has the responsibility to tell us: did the Minister for Finance attend the Government meeting? Did he prepare this Budget? Was it on the Monday or Tuesday? What usually happens, to my knowledge, is that the Budget is presented to a special Government meeting on the morning of Budget Day.

The Budget was approved at a meeting on the previous Friday.

What are we to believe now?

That was one of the days the effort was made to bring in the arms, prior to the 21st.

I am only stating a matter of fact for Deputy O'Higgins.

The situation then is that the Minister for Finance presented the Budget for Government approval on the previous Friday; the week-end passes and on Monday the Taoiseach received information which if correct means that the Minister for Finance was engaged in a criminal conspiracy against this State. What happened throughout Monday? What prevented the Taoiseach getting his resignation there and then and sacking him? Why did not the Taoiseach act on Monday? On Tuesday? We were told at three o'clock on Wednesday that but for an unfortunate accident the Minister for Finance was going to present the Budget to this House. This man, who, if the Taoiseach is correct, was under a sentence of dismissal from the Government, were it not for an unfortunate accident was going to present this year's Budget to Dáil Éireann.

Where is the story going to end? Where lies the truth? I mean no reflection on what the Taoiseach has said but I do suggest that somebody is not coming clean in all this. There are a whole lot of gaps wide open, growing larger. How is it to be explained that from Monday to Wednesday no action was taken by the Taoiseach in relation to the Minister for Finance? All right.

Will the Deputy allow me to interrupt him? I decided to make investigations on the information received.

I will ask the questions and the Taoiseach can deal with them fully later on.

But the Deputy will have his remarks recorded.

Let them be recorded.

I may not get a chance to make a reply.

The Taoiseach will get plenty of opportunity. Nobody here will prevent the Taoiseach from saying what he has to say. I want to repeat— and here is something the Taoiseach can deal with in his reply—that from Monday, throughout that day, throughout Tuesday, throughout all Wednesday morning, the Minister for Finance continued to be the Minister for Finance. We were told that were it not for an unfortunate accident he would have presented this year's Budget to this House. I would be interested to know how the Taoiseach can explain these facts if he were an astonished Taoiseach who had been informed of this serious conspiracy and serious plot.

The Taoiseach says that after his unfortunate accident the Minister for Finance could not be interviewed. I accept that. Every one of us felt very sincere sympathy with Deputy Haughey on the accident and the reported serious concussion from which he was supposed to have suffered. The Taoiseach, I can understand, from Budget Day, midday or whatever it was, until the date he gave the House the other night, the 28th I think it was, could not interview the Minister for Finance.

When did he first interview the then Minister for Agriculture? On the 28th April, according to what the Taoiseach told us the other night. So that, from Monday 20th until the following Wednesday week, Deputy Blaney who was the other person alleged to be involved in this conspiracy had not been interviewed by the Taoiseach. He was summoned to his room on the 28th and asked for his resignation, which he declined to give. No further action was taken by the Taoiseach. A fortnight passes and no action taken until two hours after Deputy Liam Cosgrave went to see the Taoiseach last Tuesday night. I do not think that even in a banana republic this dereliction of responsibility could be tolerated. I do not know what the result might have been if Deputy Cosgrave had not gone to the Taoiseach and if the Taoiseach did not learn, as he did, that a tip-off had currently been given to a newspaper. The story was bound to break and only then was decisive action taken by the Taoiseach. This is a bad, sordid story. We have the background now of this appalling suggestion from Deputy Boland that for months before this——

Again, that is wrong, Deputy.

I am glad to hear it is wrong but I can assure you that I read here before my eyes Deputy Boland saying that under no circumstances would he continue to work in a Government whose leader kept members under Gestapo-type surveillance. He adds that he could not see these events happening in any other democratic country.

No mention of a period, either.

He says this earlier —that it has been going on for some time. I just cannot find the reference.

The Deputy is making the story even more irresponsible.

I suggest that Deputy Sherwin, who is a political infant, should not intervene; he will only get burned.

He is keeping you on the right track.

Following the accusation on Monday, I asked for more information on the Tuesday and then I made some inquiries myself.

I would suggest that the Taoiseach can give any explanation he likes.

You are not stating facts.

The Deputy is going on a premise that is obviously not right.

I am referring here to what I see before my eyes—an interview with Deputy Boland by the Irish Independent interviewer, Mr. Kerry McCarthy and he makes the complaint that he would not continue to serve in a Government whose leader set up this kind of phone-tapping, spying, and so on, on himself and his colleagues.

I say this is a bad story and the more patching that is attempted the worse it gets. There are sitting behind the Taoiseach now groups of his own party who share common ideas, who work together, who are going to fight together, who are going to lobby together. He has Deputy Boland who is endeavouring to set up another party inside the Fianna Fáil Party.

Nonsense.

I will say what I have to say because it will come out. I tell Deputy Crowley, who is a member of the three parties inside Fianna Fáil, that is what is happening now.

Jumping all over the place.

There is a new force let loose inside the backrooms of the Fianna Fáil Party. There is jockeying for position by cynical and ambitious men. We had this absurd statement the other night. After a short party meeting, after the indoctrination and all the rest of it, the people were expected to believe that this whole thing was a non-event, it did not happen. Deputy Haughey who was sacked and Deputy Blaney who was sacked and Deputy Boland who left coincidentally—he claims to have been the only Minister who was not pushed—and Deputy Moran who he says was sacked, who did not resign voluntarily, all these now continue to be members of Fianna Fáil, continue to serve because their votes are important to the Taoiseach. What sort of a party is that?

There are serious things happening in this country. One reads on the paper today the heading "Saor Éire in £14,000 raid". One reads a statement by this illegal organisation that they will continue to carry out whatever operations they regard necessary to requisition the necessary money to arm the people they wish to arm. Bank raids to get money to buy arms, a bank raid in Rathdrum with an entire village cut off by fellows wearing berets and Sam Browne's and carrying guns, fellows who can go in and hold up defenceless bank clerks, bank raids down on the quays of Dublin city where an unarmed, courageous Garda officer is shot down, bank raids in different parts of the country, raids into business houses seeking pay packets—all done in the sacred name of patriotism and nationalism. When one finds, on top of that, either separately or in unison—one does not know—a suggestion that two Cabinet Ministers are also engaged in this hunt for arms and, when one finds behind that, one who resigns coincidentally, or in sympathy with them, making the charge that his leader has a special private secret service of his own to watch what everybody else is attempting to do, then banana republic, how are you! This is bringing the entire affairs of this State into absolute discredit. It is not even as amusing as a Gilbert and Sullivan opera.

The Deputy spends more time at the opera than he does in this House.

Blaneyite sit down.

He is all things to all men.

The Deputy spends more time at the opera and in the courts than he does in this House. He should be ashamed of himself.

The last Fianna Fáil Deputy who tried to take me on is no longer a member of the Government. If the Deputy is not careful he will be no longer a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

This country is facing now a serious economic crisis, a situation in which our balance of payments has grown so wide, so steep and so big that there may be a run on the Irish £. If we cannot instil a belief in our own economy—mark you, we should because it has survived many assaults by Fianna Fáil over the decades—and if we cannot get our people to have confidence in Ireland's ability to pay its way, then we are in very serious trouble indeed. This sordid affair takes place in the middle of a serious economic crisis. I suggest to the Taoiseach that in all decency, out of all consideration for his own high office, the national needs dictate a new mandate to a new Government in this country. Maybe that Government will again be Fianna Fáil. I do not know and I will not make any political prognostication of one kind or another, but I suggest that any man of honour, leading Fianna Fáil in these circumstances, should go to the country saying, if necessary, "Peccavi, I have sinned, or my colleagues have sinned," saying, if necessary, that this country in these needs, at this moment, requires a confident Dáil and a confident Government to face and resolve the difficulties and the problems of our people.

Our prestige and the prestige of our Government at home, and our standing and prestige abroad, have never been more sacred to the future of our people. Outside this country it is essential, if we are to survive, that the word of an Irish Prime Minister, or the word of an Irish Minister, be accepted as his bond. It is essential outside this country that the strength of the Irish £ cannot be challenged, questioned or endangered. We are facing a very difficult three or four years. The very survival of our people is involved. The very wit of our people to control their own destiny, to provide a way of life for the young people growing up, is in jeopardy and in danger.

We need a Government that will be like Caesar's wife, against whom no reproach can be suggested. We need a Government that is clearly not thinking of other things and talking of other things while plotting and planning other things. We need a Government of honour, of integrity, of men who will serve the people and no one else, of men who will give no service to any private masters other than the people. We need a Government that will have that standing both here at home and abroad. I am sorry to have to say it, but this Government cannot come from this Dáil. There are decent men in Fianna Fáil, very honourable men in Fianna Fáil and I am certain that the vast majority of them are men of distinction and honour and dedication, but they have allowed something rotten to happen. They have allowed a canker to grow which has very nearly destroyed the credit of Fianna Fáil in the country. Maybe it was a hopeless effort to mix two brands and two ideals, to mix the captive republicanism of the past, the kind of captive political thinking of Deputy Boland, which stopped in 1922; maybe it was an impossible task to mix that with the modern mohaired approach of others but, whatever it may be, this mixing of water and wine did not produce a good bottle and the result has been internal stresses in the party.

I have sympathy with the Taoiseach, a man who has been trying to do his best to paper the cracks, but the result is that, in the process, he has been obliged to look at too many places simultaneously and in too many directions at the same time. That will not do for Ireland. There are too many things at hazard and too many things at risk and the need of the moment, the requirement of the country, is a new mandate to a new Government.

One would much prefer to opt out of contributing to this debate and I personally dislike having to stand up here to make a contribution on the subject matter of debate here this morning. We have in this State relatively small population by comparison with other countries, a population of less than three million people; in the severed part of the State there is a population of only 1,250,000 people. We are all Irishmen, whether we live in northern Ireland or southern Ireland, whether we are members of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party and it is the ambition of all of us to advance the nation and improve the standards of our people.

So far as the Labour Party are concerned, we are very, very sorry indeed that such a discussion should take place and none of us here in the Labour Party has any inclination whatsoever to score any political points. I venture to say that the same can be said of the other Opposition party here. We may have differences of opinion and we may occasionally have wrangles here in debates, but something like this is far above and beyond the kind of minor wrangles that might arise in less important debates.

It is deplorable that this position should arise at this moment. It is seldom a discussion on Government wranglings arises in this House. The only previous discussion that bears a slight semblance to the discussion we have today is the discussion that took place on the alleged wranglings of the inter-Party Government who were moving out of existence in 1951. The statement made by the then leader of the Government in this House after listening to that discussion for some time could apply more aptly to this morning's discussion. That statement was: "We have had enough." This House has had enough of the secret, internal wranglings of the Fianna Fáil Party and Government. It is not we who should be deciding the issue of whether this Government should or should not continue in office by restoring three members to their depleted ranks but the Irish people through the polling boxes.

This debate is more akin to something that could happen in a conspiracy trial in, say, Green Street courthouse rather than the national Parliament. We have some people in the dock charged with serious offences. Is the prosecutor members of the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party or the Attorney General who usually has the task of prosecuting people who commit misdemeanours? No, in this case the prosecutor is the Taoiseach. He outlined the case for the prosecution last Tuesday night and Thursday morning. He bases his case on the fact that two of the members of the Government, that he, as Taoiseach and head of the Government appointed, and for whom he is responsible, have betrayed him, that they have been guilty of gross deceit so far as he, as Taoiseach, is concerned and that they have allegedly engaged in practices completely adverse to the welfare of this country. I do not want to delay the House by outlining these practices—possibly that is not the most apt term—but it strikes me very forcibly that the alleged offence had its source, as regards the arms supply, in Czechoslovakia.

In the past few weeks we have had reports of criminal proceedings in the British courts against a former member of the Government party there as a result of association with diplomats of the Czechoslovak Government. That man has been found not guilty. I read in the Evening Press, which is recognised as the Government paper and naturally deemed to be more factual in such matters because it would be supposed to have inside information, that the value of the arms, the subject matter of the importation, was £80,000. It told us that the arms were bought in Czechoslovakia, transported overland to Vienna and from there landed at a British airport and were halted there by the British Secret Service.

As this is a point not covered by previous speakers I should like to take up a few minutes of the time of the Dáil on this question. I assume that the Evening Press statement is correct and that the arms were bought in Czechoslovakia. Everybody knows what is happening there at present and that you could not buy a pin without a Government agent breathing down your neck, never mind buy ten tons of arms for £80,000. I assume that no such purchase could be made in Czechoslovakia without the connivance of the Czech Government. Neither could the arms be transported to Vienna without the connivance of the Czechoslovak Government.

What I am getting at should be obvious. I regret in this hour of great danger for this country to have to make these statements but I want the Taoiseach, who has more information than I have, to give the House and the nation in his reply satisfactory answers to my question. What I mentioned earlier I am only elaborating in regard to the case the Taoiseach made as prosecutor. It was he who mentioned that he is satisfied from reports available to him that two of his Ministers were engaged in a criminal conspiracy. Let me digress to say that I have no ill-will against those concerned. I am very sorry that these alleged activities should have been committed by them and that they should be deceitful to their leader. I do not know whether or not the allegations are true. We shall have to come to the case for the defence which has been presented in the front page of the Irish Independent. The Taoiseach should have read this before he came to the House. It is interesting.

I have read it but I did not see any reference to the period Deputy O'Higgins mentioned.

I am sorry to see Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey in this situation. I hope I shall not be regarded as boastful when I say that I never hold personal bitterness against anybody, but I am glad that this ill-wind has blown Deputy Boland out of the Government. I am glad there is this small credit side. I am not being personal and not trying to, and would not be associated with a party trying to get political kudos out of this. The Taoiseach and I happen to originate from the same part of the country, not too many miles apart, and although I am not a supporter of the Taoiseach I know the respect in which he is held by the people there, even by those who disagree with his political views. Personally, I have the same respect for the Taoiseach, whether well-founded or otherwise. I am satisfied it is well-founded.

I am perturbed about the Czechoslovakian side of this business because I am against any dealings by any Irish Government with any communist country. We know what happens in communist countries, and there is no need to say what has happened in Czechoslovakia where the arms were supposed to have been purchased. What had Dr. Husak to say last Tuesday or last Wednesday when making a statement in Prague, the capital of Czechoslovakia? He said that the Czechoslovakian people were most grateful and most thankful to Russia and the other countries who came to their aid in August, 1968. Does the House think that represented the viewpoint of ten per cent of the people of Czechoslovakia? Is there any danger that we will have people here in Ireland, who do not represent ten per cent or five per cent of the population, setting themselves up as the Government, taking over, and talking as if they had the united support of the people behind them?

Is not that what happens in communist countries? There is no such thing as a debate such as this. There are no elections. There is no freedom of speech. There is no freedom of movement. There is a takeover; the people have to toe the line and be satisfied; and they have to make statements supporting the Government even though there is little or no sincerity in such statements.

I want to get a detailed account of this Evening Press statement. It is one thing that perturbed me more than anything else in this affair. The Taoiseach said the arms were purchased in Vienna but then I read that they were not purchased in Vienna. They were transported by air from Vienna to London, but they were purchased in Czechoslovakia. We read, perhaps not too carefully, during the past three or four weeks, references to some difficulties which arose between members of a Czechoslovakia trade delegation and members of societies in Ireland who are deemed to be friendly with Czechoslovakia. These difficulties occupied the front pages of our national papers for two or three days. At that time I did not attach much importance to them but, at the same time, taking into account what their activities were in the country which adjoins us, and taking into account what has transpired in the past few days, I should like, and I am sure the country would like, full detailed information about them.

That is part of the Taoiseach's case in the role which he has undertaken as prosecutor. In June after the election this House was asked to nominate him as Taoiseach. This House by a majority vote acceded to that request and he was duly nominated. On him only rested then the responsibility for nominating and appointing Ministers. It was on his shoulders. He was the man to pick from his party or from this House the people he deemed to be reliable and trustworthy, people he considered would serve the Government and the Irish nation. We had no say in that other than that as usual, once he had chosen them, we had to walk through the Lobby in a formal way and say: "Look, we do not like you," but the outcome was quite evident.

A Deputy

What a mistake.

The appointments were a mistake.

We opposed the appointments because we felt that some of the team were not too competent. How right we have been proved since, if the prosecutor's claim is correct? We walked through the Lobbies then and the Taoiseach won the vote.

What obligations are now carried by the Taoiseach? Is he not responsible for the activities of his Government and, if he made a mistake in nominating some of them, if they have now deceived him, if they are guilty of the offences of which he claims they are guilty, surely he must resign? Is not that what would happen in Britain? Is not that what would happen in any other democratic Parliament? He may be excused personally. He may make the excuse: "I made a mistake. I did not know that your opposition was in any way well founded. I had complete trust in my Ministers. It was misplaced trust. I made a mistake." He must pay for his mistakes.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

He must resign. I hate to say that but that is the only conclusion one can come to. The Taoiseach, in his prosecuting case, states that on Monday, 20th April, he first heard of the events which led to the dismissal of the two Ministers. That is only a few weeks ago. Apparently the Taoiseach did not read this morning's newspapers but in The Guardian, a British paper, it is claimed, as was mentioned earlier by Deputy Tully, that the British Secret Service were effective in stopping this arms deal and knew all about it as far back as November last. There is a big difference between November last and Monday, 20th April.

As a result of these resignations Dáil Éireann is faced with a motion to replenish the ranks. What is the case for the defence? What have they to say? We are asked here to replace the Ministers who were dismissed or resigned by other Ministers and, if we accept the statement in the papers today and in the House a half an hour ago by one of those Ministers, what are we being asked to do? I want to quote now from today's Irish Independent in which it is stated:

He repeated again a declaration he had made earlier in the day that he could under no circumstances work in a Government whose leader kept members under Gestapo-type surveillance. "I could not see the events of the last few days happening in any other democratic country. All that was missing was the beautiful blonde spy," he said.

The Taoiseach is there charged by a man who was in the Government from the first day he came into the Dáil, by a man who has the inside information, which we have not. In regard to Garda Fallon's death there is an implication both in his newspaper interview and the statement he made here today. The former Minister said:

... those working in the "Super-Special Branch" would be much better employed tracking down Garda Fallon's killers than spying on those elected to serve the people of the country. He was convinced that these men had to answer only to the Taoiseach.

The people were informed through the national Press and through the national Parliament by a colleague of the Taoiseach that the Taoiseach was not doing what he should do to arrest the killers of Garda Fallon. If that is not the implication in that statement, I am not able to interpret anything. The Taoiseach heard the former Minister substantiating that statement in the House. The Taoiseach heard him ask whether this was a conspiracy to let people who are guilty of offences roam around the country free from arrest and from detention.

The former Minister's statement is quite clear. His statement is that there is no substance in the charges. We have not had anyone giving us the Taoiseach's point of view, other than himself. We have had no supporting speech from the Government benches with the exception of Deputy Boland's speech. Has the Taoiseach been abandoned in his hour of need? Is he left alone to fight this battle? Can the Minister for External Affairs or the newly-appointed Minister for Industry and Commerce come to his rescue? I have great sympathy for the Taoiseach.

On Wednesday at 11.30 a.m. the Taoiseach came into the House when this whole affair had been exposed. He was followed by three or four Ministers. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was there. Some other Ministers were within the precincts of the House. The Minister for Defence and one or two other Ministers were not here.

It has been said that a system of phone-tapping existed in certain houses owned or occupied by members of the Government. If that is so, it is not unreasonable for me to conclude that that system is operating on a much wider scale. Is it likely that Deputy Corish's phone or Deputy Cosgrave's phone is being tapped? This issue has been raised by a Deputy who has been a Deputy for 30 years. The defence is that there is no truth or substance in the charges preferred by the Taoiseach. It is said that the Taoiseach has been misled by a named member of our Civil Service. This named member of the Civil Service is alleged to be in charge of the super-Special Branch and part of the duty of the super-Special Branch is to tap the telephones of some of our Ministers. Deputy Boland's words are more eloquent than mine. He does not call them the super-Special Branch but "the ministerial watching organisation". This is a peculiar state of affairs in 1970. It is peculiar that we have this organisation headed by a named civil servant who is a secretary of one of our premier Departments and that he has under him an organisation known to former members of the Government as the ministerial watching organisation and to others as the super-Special Branch.

People are very distressed that the police force are not able to do better in so far as the detection of some of our more serious crimes is concerned. I am casting no reflection on the police force. I am not in any way reflecting on their integrity when I make that statement. I am worried about the implications of the statements which we have had earlier in this House to the effect that the police are being pulled back for some unknown reason. It is hard to understand how criminals can escape with the very limited outlets for escape from justice here in a sparsely-populated country where even in the capital city everybody knows everybody else. It is impossible to escape the law if there is a concerted attempt made to apprehend those who are required. I am making that statement by virtue of what we have heard this morning from the Member in question.

We had an intervention through a radio and press interview from the Tánaiste, Deputy Childers. He made excuses, but one thing he said struck me forcibly and that was that when the Government are in office for a long time they get complacent. Not only did the Fianna Fáil Government get complacent but they have become arrogant and dictatorial and have moved into a position in which they are destroying themselves on their own without any help from the opposite benches. What should the verdict be? The big question the country is asking at the present time is: should the Government continue in office without a fresh mandate from the people? When we here, Members of this House, are expressing our views on this matter and on the need for a general election it is no pleasure for any of us to contemplate an election following this type of upheaval within the party with the main support.

We find no pleasure in that. I am finding no pleasure in it. Neither will I find any pleasure in going around to the church gates in west Cork areas or in moving out to the islands or peninsulas in an endeavour to retain my seat here. We have no alternative. It is not our own security that is in question. The security of the nation is in question. By virute of these major revelations—even alleged association with communist countries—we must have a much wider jury than the limited number of public representatives who have the privilege of being members of this House.

We have this motion for the approval of the nomination of three Deputies as members of the Government. In the light of the present situation, this motion has little significance. I would have nothing to say against Deputy Cronin, Deputy Molloy or Deputy Gerard Collins: they are all men of integrity but the implications of the situation are wider than that. The question is whether the Taoiseach can be allowed by this House to fill his depleted ranks by three Deputies whose names are submitted here; whether he is entitled even to put that kind of motion before this House after having had to tell Dáil Éireann that he had to dismiss three Ministers and has been deserted and abandoned by another Minister.

After what happened here the day before yesterday, and in the light of the amazing disclosures in relation to the activities of some members of his Cabinet the Taoiseach comes here this morning and, in effect, says: "I want this House to give me four Ministers so that I can continue as leader of this this Government and leader of this country". Even if we were inclined to give that approval, have we the right to do so? Has any party in this House the right to give such approval in view of the appalling situation which has been disclosed to this House and to the people of our country in the past few days? In my view, we have not a right to do so because it has been laid down in this House, in times gone by, that the head of the Government is responsible for the activities of his Ministers. It is a well-established maxim here that there is collective responsibility in the Government—all for one and one for all—and that the Taoiseach is responsible for the activities of his Ministers.

Some members of the Opposition seem to have information from other sources: my only information consists of statements by the Taoiseach and other members of this House as well as what I read in the newspapers. Undoubtedly, a very serious situation exists. Some people, either with State connivance, State funds or funds obtained elsewhere, have moved into a communist State to procure arms. It is reasonable to assume that there was not much bargaining about the price of the arms. If we got arms from Czechoslovakia then, if the Czechoslovak Government is in any way involved as it must be if the story is correct because otherwise it could not happen, it is for a very ulterior motive. It could be a matter of some plotting or planning for the overthrow of democracy in this country.

Deputy Tully quite correctly brought my name and the names of others into this debate. He said that I and others had retained our seats in the Dáil despite persistent and violent allegations and imputations by Fianna Fáil against our integrity, motives and objectives. It was alleged that we were trying to put across a policy alien to the view of Irish people; that we were mixed up in some way or another with people far removed from Irish national traditions. I derive no pleasure from the fact that Fianna Fáil are now hoist with their own petard. I recall insidious rumours about the Labour Party in this country and, in the same breath, mention of priests being tortured, bound in chains, and so on.

I would say that a tremendously high proportion of the 224,000 people who voted for Labour candidates in this country are imbued with the best of Irish traditions in every sense of the expression—national traditions and Christian traditions alike. If I thought there was any danger that the Labour Party would undermine this State—as the State is now said to have been the subject of an attempt by others to undermine it and to overthrow democracy here—I would not be associated with that party for 24 seconds, never mind 24 hours. I had to face such charges. I succeeded and was returned to this House. My colleagues, Senator Eileen Desmond, Patrick McAuliffe, Thomas Kyne, and others, did not succeed. The assault was too violent. Despite the fact that the basis for the assault was absolutely fictitious, absolutely without substance, it happened that, sometimes by the shortest of short heads, we lost some seats. That is why our ranks have been somewhat depleted here after the general election.

There is a big difference between the depletion of the Labour Party's ranks here after the general election and the way in which the Government's ministerial ranks have now been depleted. This question is of such momentous importance that it must be referred to the people. There is no use in the Taoiseach's telling the House and the country that the Ministers in question did not measure up to his requirements; that he is guilty of an error of judgment; that it could happen to anyone. I believe the Constitution is absolutely correct in giving the head of the Government the sole right to nominate the members of his Cabinet and the sole right of dismissal. The nomination of the members of the Government must be approved, of course, by the Dáil.

With an upheaval of the magnitude of the one now before us, I hold that the Taoiseach is not entitled to come to this House to ask the man who made the statement for the defence here this morning, and who, by implication, termed the Taoiseach a liar, to keep him and his changed Government in office. By implication, the Taoiseach was called a liar this morning by one of his ex-Ministers in view of the Taoiseach's statement to this House the day before yesterday that the first time he gained any knowledge that a conspiracy of any kind was afoot was on 20th April, 1970.

The man whom the Taoiseach will ask to support him on these motions is the very man who is reported in today's Irish Independent as saying he believed that for some time members of the Government were of the firm opinion that their telephones were being tapped. Deputy Boland is quoted as having said: “In the case of one Minister this has been definitely established”. The newspaper report also quotes Deputy Boland as saying to the interviewer, Mr. Kerry McCarthy, that:

A Super Special Branch has been secretly set up by the Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch, to spy on Members of the Government.

I am saying to the Taoiseach that surely he cannot continue in office with the support of people who have made such statements. That should be clear to all Irish people. Having listened to all the statements made here in relation to this matter, having read all the comments on the matter and having watched an interview with the Taoiseach on our national television network yesterday, I have come to certain conclusions. I accept that the Taoiseach is a man of integrity. It may be that he is too weak, or that he has too much confidence, or maybe he did not have the ability to detect earlier what was going on within his party. However, he did detect what was happening but what hinders me in expressing my personal view is that if the Taoiseach did detect it earlier, has he made untruthful statements to the House?

I cannot see the point the Deputy is making.

The point is that I am questioning the Taoiseach's capacity to lead the Government.

The Deputy is entitled to do that.

As I have said, the Taoiseach is a man of integrity who is endeavouring to do the best he can but I am wondering if he had the necessary qualifications to detect the upheaval that was taking place within his party. According to himself, such did not occur to him until he received certain information on Monday, 20th April. Assuming that the Taoiseach's statement is correct and assuming, too, that the statement of the former Minister for Local Government, to the effect that the Taoiseach has under his command a ministerial watching organisation, is correct, the type of assertion that I have in mind to tide us over this major national crisis would not apply. I was thinking that because of the events that could arise in either the northern or the southern part of our country, we should have a national Government of one kind or another. I was of the opinion that if the Taoiseach made such a suggestion, the other parties would not refuse to discuss the position with him and with those Ministers who have shown their faith and confidence in him by remaining in the Government.

I am entitled to personal views. This is not a matter which was discussed at any meeting of our party. I do not believe in being hamstrung and neither do I consider it right that any Member of the House should be hamstrung unless there is practically unanimity of opinion, of party support. There should be a certain amount of flexibility in making personal statements.

All of us wish to avoid trouble in this country and everybody would wish for a solution to our problems, both north and south, by peaceful means. We do not wish to see any of our people dying on the roadside as a result of civil war or strife. Neither do we wish to see any political party trying to get kudos out of internal difficulties within the democratically elected Government Party. Instead of nominating the three new Ministers perhaps the Taoiseach should have filled the ranks with two or three members of Fine Gael or Labour.

Who would have imagined even one week ago that we would have this kind of debate here today; who could have imagined the former Minister for Local Government making the statements that he is reported to have made to a press reporter or who could have imagined, one week ago, that he would be the man to put fuel under the remaining Ministers of the Government in an effort to ignite them and blow them up? We have heard from Fianna Fáil about their solidarity but we have also had to listen to a great deal of criticism about little internal wranglings within our own party but we do the best we can to overcome our difficulties and one recent difficulty has been solved quite easily. However, in order to save himself the Taoiseach was forced to burst forth in publicity. I do not know if this debate would be taking place today if it were not for the revelations made to the leader of the Opposition.

I am of the opinion that when information is available to any Member of Parliament, whether he be a leader of a party or otherwise, to the effect that there is danger to the welfare of the State, there is an obligation on that person to pass that information to the head of the Government of the day. None of us likes to be deemed informers but, where the welfare of the Irish State and the Irish people is concerned, that is the course to take.

I said I should like to see a kind of closing of ranks at this stage when we have so much trouble in Northern Ireland. What a fine gesture it would be if we had more close association down south. I do not think that is altogether unattainable. I feel it could be done and, taking into account what is happening up north, it would be advisable to do so. Now we have the Taoiseach telling us that he will continue in office. We have the introduction of this motion today to appoint three of his own party as members of the Government. My answer to that is that he is exceeding his functions. In present circumstances the Taoiseach has no right or authority to ask Dáil Éireann to nominate these three Members.

It may be, as the Tánaiste, Deputy Childers, told us, that this all arises from being too long in office. It could be. I accept that the Tánaiste knows more than I do. He attends meetings of the Cabinet and he knows about this complacency, this disease known as being too long in office. I do not know how one could describe that ailment. I believe the Government should go before the people. I am quite confident that if the Irish people were consulted now they would recommend a very strong prescription for the ailment from which Deputy Childers told us the Government suffer.

The Deputy is well inoculated against it.

One need not be a prophet to know the prescription our people would recommend for Fianna Fáil at the moment. What do you think, Sir, it would be? It would be a long rest from office. I suppose this could happen any other party that would be so long in office. Fianna Fáil have been in office for 34 years now. It is possibly an ailment that any party in any country would suffer from after such a lengthy period.

No, the Deputy's party have an in-built immunity against it.

The communist parties do not suffer from it.

No, nor the Unionist Party.

You said the same last year.

Was he not proved right this year?

You are a pack of Reds.

There will be less talk about communists now.

The Unionist Party suffer from this ailment at the moment and Fianna Fáil suffer from it. The one thing I disliked, now that you will be moving out of office, was your arrogance. Some members of the Government were, indeed, quite all right. This lack of honour was extending to the Civil Service. It struck me forcibly that some of our civil servants got the idea that Fianna Fáil would be here forever——

It must be an epidemic.

——and once they were supporters of theirs it did not matter how they did their work; it did not matter how they treated the Opposition. What are they getting paid for?

However, it is superfluous for me to announce what the Irish people would prescribe for the Government at present. They would prescribe for them a very long rest from office which they need urgently. I am not being sarcastic when I say that I should like to have the Taoiseach down, not too many miles from me, resting peacefully in the nice house he has bought and is renovating near Roaring Water Bay. It would be far more pleasant for the Taoiseach to be listening to the roaring of the Roaring Bay waters than listening to the roaring of some of his colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party.

Whatever merit there may be in Deputy Murphy's suggestion that the present national emergency calls for a national Government, no reasonable Irishman could entertain for a moment the suggestion that any Government, either a national Government or a Fianna Fáil Government, should be formed under the Taoiseach.

Hear, hear.

The events of the last week, his protestations of innocence ever since he became Taoiseach, clearly prove that it is no longer possible to believe daylight from the Taoiseach. We now know that he tried to cover up treason. He tried to conceal what he knew was taking place, the putting of arms into the hands of some Irish people for the purpose of murdering their fellow countrymen. He endeavoured to keep from the Irish nation the fact that the institutions of this State were being undermined by Members of an Irish Government and that Members of an Irish Government were endeavouring to build up and maintain an army other than the army authorised by Oireachtas Éireann.

His only reaction in the face of this appalling situation was to remain silent while one, if not two, of the members of his Cabinet had diplomatic illnesses or coincidental accidents. Kremlin colds and feverish attacks of the flu in Moscow have nothing on the farce we have witnessed of the miserable efforts at covering up and providing an escape hatch for members of the Government, who deserved, from the moment that the knowledge of their activities came to the Taoiseach, complete condemnation, expulsion from the Cabinet and being arrested and charged with the most serious offence which can be committed by any man against his own country—the offence of treason. Any man in a position of trust has an obligation to act with speed and decision in an emergency. The Taoiseach holds, under the present——

On a point of order the Deputy used the word "treason" and he stated that two Members of the Government were guilty of treason. I want to state that I took action on the grounds that not even the slightest suspicion of the activities I referred to should attach to a member of the Government. I think, Sir, that the Deputy should not be permitted to allege treason against Members of this House or anybody else.

If the Taoiseach prefers it, I will say the Taoiseach failed to act when he received information——

The Deputy will appreciate that it is not in order to say that Members of the House are guilty of treason.

Sir, I was about to say that I will amend my remarks by saying that information has been furnished to the Taoiseach which indicates that Members of the House have been guilty of treason.

The Taoiseach never said that.

That is a fair interpretation for any person to put on the information at the disposal of the Taoiseach, the information which he disclosed in this House within the last 48 hours. The Taoiseach had a clear obligation to act with speed. Even if it were only suspicion the matter was too involved and the consequences too terrible to suffer any delay. Instead of acting the Taoiseach allowed two days to pass by before he resolved to question two of his Ministers who had been named to him. He gives as an excuse for not pursuing one of them the fact that he had an accident. He did not pursue the other who had no accident and who continued to represent the Government in this House, who continued to attend Government meetings, who continued to attend his office, who continued to use all the lines and power of communication, knowledge and influence available to him in it without even calling him in and requesting him to absent himself from his office or absent himself from the Dáil. He allowed him to continue for at least nine days after he had reason to believe that he might be associated in some way with treasonable activities. I am in deference to you qualifying my remarks in that way although I will have no hesitation in expressing them elsewhere without any qualification.

The former Minister for Finance was allowed 48 hours after the knowledge came to the Taoiseach to remain Minister for Finance, to prepare his Budget speech and to commit this nation financially and economically to a certain course of action at a time of financial and economic crisis, at a time when the Taoiseach knew that the same man was endeavouring by force of arms, or by association with people who were prepared to use force of arms, to pervert the whole destiny of this country. That clearly indicates, whether it be a coalition Government or a one-party Government, the present Taoiseach is wholly and totally unfit to occupy his present position. Anybody who puts any other interpretation on the events of this week is naive indeed.

I am frankly worried that so many people feel relieved that the Fianna Fáil Party have for the time being found a solution to their current problems. The effect of it is only to make the position ten times worse. It is only about further evidence that Fianna Fáil are concerned, not with the national welfare. If it were they would get rid of a Taoiseach who suffered this situation to exist for so long, either through his inability or through his reluctance to disclose the truth. Any head of a Government is clearly under an obligation to put the national need before party interests. How can anybody believe that the Taoiseach put national need before party interests when he procrastinated for days on end and did nothing of any worth in this matter until he was confronted by Deputy Liam Cosgrave, the Leader of the Opposition? What disturbed the Taoiseach then was not the fact that the leader of the Opposition knew but that there was then the possibility that other people would know. Deputy Cosgrave could have caused a dramatic crisis in this House, could perhaps have drawn the full blaze of glory on himself by revealing it in this House, but in a statesmanlike way he went to the Taoiseach and gave him the information hoping he would take steps to examine whether or not the information given to Deputy Cosgrave was true.

What did he find? He found that the head of the Government knew that all the information Deputy Cosgrave had received was true and was doing nothing about it; that he had not then done anything about it; that he had not then dismissed his Ministers who were suspected of acting in this particular way. This to my mind is criminal negligence on the part of the Taoiseach and far from anyone believing this country can now go forward with any confidence under him it seems to me that the people of this country are now aware they have a Taoiseach who is totally and completely unfit from the point of view of ability and integrity to occupy the position of head of the Government for one moment longer.

Any head of a Government once he is elected to that position should act without fear or favour. Can anybody say that the Taoiseach acted without fear when this information first came to him? He did not act on the 20th April or on the 21st April before any accident or any illness coincidental, diplomatic or otherwise, occurred. He did not even send for those whom last night he called his able, brilliant and dedicated colleagues, to discuss with them in the national interest the information received. He did not do it. Why? He did not do it because he feared them; he feared their wrath; he feared the number of supporters they might have in the Cabinet; he feared the number of supporters they might have in the Fianna Fáil Party; he feared their associates outside; he feared the IRA; he feared other illegal organisations; he feared them all and was hoping that this dreadful thing, this nightmare, would dissolve or that somebody else would find a solution without involving him.

That was a cowardly Taoiseach not fit to occupy the position of Taoiseach for one moment longer once that fear and that cowardice became known to the people. That same Taoiseach was under an obligation to act without favour. What did he do? He showed favour, he showed understanding, he gave consideration, he gave time to the people who were mentioned to him as being involved in this alleged criminal conspiracy. What did he do when ultimately he got over his fears and faced his obligation? He went and discussed it with them and they asked for time to consider their position. The Taoiseach did not say then that the position of the nation comes first, that the position of the Government comes first.

The Deputy is misquoting the Taoiseach. This is most serious.

This is most serious. The Taoiseach said that those people asked for time and he gave it to them.

The Deputy should quote the Dáil record fully.

I am quoting from yesterday's paper. I am sure if it was wrong the Taoiseach, or his minions in the Government Information Bureau, would have taken care to state it was not true. I certainly am prepared to rely on this until it is proved it is wrong. The Official Report is not yet available for Wednesday. I am reading from yesterday's Irish Times in which it stated on the front page, column 5, that having spoken to the two Ministers named each of them denied attempting in any way the importation of arms. It says here: “They asked me for time to consider their positions.”

I am quite satisfied it is the full thing.

Thank you. I can certainly understand with all the things that are being said and because we are only getting pieces of this jigsaw gradually that it is very difficult to follow the thing line by line. I am endeavouring to be careful in what I say and to make my comments measured but it seems to me I would be failing in my obligation if I did not draw attention to those specific things so that the facade or umbrella some people would draw around or put over the Taoiseach will be seen to be wholly unjustified. He has failed entirely under every test you apply to a man holding a responsible position, such as was entrusted to him. Above all, if one is in a position of trust one must never abuse that trust. That trust requires that the interests of the people be served before any personal inclinations or preferences. Clearly, that has not been done.

One wonders why Ministers should have been involved, as apparently they were, in this frightening transaction. One wonders at their recklessness. One could understand that people with a firm conviction that the minority in the North should be armed would take steps to arm them but one would be amazed, as we all are, that Ministers of State should act in this way as apparently we were led to believe two, if not more, Ministers acted. It points to one simple fact which we have asserted here for a long time and which the Taoiseach has repudiated as being without proof; members of Fianna Fáil would do anything if they could get away with it. The view of many of the people who voted the other night for the election of Deputy O'Malley and who may vote today and other days in support of other members of the Cabinet would be that the only sin committed was that they were found out. That is the reality of the situation. The other night they won a Pyrrhic victory and while they may rejoice in keeping their sordid conspiracy intact, it will not conceal the fact that there are no longer any principles or standards worth accepting so far as the Government are concerned.

Gun-running is one of the most lucrative international practices. Profits can be made more quickly from gun-running than from any other traffic and the profits derived from gun-running are as great as those derived from drug-trafficking. However, two things are necessary for gun-running— the capital to buy the guns before profits can be made and the incitement of people to the use of arms so that they will buy the guns.

It is with a terrible sense of alarm that one now appreciates what happened. Last year immediately following the dreadful outburst of violence in the North, a newspaper started circulating in the North particularly in those areas where the minority lived lauding Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney. It perpetually quoted their speeches, many of which were regarded by the Taoiseach as inflammatory and designed to incite. Recently I read a report on gun-running in which it was pointed out that it was not profitable unless you incited people to purchase guns. It now seems it was all part of the master-plan to incite the people of the Bogside, the Falls Road and other areas in the North to seek guns so that the traffic would be profitable. I do not have to mention which member of the Government would have been in a position to furnish the capital to purchase the guns——

That is a shocking allegation for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Wait until the full facts are known.

The Deputy knows that charges against Members should not be made.

The Chair will appreciate that I have not named anybody. If the cap fits let it be worn. On one of the documents which has been received regarding this matter mention is made of the name of two Tacateers as being associated with members of the Government. In deference to the rule that we must not mention names in this House, I do not propose to name the persons concerned. The whole story was so wild and incredible that it seemed improbable at first. One of these gentlemen accompanied the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries when he arrived at the House here the other day and he accompanied him brazenly and brashly throughout the House and the precincts of the House. Other members of the Taca organisation were also seen accompanying Deputy Boland and Deputy Haughey was brought to his about-to-be vacated office by another member of Taca.

All of this alarms one particularly when some of the men who were mentioned, and who were in the company of the suspected persons the other day, own ships that cruise in Irish territorial waters. One can fairly ask whether there is any link between this and the trawler that was seen in Dublin Bay on the morning after the murder of Garda Fallon which took two people from a rowboat and sailed away in the grey mists of dawn. Many questions still remain to be asked——

This is disgraceful.

——and a great deal more information requires to be supplied before the full truth of the appalling——

If the Deputy has evidence of this he should give it. If he has not, he is not entitled to make such a charge about people outside this House. The Deputy clearly implies——

I have not named anybody. The former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland, complained that so far there is no question of the evidence being evaluated in accordance with the ordinary rules of justice. We say let the evidence be evaluated in accordance with the ordinary rules of justice. Let those against whom charges have been made, let those named as being involved in a conspiracy to import arms into this country for goodness knows what purpose, be charged with the offences. Let the evidence be assembled and tested as Deputy Boland wants done in accordance with the ordinary rules of justice. We will abide by the verdict so long as we are satisfied that the law officers are in no way curtailed in the presentation of their evidence and as long as we do not have any further efforts to pervert the course of justice. We would welcome this and all the information which is available to the Taoiseach and to anybody else to be tested by a full inquiry or by the proper weight of investigation of criminal charges. That is the only way it can be done.

May I ask a simple question to which the Taoiseach must give an answer? If an ordinary person was discovered to be involved in a plot to import arms without licence and without payment of customs duty, would it be regarded as an innocent activity? Would an ordinary person be permitted to do this or would he be arraigned before the court? Is it open to anybody to conspire with others to import arms without licence and without payment of customs duty? If not, let those who are known or suspected of being involved in this matter be dealt with in the proper manner.

For a long time we have known and heard of many attempts to pervert the course of justice, to obstruct the Garda, the Army and customs officers in the due execution of their duty. Have we any reason to feel confident that while the present administration remains in power there will be an end to this? Far from it. We have had the appointment this week of a man to the office of Minister for Justice who threatened to take steps to dismiss from the Garda Síochána a mild and harmless garda who was executing his duty.

I have grave reservations about the impartiality or appreciation of principle of some of those who were nominated by the Taoiseach today for new ministerial responsibility. Collective Government responsibility is necessary to rule fairly and efficiently. That responsibility is equal and joint; it lies on everybody as an individual and must be shared by each member of the Government with others. Quite clearly the people who have resigned from or have been dismissed from the Government do not share that feeling, and it would appear to us that the Taoiseach does not accept the obligation of collective responsibility. As far as the Taoiseach is concerned, if any member of his Cabinet is no longer of use to him or is an embarrassment to him he can be disposed of. Ministers are simply disposable bits of the Lynch capsule, just jettisoned into space, discredited and dropped and others substituted as though nothing had happened, as though there were no crisis, no cause for concern; the mighty ship with the pilot Lynch is still on course——

——with Taoiseach Lynch is still on course. This we are told is the situation of calm which should make the country content that all is well, that the Taoiseach is in charge of a ministerial observation post, that Ministers and, I suppose, their associates are being spied upon. We have had and no doubt will continue to have a Government in operation in a kind of James Bond complex with phone tapping, double agents and so forth. The resigned Minister, Deputy Boland, said he objected to the simple and effective ways of gaining control by a number of nameless people, and then he went on to name one of the people whom he considered to be involved.

I believe the overwhelming majority of the people would far prefer to be protected by the members of the Garda Siochána and by our national Army than by any of the people whom Deputy Lynch as Taoiseach had in his Cabinet or indeed any of those who may still remain there. The people need protection. One of the most fundamental reasons for the existence of the State is protection from violence from without and within, and the army that gives us that protection is the Army and the Garda Síochána. This must not be tampered with or interfered with, and there is ample evidence that it has been tampered with and interfered with, and again this is inexcusable.

We are asked to accept apparently that Deputy Haughey, Deputy Boland, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Moran are now without influence, that they are now people who will no longer obstruct the Taoiseach or no longer be in a position to interefere with him and the great Fianna Fáil Party in running this country. That is a foolish claim to make and it would be folly to believe it for one moment. On 18th January last Deputy Kevin Boland was elected honorary secretary of the National Executive of Fianna Fáil and he remains honorary secretary of the party today. On the same date Deputy Neil Blaney was elected honorary treasurer of the National Executive of Fianna Fáil and he still is the honorary treasurer of that party. On 18th January last Deputy Charles J. Haughey was nominated by the Taoiseach as a member of the National Executive of the Fianna Fáil Party and he remains so today. On the same date Deputy Paudge Brennan was elected to the National Executive by the Oireachtas Party.

This morning we heard Deputy Kevin Boland making his apologia and one would have thought that as he was speaking with such condemnation of the Taoiseach and was speaking on a line which was clearly at variance with his stated view of the Fianna Fáil Party, his remarks would have been received without approval by any of his Fianna Fáil colleagues. But when he sat down so many applauded him that it was impossible for us to collect the names or identify them all. Those who gave support by their applause this morning, to the consternation of the Taoiseach, are the newly elected Deputy Sherwin, Deputy Loughnane, Deputy Briscoe, Deputy O'Leary from Kerry and Deputy Power from Kildare. Deputy Crowley applauded until he saw he was being watched; then he copped himself on and folded his arms.

The Deputy will realise that Deputy Boland said many things which could well be applauded.

Those Deputies who were supposed to be 100 per cent behind the Taoiseach, who were supposed to be unanimous in the view that the Taoiseach was right, applauded the man who denounced the Taoiseach for what he had done——

What did they applaud?

——who disagreed with the Taoiseach's outlook, who felt that a great deal of wrong had been done. The great united party was divided. True, some of them put their hands in their pockets and did not applaud. However, they are far from united and the disintegration of the party is only about to begin.

(Interruptions.)

Could we ask the interrupters in the Fianna Fáil Party to try to measure up to the importance of this occasion? The fortunes of Fianna Fáil or of any other party, Fine Gael or Labour, matter absolutely nothing. The fortunes or reputations of Deputies in this House matter not a whit. What does matter is whether or not we shall have a Government who are united in their determination to execute agreed national policy.

I would again challenge the Taoiseach, as I challenged him the other night, to accept for debate in this House without further delay the Fine Gael motion which says that Dáil Éireann "repudiates the use of force to effect the end of Partition". That is a perfectly simple request to make and if he dithers or delays one moment longer on that he will continue to be questioned by the nation for his lack of conviction and it will be quite clear that he is, as I said earlier, a coward who is unfit to hold Government office.

Pretended unity is a spurious unity, but in so far as it does exist let us question why. It is conceivable that men of principle in any political party in any Government would be in disagreement with their colleagues. It is possible that even a man of principle would feel that the end justified the means and that he would try to use the powers of Government available to him to achieve those ends. However, any man of principle who had such strong convictions, if dismissed from the Government, would refuse to lend further support to that Government, to the head of that Government or anybody associated with it. Therefore we cannot accept that those who have been dismissed or have been forced to resign are men of principle, for if they were they would not, by their votes or by their silence, be lending support to a policy with which they are or pretend to be in such strong disagreement.

Once again we have proved that self-interest is the only guide of members of the Fianna Fáil Party, the self-interest of those who do not want a general election because the Fianna Fáil Party would suffer considerable losses which would entail the departure of some of the Fianna Fáil members from this House, the self-interest of those suspected of the conspiracy who appreciate that it is only by the preservation of the Government in office that they are immune to prosecution. This sordid self-interest is one of the most despicable reasons behind this spurious facade of unity, not the interest of the nation because the nation's interest requires that the Government would resign from office and particularly that the Taoiseach would resign and resign quickly.

It may well be that some of those still in the Taoiseach's Cabinet, still giving him support, anticipate what the nation anticipates, and that is, that the Taoiseach will not be Taoiseach much longer and therefore they remain within the party or even, like Deputy Boland this morning, they profess allegiance to the party while all their actions are in conflict with their profession because the day will come when again the pack of cards will collapse and there will be more shuffling and bargaining for position. Therefore the sordid bargain is made: it is better to keep your powder dry because the real battle has not yet begun.

The purpose of an Army is to protect a people against external and internal violence and our Army is responsible to all our people through Dáil Éireann. What then must we think of anybody who has attempted to pervert Army officers in the execution of their duty, who has endeavoured to get or persuade members of the Army to act contrary to their oath to serve Oireachtas Éireann and no other group? We must condemn such people. Such people have committed criminal offences. It is quite clear that evidence has been given to the Taoiseach which links certain names with such activities not related alone to the attempted importation of arms from Vienna but related also to training which was given in at least one Army camp to civilians in the use of arms.

That is not true.

It seems that this crisis is so grave that the Taoiseach—the present one or whoever shortly succeeds him—has a clear obligation to take the whole Dáil into his confidence. There is provision in the Constitution for the holding of a secret session of the Dáil in case of national emergency. I believe we are in such a position at the present time——

It is a public session we need.

——that we are in a state of national emergency and if there is information available which the Taoiseach believes it would not be in the public interest to reveal he can call that secret session. As far as we are concerned, we have no wish to have it discussed in secret. We believe the whole nation would be the better to have the information fully and freely disclosed so that the people might know what they are entitled to know, in whom they can place their trust.

An attack was made this morning by Deputy Boland on a senior civil servant of long standing. He mentioned him by name. It is fair to remark that the man in question loyally served Deputy Boland's father for very many years during an extremely difficult and embarrassing period.

What a terrible thing it now is to hear Deputy Boland making snide remarks and identifying a senior civil servant in this House because of the fact that in continuation of the long and dedicated service he has given to this country he has been obliged in the execution of his duty to name some of Deputy Boland's friends. Thank God that we have such a public servant. Thank God that the commissioner of the Garda Síochána was not prepared to accept a direction to admit arms without customs formalities. Thank God that the Garda Síochána refused to be a party to this until they got clearance at the highest level and thank God that, although efforts were clearly made by members of the Government to keep the knowledge from the Taoiseach, it ultimately reached him and thank God we had Deputy Cosgrave to force the Taoiseach's hand when he was prepared to lie in wait and hope the crisis would pass off.

That is not true. Ridiculous.

Completely true.

This is a matter upon which Deputies wish to speak and I have no wish to detain the House too long but there are a couple of points in what Deputy Boland said this morning that I must take up. I am not going to condemn Deputy Boland for resigning from the Cabinet. He did it for what he considered to be correct reasons, although I cannot see how he can possibly continue to lend his support to a Government with which he is in so much disagreement. But he spoke about trustworthiness involving loyalty and he suggested that whoever gave the information to the Taoiseach and to Deputy Cosgrave had acted wrongly and he said that Deputy Cosgrave's informer was a man with no honour. To whom is the loyalty owed? Is it owed to a political party? Is it owed to a Taoiseach who, having the information, refuses and fails to act in the interests of the people?

It seems to me, Sir, that there are occasions when the normal traditions of preserving secrecy and conducting one's office only in direct relationship to the Government are transcended by the obligations of emergency. This was clearly a case in which any person loyal to the people of Ireland whom he served had an obligation to communicate that information to a quarter which he knew would not be tainted and to a quarter which he felt would live up to the obligation which lay on any person in a position of trust who had such information. That is why Deputy Cosgrave was given that information, because he was known as a man who would use the information, not for personal advantage, not for party advantage, but for the sake of the country. That is why he telephoned the Taoiseach and having got an appointment with him went in confidence. Had he not done so we would still be a Dáil with a Cabinet that was acting disloyally to the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach afraid to do anything about it.

Deputy Boland also spoke about the long delay in bringing the murderers of Garda Fallon to justice and he suggested that this was the Taoiseach endeavouring to keep the pot boiling in order to justify the surveillance of his fellow Ministers. We do not know the truth of this. There has been so much allegation and counter-allegation that the position is becoming more and more bewildering rather than clearer after a couple of days debate, but the Garda are certainly all complaining of the fact that they have not been given the facilities and the scope necessary to bring the murderers of Garda Fallon to justice.

Hear, hear.

This is a situation which is terrifying in the extreme. It is a situation which must be remedied and the Taoiseach and his new Minister for Justice have a fundamental obligation to see to it that all restrictions on the Garda in the pursuit of the criminals involved in that sordid offence, and many others, are brought to justice. We even had the ex-Minister suggesting that the efficiency of the Garda Síochána would have to await the outcome of the implementation of the recommendations of the Conroy Commission and so on. The situation is far too serious to be trimmed to administrative convenience. It is much too serious and all the resources of the country and all the money available must be used to restore order in the affairs of the country and to provide the guardians of our peace with the security they deserve in their highly dangerous task.

Deputy Boland also rejected what he called an attitude that some people in this House had to our overriding obligation to preserve this State. He said our obligation was to remove two States. I had hoped that we had left the thinking in that sentence behind us many years ago. Can any sane person expect that Irish unity can come about other than by building a united country, with this State of ours, which represents 3,000,000 people and covers 26 counties, being bonded and welded to the six north eastern counties? There is no other way of doing it and anybody who speaks as Deputy Boland did, suggesting that the destruction of this State is equal to the destruction of the statelet in northern Ireland and that, only by destroying both, can unity come about, is talking like a madman or a fool. We know that Deputy Boland is no fool and we must, therefore, fear such a man, so long in the Cabinet and, now that he is outside it, still in a position of power in the Fianna Fáil Party, for he is still secretary and he still has his followers in the party whom we heard applaud him this morning after his highly dangerous and emotive speech. Unity will not come until the fears of the Protestant majority in the north are overcome. It is as simple as that. I thought, after last autumn's debate here, that this was accepted by all parties and by all members of all parties but now we know that that is not so. The fears of the Protestant majority in the north are again being exacerbated by Deputy Boland——

Deputies

Hear, hear.

——who says he had no part in this and he does not believe others had either—all their hands are clean. He protests he had not any part in it, but he believes it would be correct to have arms imported into the north of Ireland by one side, which he supports. But there is no use in giving arms to anybody to play with, for people just do not do that. The purpose of arms is for use against others and there is no point, except the point of mischief, in saying that it is permissive to exacerbate the situation in the north of our island by encouraging, or facilitating, the importation of arms.

It might well be that if any emergency arose and it appeared that the military and police forces in that quarter were unable to afford the necessary protection we would then have to use whatever forces were available to us to preserve life. But that is a totally different thing from supplying people with arms now. If such a situation arose again I believe that what would occur would be that the United Nations, which certainly proved rather unsatisfactory in its attitude last autumn, would be forced by the pace of circumstances to move. One would not wish a tragedy in order to bring about this movement but, nevertheless, the remedies suggested by Deputy Boland and others would only make an appalling situation even more appalling.

The Taoiseach should now, I think, quietly reflect on his own position. He should realise that the stresses and the strains of government are too much for him. He did act all right, slowly, belatedly, with reluctance, and only to avoid the greater shame that would lie on him and the greater disgrace that would arise if, having been made aware of the fact that Deputy Cosgrave knew he was not acting responsibly in the matter, he continued to behave in the way in which he did. The Taoiseach should go and with him should go all the people he selected as his Ministers. He was clearly very wrong in some of the selections he made. Will we need another crisis, a new emergency, to show that there are still people left in the Cabinet who are in disagreement with him? He has transferred the Minister for Defence to Agriculture and Fisheries. One may wonder why. Would you not think that, if Defence were properly conducted and everything was in order there, this was not the time to move the Minister for Defence? But he was moved and there has been mention of his name in association with the affairs that have taken place.

This is more of the allegations the Deputy has been making. There is no basis for that allegation.

Deputy Gibbons's name was mentioned.

The Deputy is quite scurrilous.

Deputy Ryan's name might be mentioned in connection with something, but that would not necessarily mean that Deputy Ryan was involved.

These denials will not be listened to. Three days ago the Taoiseach said he did not know to what Deputy Cosgrave was referring when Deputy Cosgrave asked a mild and simple question: "Can the Taoiseach say if this is the only resignation we can expect?" The Taoiseach did not know. Poor simple Jack! He did not know. What he did not know was that Deputy Cosgrave knew what was going on. He did not know, but he knows now, that Deputy Cosgrave and a Dublin newspaper received Garda Síochána notepaper with the name of Deputy Gibbons on it, associating him with this sordid transaction.

Mr. Gibbons

An anonymous note.

This is the reality of the situation and denials and accusations of scurrility will not dissuade anybody on this side of the House from exposing it. Threats, either verbal or physical, will not dissuade anybody on this side of the House from discharging his duty to the nation.

Stop being emotive.

This change has taken place. We regard it as a very wise change, but the fact is that there is reason to believe that the last Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries did not keep his hands out of army affairs, or out of Garda affairs, or out of customs affairs. What guarantee have we that this Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries changed, under suspicion, from the Department of Defence to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will keep his hands and his opinions to himself in future? The minions of the Fianna Fáil Party, who are literally hoping for more heads to roll so that they can get promotion, like some of their colleagues, should hold their silence. The days are numbered—I thank God for it—of corrupt and unprincipled Government in this country.

We will be here when the Deputy is not here.

We know now that Deputy Browne disagrees with me. He believes that the days of corrupt and unprincipled Government are going to last forever.

(Interruptions.)

I am telling the Deputy to make the statements outside that he is making here. If he had any principle he would do so. He was being put out of the party a few weeks ago.

The days in which Ministers believe they can do anything they like are also numbered.

I challenge the Deputy to make outside those cowardly statements that he has been making here for the past half-hour.

Let us hope and pray that they will go before any further damage is done.

I have been in the House slightly less than a year and I have never risen to participate in a debate yet with greater regret than I do now, nor with greater pain. Much of the business of the House is necessary but mundane but moments arise when we have an obligation to the Irish people to recognise the historical importance of certain events and of what we are doing. To me this debate is, without hysteria or exaggeration, perhaps the most important debate that has taken place in Dáil Éireann since the Treaty debates. Deputy Tully opened his remarks by saying that he felt the nation was still suffering from a sense of shock over the events of the past few days. That is perfectly true. I think this House is suffering from a sense of shock and, personally, I am suffering from a sense of shock and pain at what has recently occurred and a sense of outrage which I think is shared by every decent person. I am also suffering from a sense of pain because of some of the things that I, for one, will have to say in my contribution here.

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy but, in view of the fact that Fianna Fáil are in the dock, it is disgraceful that there are so few of them in the House and I ask for a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

There is a quorum in the House.

There is a quorum now.

Deputy Harte was not here for the last two or three days.

(Interruptions.)

He was not bringing in arms.

He was not representing the people of Donegal at a soccer match.

I have been representing my constituency here for many years and not doing like the Deputy's colleagues have been doing.

(Interruptions.)

Will Deputies cease interrupting and allow the Deputy in possession to speak?

When I first entered the House I made a personal resolve, as I said before, that I would not indulge in personalities and, on the whole, I have adhered to this. Unfortunately, the nature of this debate is such that it is impossible not to enter into personalities because certain members of the Government have, by their actions, stepped across the boundary which separates private and public life. In so doing they have brought the whole Government and parliamentary process into disrepute.

When we speak of people being in the dock and this sort of thing we must recognise that what is being debated today is not the individual aberrations of two members of the Fianna Fáil Party but a whole style of Government for which everybody sitting on that side of the House must take collective responsibility, a style of Government which has finally found itself out in the most glaring light of publicity it is possible to imagine and in so doing has made the whole nation a mockery in the eyes of international political opinion.

One thing about the—I regret to say it—bogus republicanism, in my opinion, of Deputy Boland is that there is some danger that this sort of republican sentiment may be found in the country and that the people who allegedly have taken part in this extraordinary deal may be represented to the country as brave boys and republicans and so on. We on this side of the House have as long and as honourable a republican tradition as Deputies on the Government side. It was not without considerable reflection and considerable risk to our political positions that we came out in the terrifying days of the late summer and autumn of 1969 and deliberately stated our policy to be the rejection of the use of force. This does not make us O'Connellites, whatever that terminology means in Deputy Boland's history reading. His history reading may be more extensive than mine but I was not aware that to be an admirer of Daniel O'Connell was necessarily a form of political opprobrium to be thrown at one. It does not mean that we are O'Connellites but that we recognise the inexorable fact that the provocation of the use of force in Northern Ireland can only precipitate the kind of bloodbath in which both sides, Unionists and Nationalists, must inevitably suffer. We have the strange, quasi-logic by which Deputy Boland is apparently able to reconcile being a member of a Cabinet which avowedly will not countenance the use of force in the north and, at the same time, he gets up to make in this House what I regard as quite the most outrageous speech I have ever heard in my life, and say that if guns are to be smuggled into the North, if that is what they want, "fine", "fair dos"; he does not see anything wrong with it. That is a most provocative, dangerous and appalling statement for an ex-Minister to make in the House and particularly appalling when you consider that he is only an ex-Minister of 24 hours duration. Presumably, he held the same views as a member of a collectively responsible Cabinet.

I do not understand this exuberant republicanism which is used on that side of the House to justify this alleged arms deal. We have all been hearing about arms deals for months, long before this one broke. I do not understand this alleged republicanism being put forward to provoke sentiments both south and north of the Border when it is put forward by men who are apparently quite willing to countenance the passage of information to the British police so that young Irishmen can serve, as they are serving at the moment, harsh and onerous prison sentences in Britain. I do not quite reconcile this brand of republicanism, so flaunted here today by Deputy Boland, with the practical actions of the Government in respect of these young men.

Deputy Boland said something to the effect that in the North they face the same situation as we did before 1916. Apart from the fact that this is contrary to his own Government's policy I see two essential differences: first, there is the difference that at least in the 26 County section of Ireland we have a lawful Irish Government and we have here what Deputy Boland himself described as a democratically chosen Constitution which binds Ministers of State to certain obligations towards their colleagues and the country, obligations which in this instance, if the allegations are correct, have been blatantly broken by at least two of them, if not more.

Deputy Boland said that it is not our lives that are in danger. This is true. It is not our lives but the lives of the people in the North. If guns have been or were to be, brought into the North with the concurrence of members or ex-members of the Cabinet, it is those lives that are being put in danger, and the Government cannot claim to speak for those people. They have their own spokesmen who have made quite clear to us that the one thing they do not want in the context of a possibly dangerous summer in Northern Ireland is the importation of arms. We are rendering them no service and doing nothing to satisfy their needs by acting in this way.

With some personal regret I want to take up a line of argument developed to some extent by Deputy Ryan. The ultimate person who must take responsibility for the appalling situation in respect of public morality in which this Parliament now finds itself is the Taoiseach himself.

The House must ask the question: when did the Taoiseach first hear of these rumours of gun-running? Some of the versions circulating in the Press imply that knowledge of this sort of activity goes back months. The Taoiseach has denied this, so far as he is concerned. Accepting his denials—and it is very difficult to accept anything he says now—the fact remains that he admits himself that this information came into his possession on Monday, 20th April. For a further 16 days the two Deputies in question remained members of his administration. For a long period of this time we were debating the Budget and the Taoiseach sat over there, standing in for one of the two now dismissed Ministers. He sat there with an inscrutable mandarin-like expression even when quizzed about possible Cabinet changes by Deputy Cosgrave and, I think, Deputy O'Leary.

How long did he know and why did he make this concealment? I do not know if I am in order in saying this: I regret to say that I regard the silence of the Taoiseach in those 16 days as being, effectively speaking, a deliberate deception of the national Parliament, and a deplorable one. When in England a few years ago the scandal broke over Mr. Profumo—a much smaller scandal if the facts of this case are as the allegations state them—the ultimate thing which broke Mr. Profuma was not his extracurricular aberrations but the fact that he had told lies to the House of Commons. This fact over one indiscretion on his part, which it was never seriously suggested imperilled the safety of the State, drove Mr. Profumo not merely out of office but out of public life and utimately brought down an administration.

The far greater scandal, if the allegations are correct, of the behaviour of two Cabinet Ministers in this instance has resulted only in their retiring to the back benches of the Fianna Fáil Party where they continue to exercise and exert the influence and pressure and strength which we know them to hold throughout the country and they continue to hold, as Deputy Ryan pointed out, the offices in the Government Party which they held before.

I venture to suggest that in any sophisticated and honourable and responsible democracy those men, if the allegations are correct, would be hounded out of public life. No other conclusion is possible. The events of the past few days have reduced the standards of Irish political practice, therefore, to lower than those in Westminster and have reduced them to the standards of a banana republic.

It is all part and parcel of a larger picture of which we had heard rumours. Now these rumours must come again to the surface. We are entitled to cite rumours in this House since we have no firm statement of the facts, no firm assurances in which we can believe. Now the alleged role of the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in the North over the past 12 months takes on a new light. We must ask ourselves again is this true. The alleged utilisation of Fianna Fáil money in a provocative manner in the North through the intermediacy of a certain journalist, whom I shall not name, now takes on a new relevance and we have to judge these rumours afresh and think about them.

Again, here the Taoiseach stands condemned. It would be a national tragedy if a picture were to emerge from this of a nice, kindly, absentminded Taoiseach who had facts brought to his attention and then behaved with stern, ruthless, moral integrity. I am afraid this really is not good enough. It is not the picture as it really is. The Taoiseach sat there for 16 days, if not longer, knowing that these accusations existed and he produces the feeblest of medical evidence for his failure to interview one of the Ministers concerned and no evidence at all for his failure to interview the other. The same Minister whose life would have been jeopardised by discussions was able to come in and clear out his office papers very rapidly within a short space of time which, I understand from one of my colleagues, would have been medically impossible if the circumstances were as described by the Taoiseach. Can we have any further credibility in what the Taoiseach says to us?

I do not understand the legal terminology of Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy O'Kennedy but, if the allegations are correct, the Taoiseach is an accessory before the fact and must stand and take the blame with everybody else. I hate having to say this but, a few moments ago, when Deputy Ryan was speaking and there were some interruptions on a point of fact, one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies said, as if it concluded the matter: "The Taoiseach told you it is not true." I am very sorry to have to say that it is no longer good enough to say that the Taoiseach told us, because the Taoiseach has concealed facts in this House and has made conflicting statements in this House at a point when he knew them to be in conflict with the truth. I shall adduce the evidence of that shortly.

In this context, declarations of Fianna Fáil loyalty to the Taoiseach settle nothing. Enthusiastic telegrams from cumainn around the country settle nothing either. The crunch is the Taoiseach's and his colleagues ultimate loyalty to this House and to the constitutional processes which put them here, constitutional processes which, if the allegations are correct, they have outraged. Here is where the buck stops. If there are to be arms in this State this is the place to decide it, not outside. The guilt firmly rests, if the allegations are correct, on the Taoiseach himself who has acted at best in a dilatory, irresponsible manner.

I want to say something about the subject of Cabinet responsibility. I am not very long in practical politics but I know something about political science. The practice of political science in respect of Cabinet responsibility is laid down with absolutely unchallenged clarity in every textbook of politics and in the procedure of every civilised democracy. Turn to Dyce, Bagehot, Jennings or Erskine May and you will find firmly enshrined the principle that action taken by a Cabinet Minister of a major or serious national kind is in effect, action taken by the entire corporate body of his colleagues and they therefore share his responsibility.

The Taoiseach in simply relegating two of these Ministers to the back benches and then endeavouring to proceed, as I have no doubt he will be quite unable to proceed, as if nothing had happened except a little rumble in the intestines of the body politic, is flouting all the conventions of Cabinet responsibility and he compounds his contempt, his arrogant contempt for the decencies of political life, by rising after the event is over, after the sackings have taken place, and referring to the sacked Ministers as able and brilliant and dedicated colleagues. Really, he is trying to have it both ways.

He sacks them, because whatever the allegations are they are evidently strong enough for the Taoiseach to feel that they should not hold office any longer and, having sacked them, he calls them able, brilliant and dedicated colleagues. Dedicated to what, might I ask? Dedicated perhaps to the Fianna Fáil Party as their spurious unanimity shows, but certainly not dedicated to the Constitution of Ireland, certainly not dedicated to the national Parliament, and certainly not dedicated to the normal ethics of public life.

Are we furthermore to believe that these strong men, able men, and one man in particular for whom I have the highest admiration, Deputy Haughey— the House knows I am not being insincere in saying that because I said it in this House before anything like this arose—were led astray in some strange way and that, in a moment of romantic nationalism or bravado or something like that, they put their initials in effect to procedures totally at odds with normal ministerial and Cabinet practice? It is quite incredible, utterly incredible. No serious adult could believe that this was merely an aberration.

It has become quite clear now that what we all suspected on this side of the House over the past 12 months, and further back, was true: that there was an extremely effective junta in the Cabinet which, effectively some people say, ran the Cabinet over the head of the Taoiseach and certainly was so strong a junta that it was able to go behind the back of the Taoiseach and start, if the allegations are correct, organising a private army of its own. This junta is now out of office, but it is not out of Parliament and it is not out of the party. In this context the meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party unanimously pledging loyalty to the Taoiseach and to the party becomes positively sickening.

I understand that Deputy Haughey's statement this morning was, broadly speaking, to the effect that he denied the allegations and pledged unswerving loyalty to the party as the only possible hope for democracy in Ireland. This statement takes on a hideously cynical and selfish light. Loyalty to the party is placed before all eyes. There is no question of generalised loyalty to this House or to the people of Ireland. Even in their departure from the front ranks of public life these former Ministers demonstrated their arrogance. They demonstrated it to the Taoiseach by refusing to tender their resignations until they were forced to do so by the Taoiseach's action under the Constitution. I am reasonably well versed in the history of Irish political practice since 1922 and I do not think a precedent for conduct of that nature exists. There is no precedent of anyone having the sheer neck to say: "I will not give up until I have to."

Something happened between the morning and the evening of last Wednesday. The heads were counted and it was seen that they had to go. This was a despicable way of demonstrating collective responsibility or loyalty to their leader and to the House. The arrogance was again demonstrated in the fantastic and astounding attack by Deputy Boland this morning on the processes by which the misconduct of these people was discovered. There was an onslaught on the Special Branch and it was implied that the people who had given information to the leader of the Fine Gael Party were by definition dishonest men.

Does Deputy Boland know anything about the traditional impartiality of the Civil Service or about the traditional impartiality of the police? Does Deputy Boland honestly think that it would be more desirable to have a situation in which the Special Branch and the Department of Justice followed me, Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Corish, or tapped our phones or opened our letters but that members of the Cabinet should enjoy special immunity? Does he think that members of the Cabinet should enjoy unique right of access to facts of public import collected by the police in the discharge of their honourable duty and, having got those facts, have the right to suppress them in the teeth of public interest? This is a despicable view of the impartiality of the administration of this country. This demonstrates the historic importance of what we are talking about today. When we are all dead historians will write about this episode as a case history of abuse of the traditional relationships between the Executive and the Legislature.

Deputy Boland's speech was shot through with funny stories, which were laughed at. I do not think this is a day for funny stories. It is a day of tragedy. Statesmen should be above reproach and should be seen to be above reproach. The projection of a private citizen into public office, so far from rendering him immune from inquiry into his private life, as Deputy Boland seems to argue, renders him all the more subject to inquiry. If I were in the position of holding office, I would fully accept that I had lost privacy rather than gained it and that my actions would be subject not merely to the same scrutiny as other citizens of the State but to even more excessive scrutiny. If the civil servant whom Deputy Boland named in this House acted as Deputy Boland implied he acted, then the House and democracy in Ireland owe him a warm vote of thanks, and owe the Civil Service of this country a warm vote of thanks. At least, he demonstrated that, 48 years after we got our freedom, even if our politicians have not yet learned to have respect for the decencies of public life, the Civil Service have retained that tradition and have rescued us when we needed it.

In speaking as Deputy Boland did and in acting as the Government have acted, a further question mark has been cast on the credibility of the Civil Service. This is to be regretted. Deputy Boland has dragged the name of a senior civil servant into this House and has made an implication about the role the Civil Service should play. It has been implied that the Civil Service should be subservient to Government Ministers. A great disservice has been done to an honourable institution in Ireland.

I do not understand how a Government as ready as this Government have been to utilise the facilities of the Special Branch resent the Special Branch in this instance. I know that if I had behaved as it is alleged Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney behaved I would not have been given 16 days in which to make up my mind about what I felt like doing. My door would have been locked when the Special Branch arrived. Does Deputy Boland mean that there should be one law for the ordinary people and another for senior Ministers of State? If these allegations are correct, the proponents of this conspiracy should not even be allowed to take back seats in the House. They belong in prison where I, and any ordinary citizen, would be if we had done the same thing.

The Taoiseach cannot escape this obligation to make facts known. Facts must come out. Facts cannot be suppressed. Deputy Boland said something about the allegations not having been put forward in accordance with the normal rules of evidence. Not long ago an extremely expensive inquiry was instituted in this State into a certain television programme. When it was argued in this House that there was a difference between journalistic standards of truth and legal standards of truth, this point was lost on the then Minister for Justice. In the light of subsequent events all the actions of the then Minister for Justice, including those in relation to that controversy, must now have a large question mark over them.

When this issue arises here, the Government not merely fail to see a distinction between the high standards of morality demanded of politicians and those demanded of the ordinary people, but they inverse it and decide that politicians are entitled to have lower standards. Deputy Boland said this morning that what happened was that the penalty had been: "dismissal from the Government rather than incarceration in a modern Bastille". What a frivolous way to view the consequences of improper parliamentary action. Dismissal from the Government is not an adequate punishment. It is not adequate in my eyes and will not be adequate in the eyes of the Irish people. A great fog of distrust now hangs over the Government and over the Taoiseach in particular. We must ask whether the Taoiseach is telling the truth when he says there was no other attempt at gun-running except this one. I am sorry to say that I do not believe this was the only attempt which was made. I am sure my views will be vindicated when the whole story is known. It may seem that I should not attack the integrity and credibility of the Taoiseach. That was pointed out to me a while ago. The Taoiseach said in the Dáil on Wednesday night that there had been no suggestion that the Minister for Justice was involved. The Taoiseach repeated that Deputy Ó Moráin's resignation had been tendered on health grounds. His information was from an eminent doctor and was to the effect that the Deputy would have to have some further months of treatment. Deputy Boland, speaking this morning, said that Deputies Blaney, Haughey and Ó Moráin had been dealt with. Somebody is lying. Who? I want to know.

There is no conflict between those two statements if you examine them closer.

The Deputy has a preconceived idea. If he would try to get rid of that preconceived idea, and if he would look objectively at the matter, he would find that it presents a different aspect.

I have no preconceived idea. All I have is a pair of ears and a capacity to understand the English language. How a Minister has been dealt with, when his resignation has been accepted on health grounds, I cannot understand, particularly when he was bracketed with two other Ministers who were forcibly ejected from their Cabinet offices——

Who is bracketing them —Deputy Boland?

Deputy Boland.

I took a note of what he said here today. He said he was one of the four not overtly pushed out of office. I do not know if the Minister was pushed or not.

Does Deputy Colley know what has been going on between those people?

Is Deputy Colley in possession of the full facts? Has he been in possession of the full facts? Is Deputy Colley one of them? That is what he is now implying. Does Deputy Colley know what has been going on? Whose side is Deputy Colley on?

Deputy Colley knows whether or not Deputy Moran was in it.

The Taoiseach said the information available to him confirmed that Deputy Moran was in no way concerned with or implicated in the allegations made against Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney.

Who believes the Taoiseach any more? Who believes any of you over there any more?

If you do not believe, do not ask.

How can we believe anybody over there any more?

The point quite simply is that the Taoiseach places one interpretation on Deputy Moran's resignation while Deputy Boland places a different interpretation on Deputy Moran's resignation. The two interpretations are in direct conflict. One or other gentleman is giving an incorrect version of the circumstances surrounding Deputy Moran's resignation. The credibility of the men on that front bench over there—the Taoiseach included—is so low that one does not know what to believe. Every day we hear correction of statements made yesterday and corrections yesterday of statements made the previous day and, no doubt, there will be corrections tomorrow of statements made today.

If the Minister, Deputy Colley, does not know that this country is seething with rumours of one kind or another he must be a very simple man indeed. If the Minister is not aware of the dense atmosphere of distrust and the misgiving that hang over the country in regard to this whole affair then he is a much simpler man than I would have given him credit for being. These questions must be answered. We must be told where the £80,000 came from. Was it State money? Was it private money? Where did it come from? We have heard mention of one captain in the Army whose involvement was described as "marginal" and who was permitted to resign from the Army. This will have to be investigated. If the enterprise was on the scale which the allegations seem to imply, we are entitled to ask, and to be told, if this was the only Army officer involved. I am not trying to bring the Army into disrepute. The conduct of the Ministers has lowered the morale and reputation of the Army to the point at which they will now be the subject of totally unfair generalisations and suspicions.

I am sorry to have to repeat that the standard of political debate here has been lowered now, in one sharp stroke, by the Government and by the Taoiseach. We must now ask whether the ex-Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, really fell off a horse or whether something else happened to him that led to his having to spend some time in hospital. One rumour is that what happened to Deputy Haughey is not unconnected with the events we are debating today. Were other people involved in this enterprise, if it took place? How many people in the Civil Service—if any— were involved? If a coup of this kind was envisaged, you do not bring in £80,000 worth of guns from the continent merely with the help of two Ministers and one Army captain. You do not mount an enterprise of that kind on that kind of strength.

This is a very sad debate and this is a very sad subject. In a way, one could gloat at seeing the Government Party in evident disarray. I shall not do that. Too many people whom I like are involved in this. There is too much dispute involved in the practice of politics in this country for anyone to take pleasure now in the very evident humiliation of political opponents. The history of Fianna Fáil has finally caught up with it and broken it as was prophesied for many years. In the 1930s, Fianna Fáil was an honourable party—a small farmer, working-class party—with an honourable tradition. In later years it has slowly and progressively turned into two parties—(1) a party of the past, of tradition, of a kind of mindless republicanism which does more disservice than service to the Republic and (2) it became a fixing, buck-passing, Mercedes-driving Dublin party. It is a strange coalition. Government Deputies have an aversion to coalition but, by heavens, the Fianna Fáil Party is a coalition, as has amply been demonstrated for the past two days. It has governed very effectively as a coalition party. It has Taca as a backing. It is a fine, ruthless organisation.

When necessary, Fianna Fáil sent Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland down to the west and elsewhere to try to build up the old tribal hostilities. Inevitably, this attempt to reconcile those two kinds of political practices was doomed to split wide open—and split it did in the most tragic way possible. If, as the former Deputy J. A. Costello used to boast, perhaps with justice, he had done much to take the gun out of Irish politics then it can equally be said that the present Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, and his colleagues may congratulate themselves on bringing the gun back into Irish politics. It is an achievement for Fianna Fáil to boast about—I do not think. In so doing, they have brought the whole process of democracy into disrepute.

We all know the cynicism which is very often displayed by ordinary members of the public towards politicians who tend to think they are all crooks and "on the make". People who have been thinking along those lines now have the finest piece of evidence they required in this connection since the inception of this State. In future, it will be very difficult to refute suggestions that other fiddlings are taking place at the top. The entire credibility of ministerial administration has received a severe set-back. The progress of democracy in this country has been set back for 50 years.

The position in this country at the moment is so vital that the matter must be referred to the people. I also think that it is so vital that it must be referred to the courts. The truth must be known, one way or another. Perhaps most tragic of all—since we hope the guns did not arrive—the mask of deceit now hangs over the face of every member of the present administration. It hangs not merely over the faces of the outgoing Ministers but over the faces of those who remain and particularly over that of the Taoiseach himself. People will demand that that deceit be swept away. The conflicting statements in the past two days will not suffice; they are not good enough; they will not be accepted by the people. If this mask of deceit is not stripped away then I think the members of the present Cabinet will have rendered the greatest disservice to Irish democracy since the foundation of our State.

It is a tragic and inevitable conclusion of the election in 1957 of the newly-formed Fianna Fáil Cabinet. Of five of that Cabinet—for all of whom I have a great personal goodwill—one Minister is dead and three are now cast into outer darkness. It is a great reflection on the short-lived nature of gains won by human vanity. It is a great reflection on the impermanence of politics. Above all, it is a reflection upon the soul—or lack of it—of those who have been involved in this regime of government since 1957. If any credibility is to be brought back into Irish politics, the Taoiseach must tell us the truth. But it is too late now because nobody would believe him if he did. The Taoiseach has to go.

My remarks today will be made in full seriousness. If, because of the present crisis, my remarks are of a personal nature and I have to mention personalities, and what they did or failed to do, I am sure the House and Deputies on the Government benches will realise I do so in sadness and with no desire to demean the personality of anybody. As far as the unfortunate people who have been removed from office and their families are concerned, I wish them nothing but good luck in the years ahead. However, politics are a different matter and we are only concerned with the performance of these people as politicians and with the performance of their work for the country within their own political party.

During a crisis such as this, those of us who have been in the House for 15 or 16 years, as I have been, are searching for a theme and we are watching how the crisis is being guided by those who are in a position to guide it, namely, the Fianna Fáil Party. I have been studying the way in which the Taoiseach and his Ministers have behaved, as I have studied the speech of the former Minister for Local Government this morning, and my assessment is that the theme emerging is the continuance in office of Fianna Fáil. The seriousness of the matter that has resulted in so much activity in this House during the past 48 hours has not been dealt with at all. The Taoiseach's theme is to create a situation whereby it will be possible for Fianna Fáil to remain in office. That same theme was evident from the reaction of the Minister for Transport and Power on his leaving the short Fianna Fáil meeting the other evening when he put his hands together and said: "We are going to continue." May I also quote an ex-Minister, Deputy Paddy Smith who, when he met a Deputy of our party in the corridor, asked him if he wanted to make some money——

Details of private conversations should not be introduced into this debate.

I withdraw that but, at any rate, it was evident that the theme was the continuation in office of Fianna Fáil. It is not good enough for any political party at a time of a crisis such as this to have only that aim in view and neither is it good enough that the Taoiseach should aim only at keeping his own party in power.

What has been the instrument on which Fianna Fáil have been playing? Politics are a detailed game and those of us who have been here for some time have, perhaps, better powers of observation than others. The instrument on which Fianna Fáil have been playing is the continuance of the PR job and the deification of Deputy Jack Lynch. Four Ministers have gone but Fianna Fáil continue. Ministers may come and Ministers may go but irrespective of their conduct, Fianna Fáil must continue. That is the theme that has emerged during this crisis.

On television the other evening people heard the Tánaiste say that nobody other than Fianna Fáil could rule Ireland and that democracy could not continue unless Fianna Fáil continued in Office. The reaction to the Tánaiste's statement was quite extraordinary. People were revolted by such a suggestion whereas, perhaps, a month ago they might not have been so revolted. By producing this Big Brother philosophy and by suggesting that there is nobody else to govern but Fianna Fáil under Deputy Lynch, by suggesting that he is a man whose hands are clean in this whole controversy and that those who were wrong are gone is producing a theme that the people of this country will not and should not accept.

There are side issues arising from this crisis. The Fianna Fáil organisation in Donegal have proposed a vote of confidence in the ex-Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The Howth Fianna Fáil Cumann have proposed a vote of confidence in their senior Deputy. In other words, these gentlemen who stand arraigned, if not condemned, are now being gathered together and the matter is being minimised by as much of the Fianna Fáil organisation as can safely do so without damaging the main theme. This party who have been so careful about their public relations and who have been so successful in their management of votes are continuing in this day of national crisis to attempt to manage votes.

Having put forward my view as to what is the theme emerging at this time I shall now deal with some aspects of the crisis. However, before doing so, perhaps I should refer, as some of my colleagues and some members of the Labour Party have referred, to the reference made last night by the Taoiseach to the able and brilliant people who have gone. One would almost think that the Taoiseach was mourning some departed colleagues who had gone to another world whereas, in fact, he was speaking of the people he had had to sack—people he probably would not have sacked if it had not been that the leader of the Opposition brought him certain information. He brought the information at 8 o'clock in the evening; they were sacked at 10 o'clock on the same evening.

I should like to discuss the position of the gentlemen who have left office. The phrase "the Ministers were dealt with" has been used on a number of occasions during the debate. It is as good a phrase as any but I wish to ask what would have been the position if, instead of two Ministers being accused, two back benchers had been accused. I suggest that if two back benchers had been involved, in order to appease the feeling of horror in the country, there would have been only one course open to the Taoiseach and that would have been to remove the Whips from the back benchers. During my early years here I witnessed the removal of the Whips from two Fianna Fáil back benchers. One of those was afterwards re-elected. They are both dead now. However, the Whips have not been removed from Deputies Blaney and Haughey and when we vote at the end of this debate it is almost certain that Deputy Blaney and the resigned Minister, Deputy Boland as well as Deputy Haughey, if his health allows him to do so, will walk through, not as independent members but as members of Fianna Fáil to vote against us.

I suggest that that indicates there is no change and that what has been said here is true. I suggest that whatever influence remains in respect of these two Deputies will be used within the Fianna Fáil Party to sway Fianna Fáil opinion, policy and decisions. These are the gentlemen who are accused of importing arms for use against Northern Ireland with forces in Northern Ireland or with others.

The Fianna Fáil National Executive was elected on the 18th January, 1970. The honorary secretary is Deputy Kevin Boland. I understand he remains the honorary secretary. The honorary treasurer is Deputy Neil Blaney. I understand he remains the honorary treasurer. Nominated by the Taoiseach to the National Executive is Deputy C. J. Haughey. I understand he remains, nominated by the Taoiseach, on the National Executive of Fianna Fáil. The man whom nobody talks about—and again all personal goodwill to him but this is politics—Deputy Paudge Brennan, was elected to that executive by the Oireachtas Party of Fianna Fáil and I understand remains a member of that executive.

Fianna Fáil cannot have it both ways. Either these gentlemen stand accused or they do not. One of them today issued a statement, which has been broadcast, to say that he is not guilty. Time will tell. He can take steps when his health improves. Again, personally I have nothing against any of them, but if the Taoiseach saw fit to take the extremely serious course of removing his two most senior Ministers from office because of a certain action, it is not good enough for the people that they remain members of the Oireachtas Party of Fianna Fáil, that they work under the Fianna Fáil Whip and that, as well as working under the Fianna Fáil Whip, they remain, in their positions of power in the moulding of policy, as members and officers of the Fianna Fáil National Executive. That is just not good enough.

I mentioned the great skill of the Fianna Fáil Party in manipulating votes. I have said that it is quite improper and a sign that they put party before country that in this crisis Fianna Fáil have been seriously manipulating votes. Let us face it: there is not a majority but a sizeable number of people in this country who do not assess the details of the situation, the seriousness of it and who would say that we should march on the north tomorrow. This is a mistaken view. Everybody who has studied the position knows it is quite impractical, that it would be improper in any case and that Fianna Fáil policy, as stated, Fine Gael policy as stated, Labour Party policy as stated, namely that the re-unification of our country must come by peaceful means, is the correct policy. However, Fianna Fáil have never ceased to garner the harvest of votes that can be garnered by a section of their party, if not deliberately certainly, in the words of Deputy Boland, overtly, courting those people who would prefer to have a physical move towards the North of Ireland for their votes.

I do not like to tell anecdotes but I remember the funerals of those two young men, South and O'Hanlon, who participated in a raid on Rossleigh Barracks during the time of the inter-party Government and who were shot in that raid. I was, at that time, a young Deputy and a member of Louth County Council.

On the day the funerals of those two young misguided men—for whom and for whose families I had the greatest sympathy—arrived in Dundalk a county council meeting was being held. A proposal was made that standing orders be suspended and that a vote of sympathy be passed with the relatives of the two young men. I felt, in honour, that I had to disagree with the vote of sympathy. My reason for so doing was that if two young men had been killed in a car accident outside the county council office on that morning there would not have been a vote of sympathy and that if I acceded to the proposal to pass a vote of sympathy I was, with my fellows, encouraging two other young men to go up and do the same thing and get shot. That in conscience and in all honesty, I could not do and I did not do it. The 25 other members, or whatever number of them were present, acceded to the vote of sympathy and I sat where I was. I paid the penalty for my action four months later by not being re-elected to this House. I am proud of it because I felt that I could not do that, that I would be sending up other young men to get shot. I will never do that at any cost, even at the cost of a seat in this House.

When those two young men were buried, one of them in Limerick—and I have the file—there were 11 Fianna Fáil TDs at the funeral. It is easy to say: "What does that matter?" I am talking about the garnering of votes, about the playing of the political fiddle, about the fact that the Taoiseach saw fit, while dismissing two senior Ministers, to describe them as able and brilliant men. I am talking about the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party think they can get away with dismissing their two senior Ministers and leaving them in the House under the umbrella of the Fianna Fáil Whip. It just cannot be done. The two things do not go side by side. One is utterly contradictory to the other. This must be laid before the eyes of the people. It is a complete prostitution of all this House stands for. It is a complete prostitution of all that those—both from the Fianna Fáil side and this side, and many of whose relations are here—who died for the independence of the country stood for. We cannot go on like this. We must have our political discussions and disagreements here on economic matters, employment, industry, agriculture, foreign policy and everything else but we must not try to get votes by any means, otherwise this Parliament will dissolve and there will be the anarchy towards which there is a danger of the State heading. We do not want to mix up these things and please God they are not mixed up.

A man was shot yesterday in a raid in which £15,000 was stolen and a body which says that it wants to take the north by force has claimed responsibility for that this morning. I do not want to talk about the bank raids. All I hope and pray is that there is no connection or correlation between the incident that has resulted in the dismissal of two Ministers of Government and the disappearance of two others and these bank raids. We live in times when we do not know how much arms there are in this country. How far I am going on that is just simply a question of how far I feel I can go and be responsible.

The Taoiseach said that he had ensured, the first day he heard of this sad and sorry affair, that adequate steps were taken to see that there were no further arms importations and that this was the only consignment. I am assured by Deputy Pa O'Donnell that along the north-eastern coast every Irish trawler that enters territorial waters is searched when it comes to port. I know that those trawlers that have been leaving the ports near where I live—Clogher Head and Skerries— have been under some degree of Garda surveillance. The gardaí have been interested in what time they were leaving port and in what time they were coming back. I happen to be interested in the sea. I sail. I have left the Isle of Man after Mass on a Sunday morning and had a bottle of beer in Carlingford that evening. When I arrived I put up a yellow flag, which means "customs come along", on the boat but nobody came near me.

Our coasts are not adequately manned by customs and by gardaí. We are talking now about closing garda stations all over the place. I know we probably could not afford to man them and probably we had no reason to man them up to now. I suggest that a small coaster or trawler could bring in this consignment of arms, a lorry could be waiting for it and it could be loaded and away before the gardaí in the nearest Garda station would know anything about it. There are at least ten points between Greenore and Dublin where this could happen and I know every one of them. I am sure Deputy Harte, Deputy Cunningham, Deputy Blaney or any other Deputy who knows the area, even perhaps if they never put a foot in a boat, could tell the House that there are at least ten or 20 such places where arms could be brought in.

It is quite ridiculous for the Taoiseach to say blandly that there was no other importation of arms. The truth is that he does not know. I do not know. Nobody knows except somebody who actually saw them coming in. Let us have regard to history. Let us think of the Asgard. It went into Howth in troubled times and unloaded quite a considerable quantity of arms. At the moment she is on a cruise of Ireland with a complement of young boys. The Rev. Ian Paisley brought home as a sort of souvenir the Clyde Valley. It came in with cargoes of arms. During the recent cement strike coasters with cement were brought into small disused ports in the west of Ireland. In one incident cement strikers fell out and stopped unloading the cement. However, cargoes of 500 to 700 tons of cement arrived and were loaded on to lorries. They vanished into the country and that is all there was about it.

Whom does the Taoiseach think he is codding? If he does not know those things himself because, perhaps, he may not be interested in or have any experience of maritime matters, he had many advisers to tell him, including an ex-Minister who was in charge of Fisheries as well as Agriculture. To emphasise what I have been saying and to show that I am not telling a fairy tale, I would refer the House to a report in the Irish Independent three or four weeks ago concerning the sighting of a trawler with a white paint mark along its waterline which was made at four or five o'clock one morning in the vicinity of Clontarf. Two men in a boat rowed over to the trawler and vanished inside it. That morning all the trawlers in Howth were searched from stem to stern. I do not know what the trawler was doing. I hope it did not acommodate two of the murderers of Garda Fallon. I do not know whether the trawler had taken arms aboard at some other point. All I know is that so far nobody has denied that a trawler was in that position that morning and nobody has denied that two men went out in a row boat to it but every trawler in Howth was searched that morning.

Nobody seems to know the value or weight of the consignment that is freely talked about in the House. It was worth £80,000 and its weight was five tons. A trawler could carry 20, 30 or 40 tons. Therefore, let us put the matter into perspective. We do not know whether or not there are large quantities of arms in this country. The Taoiseach sat on this matter for 16 days.

I should now like to discuss whether or not the Taoiseach acted properly in this matter. The Fianna Fáil Party, through the simplicity of the Taoiseach have endeavoured to re-install themselves in office. I now want to deal with the Taoiseach's behaviour in the matter. He informed the House—I took detailed notes of this—that on the 22nd April he became aware of the incident. He did not inform the country. He decided he would have an interview on the 22nd April with Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey but then Deputy Haughey had an unfortunate accident and, in fact, the Taoiseach had to read the Budget speech for him.

This meant that the Taoiseach knew prior to the Budget that there was an attempt to import arms yet he was quite prepared to allow Deputy Haughey to read the Budget speech. He hoped, as I said, to interview them on the 22nd but Deputy Haughey was unfit for interview. Eventually on the 29th the Taoiseach was allowed by Deputy Haughey's doctor to have a short interview with him. In the meantime he did not interview Deputy Blaney. In the meantime ten trawlers, which are far more dangerous in this regard than aircraft, could have called at any of ten points on our coastline, lorries could have been waiting and those lorries could have vanished into the hinterland.

This is the man who holds himself out to be the paragon of all virtues. On the 29th April he had his interviews and both men denied the charge and asked for time to consider their positions. The Taoiseach continued his investigations but he still did not inform the country and the country still did not know what was happening. He then decided to approach them again. When did he decide to do so? I do not want to depart from a most serious matter to make a facetious comparison but I would draw a parallel as far as Parliament is concerned. A former member of the British House of Commons, Mr. Profumo, was not dismissed from the British Government because of certain activities. He was dismissed because he told a lie to Parliament. If I were to ascribe a lie now to the soon to be Minister for Finance, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Ceann Comhairle would quite properly call me to order. If I did not withdraw this, I would have to withdraw from the House. That would be proper procedure. I would be quite wrong if I did that. I would be quite entitled to say that he was in error and to say what he said was untrue. Therefore, I regard the question put on the 5th May, last Tuesday, as of paramount importance, when the Taoiseach made the statement that Deputy Michael Moran had resigned as Minister for Justice. At the time Deputy Cosgrave was in full command of the facts in relation to a far more serious matter. I want to quote from column 519 of the Official Report of last Tuesday, vol. 246, No. 4:

Mr. Cosgrave: Can the Taoiseach say if this is the only ministerial resignation we can expect?

The Taoiseach: I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.

Does anybody realise the seriousness of that reply? Yet, in subsequent debates the Taoiseach quite clearly tells us that he knew about it for three weeks beforehand. In my opinion, this is a grave abuse of parliamentary privilege and an abuse of this House for which anybody else would have to answer to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. However, the Taoiseach must be made answer to the Irish people and to nobody else. I may not ascribe the accusation that the Taoiseach was acting in a certain way because I must comply with an order of this House. Deputy Cosgrave continued: "Is it only the tip of the iceberg?" to which the Taoiseach replied: "Would the Deputy like to enlarge on what he has in mind?" At this stage Deputy L'Estrange interjected, there were interruptions and then Deputy Cosgrave said: "The Taoiseach can deal with the situation." The Taoiseach replied: "I can assure the Deputy I am in complete control of whatever situation might arise," to which Deputy Cosgrave replied: "But smiles are very noticeable by their absence."

I discussed this matter with certain people. I considered this was perhaps one of the most serious factors in this whole affair—that the Taoiseach was prepared to come in here and answer a Deputy in what I cannot describe other than as an extraordinary and impossible way. There are two lines of thought on this: one, that the standard of our parliamentary institutions has so deteriorated that such an answer, given in the circumstances, was of little moment and, the second, that the Taoiseach must resign. I hope that the second suggestion will be followed so that our parliamentary institutions can be preserved as they are the only bulwark between this nation and anarchy. I know that if it were Deputy Cosgrave or Deputy Corish who were involved they would be hounded to the last ditch to leave public life forever. Yet, the man concerned is the person to whom we have applied the sobriquet "Honest Jack".

I want to deal with the situation which has been developing in the past months. At the last Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis there was a line of thought that the time had come for active participation in the troubles and affairs of Northern Ireland. However, the majority prevailed and the policy I have already mentioned, that reunification of our country must not come by force, was reaffirmed. The other side of the argument was also ventilated and the results we can see now. We then had the famous speech by the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, in the Golden Grill Restaurant in Letterkenny and the Taoiseach had to refute the statements made by the Deputy and to state that they were not Fianna Fáil policy. We now find that Deputy Blaney acted absolutely contrary to Fianna Fáil policy— not in words, which is one thing, but in deeds, which is quite another. He has placed himself in a position where perhaps there may be criminal proceedings against him.

During that period Deputy Boland was saying the same kind of thing. I do not want to deal with rumours or secrets but there was a rumour circulating at the time of the troubles in Northern Ireland that the former Minister for Local Government walked out of a Cabinet meeting and it took until the following morning to ensure that he did not resign. The Deputy wanted our ill-armed Army to march on the North of Ireland. I do not want to be facetious about the matter but these are things I would describe as "Living with Lynch". I do not think it has been very difficult for most people on the opposite side to do just that but I wonder how much more has poor Deputy Lynch lived with? However, in so doing I want to say that sympathy is out. So far as Deputy Lynch is concerned both the sympathy and the "Honest Jack" philosophy are out on this occasion.

The situation is quite simple. We must have a Taoiseach fit to lead the Irish people. If the Taoiseach is not prepared to discipline his own party, is prepared to vacillate in his description of events to this House to the stage where his credibility is no longer something of which we can be certain, then for the sake of the nation he must go. Just as he described the situation in relation to his two senior Ministers, that if there was any suspicion at all of their being involved in such an affair they must go, so too if there is any credibility gap so far as the Taoiseach is concerned he must go. The attempt by Fianna Fáil to manipulate votes by using his name is something that the Irish people cannot be allowed to buy. As Deputy Thornley said, collective responsibility is one of the first tenets of the operation of a democracy.

The Taoiseach is responsible. If it transpires at the conclusion of this debate on this sad and sorry affair that the Taoiseach came into this House and provided an incorrect description of what occurred, then his political head must roll. The former Minister for Finance sent a message to the Press and radio this morning and said he felt it was better for Ireland that Fianna Fáil should be preserved intact than that his political career should be put first. It is better for the people of Ireland that the Taoiseach and his party should vanish forever rather than that they put their party first and the country second. There is something sinister in the fact that the Tánaiste can say on television that there is nobody else fit to govern Ireland and that the sacked Minister for Finance can give his message to the Press and radio that so far as he is concerned the first priority is his party. This is not a time for party politics.

We had a speech this morning from Deputy Boland in which he said that he had resigned because he would not have our secret service tapping his phone or investigating his comings and goings. It seems an extraordinary thing and much more than a mere coincidence that Deputy Boland is one of the people who for the last year have been making the inflammatory speeches. In fact what would have been said was that when this plot was uncovered it was extremely odd that Deputy Boland was not one of the people involved. When he says he resigned for this reason I wonder does he really mean it. Did he resign because he agrees with the suggestion that arms should be passed through here to people in North of Ireland? He said, as has been said here after he spoke, that our job was not to get rid of one State but to get rid of two. A man who was a Minister of the Government up to a few hours ago has now said what the wild and woolly side of the Fianna Fáil Party have been saying at local cumainn— and he was applauded for it—that it was our job not to get rid of one State but to get rid of two. He wants to get rid of this one, too, and to unify the country.

He mentioned the name of a civil servant and he withdrew it and therefore I must not use it. However, if a civil servant, particularly in the Department of Justice, feels it necessary to acquaint the President or acquaint other serious-minded people who serve the State, of certain happenings, then he must do it. For that this man was named and attacked by Deputy Boland. There were some things Deputy Boland said with which I agree and I certainly admire his frankness, but I want to know when you read his speech will you agree with me this was the speech of a man who believes in physical force, that this was also the speech of a man who, if he could, would march on the Border? Any party who hold that man within their ranks, give him the party Whip and keep him in the position of honorary secretary of their national executive——

What about the Deputy himself?

I shall deal with that. I am extremely glad——

Will the Deputy cease interrupting?

I am extremely glad Deputy Lorcan Allen mentioned something for which I suffered and rightly so. I intend now, with your permission, to explain this matter to the House. I was returning from shooting snipe and a group of people, who were not itinerants, were parked in a certain place. A few hundred yards away from it I was foolish enough to fire up in the air. Deputies may laugh, but I think I have the right to explain myself. This has hurt me very much. I have been punished for it and rightly so. I deserved to be punished.

And in the courts of law.

And in the courts of law. I do not intend to mention names here because I will not abuse privilege in relation to the people who were camped in that particular place. All I can say is that I was taken; the press was sent for first and then the gardaí were sent for. I was brought to court. I pleaded guilty of intimidation. I was fined £20, and properly so. I deserved it. I wonder what will happen the Fianna Fáil fellows? Are you silent now? Will they go to court?

The Deputy was cornered.

The Taoiseach was cornered the other night.

A personal matter has been raised here and I am glad of the opportunity of saying this again. I deserved what I got and probably more. I was foolish and stupid. I accepted what I got. What I want to know is, will the Fianna Fáil people be charged? Will there be an investigation into their activities? Will they be charged with treason or conspiracy? Two of them were sacked, and the Attorney General should be sacked along with them. If he wants from me the name of the person involved in a drunken driving charge that went up four times from the superintendent's office, and was sent back four times because he was a Tacateer, with instructions not to proceed, I will give it to him. He is a rogue and should be sacked along with the other two.

He is only one of hundreds.

And if anybody on the other side wants to come again I will take another one and I will send the file to the Taoiseach, so Deputies opposite should keep their mouths shut. I repeat my invitation to the Attorney General; he will get the name from me. He should be sacked along with the two who were sacked. That is what is wrong with this country. Fianna Fáil have created a situation in which there is no law or order, in which anybody can fix anything as long as he is in Fianna Fáil.

And get away with it.

Yes. I now intend to proceed with my analysis of Deputy Boland's speech this morning. He said he was only one of the four—and I took a careful note—not overtly pushed out of Government. That indicates that Deputy Moran, Deputy Paudge Brennan, Deputy Charles Haughey and Deputy Neil Blaney were pushed out of Government. That is in direct contradiction to what the Taoiseach said. The Taoiseach went to great pains the other day to say that Deputy Moran was not guilty, that Deputy Moran had resigned for health reasons and health reasons only, that he had accepted his resignation for health reasons, but the former Minister for Local Government, who at the time of Deputy Moran's departure was a Minister of the Government and resigned himself half-an-hour later, says that is not so, that Deputy Moran was pushed out of Government.

Deputy Boland having expressed a complete denial of the statement of his leader will serve under the umbrella of the Fianna Fáil Whip and as honorary secretary of the Fianna Fáil National Executive. He also dealt with the question of the Special Branch, tapping of phones, following of Ministers of State to see where they were going. He said he was not prepared to work under that sort of administration. Then he said, of course, it was an effective method of maintaining control, and he repeated the words—an effective method of maintaining control. In other words, all we heard over the last year about the attempts in the Fianna Fáil Party to overthrow the Taoiseach is correct. In fact, in the end, when they had gone so far as to be verging on treason and conspiracy, he was in a position in which he had to "bug" their phones and put Special Branch detectives following them to find out what they were doing.

This is the party now playing the theme that they must be preserved in office. This is the party gathering around "Jack" on the grounds that he is not a sinful man and they can continue in office with Deputy Jack Lynch as leader. I remember the proposed Minister for Industry and Commerce meeting me one day outside in the corridor. He said: "Paddy, you used to be quite a nice, decent fellow. Why have you got so difficult and sore?" I said: "I have got to do it. I have got to hit Jack Lynch. I do not like doing it, but I have to."

For five years I have been indicating to the House that the Taoiseach is not all he is cracked up to be. In fact, the sobriquet given to him, "Honest Jack", is not correct because he allowed things to happen within his Cabinet which should not have happened and he was not, through his Ministers, acting in an honest way. What I have to say now hurts me as much as it may hurt others. I hope Deputy Haughey, Deputy Blaney, the Taoiseach and other members of the Fianna Fáil Party with whom I have associated over the last 16 years will have a happy life and a nice time with their families and in their homes and I hope they will have the good health to enjoy that. I am sincere in that. But we are talking now of political things and the issue is simple.

The Country cannot go on with Fianna Fáil in office. If Fianna Fáil ride this one out, if the sinners are gone, if the sheep have been separated from the goats, then we have nothing left but sheep. The question is should Deputy Jack Lynch continue for four years and then win another election, with his open invitation to every Minister to do what he likes. The only way this country can be preserved is by a full investigation into this whole affair, by those who are guilty being punished and by the resignation ultimately of the Taoiseach who must take unto himself inevitably, under our parliamentary institutions, all the sins of those whom he had to sack.

In this present situation those of us who make statements should be very careful to ensure that those statements are responsible statements. It must be obvious to everyone that what is happening here now and what has happened in the last few days is being watched with extreme interest both by people in the north and by people in Britain. We must, therefore, have a very responsible approach to this matter.

I have heard statements about arms coming in at every port. I am honestly very worried and I would like a statement on that and an assurance that this is not happening. What I am afraid of is that extremists in the north may use this as propaganda. I appeal to members of this House to be very careful about the statements they make about arms being imported into this country. I should like to dissociate myself from such statements and I trust others will act responsibly in this matter. We have no intention whatsoever of using force against Northern Ireland. This House, and this House only, will decide otherwise. It is very disquieting to hear rumours all over the place about a military junta and about arms coming in everywhere. It is more disquieting to ordinary people who have been profoundly shocked by the developments over the last few days.

I am disappointed in the Taoiseach. I question whether he has told us the truth. He says he received the information on 20th April. I am puzzled that no one has so far pointed to the fact that he did not make a statement before Budget day. He got the information on 20th April. He had an obligation to the nation to contact these two Ministers on that day and get a statement from them as to whether or not it was true. He let it go to the 21st and, from what I hear, he did not question the two Ministers on 21st April either. We had some mysterious news about the Minister for Finance having had an accident. We hear rumours that he was assaulted by members of an illegal organisation. These rumours should not be allowed to pervade this House or the country.

I am disappointed in the Taoiseach because he did not act rapidly enough, in my opinion, on news of such seriousness. I have the feeling that he placed party politics above the affairs of the nation. He has not been strictly truthful or honest with this House. In Britain a Member of Parliament told a lie and his dismissal followed. The Profumo affair rocked Britain and brought about the downfall of the Conservative Government. That downfall came because a Member of Parliament told a lie. It was not due to anything else. It was due to the fact that he told a lie in the House of Commons, a very serious matter when one remembers that we accept the word of a Minister; we believe he is telling the truth. The Taoiseach's statement that the Minister for Justice was not connected with this affair at all, followed by the statement of Deputy Boland and his implication this morning that three Ministers were pushed, casts a grave reflection on the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach has not told the truth.

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach said the Minister for Justice was ill and that the death of Garda Fallon had contributed to his illness. I saw the Minister for Justice here with his political antics. I am shocked that he received such widespread publicity and acclaim from the Press for his antics here. I indict the Press for paying such a tribute to his political antics here in what is described as the "Maggot Durcan" affair. I was shocked that a Minister should carry on as he did on that occasion. It should have been evident to the Taoiseach at the time that he was not a man fit to hold office. I am shocked also that a Minister for Finance, who should have been suspended from office last year for dealings in land which to say the least of it were not befitting a Minister, should have been allowed to continue in office. I am shocked that the Taoiseach did not take action then.

I do not know how Deputy Boland left. Long ago, I felt the Taoiseach should have taken action in the case of Deputy Boland. I brought his behaviour last year when he made an unprovoked attack, a physical assault on certain people, to the notice of the Taoiseach and I was surprised that he did not take action. When the behaviour of Ministers led to the danger of civil war in our country I am very surprised the Taoiseach did not act rapidly on April 20th. He says that the accident occurred on April 22nd and that he was unable to interview the Minister for Finance. I can readily understand that in the week from the 22nd to the 29th April the Taoiseach could not interview Deputy Haughey. But what the Taoiseach has not said or satisfactorily explained is why he did not interview Deputy Blaney in that week. He has kept silent on this matter. Yet the facts before him were such as to associate those two men with illegal arms importation. He left the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries alone for one week.

The day before the startling announcement or on Tuesday last, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was very smug in answering questions. I was looking at him that day and I can say, from reading character, from his attitude, that he had no knowledge of his impending dismissal. I believe he was unaware that he was to be dismissed. It seems strange that the urgent meeting of the Government should come following the information supplied by Deputy Cosgrave. I would ask the Taoiseach to be more truthful and explain why he did not interview Deputy Blaney in the period from the 20th to 29th April. The Taoiseach has lost credibility because of this.

I am surprised at the statement by Deputy Boland and the attacks he has made against institutions of the State. I cannot understand why a man in his sane senses would make such a statement now. This is the system that he has supported all along, the Special Branch, and he now suddenly attacks it because his colleagues were engaged in illegal activities and because the same Special Branch——

The Deputy must be careful in the way he refers to the charges. "Alleged" would be a suitable qualification.

I shall re-phrase it, although I must confess that no statement to the Press or radio by any ex-Ministers, phrased as it was, would allay my anxiety about this matter and about what was happening behind our backs. The statement made today by the ex-Minister for Finance would not allay my anxiety. We have children growing up, my children and other children, and if they hear this news on radio and television and hear men in responsible positions accused of activities contrary to the policy of the Government, contrary to our principles and policies, they will lose faith in the country and in us. I felt ashamed when I heard men in responsible positions accused of acting as they did. I ask the Taoiseach, with the information he has, to lay these documents before the House so that they can be examined by Members of the Oireachtas.

I am more puzzled when I hear Deputy Boland say that he cannot understand why Garda Fallon's murderers were not apprehended. He makes subtle charges and innuendoes against the Special Branch and implies they do not want the murderers apprehended. This ex-Minister implies this with the knowledge he has at his disposal. It is very disquieting to hear these remarks made in this House. If he found the Special Branch acting contrary to what he thought were the proper principles he should have gone to the Minister for Justice. If he had known these facts, that they were doing wrong things, and if they were creating imaginary events as he stated, he should have brought this to the attention of the Minister for Justice.

The whole thing is like a cloak and dagger mystery, like a James Bond story. The answer lies with the Taoiseach and he has not given a satisfactory answer. I wonder if Deputy Boland, by his attacks on the Special Branch, is now trying to encourage support from the illegal organisations in this country. His statements suggest that, and this is very disquieting.

I was shocked to hear the Taoiseach pay tribute to the two ex-Ministers when he said that they are able, brilliant and dedicated. I have no doubts about their being able or brilliant but I wonder to what they were so dedicated that they were dismissed from office. They certainly were not dedicated to their work or duties as Ministers. Because of this the Taoiseach loses credibility in my eyes. If, as has been suggested, two Ministers were engaged in gun-running I would interpret it as indicating they had contempt for this House which alone can decide our policy on Partition. I am surprised that, as Ministers and politicians, they did not endeavour to change the policy of their party if they felt that policy was contrary to their principles.

I am very surprised that these men are still on the executive of the Fianna Fáil Party. This is very serious for the country because they will dictate the policy of this party if they remain on the party executive. If there is suspicion surrounding these two men I would feel ashamed if they should remain as Members of this House because if we do not take action and have people associated with this sort of thing removed from the House the standard of the House will be lowered very rapidly and people will lose faith in our Parliament.

The Northern Ireland question is a very serious one. In the present climate it would take very little to inflame passions and create an explosive situation. We should be endeavouring at all costs to allay anxiety in the North and should take every opportunity to speak to our brothers there and tell them that we do not intend by any means to employ force. We should establish closer communication with them. We should all help to reassure them on this point because untold damage has been done to our relationship with Northern Ireland by recent events.

The Fianna Fáil Party are treating this as a joke. I saw them the other night and I felt ashamed when they tried to laugh it off. They clapped and when charges were being made they were inclined to laugh. They should hang their heads in shame at what has happened. This is no laughing matter. This is the security of the State at risk.

If the Attorney General is not going to investigate this matter, I should like the information the Taoiseach has to be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas. He has an obligation to do this as Taoiseach. It is the only way to restore his own name. If he feels there is nothing to hide, he should make a statement to this effect. I will say nothing further except that I feel very ashamed to be associated with this matter as a Member of this House. I would hope that each and every one of us would denounce something like this in order to raise the standard of this Parliament.

My comments will be very brief and to the point. For some time today I thought I was in some supernatural institution where nobody ever sinned——

After yesterday it seemed that way.

——and that nobody ever committed a sin in this House or outside it, especially the Members of the Opposition Parties. Very few of us in this House would like to see all our sins written on our foreheads. I should like to see a charitable approach adopted in a number of statements made about people who are not in this House and who are not in a position to defend themselves. Men were brought into this debate today who had nothing whatever to do with the discussion in this Parliament. They were not here to defend themselves.

Including Mr. Berry who was brought in by Deputy Boland, the Deputy's colleague.

(Cavan): We do not know what side he is on yet. Give him time.

Has Deputy Desmond spoken yet?

I will listen to the Deputy and I will not interrupt him. One of the Ministers was complimented by Members of the Opposition and was welcomed back to the House after an illness. That was the Minister for Finance. Just because he made one slip, or an alleged slip, or whatever slip he made, one would imagine that there would be some little charity towards him and towards the other Minister. It was hard enough on the Taoiseach, as a colleague, to make a decision of that kind. The Taoiseach is by no means an uncharitable man. Deputies should not try to rock this House and this democratic institution by going beyond limits and making allegations that have nothing whatever to do with this matter.

A Deputy, no matter what side of the House he is on, is a representative of the people. If any Deputy falls by the wayside and if he is condemned and removed from his job, that is punishment enough. I accept policies for what they are. I do not blame the Opposition for trying to gain political kudos for themselves. All this morning here there was not one scrap of Christian charity. The attitude was: if a person is down, down with him and kick him.

False allegations were made against our leader, the Taoiseach, for whom we have the greatest possible respect. He has the respect of the country. I hope he will be with us to guide us for many days. There are very few parties that did not have their ups and downs. We are all human beings liable to error. Deputies of this democratic institution have responsibility. The man who could say: "I am perfect. I never did anything wrong. I never will do anything wrong" would have to have the grace of a supernatural being. We are dealing here with human beings.

There are decent men on all sides of the House. At this stage I appeal to my colleagues to treat this matter with a little more charity and forbearance. The Opposition should bear in mind that politically they will gain more by doing that. I have been associated with politics since I came to the use of reason and I never saw anyone gain anything by saying vicious things about their fellow men. We may have a political crack in this House but not about the individual. I was always anxious in this House to leave the individual alone. Some day, some time, we will be judged and when we are being judged I hope it can be said that we were charitable towards our fellow men. We should adopt that attitude towards one another and help one another in a crisis of this kind. I am not asking Deputies to do the impossible.

The Taoiseach is the leader of the nation. His cross is a heavy one, a very heavy and difficult one. If we are to uphold the dignity of this House we should respect him. There have been crises in other parties in my time and before it. I remember going through the Civil War period. I remember when I was young seeing what happened in our country. I know the feelings that were at large at that time. I saw the bitterness, the murder, the underhandedness and everything else that went on— everything imaginable.

The people of Ireland and the people of the world are looking at this House this evening to see how we will conduct ourselves. Speeches were made by the Opposition suggesting that we are responsible for doing something in the North of Ireland. Our stand in regard to Northern Ireland is well known. Let nobody by word or implication tell this House that we are trying to do anything to injure our people there. Anything we could do at that period was done. Our great diplomat, the Minister for External Affairs, when he got a chance of speaking to the world at the United Nations, did what he could, but he was ruled out of order. Everything that could be done at that period was done. We will continue to do what we can.

The speeches made in the House could be interpreted by people in Northern Ireland, particularly the extreme element, as indicating that we are playing with fire and that we are facing two ways at the same time. The Taoiseach has spoken for us and has explained the position. He has expressed his views strongly and emphatically. We stand four-square behind him. I appeal to my friends on the other side of the House not to do anything which would discredit this democratic institution. We are big enough to ride a storm of this kind. The Opposition will have a chance on many other occasions of having their say politically against us. For God's sake leave the individuals who are not in this House alone. Leave those who are not in a position to defend themselves alone.

I want to intervene in this debate to clarify some points which have been raised and also to refer to a statement that I have heard has been made by Mr. Patrick Kennedy. MP, in the course of a radio interview. I have been informed that Mr. Patrick Kennedy, MP, in the course of a Radio Éireann interview, suggested that any participation by Captain James Kelly in an attempt to smuggle arms could only have been made with my knowledge and consent. I wish emphatically to deny any such knowledge or consent. I was aware, through the Director of Intelligence, that attempts to smuggle arms were a constant danger and these attempts were kept under surveillance at all times. I wish to say I discharged my duty to the full extent of my knowledge of the situation. I want to say also that in recent times I formed the opinion that Captain Kelly was becoming unsuitable for the type of work that he was employed on. I want to say that certain suspicions were forming in my mind. I was kept informed by the Director of Intelligence but nothing concrete emerged. I am satisfied that at all times I honoured the obligation that was placed on me by the Taoiseach when he made me Minister for Defence.

I want to refer specially to the references that were made in this debate by Deputy Ryan, in which he sought by innuendo to suggest that in some way or other I was implicated in the business of running guns into this country for illegal organisations or for any other purpose. I can only say that if Deputy Ryan, or any other Deputy, has any scintilla of evidence of any such activity on my part, he has an obligation to produce it and produce it at once so that the necessary steps may be taken. I am happy in this knowledge and I give this challenge in this knowledge that since there is no such evidence of any implication on my part there is nobody in this House or outside it who can produce any evidence of the kind suggested by Deputy Ryan. I am well aware that this suggestion of Deputy Ryan's, made originally the other night, has given rise to certain speculation in the Press and on the radio and television. I want, once and for all, to state my position and to state it as clearly as I can. I think I have done that. That was my principal intention in rising to speak on this debate.

I want to refer to other matters which were alluded to in this debate so far. There was a suggestion by Deputy Tully that weapons, presumably for illegal organisations, were collected in Army trucks at Dublin docks and presumably driven away to some unknown destination. Does Deputy Tully realise what a serious thing this is to say? Does he realise how fantastically and absurdly untrue it is? That is the least offensive part of it. The real danger lies in the fact when a person of Deputy Tully's standing makes such a suggestion, even though I think it was merely speculative in nature, it must be realised that, once made, one must always bargain for a residual of credence and for somebody getting a hold of the story and getting the idea that Army trucks were used for the carriage of illegal arms. I do not think it should be necessary to deny a fantastic story of that kind. I want to point out to the House that from the trend this debate is taking it would appear to me that the Opposition Deputies at the present time will accept no bounds.

Would it not be good if the speculation could end and if Deputy Blaney would talk?

I will talk.

The Minister for Defence must be allowed to speak.

I am very anxious to put the position of the Department over which I have the honour to preside and to put the position of the Army in this affair beyond all doubt. I am anxious also to put my own position beyond all doubt. That is why I rose to speak. The attitude of the Opposition has tended to be irresponsible in making charges of this kind.

Talk about people being irresponsible comes badly from the Government benches at the moment.

Who clapped this morning on the back benches of Fianna Fáil?

The Minister for Defence. Other Deputies will have the opportunity of speaking.

There have been fantastic suggestions made by some Opposition speakers earlier today about ships lying in Dublin Bay and sailing away with murderers on board. By inference, at any rate, it is suggested that members of the Government are involved in this kind of thing. There is an obligation on me to point out that this kind of talk is very destructive in the country at a time like this. There was some reference to the training of civilians in Donegal. I want to point out the position of the Defence Forces in this regard. The Defence Forces train only members of their own ranks, whether they be FCA or Army or Naval personnel. That is the extent of their training. This story first got currency in the Protestant Telegraph. It is time that stories of this kind ceased.

I have nothing further to say on this matter. There were certain matters which I wanted to clarify for the House at this stage and I have done so.

At the outset, I should like to say that an appeal by Deputy P.J. Burke for Christian charity, coming in such a debate, seems to me the most ironical statement in such a situation as we have in this long drawn out debate.

I would underline and go along with the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, to a great degree in what he said about gun running. As a northern Deputy, I have kept in reasonably good contact with northern political thinking. I have heard rumours. Any persons who approached me or mentioned to me that there was gun running I asked them to put up the information and I would arrange a personal interview with the Taoiseach, or I would arrange for those persons to go to the Taoiseach. I did not think it would be responsible for me to come into this House and to make allegations about gun running without evidence. This is the most damaging thing that could be said in this House. Any rumour I have heard has not been substantiated. I would add that, when I have been approached and when I indicated I would arrange for the information to be given to the Taoiseach, I was not approached later on that subject.

In this Dáil, the Fianna Fáil Party have had the largest majority, except one, of any Irish Parliament. I have sat here constantly since 10.30 a.m. and it is a disgraceful fact that there have been an average of only nine or ten Deputies present. I have been accused of going to a soccer match in Milan but I would point out that, in the midst of this crisis, when the Fianna Fáil Party are in the dock, they could not provide a soccer team—11 Deputies—despite the fact that an ex-Minister over there is the president of that association. I want to say that I went to Milan at my own expense and I was not buying guns. I went there to see sport.

I have not prepared any detailed notes for this speech, nor have I gone into the details of the circumstances and events of the past few days. I am speaking, basically, off the cuff and I shall give the House my views as the picture appears to me and I believe these views to be the views of the majority of the Irish people. Nevertheless, that being so, I want to add that I respect the views of others. I respect the views of the Ministers who have been fired. Logic and judgment aside, I recognise that these men sincerely believe that what they were attempting to do was in the best interests of national unity. However, I question their thinking in this respect because this is the same type of thinking displayed by Billy Craig, John Brooke, Harry West and others. This is the type of thinking that has muddled Irish politics for the past 50 years. This is the type of thinking that must be suppressed by the Irish people.

During the events at Bogside, when I had information at my disposal I indicated the facts directly to the Taoiseach; and I would like to add that I received the utmost courtesy from him. I felt that the most responsible thing any Deputy here could do would be to make available any information he thought the Taoiseach should have in helping him to arrive at a good and final decision. I had the utmost confidence in the Taoiseach at that time. I believe, as an Irishman, I played a responsible part in communicating with the Taoiseach, irrespective of whether or not my information was small or insignificant because it might have been part of a jig-saw which would help the Taoiseach to arrive at a wise conclusion.

Having listened to the debate so far and having read all the newspapers I could lay my hands on, because of my absence from the country over the past two days, I have now reached the conclusion that I can no longer extend confidence to the Taoiseach. I can no longer have confidence in the leader of this Government. If he cannot command the confidence of his own Ministers and the backbenchers, how can the Taoiseach expect the confidence of a member of an Opposition party?

This is a grave national issue which the Fianna Fáil Party have no right to decide. The Fianna Fáil Party have no clear mandate from the people in this connection. Fianna Fáil do not speak exclusively for the Irish people. They have a majority of Deputies here, but they are backed by not more than 45 per cent of the electorate. Therefore, Fianna Fáil cannot claim to speak with authority exclusively for the Irish people.

The root of this crisis is one of the most burning problems that have beset our people for hundreds of years. Now that we have matured politically it is time this matter were decided by the people once and for all. The Irish people must be consulted on this issue. Deputies on the Government benches may argue that the issue would be confused and that there could be no campaign or a clear decision. The Fine Gael Party, who had the responsibility of setting up and establishing this State, have been consistent in their political thinking in this direction from 1922 to the present day. Recently we have re-stated our attitude and our political doctrine in relation to Northern Ireland. That was the unanimous decision of the Fine Gael Party—not merely the Fine Gael Members of Dáil Éireann or Fine Gael supporters in Seanad Éireann but Fine Gael supporters from Deputy Liam Cosgrave down to the chap who votes for his first time in an election. Fine Gael are unanimous on this. From a glance at the Labour Party's document on Northern Ireland, and having listened to their speeches in debate. I believe they are very close in line with this aspect of Fine Gael policy.

Why do Fianna Fáil not make up their mind on this vital question? Why does the Taoiseach not say that Fianna Fáil policy is a reiteration of the Fine Gael Party document? The former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, made a statement in his northern constituency which is in flat contradiction of statements by the Taoiseach in regard to the Fianna Fáil outlook on Partition. This being the position, the Fianna Fáil Party and the Taoiseach have an obligation to the people to put the matter to a test.

I believe the Taoiseach no longer has a mandate from his own party to control. I would certainly question his ability to lead his own party at the moment. If he cannot lead his own party through this crisis, then I respectfully suggest he should consult the people and let them decide finally what the decision is to be. Let me quote a few of the headlines which catch the eye in today's Irish Times: Unionist Meeting to Discuss Crisis; Arms for Violent Action; Young Unionists call for end to “softly, softly”; N.I. Labour wants no gun in politics. That is the reaction of Unionist and Nationalist opinion north of the Border. Those few headlines spell out most emphatically the thinking north of the border.

The Fianna Fáil Party had republicanism as its cornerstone. It came into being and was founded on republicanism but this party, through their bad economic policies, have established the Border for evermore. Let not this generation forget that the Fianna Fáil Government have been in office virtually all of my lifetime—and I have a teenage family. Let us not forget that the Fianna Fáil Party was founded on republicanism and that their aim was to abolish the Border and unify the country. I speak as one of the younger generation in this House. Do not forget that, for the first ten years, from 1921 to 1931, Partition existed only as a political boundary and not as an economic boundary. Partition, as an economic boundary, was established by the party which was formed to end it—the Fianna Fáil Party. Beyond doubt, Partition has been strengthened through bad economic policies of successive Fianna Fáil Governments. As a result of the publicity attaching to the actions of Fianna Fáil ex-Ministers and to the behaviour of the Taoiseach and his party in the past few months, and in the past few days, Fianna Fáil have, beyond all doubt, alienated moderate Unionist thinking north of the Border. Not alone have Fianna Fáil alienated moderate Unionist opinion by what has been exposed, but Fianna Fáil's bad economic policies have made it less attractive for nationalist-minded people north of the border to come in with us here if there were a plebiscite there on that issue.

This is the reality of the Irish question at the moment. Catholics—if I may be excused for using this terminology—or nationalists north of the Border who were always seeking to join us, who were always seeking to unite the country, now stop and ask: "What is in it for us? Can they not conduct their own affairs? Why have their standards not kept pace?" This has taken place since 1931 and during all that time, except for two short periods of inter-party Government, the Fianna Fáil Party have been consistently in office. This is the Government who claim to be republican, to have the solution to Partition in their ranks.

This is the Government who caused an economic war in 1931 and established an economic boundary between north and south which made it attractive for profiteers and racketeers to make money across the Border. This is the Government who, by their bad economic planning, have put a big question mark even into the minds of the majority of people in the Bogside. If they were given the opportunity tomorrow morning of coming in here it would be, in the words of one of their leaders: "Tweedledum and Tweedledee", to stay in Clark's Northern Ireland or join Lynch's banana republic or what another of their leaders, a lady whose name I do not have to spell out, called: "Mr. Blaney's margarine republic."

I would have liked very much if the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries had spoken before me. I would have liked to hear his views on this although, on reflection, what Deputy Blaney will have to say will in no way influence my political thinking. I hope my contribution will invite him to give his views because, like me, he represents north-east Donegal. He was elected as a Deputy and he was elected to give his views. I would ask him to come into the House and state clearly and distinctly what his position is in this matter. I would ask him to inquire from the members of his own party, if they feel they can still give loyalty to the Taoiseach, whether they do not think, as Christians living in a democracy, that the people of this country should be consulted on this issue. I hope Deputy Blaney accepts my challenge.

Having brought Deputy Blaney into it I want to say that my remarks are in no way personal. I do not doubt for a second that some people have those thoughts in their minds but I believe that when a Deputy and a Minister such as Deputy Blaney steps out of line or does something with which I disagree I am justly entitled to say so in this House and I have done so. When a man of the calibre of Deputy Blaney is sacked from the office of Minister, a man who is reputed to be the crack organiser of the Fianna Fáil organisation, the evidence must be very substantial. I have said in private circles that I admire that man in many ways, despite the fact that the opposite is very often the case. I see Deputy Blaney as a ruthless politician, who believes that the future of Ireland lies within the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party and I suppose he is entitled to his opinion.

I believe Deputy Boland deeply feels that the solution to Partition is force. In his statement this morning he said it was wrong to have two armies in the State and in the same breath that he could see nothing wrong with arms being sent into the Six Counties. That is tantamount to civil war. That is giving people arms to defend themselves—but to shoot others in doing so. Surely the answer to defending people is not to give them arms but rather to disarm the other people? Surely Deputy Boland must realise that when he talks about force he should consult the mother of the child who was killed in Belfast, or the widow of the man who lost his life in Bally-shannon or the family of Mr. Gallagher in Armagh, or Mrs. Arbuckle who lost her young husband, a police officer. These are people who have more right to talk about the use of force than Deputy Blaney, Deputy Boland, Deputy Haughey or myself. These are the people who on their own front doorsteps have experienced loss by force. If I were given the opportunity of giving the life of one of my children in a vain effort, which has been a repeated exercise in the last 50 years, I would hesitate to sacrifice the life of any one of my children. Let nobody point at me and say that I am a coward. Let each and every one of you ask yourselves the question: "The life of which child would I give or would I compromise with my own patriotic feelings?" and say: "No, I would give my own life." I ask a further question. What right have you to give your own life in vain, as has been the case for the past 50 years, without consulting your wife, if you are married, without consulting your family, if you are a father? What right have you to take this decision? You have no right and it is no decision to take because there can be no gain.

The motion before the House concerns the merits of Deputy Molloy, Deputy Cronin and Deputy Collins. I know these three young men particularly well and I have the highest regard for their integrity and their ability and I wish them well but this debate has nothing at all to do with their appointments. This debate is on the question of the re-unification of this country and the method by which it should be achieved. If Deputy Blaney claims the support of 50 per cent of the people how can he claim that this is unity? How can he claim that 50 per cent of anything is a majority? When these men talk about arms how do they envisage a 32 Counties? Do they see a Catholic victory over Protestants? A republican victory over Unionists? Do they want a united 32 Counties? If they want a united 32 Counties I believe they must endorse the policy of Fine Gael. They must accept at this time the decision of their leader. If they refuse to accept it then there is an obligation on them to say so in this House and to refuse to vote in a vote of confidence in their leader and so cause a situation where the people may be consulted. If the people are consulted I have no doubt what the result will be.

Different speakers have said how detestable it is to see the British Army in the North of Ireland. I visit the North of Ireland virtually daily. I do not like to see British soldiers there but then let us take them out of it and see what will happen. Let us imagine the situation in Derry city on the evening in August last when the British Army came into it. No person with whom I have spoken since that day, who was aware of the circumstances, has contradicted the statement that one hour later this country north and south would have been in a civil war where even I could not opt out, where battle lines would be drawn by people who make statements confusing the political issues. When battle lines are drawn there is no opting out. There is a polarisation which cannot be avoided. If the Bogside had been attacked without the British Army protection on that Thursday evening in August last there would have been an invasion across the Donegal border and I do not say that I would not have been a part of it. These are the situations which must be avoided.

Such a situation must never be allowed happen because it is all too easy to take sides and when sides are taken and the chips are down there is no opting out. I wish to relate an incident which occurred recently while my wife and I were having a meal in a Derry hotel. I was recognised and was drawn into a conversation with a couple of Derry people whom I did not know. One of the men stated emphatically that there was an opportune time in the history of Ireland when, last August, the Irish Army were along the Donegal border for them to have gone in and taken Derry city. Perhaps there is a moral in this because I have heard the same sentiments repeated in different circles. I do not subscribe to that view because we know well what would have been the result of such irresponsible action being taken by an Irish Government. Many people would have died while the Border would still remain and the position would be worse than ever, with deeper bitterness on both sides and a deeper rift than ever.

When we speak about national unity we must recognise that, irrespective of what are our personal views on the decision taken in this Parliament in 1921 during the Treaty debates, and irrespective of whether it was right or wrong to accept 26 counties as a stepping stone, the position is that the boundary was established and that north of that line there are 800,000 Irish people who have not bought the idea which we have tried to sell them of a 32-county Ireland. If they have not bought that idea and if we want them to buy it then we must not blame them completely but rather find a new approach. Perhaps we may consider that the priorities of the Unionists are somewhat mixed up but we must remember that these are as good Irishmen as the Republicans in the south. We must have some rethinking on our attitude towards Northern Ireland. We must either make up our minds that there are 800,000 people who do not wish to come under the Tricolour and so leave the position as it stands, or we must endeavour to understand them and to ask them what it is they seek in a 32-county Ireland, which they do not wish to buy now. Those men who have been shouting loudest and who are now very much in the headlines should remain silent, or else they should consult Nationalist opinion north of the Border to find out if they were given the opportunity of coming in with us under a democratic vote they would do so. It is a sobering thought.

References have been made to phone-tapping. This is a practice to which I do not subscribe but if phone-tapping was necessary in order to expose what has been alleged then I welcome it because in this State which we claim is a democratic one, where every man has equal rights, it would be extremely wrong if people in positions as senior as the men in question were allowed the safeguard of not having their telephones tapped while others, whose motives are questioned, must accept phone-tapping.

I was totally unaware of what was happening in Cabinet circles until a very late hour on Wednesday night. Naturally, on Thursday morning I made every possible attempt to obtain an English newspaper in Milan. When I did find one I read one of the most damaging statements that one could imagine. I cannot remember the name of the paper but in reference to the allegations that have been made there was a comment to the effect that if the statement were true it bore out the fears of the loyalists in Northern Ireland that there was a plot in the Government of the Republic to undermine the authorities in the north and that unrest in Northern Ireland was not coming from within. Not alone did that comment condemn people this side of the Border but it undermined the people who have been fighting for civil rights in the north.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

It questions the motives of the three ex-Ministers and while the leaders of the civil rights movement have recently been denying that there has been outside intervention we find members of our Government in a situation that not only embarrasses them but questions their ideals.

Needless to remark when, during the past few months, members of Fine Gael, not excluding myself, have made slashing attacks on Government administration, we were described as arch-anarchists. I wonder where are the anarchists now? I wonder, too, if it is wrong for Deputies in the Opposition benches to make charges against Fianna Fáil. I wonder if it is wrong for us to be right even one time out of ten if we can at least inform public opinion of matters such as the one with which we are now dealing. I make no apology to anyone for any of the statements I have made in this House. I might also add that Deputy Haughey is a man for whom I have a great regard. He is a man whose ability is without question. He has been recognised by people on all sides of the House as being a brilliant politician. He is a man who has been earmarked for Taoiseach. In fact, if any Deputy from this side of the House wishes to find, by the process of elimination, a successor to the present Taoiseach he cannot go outside the names of the three men who are now most in the news, Deputies Haughey, Blaney and Boland, with apologies to Deputy Dr. Hillery.

There is no parliamentary coup d'état.

With regard to the dismissal of Deputy Moran most people to whom I have listened seemed to miss the point that he was the longest serving Deputy in the Cabinet. It takes a matter of a very serious nature to bring about the dismissal of a man who, comparatively speaking, is still young and who held such a position. The Taoiseach has stated that Deputy Moran resigned but Deputy Boland is reported in today's Irish Independent as saying that the former Minister for Justice was fired.

He repeated it on the radio this afternoon.

I am told he repeated it on the radio this afternoon——

And in the House.

——and in the House this morning. I have the utmost respect for the Taoiseach and the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, but when a Government member makes a statement in the House which he expects us to accept we must be left in doubt when contradictory statements are made by Members of the House who were members of the Cabinet a few days ago.

The nation is at a crossroads. Anything can happen north of the Border in the summer months, including civil war. Let us hope that never happens but it cannot be ruled out. Whatever chance we have of avoiding civil war in Northern Ireland will not be enhanced by actions such as Ministers are alleged to have been involved in or statements made by Ministers which only tend to encourage extremists north of the Border. Those extremists on both sides, as I have already said, only draw the battle lines and create a situation in which moderate-minded people are no longer allowed to remain moderate and there is no opting out. If we want to behave in a responsible way, I humbly suggest to the Taoiseach that he should invite public representatives north of the Border who are opposed to discrimination to act in some capacity in the Oireachtas. I would suggest, perhaps, by an all-party agreement that members in this capacity be nominated to the Seanad. In this way they would advise members elected to the Dáil from the southern part of the country on political thinking north of the Border. The re-unification of Ireland will not be achieved by what we think. This problem will be solved by what we all think and that must be acceptable to the majority of people north of the Border.

Last week in the Dáil I engaged in a bout of good-humoured exchanges with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries I was requested to leave the House. I had asked the Minister about the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis when the Taoiseach said: "This is the time and now is the place". I now wonder if other Deputies knew what I was hinting at because whatever I was asked to leave the House for still puzzles me.

The Deputy was not asked to leave the House because he asked a question about any political organisation. He was asked to do so because he was interrupting consistently for 20 minutes. If he looks at the Official Report he will find that I am correct.

I had not intended, following my contribution late on Wednesday night, to make a further contribution. Arising from the new motion this morning and more particularly from the really disquieting statement of the ex-Minister for Local Government, there is an obligation on each Member of the House to give his reaction and state his views. I would prefer to have heard the views of Deputy Blaney because up to now the Opposition experienced considerable difficulty in getting into focus the views of part of the Fianna Fáil Party or the numerous parties now in it.

This morning Deputy Boland sent a chill down my spine. I experienced an even greater chill when I heard the applause of the 12 silent Fianna Fáil backbencher apostles who have not yet had the guts to express their views to the House on the so-called unanimity of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. Therefore, the obligation rests on the Opposition to ensure that those views are well known to everybody in the country.

The situation in Northern Ireland is extremely disquieting—a fact which has been repeatedly underlined by Labour Party spokesmen including Deputy Cruise-O'Brien in his contribution on his recent visit to Northern Ireland. We are well aware of the situation. The director of intelligence of the Defence Forces in the south is well aware of the situation. The Special Branch section of the Department of Justice is fully aware of the critical situation in Northern Ireland. The Garda commissioner in respect of Garda patrols in the Border areas is equally well aware of the situation. Indeed, the very professional staff in the Department of Justice and the staff of the Revenue Commissioners are fully aware of the border nuances developing as we approach the July and August period.

At a time when there is a probability of further serious trouble in Northern Ireland what do we get? We get men of the calibre of Deputy Boland fomenting it in the south on a general basis when they are aware, in fact, what is likely to happen. Indeed, this applies as much to Deputy Blaney in respect of his past attitudes. I do not expect any public act of contrition on his part and neither do I expect it in relation to previous overtones of militaristic politics in which he has indulged in respect of his brand of republicanism. I certainly do not expect his views will differ substantially from those of Deputy Boland in that setting.

We have forces in Northern Ireland aligning themselves with and dependent on Mr. Paisley. The 12th July parade is nigh. There are Apprentice Boy developments in Derry. The Catholic population are naturally reacting in increasing irritation to provocation from Paisley. We see the British Army in some respect rather complacent about the situation. In that situation what do we get? We get men of the calibre of Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney who are ready to put a match to the powder keg in a situation in which they themselves will not suffer. They will not be over the Border in pursuit of their preposterous aims. Therefore, I hold in supreme contempt any public representative or anybody who advocates armed military insurrection in respect of any country. On that score alone, Deputy Blaney and his colleague, Deputy Boland, most certainly stand indicated at the bar of this House.

On Wednesday night I said that I did not delight in and derived no pleasure whatsoever from witnessing the sundering of a national political party. But I see the arrogance of Deputy Boland, who comes before this House and indicates that he is not prepared to accept the supreme authority of this sovereign, elected Assembly, says he will go his own way and still march into the backbenches because he has not got the courage to face the electorate of South County Dublin. It is time that we stood up and called a halt to the kind of political suicide and self-immolation that seems to have possessed him in recent weeks.

There are a number of aspects which need clarification and among them is the contribution made by Deputy Cosgrave. Although I consider the political opinions of Deputy Boland wrong, I concede that he has a point when he accused Deputy Cosgrave of not being totally frank with the House in regard to his sources of information. As reported in column 643 of the Official Report of the 6th May, 1970, Deputy Cosgrave stated:

I considered it my duty in the national interest to inform the Taoiseach of information I had received and which indicates a situation of such gravity for the nation that it is without parallel in this country since the foundation of the State.

At column 644 Deputy Cosgrave stated:

I understand that because of the linking up of certain Ministers, an army officer, the brothers of two Ministers, one the brother of the former Minister for Finance and the other the brother of the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries...

He further stated:

Yesterday when I received a copy of a document...

Deputy Cosgrave has received a great deal of information and I suggest to him that he declare to this House the sources of this information. It is in the national interest that this should be done. It is in the public interest that the whole truth be disclosed by the Government side and by those on the Opposition side who make statements irrespective of their immunity, whether they are people like Deputy Boland, claiming virtual diplomatic immunity or people like Deputy Cosgrave, who claims that he is privy to sources of information which he has laid before the Taoiseach and whose authenticity has been accepted. As an elected public representative, I am entitled to know the sources of information and I think such information would help the conduct of this debate.

What we must be primarily concerned with in this House is not the survival of Fianna Fáil. It is not any electoral capital Fine Gael may gain or any amount of political kudos the Labour Party might get out of their contributions to this debate. These are insignificant issues compared with the catastrophic effect these developments might have on the people of Northern Ireland—and this includes the total population, all shades of political views. One must view the statement of Deputy Boland from that point of view. It is not enough for him to say to the Taoiseach that he will support him in the Lobbies of this House. That is trivial in the evolution of the Irish nation. What is important is that we have in this House a total and complete repudiation of the style of politics advocated here this morning. This style of politics says, in effect, that we should have guns in the North, guns financed sub rosa, have them distributed on an ad hoc basis and, if there is a confrontation between British troops and people using those guns, we can stand back and say “This is the historical evolution, the total repudiation of British imperialism in Northern Ireland”.

I fully concede to Deputy Boland that the continuing crisis in the north has arisen from the refusal of British imperialism to recognise the total impracticality of Partition. However, I depart totally from the Deputy when he says that is the total reason and that in the seventies that must remain the sole basis of the struggle to ensure that elementary human and civil rights are guaranteed in Northern Ireland. This is why I suggest to Deputy Boland and to Deputy Blaney —the latter lives close to the Border and is fully involved in the developments in that area—that they have not read their history since the 1940s. In 1956 and 1957 they were very ready to play the reverse role. I was then 21 years of age and in Cork city I knew young men who went north on a completely impracticable and ludicrous crusade across the Border. At that time there was no great reluctance on the part of the Government and Opposition to make sure that that campaign did not escalate and develop.

These are the reasons why I personally feel very emotional on a development of this nature. I suggest that the Taoiseach should give far more information to this House. It is the only way of stopping the rumours, nonsense and speculation that has gone on. I reject totally the suggestion by Deputy Ryan that we should have a secret session of this House. The House is like a leaking bucket in terms of speculation and I do not think anything could be gained from this undemocratic suggestion.

Within the limits of national security and the sharp limits imposed on the Taoiseach by virtue of his office there now devolves on him an obligation to let us have more information than he has given us up to now. We do not want any-more "Let's back Jack" campaigns, even if they only last while his back is not turned. Let us have the reports of the Director of Intelligence and of the Special Branch in so far as they can be disclosed to this House. Let us have in the Library, for the information of Members, the files of the Secretary of the Department of Justice and any information from the Revenue Commissioners in respect of allegations of arms imports. Let us put the report of the Garda Commissioner before the House.

If that were done I suggest to the Taoiseach that it would prevent any allegations of lack of integrity being made regarding his behaviour or allegations of his acting in a manner which was less than frank with this House. At this stage we are not quite sure whom to believe and I see no good reason why the great residue of respect, regard and trust which the Irish people placed in the Taoiseach in the last General Election should be eroded and destroyed by the precipitate and stupid actions of some members of the Cabinet who have betrayed him and completely lost the confidence of the Members of this House.

I equally think the Taoiseach should assess the desirability of having a general election. Again I have no desire to see Deputy Blaney, Deputy Boland and the 12 supporting musketeers dragging their versions of ideological republican purity before the public, the cloak having to some extent fallen off the shoulders of Deputy Colley. It would be interesting to hear his views on these developments in recent months. There are many important social and economic issues—for instance, our entry into the EEC—which we would normally expect to discuss during an election campaign. While admittedly all this would be lost and while Deputy Cosgrave would probably get a bonus out of the situation for being the first man to find the lollipop, and while it would be a very unreal general election, nevertheless, taking all these considerations into account a general election is called for. I have no desire to live in this House until half way through 1973 waiting for another little nuance of republican ideology from the back-bench blackmailers of the Fianna Fáil Party, or to see the people subjected to that development. It is probably better to do it now than to do it in six months time.

One of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party members said to me only an hour ago: "We will sit this out. We are going to hang on". The survival of parliamentary democracy and the survival of the respect of the electorate —from the age of 18, if the Fianna Fáil are politically honest—are far more important than the survival of Fianna Fáil in power for another six months while the Ministers find their feet, while the Minister for Finance to be, Deputy Colley, re-assesses his attitude to the NIEC, to Buchanan, says a few polite words on the Devlin Report, and generally fits himself into the establishment attitudes in Finance, many of which are more progressive than the attitudes of Deputy Colley. In any event, a period in Opposition would not do the Fianna Fáil Party any harm. Most certainly at this time in our political history it is eminently desirable.

Those then are my suggestions to the Taoiseach. I can never be accused in this House of having made any snide remarks to him or about his attitude to the people. It is not my desire that the Taoiseach should go down in history as "Captain Terence" Lynch. Let us not have a repetition of that kind of politics in the Republic.

It is also in the interests of the preservation of the Constitution that Fianna Fáil should leave office. Article 13.2 says that the President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann on the advice of a Taoiseach who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann It also says that the President may, at any time, after consultation with the Council of State, convene a meeting of either or both of the Houses of the Oireachtas; and that Dáil Éireann shall be summoned and dissolved by the President on the advice of the Taoiseach.

It is time the Taoiseach came to what would be the inescapable conclusion to which the President, Eamon de Valera, would have come in similar circumstances. Fianna Fáil owe it to their own political heritage, to their own evolution and their own contribution to political life to go before the people. It is high time we stopped these public confessions. It is high time this exuding of political charity on the part of Deputy Burke was stopped and that we tried to re-establish the respect of the Irish people. I want to suggest—and it is no great consolation to me to do so—that a number of articles of our Constitution have been contravened in a disgraceful manner by members of the Government and Members of this House. If what the Taoiseach says is true, then both Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney have, by implication and attitude, contravened Article 28 of the Constitution in respect of the Army and armed rebellion in a part of this country. These are serious charges which must be faced up to by the Taoiseach.

I want to put it to the Taoiseach that he should explain to the House why he did not interview Deputy Blaney between the 22nd and 29th April, as reported by the Taoiseach to the House. I do not know what happened in those seven days. It may well be the meeting did take place, but the information we have from the Official Report is that on 22nd April the Taoiseach decided to interview the former Ministers. The word "Minister" is plural, yet he says he got permission from Deputy Haughey's doctor to interview him on 29th April and he added: "I then summoned Deputy Blaney to my room and interviewed him, upon which I went to the hospital and interviewed Deputy Haughey."

There does not seem to have been any collusion between those two ex-Ministers, but again I speculate in the absence of full information. Until we get the proof we are entitled to speculate even if it takes us until five in the morning.

I respect and I certainly accept the statements made by the Minister for Defence to this House an hour ago in relation to some of the allegations made before this House. Indeed, it is good to see the truth coming from the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. Therefore, the Taoiseach should make this particular indication to the House and he most certainly owes this to us in that regard.

I do not wish to detain the House unduly with my views on this affair which is so tragic for the future of the country. I have no desire to inflict further pain and embarrassment on Deputy Moran but there is such a clear and total conflict between the statement of the Taoiseach and the statement of the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland, that I would strongly suggest to the Taoiseach that clarification on his part is required.

I suggest that for at least 2½ years a very, very dangerous game has been played in the Cabinet. Now that the truth is out and now that within the Cabinet itself the full truth, in so far as we have got it to date, is coming before us, and when we see the deliberate and cynical attempt by some, and sincere enough attempt by others, to gain electoral advantage in the coming months from the critical situation in Northern Ireland, for their own personal ambitions or because of what they feel, wrongly are in the best interests of their own party, it is time we called a halt to this Dáil and it is time the people of this country judged whether or not the Fianna Fáil Party should be returned to power.

There has been much speculation in the newspapers. Yesterday, 7th May, there was this statement by Arthur Noonan, who reported accurately and clearly the feeling of the House:

The news that the Fianna Fáil Party had fixed everything up after no more than 50 minutes, that the ranks had been closed and that the smiles were back on all faces came as quite an anticlimax to the long hours of tension and build-up during which Deputies sought any bits and pieces of information as eagerly as members of the public.

I suggest today in the cold light of the statements before this House, in the cold light of what has now transpired, and now that the sense of euphoria has left the Fianna Fáil Party, now that they have clapped their hands once again, it is time the smiles went; it is time the game of survival stopped and it is time a halt was called to the playing of purely party politics for narrow political electoral survival by the Fianna Fáil Party. It is time they went to the country.

I do not agree with the Taoiseach's ephemeral meanderings. I share his attitude on violence and the use of force. I would say on platforms north or south that even in this difficult electoral setting it is time that we faced one another at the crossroads and allowed the people to express in the ballot boxes their total disappointment with us as politicians, their total repugnance to some of the politicians and, I would hope, their total repudiation of a few politicians who brought this country into disgrace and inflicted such dangers and totally unwarranted and unnecessary pain on the people of Northern Ireland with consequences that are incalculable and which will be tragic in regard to the future of the country.

I want straightaway to deal with the allegations of gun-running that have been so freely made in so many places during these last few days and to say here before this House that I have run no guns, I have procured no guns, I have paid for no guns, I have provided no money to buy guns and anybody who says otherwise is not telling the truth.

I want also to deal with the much more sinister, far more subtle and blackguardly rumours that are being spread and, indeed, peddled around in various ways, perhaps unwittingly by some but no doubt wittingly and knowingly by others, that I have or had anything to do with subversive organisations in so far as this country is concerned.

This country or this part of the country?

To those who say that I have any link with this lousy outfit, Saor Éire, on which perhaps Deputy Cruise-O'Brien may be able to enlighten us a little bit better——

That will not do any more now.

I want to say that I have nothing but the utmost contempt for that outfit and any association with them would be as repugnant to me as it would be to any other Member of this House. The blackening operation was the suggestion of a tie-up between this organisation and certain Government Ministers who are said to have intervened and used their influence to try to cover up and to allow to escape from this country, as it is said they have escaped, the murderers of Dick Fallon.

These are the sort of things that those who are peddling them should be ashamed of. These are the things that those who unwittingly are merely repeating what others have said should try to retract as fast as they can, because this is not the case, never has been the case, never would be the case in so far as I or any of the people with whom I have associations and friendship are concerned, whether they be north or south.

In regard to my associations, I take a very, very poor view of the manner in which some of my very best friends, some of my associates, some of our best supporters, are being blackguarded and publicly harried at this very time by insinuations and innuendo, by the naming of names, by association of names, to the detriment, no doubt, of those personalities in question. Without any question whatsoever, those associations of names are intended to harm the individuals concerned and any and everybody associated with them. They are intended, perhaps, to try to isolate me from the friends I have and the friends I have made and the organisation to which I have belonged since as long back as I can remember.

Then we come much more close to home and we have brothers being named, not only mine but those of Deputy Haughey, who would be very well able to talk for himself in normal circumstances but who is unable, unfortunately, to be here, not through any lack of wish to be here, but because of the fact that his injuries are such that further damage might be done to him if he were to attempt to do what I know he wants to do in this House, as he has done in the newspapers today, to tell the public, and in particular, the Members of the Dáil, of his not being connected with this whole matter. I want to say in regard to his brothers, whom I know, and whom I am glad to know, and in regard to my own brothers, of whom, lest Deputy Cosgrave does not know, there are five others, that, so far as they are concerned, I know of no connection of theirs with any illegal organisation in this country. They can answer for themselves, are quite well able to do it, and, I have no doubt, are doing it, and will do it, thoroughly and properly in due time and, indeed, have already in some cases done so.

I want also to say that my background so far as politics are concerned is one which, perhaps, needs a little restating. I could not but be Fianna Fáil and republican unless I was to renege the heritage of my parents before me. I was born while my late father was under sentence of death. He was again on the run. A few years later, as a child, I was kicked out of the cot I lay in by one of the forces of the then alleged nation, the people who would now decry what republicans stand for and what they stood for. These are the sort of things that at this time come back to me and, added to that, my father, having been condemned, was then lodged and lay for months under sentence in the notorious Davmboe with the gallant men from Kerry and Derry, with whom he was proud to serve and with whom he was prepared to die, and they were Daly, Dan Wright and Sullivan and Larkin from Derry. Those are the associations. This is my background.

We come later then to 1926 and, even at four years of age, even at that young age, I remember, believe it or not, the raids of the irregulars and the special branch of that day. I remember my mother and I, as a child, and others of my family being terrified by these fellows, who were as often drunk as they were sober when they came on these raids, perhaps because, having sold out their republican principles, they had to drown their shame in liquor. I remember it. I shall never forget it. And let nobody in this House or outside ever try to tell me what should be my outlook in so far as the unification of this country is concerned because that is the way I was brought into being. That is the way I was reared. That is the way my thought has been developed. My guidance comes from that source. At this particular time I derive great strength from my past, from my breeding from my father and mother, both of whom have gone to their reward. These things I cannot forget. These things I do not want to trot out, but these things must be said in order that people should fully understand where I stand and how I come to stand there and how I came to be in Fianna Fáil right over the years, working as I did, for I was a child in Fianna Fáil, being kicked by a Blueshirt black and blue on my way from school because I displayed on the lapel of my coat, or jacket, or jersey, or whatever it was, the tricolour that these people would never stand up and give honour to. Well I remember it. I shall never forget it. I try to forgive but never to forget. Let us keep things in mind. I shall keep them in mind, but let us also keep in mind that as those years went on I became part of Fianna Fáil. I could not be otherwise because it was founded with one primary aim of trying to undo the Partition of this land of ours, which has given so much trouble, cost so much pain, and is continuing to do just that, and will continue to do it in lesser or greater measure so long as unity and unification have not been brought about.

I apologise to no one for my views and the views I hold in regard to the re-unification of Ireland, but I do think it is necessary at this particular moment to restate my position. I have been misrepresented, grossly misrepresented, by the architects of Partition both in this House and in Stormont on the question of force. I have never advocated the use of force as a means of bringing about unity of this land—never. Those who say otherwise are liars. What I have said is that we in this part of Ireland cannot stand idly by in these circumstances while the nationalist people of the Six Counties are subjected to murderous assault, as they were last August and, unfortunately and regrettably, it is my opinion that they may well be subjected to the same, or worse, in the not too distant future.

I have no faith in the authority of the British Government and still less in the role that can be played by the British army in preventing bloodshed in the Six Counties. I know from my friends, my personal friends, my very many contacts there, that the Unionist extremists are determined to have what they call the "Ulster Question" finally settled by an all-out assault on the nationalist minority to coerce them and to beat them down into subjection again—this I believe sincerely. The same kind of subjection, I should say, existed until last August when, after many, many years, the people of the Bogside in Derry, later followed by the Falls, by Newry, by Dungannon, by Armagh and Strabane rose up in protest as they had never done before.

Believing, as I do, that violence and, perhaps, bloodshed may be not far away in the Six Counties I charge the leaders of Fine Gael for the disreputable role they have been playing during the past few days to bring down this Government by attempting to provoke a constitutional crisis. They are simply following in the footsteps of their predecessors who sold out in 1925, sold out on the Border question, and handed over almost half a million of our people against those people's expressed wish and against the expressed wish of the majority of all the people of this island, this land, this country of ours, the 32 counties, sold them out and handed them over to the domination of the Orange junta in Stormont, handed them over to discrimination in jobs and in housing, about which we all knew but about which others up to recently may not have been aware.

They sold out to injustice and intimidation, to the periodic pogroms that took place in 1921, 1937 and 1969. Ireland has always had its British lackeys; you can pick them out in every generation, those hypocrites, those who for their own ends are always ready to play Britain's game in this country. Listening to the leaders of the two parties here and also on television the other night was enough to nauseate even the strongest of people with honesty in their souls. We heard the posturing about law and order and public security, the same hypocritical tones that come from Paisley and the Orange extremists, the self-righteous concern for the safety of the Irish people; the blank charges thrown about. It did not matter who they hit so long as they did damage.

I want to know—I think it is a fair question—where were these people who are so concerned now last August? Where were they when the people in the Six Counties cried out for help and even for moral support? They were in the same position as they have always been in, trying by every means at their disposal, every trick in the bag, to get whatever selfish, narrow political advantage they could from the grave situation; going up, making sure the Press knew they were coming, that the photographers were around so that they could be photographed and recorded as having been there on conducted tours. This was done and the Deputies and the people of the country know it was done.

I have done what little I could, whatever lay in my power——

(Interruptions.)

I have done whatever I could to help the Irish people in the Six Counties, regardless of their religion because I am not like many here: I have been reared in a mixed community. I know the people of all religions. I have been reared among them, gone to school with them, danced and played with them and I think I know what I am talking about. I have a feeling for all our people, not for any particular section.

So has Eddie McAteer.

Just hold it, Deputy Desmond. You who know so much would publicise yourself to such an extent and finish up by doing nothing. I have done what little lay in my power in any way I could to help these people at that time and since because the crisis is not over in the Six Counties. I do not retreat from what I have done to help and encourage our people who were being brutally assaulted in those bad days and, indeed, some other days not so long ago in Belfast. I hope I shall never retreat from that outlook or position.

In regard to the sniping that has been done here at my other colleagues I want to say that the arrogance talked about in regard to Deputy Boland is something that I think Deputy Desmond should not have chosen to mention on this particular day. I listened to Deputy Boland today and I am further impressed by the sincerity of the man who believes in the Republican tradition in which he also was reared. Whatever else may be said about his humility and so on certainly no question of arrogance can be raised in regard to his stand and his forthright speech here today.

In regard to the manner in which another colleague, Deputy Ó Moráin, is concerned I can only say that it comes poorly from his colleagues on the opposite side of the House that he should be vilified as has been done; that it should be said that he was drunk in the Gresham Hotel when in fact he should be applauded for standing up and refusing to bow to the claims that this notorious Serjeant Sullivan was somebody we should be proud of, somebody who should be held up as a model to the young Irish people of today whereas this was the man who proposed, I believe in 1919, to the notorious Tans, the Irregulars of those days, that there should be reprisal shootings and executions and that people from all over the land—innocent or guilty, it did not matter a damn—should be pulled in. I think his proposition was that if one of the forces was lost, 32 of those taken in should be shot.

Credit to the Tans, and God knows it takes something to make me say credit to them and those in charge of them in those days, they did not use his formula. But he got people to use it afterwards, in 1922, and we got the reprisal shootings and we got the 77 people shot down. These are the things we must remember when we talk about Serjeant Sullivan. These are the things we should keep in mind when people are blackguarding Mick Moran who was fully capable that night. I have gone to extreme trouble to make sure that this was so and to nail the lie while the man is still quite ill in hospital. He was fully capable that night and he was doing no more than I, and I think many others, if not all of us here, would do if any dignitary at home or abroad stood up to uphold this particular man of our sad past as a model and example to the young people of Ireland, no matter to what profession they belong.

As regards the idea that there is a split down the middle of Fianna Fáil I want to say that Fianna Fáil is not split; it is not even splintered. I say this as one of the people who is no longer in the Government, who is gone from the Government, who refused to resign from the Government. I want the House to know why. With no disrespect to the Taoiseach or to the Government, and with sadness so far as the President of the country is concerned, I refused to resign because I believe that, by so doing in view of the extremely delicate situation in the Six Counties, I would be aiding, perhaps causing, something that would result in some explosion about which we might be very sorry in the future. If my judgment was wrong, I bow to those who would condemn me. This is why I did not resign at the time I was requested and for no other reason.

To all the newspaper reporters and all those who would write about the manner in which I repudiated our Taoiseach, I want this House, and everybody outside it, to know that it was not a repudiation of him. It was no attempt to denigrate him or take from his authority as the elected leader of the Fianna Fáil Party and as Taoiseach of this country duly elected by a majority of this House which, as displayed again only 48 hours ago, is solidly and completely behind him to see that he continues and carries on as Taoiseach and leader at this critical time, at this difficult time, at a time when those in Opposition would try to make it much more critical than it might otherwise be.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I want the House to be fully aware of that. I want them to know that in going from the Government I go with regret, yes, but I also go with the full knowledge that I believe in the principles of Fianna Fáil as laid down in 1926. I believe above all in the first object of Fianna Fáil, as laid down in our constitution at that time and as enunciated again by the Taoiseach at our recent Ard-Fheis and acclaimed by the thousands there present. Believing as I do, I am as Fianna Fáil today as I was last week, last year or in the past decade.

I want the Opposition to know that they are merely chopping ground with a very poor safety razor blade if they think they will by their tactics here disrupt Fianna Fáil and split that which has stood the test of time, not because it is Fianna Fáil by name but because of the fact, as I am solemnly and completely convinced at this time as, indeed, in many other times, that this is the one party capable of doing what is best for this country. Because of that all of us here right across these benches support the party and the leadership of it. We support the Government members of the party and we are about to support the new members of the Government who are proposed to the House. We will do that when the time comes and whether it be 6 o'clock this evening or 6 o'clock tomorrow morning does not matter.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Having said that, I will leave it to others to give their versions of the split and the crisis—which do not exist on this side of the House. If there is anything riling the Opposition it is—and perhaps this is to be understood—due to their disappointment that there is not actually the split they had hoped for. To the Labour Party I would say in particular: Perhaps we have done you a good enough turn by taking you off the headlines as we have done truly and completely in the past few days.

Thank you very much indeed.

Do not mention it. However, let me finish by saying there is no question whatever, or no doubt whatever, as to the allegiance of myself and Deputy Charlie Haughey, for whom I speak here this evening, and Deputy Mick Moran who is in hospital—not that that was ever questioned I think, or maybe it was; so much has been said here and so many things have been said in order to confuse—and Deputy Kevin Boland who has spoken for himself.

Why then was the Deputy's resignation sought?

I am speaking for Deputy Charlie Haughey and myself when I say that there is no question about our allegiance to the leadership of Fianna Fáil, to the members of the Government, and past colleagues, and to the new members who are coming into the Government. So long as there is a Fianna Fáil Party standing on their constitution, so long will they have the support of myself, Kevin Boland I am sure, Charlie Haughey and, I hope, those who come after us bearing the same names. The party will have that support in abundance and there will be no doubt about where our allegiance lies because, in my belief, Fianna Fáil and their continuance is synonymous with the advancement of this country and the ultimate bringing about of unity and the betterment of all our people.

(Cavan): I do not intend to follow Deputy Blaney into the events of 50 years ago but I think it necessary to remind the House, following the speech to which we have just listened, that this debate does not arise out of a row between the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fine Gael Party. This debate does not arise out of a row between the Government party and the Opposition parties in this House. It arises out of an eruption within the Government party. This debate has arisen out of the sacking of two or three Government Ministers by the Taoiseach of the Fianna Fáil Government and the resignations of one or two Cabinet Ministers who refused to serve under their Taoiseach's leadership.

I only want to say about the speech to which the House has just listened, and which came from one of the sacked Ministers, one of the ex-Ministers who has given rise to this unpleasant episode in Irish history, that it would have been much better had Deputy Blaney devoted much more of his time—in fact all of it—to an explanation as to why he was called upon to resign by his leader and why he was sacked in default, rather than in trying to stir up in this House the hatreds, the enmities and the sad events in our past history, which events are now giving rise to trouble in other parts of this island.

That is all I want to say about the speech of the man to whom we have just listened except that this morning I listened attentively to Deputy Kevin Boland, a former Minister who resigned. I have just now listened with equal attention to Deputy Neil T. Blaney, who was sacked in default of resignation. While I agree with neither of them nor anything they stand for, I respect their right to express their views. I want to say this—and I would not be surprised to learn that a great many people agree with me—I would have far more respect for Boland, who spoke this morning, and for his sentiments than for Blaney, to whom we have just listened.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney.

(Cavan): Of Deputy Boland who spoke this morning you might say he was rugged. You might say he held views which you could not share. You might say he was a civil war politician. You might say he was expressing views which were not in keeping with the “'seventies” but you would have to have regard for his sincerity. I could not say that about the man who made the speech to which we have just listened, a speech calculated to stir up hatred, a speech calculated to open up the sores of the Civil War, a speech, in my respectful submission, calculated to drive young men like Deputy Foley of Dublin and other young Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party to guns, into civil war and back to arms. I leave him to the judgment of this House where he has been listened to without interruption.

I said when I last spoke on the previous motion here that I could not support the Taoiseach's nominees for Ministers because, in my opinion, the Taoiseach had lost the confidence of the House and of the country. The Government have been in power far too long. Many of the evils which are now bedevilling us spring from that fact. I stated the other night that the Taoiseach, over the past couple of years, has come to regard low standards in ministerial office as normal. I want to repeat that statement now.

I want to say after full consideration and after due thought that in addition to the Opposition Parties in this House the national press have a serious obligation to discharge. I regret to say that in my considered opinion the national press have, in recent years, been treating that serious obligation lightly. For the past couple of years from these Opposition benches we have found it necessary to point out that in our opinion certain Ministers of State were behaving in an improper manner.

When we pointed out that the Minister for Finance was indulging in what to us appeared to be a doubtful, if not a shady, transaction regarding the sale of land, he was backed up by the Taoiseach and supported by the national newspapers who said we should not have made such suggestions. That man has now been found out by the Taoiseach, and sacked in default of resignation. We found it necessary in debate in this House to draw attention to the fact that the Minister for Finance had appointed to a State board a former Member of this House who is a self-confessed corrupt person and a self-confessed recipient of bribes in his public office. The Taoiseach said that he could think of no better man for the position. A national newspaper published that ex-Deputy's photograph in its daily edition and stated that many people thought that the recognition conferred by appointment to a State board was long overdue to the individual concerned. That was printed under the photograph. Can I be said to be exaggerating if I say that both the Taoiseach and the national newspapers, believing that this Government was in power for keeps, have been treating their obligations to this country lightly?

We found it necessary during the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Justice to draw attention to the fact that, for stated reasons, we considered the former Minister for Justice unsuitable for that office. The Taoiseach stood over that Minister and brushed aside as nothing the complaints we made against him. How did the national newspapers deal with it? They lauded the reply of the Minister to the debate as the greatest since the halycon days of the former Deputies Paddy Ruttledge and Paddy McGilligan, forgetting that Paddy McGilligan had never been Minister for Justice. The national newspapers can be excused for falling into the trap that the rest of the country has fallen into of believing that the Fianna Fáil Party could be trusted in power indefinitely. The sorry and sordid events which we are now considering prove that is not so any longer. I know it is a risky thing for a politician, who depends on publicity and the press, to say these things. I believe certain journalists in this country writing articles belittling politicians, and belittling Ministers of State, reducing them to ridicule and treating the whole thing in a manner in which an up-dated edition of the Dublin Opinion might be expected to do, are rendering no service to this nation, to this Parliament or to democracy.

This Government were elected on the 18th of June, 1969. The Fianna Fáil Party campaigned on the basis that there was only one Government available to the people. They dealt in their own way with coalitions and inter-Party governments. That reminds me that I have not heard the word mentioned from the opposite side of the House since the debate began. That campaign was conducted on the basis of "Let's back Jack" and on the basis that they were a united Government with well-defined, well-known and well-publicised national policies. On the strength of that campaign they were given 75 or 76 Deputies to represent them. This was the greatest majority ever given to this Parliament, with one exception, since its foundation. Surely then, its Taoiseach owed a considerable obligation to the people of the country and to the Parliament.

What do we find? We find the Taoiseach carrying on with this majority from the 18th of June, 1969, fighting a by-election in Dublin South-West in the early part of this year, fighting two by-elections more recently on the slogan "Let's continue to back Jack" when the people who published that slogan knew, or must have known, that, in fact, they were stabbing Jack in the back at Cabinet level. This Government are in power on false pretences. Many of the Deputies on the Government benches are occupying seats which they would never have the right to sit in if the people had been told the truth in June last and if the people had known that there was a sharp and marked division on national policy within the Cabinet. The Taoiseach has been less than frank and less than honest with the country and with the Dáil over the last months. It is very difficult on occasion for members of the Opposition to find out a Taoiseach in matters pertaining to the higher activities of the State or to find out Cabinet Ministers.

I do not have to go farther back than 5th May, 1970—last Tuesday—to prove out of the Taoiseach's own mouth and out of the Official Report of this House, that the Taoiseach was not truthful in this House, that he misled the Opposition, that he misled many of his own Deputies and that, through the mass media, he misled a great many people in this country.

The House will remember—it is no harm to repeat this and to keep repeating it because it is very serious— that the Taoiseach announced the resignation of Deputy Moran, Minister for Justice. He emphasised that it was a resignation on health grounds. I am not calling the Taoiseach a liar but Deputy Kevin Boland who spoke here this morning did so.

The Deputy will need to correct that— the word "liar".

(Cavan): I am not saying that the Taoiseach told a deliberate untruth but I say that a former colleague of his for many years has done so in this House today. At any rate, when the resignation of Deputy Moran was announced, Deputy Cosgrave said: “Can the Taoiseach say if this is the only Ministerial resignation we can expect?” The Taoiseach replied: “I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.” The Taoiseach could be excused for keeping his cards close to his chest. The Taoiseach could be excused for refusing to give a definite answer. The Taoiseach cannot be excused for knowingly misleading this House. He could have said: “I shall deal with that again. I am dealing now with only one matter.” But he just washed his hands. He said, in effect: “I know not the man.” He said that in so many words. In written words, he said: “I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.” I think there is a very full explanation due to this House and due to the country from a Taoiseach who behaved thus on Tuesday of this week and who comes here today, Friday, asking this House to approve his nomination of a number of Cabinet Ministers.

The policy of the Fine Gael Party on the unification of Ireland is well known. It is subscribed to by every member of the Fine Gael Party and presumably it is subscribed to by the Taoiseach because, when we had occasion to debate the matter last year, the Taoiseach, within minutes, said, in effect: "That has been the Fianna Fáil policy for many years." Our policy is well known. We are now and always were constitutional. We do not now and we never did believe in the use of physical force to solve Partition. As far as I know, the policy of the Labour Party on the unification of our country is equally well respected by every member of the Labour Party. They do not believe in force either. The only party about whose policy on Partition there has been any doubt or any equivocation in the past 12 months is the Fianna Fáil Party.

Is the Deputy speaking about the Coalition?

(Cavan): I am speaking about facts. I spoke a lot in Longford-Westmeath not so long ago.

It was the only time you had not a new policy: you forgot about it.

(Cavan): I got a very good reception there and a great number of votes—a lot of them in Longford town. The only party whose policy on Partition is in doubt is the Fianna Fáil Party. The only party in this country who ever refused to accept majority rule was the Fianna Fáil Party. I think it can be said with a great lot of truth that the leopard does not change its spots.

We are discussing here this evening a motion in the name of the Taoiseach to approve of three members of his new Cabinet. The Fianna Fáil Party are asking for this vote under the umbrella of the Taoiseach. We are asking the House to appoint two Ministers in respect of two Deputies who have been sacked from the Government, Deputy Charles J. Haughey and Deputy Neil T. Blaney. Did it ever strike the people of this country, did it ever strike the members of this House, that, if the lobbying which went on a couple of years ago had been successful, this House might have been inflicted with either Deputy Charles J. Haughey or Deputy Neil T. Blaney as Taoiseach—because each of them was in the Taoiseach's stakes within the Fianna Fáil Party a couple of years ago. They are still in the Party. Does it ever strike the House that, on a future date, if the occasion arises, this rabble rouser whom we heard this evening might work up sufficient support for himself to have himself appointed leader of the Fianna Fáil Party and then, if the country were so foolish as to have him in office, we would have him as Taoiseach?

He took the first step here this afternoon.

(Cavan): Did the enormity of that thought ever strike anybody here? Is there not only one way to deal with this, namely, to let the country weed out the people in the Fianna Fáil Party whom they do not want?

What about Fine Gael?

(Cavan): When a debate goes on as long as this debate is likely to last, the water may get muddy. We may, on the invitation of Deputy Blaney, be enticed away from the solid facts. I was glad this evening to hear a former Minister for Defence, the Minister designate for Agriculture, speak. I concede that I had heard him mentioned in connection with the sordid business we were discussing. I did not think that one up. I did not invent it. My party did not invent it. The country is full of it. I want to tell Deputy James Gibbons now, and I make no apology for telling him, that speculation was rife in this House yesterday morning as to whether he would walk into it behind the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, or stay out of it in company with Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney. I did not invent that. Those are the facts. The newspapers had it. Deputy James Gibbons has been mentioned in dispatches.

I thought the Deputy did not believe in newspapers.

I have been mentioned in Deputy Ryan's dispatch.

Not in Deputy Cosgrave's.

The Deputy said earlier he did not respect newspapers——

What Deputy Tunney is trying to do is——

(Cavan): Let me deal with my speech in my own way, please. Let me tell Deputy Tunney, and all the rest of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, we shall stay here until tomorrow night, if they wish. This debate today has been marked by one thing, namely, that everybody was allowed to say his bit, whether on that side or this side of the House. In a debate dealing with matters of such magnitude and such importance I think everybody should be allowed to have his say without interruptions. I was saying I was delighted to hear Deputy Gibbons, the Minister for Defence, who is now Minister designate for Agriculture, intervene in this debate.

The enormity of the situation with which we are dealing, the vacuum in which Fianna Fáil are living, the arrogance which has descended on the party during the years and the fact that they have been seen to become immunised from public opinion as a result of the length of their term in office was brought home to me in the clearest possible terms by Deputy Gibbons. The Deputy seemed to be utterly outraged that anybody should suggest that Army trucks were used to unload from boats ammunition which was to be used for illegal purposes. Deputy Gibbons seemed to be out-raged——

The Deputy should be referred to as the Minister for Defence.

(Cavan): That is much more appropriate to the context in which I am speaking. The Minister for Defence seemed to be outraged that he should come under suspicion in any way whatever and he said that, as far as suggestions from this side of the House were concerned, the sky was the limit.

(Cavan): If that is so might I ask the Minister for Defence if he considers that the Taoiseach went to outer space looking for suggestions when he called on the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to resign because, in his opinion, there was a prima facie case that they had been engaged in unconstitutional matters, to wit, the illegal importation of arms into the country for illegal purposes? Was that not a more far-fetched suggestion than the suggestion made by us? It was the Taoiseach who put these two men in the dock and not us. It is that which has us here at 6.30 on a Friday evening, probably for the first time in the past 50 years, discussing a matter of this nature.

Can I be blamed for suggesting that Fianna Fáil have taken leave of their senses, that they believe they are omnipotent and can do no wrong? It is my belief that the Minister for Defence would adopt the attitude that it is very wrong for an Opposition party to query, in a democratic way, the activities of a Minister but that it is not wrong for a Minister to be engaged in unconstitutional and criminal activities.

Deputy Richie Ryan and Mr. Kennedy, the Northern Ireland MP, are no particular friends. As far as I know they do not go on holidays together or have conferences, but yet there is the suggestion against the Minister for Defence coming over the air from Northern Ireland. What position does the Taoiseach find himself in today— the same Taoiseach who comes to this House and asks us to approve the appointments of three new Ministers to replace those who have been either sacked or resigned?

The other evening there was a meeting of Fianna Fáil Members to discuss what must have been the most important item ever to appear on a Fianna Fáil Party agenda. That meeting lasted for 50 minutes at the end of which time everybody came out clapping their hands and saying everything was all right. Yet, in this morning's papers there is a report of an interview with a man who attended that meeting, and who was one of those who gave the unanimous vote of confidence to the Taoiseach, attacking the Taoiseach—the man whom he yesterday said he accepted in the fullest sense of the word—as being engaged in Gestapo tactics and saying that he would not serve in any Government or under such a Taoiseach in these circumstances. It is hard to believe.

It appears to me that Fianna Fáil do not take the country seriously. This article in today's issue of the Irish Independent stands uncontradicted and not only that, but the former Minister for Local Government came into the House today and made what I believe to be a sincere contribution—a contribution with which I utterly disagree but, nevertheless, which I believe to be sincere. He repeated everything in substance that is reported in the newspaper account of the interview. He believed that his colleagues were unfairly treated but what happened? He sat down to the din of considerable applause which indicated considerable endorsement for what he had said from a number of Deputies within Fianna Fáil—the same Fianna Fáil Party who were unanimously united at 6 o'clock the other evening. That same party applauded one of their members today for denouncing the Taoiseach as being engaged in Gestapo tactics and saying that he would not serve under him in any circumstances.

There is a serious situation in Northern Ireland and there is a considerable amount of credit due to the young progressive people there who, after 50 years, have focused the spotlight of world opinion on the injustices in that part of the country. Those young people, whom we all admire so much, do not wish for armed intervention from this Government and neither do they wish for inflammatory speeches from any member of the Government of this State. If the Taoiseach is honest and if his Minister for External Affairs is honest, he must know that such is the case. These young men who are doing a good job and who have brought about changes that were believed to be impossible a few years ago have specifically told the Taoiseach, and I invite him to deny it, that they do not want any inter-meddling in the affairs of the north by the Government of the south.

I believe that the Minister for Justice was sacked, that he ran away from his job and that a senior officer in the Department of Justice was carrying out the work of the Minister for Justice. It is my belief, too, that that is why the Taoiseach sacked Deputy Moran, as we have been told by Deputy Boland.

After 32 years of Fianna Fáil administration it is good to know that there are dedicated and honest public servants in this State, both in the Army and in the Civil Service, who do not believe in the omnipotence of any Government, who are prepared to serve vigorously the people of this State through the Government that is in power for the day. It should go on record that the people of this country owe a debt of gratitude to our national Army founded, thanks be to God, by Michael Collins and to the Civil Service, founded by Griffith, Collins, O'Higgins, Cosgrave and the rest, for the unselfish and fearless service which they have given to this State.

I honestly believe that, if the Taoiseach would adjourn this debate until Tuesday and get into his car and go down to west Cork, to that nice, secluded, beautiful countryside, and think things over away from the atmosphere of the television, away from the atmosphere of Leinster House, away from the newspapermen and away from the coming and going and lobbying that is going on within his own party, and ask himself where he stands vis-à-vis the Irish people and his own party, he would come to the conclusion that the Fianna Fáil Party have let him down and have let the country down, that they have been in power for far too long, that he himself is considerably to blame for tolerating low standards in high places but, above all, he would, I think, in all humility come to the decision that he has a terrible cheek, that he is being very audacious, that what he is asking this House to do is utterly unreasonable. He is asking this House to repose a vote of confidence in him and in his shattered party—shattered, not on the price of beer, not on whether we should or should not enter the EEC, but split from stem to stern on one of the greatest national issues affecting this country—the issue of the abolition of Partition, entailing the very existence of this State. He would come to the conclusion that there is only one clean way, only one honourable method out of the mess into which he and nobody else—because he is the leader of this Government and he is the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party—has led the country and has led his party, and that is to dissolve Dáil Éireann, to go to the country and give the people an opportunity of voting with open eyes—and not in blinkers as they voted on 18th June last. If he does, I will be satisfied. If he is returned to power—which I am satisfied he will not be—he will be able to face the House and to face the country bearing the sobriquet which he now quite dishonourably allows the people to apply to him—“Honest Jack”.

We have a new Minister for Justice. We are about to have a new Minister for Defence. We have also reached a stage in which the Ministers of Justice and Defence have become what are called key posts. In happy conditions, in a country that is united, these particular posts are not usually considered key posts, but, when tensions rise, when there is talk of civil war, when rumours of violence and conspiracies are rife and when actions and words of members of the Government lend colour to such rumours, then these become key Ministries. They are key Ministries now due to the emotionalism and the confusion, the bungling and the duplicity of the Taoiseach's party, the people whom he brought into office.

What do we know about how these men will behave in certain emergencies? I do not want to dwell on the nature of such emergencies. I do not want to raise the already dangerously high level of passion here and in the country. There could be emergencies and what do we know about how these people would behave in such emergencies? We know this: the Taoiseach has told us that they are suitable for the posts which he is now filling. Less than a year ago he told us all here that Deputy Haughey, Deputy Boland, Deputy Moran—and who was the other one—were all suitable for the posts that were being entrusted to them. He subsequently found out not his mistake but his four mistakes. He found them out only after other in this House had drawn certain facts to his attention.

That record would hardly encourage any prudent person to put confidence in the Taoiseach's choice of people. These are all people whom he knew very well. He knew them, naturally, much better than most of us and he had confidence in them for these posts. He found his confidence abused. It is still being abused. He was quoted this morning as saying that these people, or some of them, are able, dedicated and brilliant. Able and brilliant they may be but it would appear that they have dedicated their ability and their brilliance to mischief, to illegal activities, to something very like a conspiracy. I say it would appear so from the fact that the Taoiseach has found it necessary to dismiss them in the circumstances in which he did. If they can be cleared—and I notice the extent of their denial of the charges— then I am sure we will all be very happy about that; but we would want to know how the Taoiseach came to reach the decision he did, that they had to be dismissed. These people are found suitable for the key portfolios of Defence and Justice with responsibility for the armed forces and the Garda. They are found suitable for those posts by the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach has said—and this is relevant to these areas—that he does rule out force. He believes in unity by persuasion, by eventual consent, something which we must admit is remote but something which we aspire. That is reasonable. That is something which commands the confidence of this entire House. If those people were found suitable by the Taoiseach, with a thorough knowledge of them and how they stand, then, in the light of those principles, we would support such appointments. We have also heard that those new Ministers and Ministers to-be are considered suitable by precisely those colleagues whom the Taoiseach has just dismissed from ministerial office. They agree that those men are suitable people so we are going to have a Minister for Justice— we have one already—and a Minister for Defence stamped with the seal of the approval of Deputies Boland and Blaney.

Is that a reassuring thought to anyone? It will not be to many people in this country. I must say I would feel far more reassured if Deputies Boland and Blaney found those people unsuitable for such posts. What do those people say, and, what is important, how do they say it? We have just heard Deputy Blaney. He gave a remarkable performance. I am interested in the theatre and I can find only praise for his performance as a performance. He touched the chords of passion skillfully; he wound up on a skillful and successful appeal to unity and by doing those two things he earned the applause of the majority of the Fianna Fáil Party. It was only the Minister who sat without clapping their hands as that performance went on.

As a speech it was passionate and it was also evasive. It touched emotion but it failed to divulge any facts. Deputy Blaney said: "I have run no guns." He made a series of other denials. Apparently those did not convince the Taoiseach who knows him. Why should they convince others here in the Opposition who know him less? He disavowed one particular illegal and violent organisation in the north— one. There are several. The others were not disavowed by him. He touched the chords of the emotions of an old civil war, the emotions of nearly 50 years ago. With skill he played on those. He obviously touches hearts over there with that language.

It is rather hard in the circumstances of May, 1970, as we move into one of the most tense and dangerous summers in this island, to forgive someone who rakes up the emotions of an old civil war, in language, in accents which evoke old passions. Deputy Blaney says he knows the north, both Catholics and Protestants. No doubt in a sense he does as far as those can be perceived through his mythology, through his fixations and through the experiences of his youth. If he knows the north all the more shame on him for striking that note now. Surely there must be those on those benches—I am addressing those remarks particularly to the Minister for External Affairs and the Taoiseach—who will repudiate not merely the language but the tone and the whole style of the speech which was pouring petrol on to flames.

Deputy Blaney said: "I have never advocated the use of force as a means of brining about the unity of Ireland but I cannot stand idly by while the nationalist people are subjected to murderous assaults." We can all understand his feelings. We can all share such feelings which are only too easy to realise. What does he mean when he says "I cannot stand idly by"? He was up there but what was he doing? He was doing something and he is still committed to the further doing of that something. What was it? He was asked from those benches what this was but he did not say. There was a hint that he was doing dangerous and patriotic things but what they might be we do not know. He specified a number of things he said he was not doing.

Deputy Blaney said that Fianna Fáil were not split. He may well be right on that. Nothing was more significant, nothing more ominous, nothing more sinister in this debate than the applause which those dismissed Ministers drew from those benches over there from people who are saying they are loyal to the Taoiseach but who applauded the men he dismissed from his Cabinet. Fianna Fáil may not be split. They may unite around those people. He said also that Fianna Fáil were leading the country in some kind of new advance. I would say this. If Fianna Fáil indeed follow the pattern which Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney are hinting at, and which their applause proves, it will be an advance of Gadarene swine towards the gulf of civil war they are heading for. I do not believe they are committed to that path. I think they are not quite sure what they are doing themselves and for a long time they have been confused on this issue. Deputy Blaney was not very explicit about what he was doing or what he believed should be done.

Deputy Boland who is a straighter man said what he thought and I believe him. I believe Deputy Boland was being frank with the House and we should appreciate this although the sentiments that emerge through his frankness are most disastrous and dangerous in the present crisis. He indicated that he also ruled out the use of force as a means of reunifying the country. That has become something of a formula and something of a code language which covers something else. It is only from Deputy Boland's speech here this morning that we find out a little of what that something else is.

What is the policy which has been hinted at and which I fear has been practised? He indicated that he was opposed to illegal organisations of a military character in the 26 Counties— I suppose at this stage we should be grateful to have that assurance at least from an ex-Minister of State. I am paraphasing the Deputy now and if I say something which seems to him seriously to distort what he said, perhaps he would correct me. I understood the Deputy to say that as regards such organisations in Northern Ireland he was not specifically approving them nor would he condemn them. They would have to make up their own minds about what they would do. He seemed to indicate a preference for their using the weapons defensively only, but he would not condemn them if they took other decisions.

Deputy Blaney implied the same thing. Deputy Boland put them in exactly the same position as the rest of the country prior to 1916. That has certain implications. It has the implication that a rising, even if unsuccessful, would be justified. That is only a part of his thoughts because he also said that arms importation into the north should not be illegal; in other words, if guns were to be run across the Border from here over that famous land frontier the Government here, the police and military should look the other way even if they did not actually lend a helping hand. That is what I understood the Deputy to say in the speech that was applauded by so many gentlemen over there.

These speeches are made not in a vacuum: they have already been heard in Northern Ireland. There they fall on attentive and fanatical ears and they will raise tension which is already extremely dangerous. They may even be responsible for actual loss of life —that is not impossible. I was in Belfast last weekend. Already then the tension in that city and in other centres which I visited—and I go there openly —was very marked. When I went again last night to speak on Ulster Television the atmosphere, which previously had been tense and ominous, had become electric. I have never seen so many frightened people in so short a time. Deputy Garret FitzGerald who was with me will bear that out. In the television studio we saw the tension and alarm of the producers and the controllers; we heard hostile telephone calls; we saw a little, rather pathetic, Paisleyite mob in the street, including small children whose faces were contorted with hatred and fear. The hatred and fear are being carried along the soundwaves by people like Mr. Paisley in the North and Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney here—the Deputies who still sit on the benches in this House as honoured members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

The terrible thing is that a vicious circle is involved. Those who rouse up passion, the Paisleys or the Blaneys, play into each other's hands and they confirm one another's prophecies of woe. Deputy Blaney tells us that violence is not far away in the Six Counties. His speech brings it nearer and he must know that since he knows the north. That speech was applauded and this I consider appalling. It is terrible also that people whose political future now depends on an upsurge of emotion in which they have appealed here, have the power of provoking such an upsurge by the impact of their words in the north and by the further impact of events in the north on the 26 Counties. This is extremely ominous and I do not want to amplify that for fear, even in terms of warning, of adding anything to passions here.

I appeal to the Taoiseach in this crisis to think in those terms, to think of this island in danger of drifting towards the verge of civil war through the words and actions of members of his party. I appeal to him to act firmly and to repudiate these men, to withdraw from them the Fianna Fáil Whip, to turn them from his party as he has turned them from his Government. Only then will his frequently wise and prudent language on this subject ever again carry any credibility. After what we have seen and heard I doubt if the Taoiseach will do this—I doubt whether he is any longer able to do it. I fear he may have become the prisoner of these men. Fianna Fáil are a sick party——

Mr. J. Lenehan

We will get in again.

The party is sick with a dangerous and infectious sickness. It is incubating the germs of a possible future civil war.

What we have before us this evening is the filling of three posts. I note my colleague, Deputy Robert Molloy, is one of the nominees. I take this opportunity of complimenting him on his selection; in his favour I would say that he will fill the role somewhat better than the previous Minister as far as sanctioning matters concerning our town is concerned.

We are entitled to discuss the question of Ministers who have held office up to now. The Taoiseach should come before us and account for the stewardship of these ex-Minister, the stewardship of these fallen angels of his party. We heard the arrogant speech of Deputy Blaney, full of fire "let me at them in the north" and this is what we have to contend with. It is said that, in some countries, when one falls into disgrace, as these fallen angels have here, one goes out and commits hara-kari. The Taoiseach should be the one to tell them to get out. He is holding on to office depending on those in the front bench with the knife and they will knife him in the back. The fiery speech that was made here was not for this side of the House but for the Taoiseach's side. This is the greatest scandal that has come to this House for over 50 years. I say a Boland should be the last to be associated with this, because there was a Boland in the past who brought over Pierpoint, the English hangman, to hang Irishmen for less.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy is discussing a man who is not a member of the House.

Mr. J. Lenehan

What about the 77 you got?

I am entitled to point out that 37 young men were executed.

Deputy Blaney referred to 77 and he was not pulled up. Therefore Deputy Coogan is entitled to mention 37.

Every time the Taoiseach appears on television and I happen to be sitting in company the remark is passed: "Doesn't Jack Lynch look a bit shook?" I say: "He has every good reason to be shook, putting up with that bunch he has to deal with." What we see today is the house that Jack built falling down around him. He is trying to patch it up and hold it together, but it will not be for long. It is about time the Taoiseach went to the country and let those people get their answers.

I am often asked: "What sort of a man is Jack Lynch?" I honestly reply: "Basically he is a decent type but he is not made of the stuff to deal with the Ministers he has around him." I think he should be very careful of the Lucifers. It is no wonder the Taoiseach had a set-back recently himself. He is carrying a burden that it takes a man to carry, and I sympathise with him in that respect.

What can we expect when we look around the House and see Deputy Aiken who one time deserted the Free State to fight the north? These are the little things that are being whispered around in the party: "We should have another go at them. If I were as young a man as you I would have a go at them in the north." It is no wonder we have this trouble today. It is no wonder that young men have gone to their untimely deaths when there is this kind of loose talk from the Blaneys of today and the Aikens of yesterday.

The question has been asked in the country and I am entitled to ask it here: what mystery trips has the Asgard done lately, this famous gun-running boat of the past? For what purpose was it painted up? How was it that a large amount of ammunition was found under a bridge in Dublin? Why was there a hush-up in this regard? Strange happenings like this are all forming into a picture about which the people are asking questions. It is about time we had a bit of Lynch law, but I am afraid the kind of law Honest Jack can give is not decisive.

Deputy Boland made a very grand statement here. He should be ashamed. He said it was very wrong of the Taoiseach to give him "the bum's rush" out of the front bench, and that is what it amounts to. It is a grand day to see removed from the front bench that arrogant bunch who were snarling here in a manner reminiscent of the lion in the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer pictures.

Coming from a major tourist centre I think it is bad enough that we should be suffering from the effects of a very severe Budget but now we have this bombshell which is causing and will cause cancellations over the whole area. This will bring ruin to people who have put money into providing tourist amenities, extra rooms and other facilities. This will have a dire effect on the strongest arm of our economy in the west. There is only one answer: get rid of Fianna Fáil and their trigger-happy gangsters. There has been a great deal of talk about the Ard Fheis and how the Taoiseach spoke there, but we did not hear one word about the document that was floating around the House: "Back Neil Blaney". It was "Back Jack" before the election.

Mr. J. Lenehan

There was no such document.

The place was covered with them. I know the Deputy would not be able to read anyway.

Mr. J. Lenehan

There was no such document.

If Deputy Lenehan does not desist from interrupting I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

It is all coming to the surface. There was this document floating around at the Ard Fheis: "Back Neil Blaney". The most disgusting sight I ever saw was at the gate of Leinster House the night before last. The gates had to be closed. All the mohair Taca merchants were storming the front of the House anxious to know what the position was. The Tacateers had come to see where they stood. They were milling around the gate in hundreds. When the three musketeers came out with pipes in their mouths, television cameras ahead of them, they got a cheer from the mohair group. Where does the Party stand now? These Taca men would not have taken guns if the guns were being dished out by Deputy Blaney. All they ever took was cheques but they had to pay a cheque in return.

It is a sad day. We seem to have gone back 50 years, to be playing into the hands of Paisleyites, as we have seen in the last few days. The repercussions will be felt for many a year. They will be felt by our children.

There is a rumour, and it is not without good reason, and it is on the lips of every Garda in the country, that the order was, "hands off the bankrobbers" and they were let off. It is very strange. What has happened this money and the £80,000 that has gone out of the country? Would this be the bank money to pay for these famous arms and ammunition? We are entitled to a full investigation and to a full reply. There is a smile on the face of the Minister there but it is rather hollow. He reminds me of a man whistling passing the graveyard. He is a decent man, one of the few left.

The Deputy's speech is like a record that is being played over and over again.

The Minister is one of the few decent men left.

Thanks very much.

It is a regrettable fact that has come to light that several Fianna Fáil Ministers have been associated with what is now becoming clear to being a communist plot.

The Deputy is reading too many comics.

Does the Deputy not know where the arms were coming from? Someone should advise the Deputy. It is rather strange that he should be so innocent. It is about time that a charge of high treason was made against some of these gentlemen. Young men in this country were sent to the gallows for much less. Here we have a supposedly responsible party. The whole thing smacks of the days of the Chicago gangsters—Al Capone, Legs Diamond, Baby Face Nelson—yes and we had Bugs Moran thrown in with them too. These are the gentlemen who tried to take over Chicago, like the crowd who are trying to take over Jack.

The house that Jack built is falling down on top of him. There is no use in trying to patch it. Let it be a warning that history should not be repeated. Some of us have seen enough in our lifetime. I know what is keeping them smiling. They are digging in because they know that if they go to the country they will get their answer. The Ministers who deserted the front bench are like rats deserting a ship. I heard one decent member of Fianna Fáil saying: "Never again will I stand." It was only yesterday that he said that to me. He was one decent man. I knew he was. Decent men can be misled. It would be a decent thing if the other Members would do the same thing.

The attempts of the Ministers to wash their hands, like Pontius Pilate, were pitiful. Jack had to sit there. One would have thought that there was a halo around Deputy Blaney when he was describing what he did in the past. I never saw any bullet marks on him.

Our leader, Deputy Cosgrave, has pulled down the wallpaper and shown the cracks. When the walls begin to crack, the foundations are rotten. That is the position of Fianna Fáil. It is time the Fianna Fáil bubble was burst. That will happen sooner than many of them think.

I have sympathy with Jack Lynch. I would advise him not to die for the country in the way he is dying. He was advised by another Deputy to go off to west Cork and enjoy a peaceful holiday. Before doing so, would he take a little ride to the Park? I would gladly pay the car fare if he would go to Aras an Uachtaráin and tell the President that he is packing in.

There is a backfire in that car. The boss said that before.

There was a backfire at this gate and it did not come from the rear of the car; it came out of the side and you had to cover that up. Things are more dangerous than the people know. Thank God we have a free press in this country. If the Blaneys and the Bolands and the rest of them had their way the people would know nothing. God forgive us if we ever allow Fianna Fáil to get in again.

The debate has gone on for so long that there is very little left for Deputies to say without repetition. However, I think that the Taoiseach was subjected today to more implied and more offensive criticism from his own benches than we have heard from the best efforts of the Opposition speakers of both parties because what we heard today was that the Taoiseach has made a very serious blunder, that he has effectively emasculated his Cabinet; he has put out of it three men—two men if we take Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney—who all Deputies in this House know to be what he called brilliant men, very talented men and those of us who have been here for a while with all our differences, recognise them to be extremely clever tacticians, parliamentarians and good politicians. What we have been told today is that these men are innocent of very serious charges made against them by their colleague, the Taoiseach.

Now the truth cannot lie with both. The truth lies with one or the other, with the Taoiseach or with Deputy Boland, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey. Therefore, one of these is also lying by implication. One of these is not telling the truth. That means that we have a Cabinet which contained men who, on this very serious issue, are telling deliberate falsehoods. I was rather struck by the Taoiseach's approach to this whole problem of the disloyalty in his Cabinet from his own senior Cabinet colleagues. I have no doubt at all but that the motivation to take action came from Deputy Cosgrave, the leader of the Fine Gael Party, and it seems to me that Deputy Lynch, the Taoiseach, was not going to take action——

——until he was forced to do so following an ultimatum from Deputy Cosgrave. That is, I think, a very serious charge to make. I think it is a valid charge. I think it can be the only explanation of the three-o'clock-in-the-morning episode and the extreme urgency with which the Taoiseach eventually acted. From that we have, I think, to accept that in spite of the information the Taoiseach had held for at least a fortnight, he continued to harbour these men whom he believes were acting in a subversive way either because he was frightened of them or because he had a certain sympathy with their objectives, if they could get away with these objectives, and that he only acted when he was forced to do so by the intervention of the leader of the Fine Gael Party.

I do not think anybody who knows anything at all about this subject has any doubt but that rumours of this sort, concerning at least two of the Deputies, Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney, had been in circulation last August. We heard them when we were in the north at the time. I said they were rumours. They could have been untrue. According to the Taoiseach, the position is that they, in fact, were true. They were widely circulating particularly in the Falls Road area. I am trying to be very careful now because this is a very serious matter, but there were rumours that arms were being supplied from the south as a result of the intervention of members of the Irish Cabinet.

I find it almost impossible now to believe that these rumours did not reach the ears of the Taoiseach until 20th April of this year. I also heard these rumours when we were in London and I have heard them since in Dublin. It seems to me that there was a responsibility on the Taoiseach, assuming he heard of these rumours, and I am quite certain he must have heard them, to carry out inquiries in order to ensure their veracity or otherwise.

I come now to what I consider a very strange part of this whole affair and that is the Taoiseach's recital the other night of his scehdule of action on getting the information from the security forces. I should like to ask him, first of all, what security forces he is talking about. Is he talking about our security forces here? Is he talking about the security forces in the Six Counties? Is he talking about the security forces in Britain? Is he talking about Interpol? The Taoiseach owes it to us to tell us which of these security forces, or how many of them combined, to alert him as late as April when, in fact, as I have just said, many of us had heard rumours as long ago as August last. Which of these alerted him on 20th April? It has been suggested that he was activated only when he was forced to do so by the British Government. I think the Taoiseach should answer the question and give us the information.

Is it a fact that our security forces here knew of these dealings and, as on so many other occasions, their advice was ignored? Was their advice suppressed? Anybody who has read a recent article in Hibernia concerning a series of bank raids, an armed cowboy style hold-up in Rathdrum, extraordinary, well-planned, expertly carried out raids and robberies, ending up in the terrible death of poor Garda Fallon, cannot but be impressed at the failure to bring anybody to justice for these crimes. It seems to be nearly impossible in an island of this size, with a population as small as it is, to believe that the failure was due to some defect in our security. It seems incredible that all of this could have gone without some success on the part of our security forces.

I find it impossible to believe that they could be that incompetent. Are they that incompetent? Or is it that the information supplied by them was simply ignored, not acted on, or suppressed? If that is so, who is responsible? Which Minister is responsible for that situation? I find it very difficult to talk about a man who is ill, be it Deputy Moran or Deputy Haughey— let us talk about ministries—but, in circumstances such as those with which we are confronted now, what ministry was responsible for the fact that over such a long period either a totally inept security force was kept on the strength without serious inquiry having been made into their ineptitude; or conversely, if this is an unjust, unfair charge, which I suspect it to be, then let us know why was information supplied by them not acted on by the Taoiseach?

I was surprised at the peculiar preamble to the Taoiseach's speech the other night. He dealt with Deputy Keating's excellent speech, excellent in so far as I think he established what is for all of us now generally accepted here in the Dáil and outside in the country, that this is a Government that cannot be trusted, no matter who is speaking, on any serious matter and, in particular, that the Taoiseach, above all, is the least trustworthy and the least reliable in the whole Cabinet. The Taoiseach said, and I am quoting from the Irish Times of the 7th May:

I told them both that I had information which purported to connect them with an alleged attempt to unlawfully import arms on the basis of which information I felt it was my duty to request their resignation as members of the Government. Each of them denied attempting in any way the importation of arms. They asked me for time to consider their positions and I agreed to do so.

In the meantime I authorised the continuance of investigations and I made personal investigations myself, following which I decided to approach the two Ministers again and to repeat my request that they tender to me their resignations as members of the Government.

I find a peculiar inconsistency in that statement for this reason: if I were Taoiseach and if I had information of this kind about my colleagues in the Cabinet I do not think I should be justified in going to them and requesting their resignations on information supplied to me which I had not troubled to verify to the extent that I could verify it. You notice in the statement the Taoiseach said he went along and asked for their resignations on information supplied and then he went to make personal inquiries and personal verification.

I believe that in his first approach to them he was being unjust to his colleagues on such a very serious charge affecting their political careers, affecting their personal lives, their families, the community and the country. To me it seems there is some inconsistency in this introductory statement which requires clarification on the part of the Taoiseach. It is quite impossible to believe that a man would go along to two of his trusted and respected senior Cabinet colleagues on what appeared to him to be doubtful information—doubtful because he went to the trouble of verifying or attempting to verify it by private investigation—asking for their resignations. It would seem to be a precipitate action and to that extent I find it very difficult to credit that that is, in fact, the way the Taoiseach behaved.

He dismissed Deputy Keating's "perhaps" speech—"We regret we cannot believe you; you may be telling an untruth"—because he tried to say that when he went to Deputy Haughey, to whom I wish a speedy recovery from his illness, he was told by a physician that he could not take any action in this regard. I accept that. He also went to Deputy Blaney and what I would like to know is why did the Taoiseach not act in respect of Deputy Blaney on 20th or 21st April? Deputy Blaney was not concussed: he had no eminent physician to advise the Taoiseach that he should not be shocked by any dangerous conversation or announcement. Why did the Taoiseach not ask for Deputy Blaney's resignation on 20th or 21st April? Why did he continue to leave Deputy Blaney in office, there being no medical reason whatever? We listened to the very powerful, very healthy ex-Minister, Deputy Blaney, today, and there was no reason in the world why he should not have been dismissed on 21st April when the Taoiseach got the information and further corroborated it and concluded his own personal inquiries which appeared to verify the charges he had made.

We must try to understand some other puzzling aspects of this problem, such as the unanimous vote of the party after an hour's discussion. What proof did the Taoiseach give to the party that committed them to a unanimous acceptance of the sacking of the party treasurer, the party's aspiring Taoiseach and the resignation of the party secretary, three very distinguished members of the party, three of the most active, loyal members of the party, from their offices in the Cabinet? Presumably charges were made at the party meeting. Was a defence made by the two Ministers? If a defence was made what were its terms? If proof was advanced by the Taoiseach, what was the proof? What reliance could be placed on it? If reliable proof led to a unanimous endorsement of his decision, how do we explain the professions and protestations of innocence by Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland? Is it that the Taoiseach has made a monumental blunder? Or is it that these three are lying or misleading the House?

It is very difficult to believe that the Fianna Fáil Party can for long survive this very serious crisis, a crisis of confidence in themselves. There must be some Deputies there who despite their votes must say like ourselves—unless they got this conclusive proof—that Deputy Haughey simply could not have been so stupid as to do this. About the others, it is possible that they could have done it, but it becomes very difficult to accept it about Deputy Haughey, a very sophisticated, intelligent, mature, clever politician, as he has always shown himself to be. There must be many Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party asking themselves that question.

I believe in those circumstances the Taoiseach has a responsibility to us all to deal with the statements made today, because implicitly they question either his integrity or his qualities or qualifications. As a distinguished man, as he happens to be, as a practised lawyer, as he happens to be, we must assume that he was satisfied with the proof supplied to him. He is a man who practised in the courts. Is not this in his own interests in view of the fact that the country must be divided between the Taoiseach and his Ministers? As a result of the statements made here this morning we must all take sides in our own minds and, what we feel here, will be reflected throughout the country.

Unless the leader of the Cabinet, unless the Taoiseach—and he is Taoiseach to all of us—unless the leader of our country can establish without question that he acted justly and fairly and correctly to these men—and that has all been put in question by the statements of these three responsible and respected members of the Fianna Fáil Party and Members of this House— then the respect which the Taoiseach has held for so long in the country— he was the great incorruptible—must collapse in ruins and there must be a continued loss of confidence in the Fianna Fáil Party. That does not worry me very much, but there must be a continued and slow increase in the vociferous forces within the party as the debate goes on. I heard one respected Fianna Fáil Deputy whose name I will not mention say that if he has the proof he should publish it.

That is only the beginning of the debate within the Fianna Fáil Party. Assuming they survive this episode, as time goes on and as the Taoiseach who has now lost his mantle of infallibility becomes more and more discredited, not only as a result of his delayed action as some people would say, or precipitate action as others would say, the conflict within the party, the polarisation within the party, pro-Lynch and pro-Haughey, must become exacerbated and intensified and can lead only to growing inefficiency in the work of the Cabinet and in the work of the Government because they will be so busy fighting each other that they will find it impossible to unite in order to discharge their functions and care for the affairs of the country.

I have never had a high regard for the Taoiseach. I cannot pretend I ever had. I came into the Dáil with him in 1948 and my recollection of him at the time is that he was a person who very rarely if ever contributed anything worth listening to, or anything at all to any debate. He never seemed to me to take any serious interest in questions or discussions. He rarely intervened. On getting office he passed through various ministries. He left the Department of Education as he found it. The late Deputy O'Malley later on had to make the major changes which the Taoiseach Deputy Lynch, should have made when he was Minister. He passed through the Department of Industry and Commerce. We had cost of living rises, continual industrial differences of one kind or another, continual disorder and lack of any kind of direction, or policy, or control within that Department. In the Department of Finance the record is precisely the same.

We all know that he became Taoiseach—and this is a very common thing in parliamentary democracy— because of the polarisation around two able men who were his opponents. He happened to step in. There was nobody else. Faute de mieux they took Deputy Lynch. He is a man of supreme incompetence and ineptness. I am not at all surprised to find that he is now in the middle of this dreadful mess which affects all of us. What has surprised me is that it has taken so long to eventuate. At the same time, he is not above playing his own brand of dirty politics when it suits him. We had cause to know that during the past general election when he imputed various charges against us of harbouring alien doctrines and so on, an implicit communist smear—there was no doubt about that —of the worst kind.

In addition, he did not hesitate to play politics on the issue of Partition which appears to worry—I emphasise that; appears to worry—Deputy Blaney. I have no doubt at all that the movement of the troops to the Border in July or August was a playing up to emotional demands at the time. He was responding in a primitive political way to a terribly dangerous situation. This danger we appreciated fully only when we went into the Bogside and found the poor people there—the most harrowing experience I have ever had— waiting for and expecting that if they needed help they would get it from the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Government.

To some extent they were preparing their strategy on that assumption and on the possibility of a rising. We had to beg and assure them that this was simply a political device on the part of the Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, designed to allay the demands of the mavericks which we now know he had within his own party. So far as I now gather, what saved our people in the north at that time was the reasonably responsible behaviour of the leaders in the Bogside area who said to themselves: "Yes, it is possible that Jack Lynch could help us and could save us if we decided to have a rising but our fellow-Irishmen in the Falls Road area of Belfast would be subjected to a pogrom and to genocide on the appalling religious grounds which are the source of the differences between the people in the north of Ireland." It was the responsibility of the leadership in the Bogside which helped to save our people in the north from the irresponsible behaviour of Deputy Lynch on that occasion.

The Taoiseach knew quite well, logistically speaking, that he could not have raised a finger to help the people if they were attacked by the military. The appalling truth was that the British Army was the only guarantee of protection the people in the Falls Road area had from what they felt was to be an incursion by the sectarian bigots who wanted to kill them because they were of a different religion. It was about time that Deputy Lynch was found out. I am delighted to see it. Deputy Lynch, the Taoiseach, has been getting away with political fraud for too long. There was a danger at that time. An attempt was to be made to establish our bona fides down here as people who wanted to try to reassure the Protestants who would become a minority in a 32-County republic.

There was great talk about what we did, what we could do, and what we should do. Nobody talked louder than Deputy Lynch, the Taoiseach, who said that all these problems which appeared to worry some of the Unionist Protestants in the north were capable of reasonable solution after discussion. They were capable of compromised solutions of one kind or another. One will recall the problem of the special constitutional position of the Catholic Church. It was felt that something could be done about that. It was said that something could be done about the Ne Temere decree and about divorce if people wanted it, and that something could be done about such a problem as contraception. These were to be the subjects of discussion and then of constitutional amendment here so that at least we could show good faith and could envisage a united Ireland in which the minority could join us and not feel frightened, as our unfortunate minority feels frightened up there at the present time because of possible sectarianism, discrimination and exploitation on religious grounds.

There was a debate. An all-party committee had made certain recommendations. Most of us were ready. The Taoiseach started on his new objective. The Taoiseach started on a Presidential election campaign—his Presidential election campaign. Then it became quite apparent that he had no intention whatever of doing anything. He was not prepared to subordinate his personal ambitions to these important pre-conditions to the creation of a united Ireland. We were told that these matters had been considered and it was decided to take no action in regard to them. They were very thorny and very difficult problems to discuss down here. On the Taoiseach's preparedness to discuss these dangerous subjects depends the sincerity of his protestations as to whether he wants a united Ireland or not or whether he wants to see the end of Partition. That is why the Taoiseach's protestations about being anxious to see the end of Partition are just so much humbug.

I can only describe Deputy Blaney's speech today as an evil speech. It was a terrible speech. It was an appallingly irresponsible speech. Those of my generation—and Deputy Blaney is one of my generation and I remember fighting a by-election in Donegal many years ago with the Deputy's father— know well how much we have reason to hate the whole idea of armed conflict between our people within this country. The whole of our political lives have been bedevilled by that dreadful Civil War of the older generation. I do not wish to pass judgment on them because of the circumstances in which they found themselves. It is easy to criticise people in other generations. I am concerned only with our own generation. Deputy Blaney should have learned from their experience.

I remember the first Dail of which I was a member and the terrible recriminations—the 77, the Blueshirts; and on the other side, the same thing. Back and forth it went across the House. We had no time to talk about the things we were sent here to discuss —health services, unemployment, emigration, the care of the aged and the disabled. We had no time to attend to these matters because there was too much bitterness, too much hatred here. There was too much bitterness out of that Civil War. Deputy Blaney knows that well. It aborted political development here—right up to this particular Dáil. It is the first time I have heard from all parties and heard young Deputies making valuable contributions on every subject without reference to the Civil War—until we come to a speech like that delivered today by Deputy Blaney. It was a completely disgraceful performance—rabble rousing, barnstorming. It was an evil speech. I now understand, when I read of the thundering of feet at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, why the feet thundered. It was because he was rattling the sabre; because he was calling them to arms; because he was exciting the lowest animal instincts in humanity— that you could ever solve anything by killing a fellow man.

As I said to my old friends—people who were involved in the Civil War— slightly mockingly but sympathising with them, no matter how we differ in our time, have no fear, we will never shoot one another because we disagree with one another on our social and economic ideas. Deputy Blaney should know that as well as I do. Deputy Blaney should preach that as much as I endeavour to do.

The Taoiseach is a humbug and a hypocrite. He has played politics over the artificial division of our country. He deserves everything that is coming to him. I hope he will be displaced as Taoiseach; I shall do everything in my power to bring it about. That charge is equally applicable to Deputy Blaney. Each of these men—the Taoiseach, and Deputies Blaney, Boland and Haughey—has at some time or other occupied the power Ministries in this community. Each of them, including Deputy Blaney—the one who gave us all this hot-headed rhetoric today about the ending of Partition—has used that power to do nothing, to create a milieu, an atmosphere, a basis on which there could be a sane solution to the ending of Partition.

Deputy Blaney says he knows the north. One of the things he must know about the north is this. Not only will the Unionist Protestant not come in, not only is he frightened to come in for the reasons I gave earlier—legitimately frightened or not—but the truth is that because of the failure of 32 years of Fianna Fáil Government there are so many major defects in the social structure, the social fabric of our society—in health, in care of the aged, in care of the disabled, in neglect of education, in regard to unemployment and emigration—that the so-called Catholic Nationalist does not want to come into the Taoiseach's republic either. Deputy Blaney must know that as well as I do because they told me that at Bogside and on the Falls Road. There might be sectarianism there but there is a health service there. There is university education there. The old people grow old in dignity, they do not die of hunger. Even if you are unemployed, your children still get fed. It is a dreadful conservative Unionist Government but it is not quite so dreadful as Deputy Lynch's conservative Government. That is the appalling truth.

If Deputy Blaney was sincere in his protestations he would have organised agriculture so that we could have created the wealth required to provide services which would be as good as, and preferably much, much better than, those provided by the British Government in their hand-outs to the Six County Government. Deputy Blaney was in charge of the Department of Local Government. He could have built some houses for our people. So could Deputy Boland. If Deputy Haughey had been interested in emigration he could have done something about unemployment which stands at 7 per cent, 8 per cent or 9 per cent at present; one of the highest in Northern Europe. He could have seen to it that the unemployed families were fed instead of being starved into emigrating. Certainly the parents of the unemployed were starved into emigrating —emigrating to Britain, to the tender care and protection of John Bull whom these people so much hate.

Emigration became an integral part of Fianna Fáil's social and economic policies. If they did not emigrate, they starved. Therefore, one million of our fellow-Irishmen were hunted into exile because of the failure of agriculture, because of the failure of finance, because of the failure of the Taoiseach, because of the failure of health, education, social services and the various disastrous ineptitudes of these various Ministers who would not change their policies because they and their friends did too damn well out of them. What is their solution to this problem? It is "if they do not come in willingly, we will bring them in at the point of a gun". Everybody has talked about what will happen in summer. Deputy Blaney was very bitter in relation to the shoneens. He said that we have always had British lackeys. This is the real old wrap-the green-flag-round-me-boys humbug that went out in the twenties and in the thirties and thank God for that. This very man is the one who played a major role in signing the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement.

Hear, hear.

This is the man who has opened the floodgates for the reunification of Ireland by the British entrepreneurs, capitalists and others. This is the man who, with his Taoiseach, is waiting for approval from Westminister before joining the British as very junior partners in the EEC undertaking. This is the Fianna Fáil Government who, not only have proved themselves to be British lackeys but have also shown themselves to be Dutch lackeys, Danish lackeys, American and Japanese lackeys.

Leave out Czechoslovakia.

We are accused of having alien philosophies. May I ask what is owned by the people here? In Cork there are the Dutch; in Kerry, the Germans; in Dublin, the French, except where they decided to bail out with so much of our money, and throughout Ireland we have the various other outsiders who have been begged to come and run our country. What was the whole freedom movement about? For what did we seek freedom? For what did Connolly and Pearse give their lives? Was it that this should happen?

Deputy Blaney had the appalling impertinence to say that Fianna Fáil are synonymous with the advance of this country and with the unity of Ireland. Yet, so many of our population have had to get out under the Fianna Fáil administration and the Catholic Nationalists in the north when speaking on unity tell us that they will not come in at any price because of the way in which affairs are organised down here.

Hear, hear.

That is the achievement of Fianna Fáil. That is the measure of their failure, the measure of their success. We are opposed to this whole concept of the use of force. Unfortunately, Connolly was shot and when that happened our revolution ended. Connolly advocated a socialist Ireland and it was the failure to take notice of Connolly's ideological teachings that has led to the grossly defective society in which we now live.

There can be only one kind of unity and that is an agreed unity between the ordinary people of Ireland, north and south, both Catholic and Protestant. There can be no unity at the point of a gun whether the gun be held by a Unionist, by a Protestant or by a Catholic. Therefore, if the Taoiseach has any guts at all, and I do not believe that he has, he should repudiate and completely reject the type of irresponsibility as practised by Deputy Blaney.

There is more confusion about the word "Republicanism" than there is about the words "Democracy", "Christianity" and the other various words that are thrown about in this House from time to time. Does Deputy Blaney seriously believe that he is a Republican in the tradition of Wolfe Tone? Does he believe that he is a Republican in the tradition of the French Revolution or in the tradition of an egalitarian socalist society? That is Republicanism but cowboys and Indians on the Border is not Republicanism.

We in the Labour movement believe there is only one solution to the ending of Partition and that solution is based on an approach in social terms, an approach in fiscal and economic terms, an approach through agriculture and through industry. It is only when we have accepted that down here that there is any likelihood of our finding ourselves as one with the people of the North of Ireland.

After that speech by Deputy Blaney today what will be the position in July, about which Deputy Cruise-O'Brien spoke and of which most people are pretty well aware? Will this abject loyalty to the leader, this humbug, this two-faced loyalty outlast a pogrom in Belfast in July or August, contributed to by the dishonest rhetoric we have listened to today? How dare he talk about loyalty to a man whom he has made the common clown of Irish political life and Ireland the common political clown of international political life? How dare he talk about loyalty? Will that loyalty outlast that? Will Deputy Boland's? Will Deputy Haughey's? Will Deputy Brennan's? Will that loyalty outlast—the unanimity of the party behind it and the party in the country behind the Parliamentary Party—the demands of that situation? We know what happened last year. We know, too, that the situation is infinitely more dangerous now than it ever was. British soldiers may get shot, agents provocateur, Catholics, Protestant Unionists may get shot and the whole powder keg is set aflame. Where do these people stand then on those protestations today? Only the other day charges were made against a Labour Deputy in Britain on the question of security and he resigned from his seat in Parliament. He was tried and found innocent. Yet we have this behaviour today. This Deputy had the impertinence to come into this House today to exhort his party to line up behind Jack, to go on backing Jack “just like I have been backing Jack during my period of office with him in the Cabinet”.

This to me is simply the end result of a sordid, petty-minded, irresponsible power struggle within the Fianna Fáil Party. It is nothing more than that. The appalling tragedy is that innocent people may get involved in the working through of their antagonisms for one another within Fianna Fáil. It is a struggle for leadership—defeated Haughey, Blaney and Boland with their knives out for Lynch. Make no mistake: nobody believes those knives are sheathed.

When elected to the Dáil three weeks ago I had no idea that my maiden speech would be delivered in such sad and distressing circumstances and that I would have the responsibility of contributing to what I consider, as a newcomer to this House, a most awesome debate. It is awesome because it has been precipitated by treachery. The word "treason" was objected to here yesterday on technical grounds and I do not propose to use it. I am quite happy with the word "treachery". It is defined in the concise Oxford dictionary —if I may quote an Oxford dictionary in this place after what we heard this morning—as "violation of allegiance; the betraying of trust; perfidious and not to be relied on". It is those standards of betrayal that have brought this debate into being.

I find it extremely sad that my maiden speech in this House should be made on such an occasion. If the dismissals by the Taoiseach were for other reasons, even for reasons of financial dishonesty, I do not think it would be half so bad but the reasons for the dismissals may become obscured when one considers the speeches of Deputies Boland and Blaney here this morning. They may become obscured under the guise of patriotism. I understand patriotism to mean love of one's country and if one can visualise either of the two gentlemen who spoke this morning being a patriot, having regard to what he said, then such a person requires to be educated. Deputy Dr. Browne has very eloquently exposed the sham rhetoric of Deputy Blaney but as well as exposing it for the fallacy that it is we should realise the reason for it. He boasted here with some emotion of his patriotic Republican background. There are others in the House who have as patriotic a heritage and we do not find it necessary to boast of it.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

He boasts of it, in my opinion, because he knows it is inadequate. He boasts of it to try to compensate for its inadequacy. He related how his father was under arrest and sentence of death by the lawful authority of the time, the Free State. He was because it was the law at that time that anybody arrested with a firearm in his possession would have to be sentenced to death. His father was arrested with a firearm in his possession but there is some doubt as to whether it was loaded. There is no doubt. That it was never fired. The patriotism of these people, their sea-green Republicanism, never flowered until after the last British soldier had left these shores. Who ever heard of a Black-and-Tan in Donegal? Who ever heard of a flying column in Donegal? So much for the patriotism that is Deputy Blaney's heritage—the effort to compensate for the lack of contribution to a struggle when a contribution was needed.

The stance and the attitudes and the emotions of Deputies Boland and Blaney are 50 years out of date and because of that they are deadly dangerous. They are deadly dangerous in case they might delude anyone of my generation into thinking that they have a validity today. They have no validity today and Deputy Dr. Browne has made that very clear. They have no validity because all they can achieve is to cause bloodshed. There has been enough bloodshed in the name of patriotism.

Last Wednesday I attended the commemoration ceremonies at Arbour Hill. I went there with a considerable amount of pride as a new Member of this House commemorating the final sacrifice the men of 1916 had made that I might be in this House. When I came back here after those ceremonies I learned the news. Ministers were dismissed for treachery of a kind that could have destroyed this House and completely set at naught the supreme sacrifice we had commemorated that morning. What those men have done is an enormous crime against this country. What appals me is that the enormity and the shame of it has been obscured and does not seem to have been realised by their own party.

This horrible tale is one of lies and deceit. The ex-Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, was to have come here. If he had come here last Wednesday, the day after he had already been convicted and found guilty by his own Taoiseach, he would have expressed social concern for the poor, the sick, the unemployed and the aged. He would have said that a genuine and widespread feeling of social concern is the hallmark of a humane and civilised society. This is a gentleman— I do not accept his denial—who has been convicted of attempting to smuggle guns, guns which can only be used to kill people. His protestations of concern for the poor, the sick, the unemployed and the aged sound extremely hollow in the light of that knowledge.

The deceit which is more serious than that of the ex-Minister for Finance is the serious deceit we have had from the Taoiseach. It seems quite clear from what has happened that his delay in acting on the information available to him on the 20th April is unpardonable and was motivated by an attempt to deceive this House if at all possible. When he had to act, and when he came before the House on Wednesday, he gave an account of the chronology of events from the time he got his information until he dismissed his Ministers. Yesterday morning he again dealt with the chronological sequence of events. Those matters are reported in the Official Report, columns 642, 716 and 717 and my reading of those reports reveals startling inconsistencies. When I draw them to the attention of Deputies, I feel they will agree that they support the charge of deceit against the Taoiseach. In column 642 the Taoiseach tells us he informed Deputy Haughey's doctor he wanted to see Deputy Haughey, and the Taoiseach then goes on to say:

I told the doctor it was a serious matter and he repeated his opinion that he felt he was not in a position to discuss, certainly at any length, a matter of serious import. However, I ultimately got the doctor's permission and I decided to interview Deputy Haughey in hospital on Wednesday, 29th April.

After getting the doctor's permission he decided to interview Deputy Haughey in hospital on the 29th April. He further states:

Having made that decision and before I went to the hospital, I then summoned Deputy Blaney to my room and interviewed him, upon which I went to the hospital and interviewed Deputy Haughey.

We know he went on to say that those men asked for time, that he gave them time—an extraordinary gift in the circumstances of the knowledge which he had.

I now want to turn to column 716 when the Taoiseach was winding up the debate and where he said:

I visited the Minister in hospital and frankly I was worried after the first four minutes of the interview lest I do this man, who had suffered a fractured skull, permanent damage. I cut the interview short—much shorter than I would otherwise have done—as the doctor in any event had informed me that I could not get concentration for more than a few minutes. Having interviewed a man who was suffering from a fractured skull, does anyone suggest that I should there and then have taken action against him? I gave him some further days, as I thought I was bound to do having regard to his condition, to consider the situation and I also gave some further days to the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

I also find an inconsistency there. In his prepared, considered statement to this House reported at column 642 he says:

I decided to interview Deputy Haughey in hospital on Wednesday, 29th April.

Before going to the hospital he saw Deputy Blaney. At column 717 the inference is that he saw Deputy Blaney after being at the hospital. Furthermore, from his prepared statement on Wednesday it appears that the Taoiseach had an interview and a discussion with Deputy Haughey, at which he must have put to him those serious charges. I am quite certain an interview of that importance and of that magnitude could not have been concluded in the four minutes he referred to when he was winding up the debate. I mention those points in the hope they will copperfasten the charges of deceit that have been made and, to my mind, proved abundantly. In a matter as serious as this, where the very fabric of this State was being threatened by treachery from within, one would have expected that the leader of the State would take major steps to ensure that every statement of his to this House accounting for his stewardship would be completely accurate.

Again, there has been deceit and this time of a different kind by the Taoiseach. As he said himself in the course of the debate, he is a lawyer by profession and he knows what the burden of truth is and what is involved; but he also knows, I am quite certain, what a prima facie case is and what it involves. I am quite certain the case he put to his Ministers was at least a prima facie case because, if it was not, he would surely have accepted their denials. We now have the deceitful situation that those two men have come into this House to repeat denials which have already been refused by their own Taoiseach, but yet that Taoiseach still accepts their support. This is deceit of the highest order. It is deliberate deceit and it is deceit for expedient, political purposes to avoid an election because the Taoiseach still wants those men behind him. I do not know why he wants them, but he certainly wants them. I fail to see how any Taoiseach of any honour or standing could say the following about two men he had found guilty of treachery:

Each was a person of great intellect and both persons had given, in different capacities and different Ministries, great service to the State.... I want the House to remember that each of these men was a man of outstanding ability.

There is a contradiction in terms. Those men could not be men of outstanding ability if they were prepared to betray their leader, this House and their nation. However, for whatever reason I do not know except what I have suggested, the Taoiseach is prepared to praise these men, to retain them and to have their support.

Another factor which we in this House must consider is what is going to happen when this debate finishes. The Taoiseach is a lawyer and he must have satisfied himself that there was a prima facie case against these men. If that is so, he has a duty to see that this matter is taken further by the law officers of this State. If he does not do that he will have done immense damage to the rule of law.

I would remind the House that the rule of law is what stands in any civilised country between order and chaos, between civilisation and anarchy. There are certain principles involved in the rule of law which, if not adhered to, can mean that that rule can be diminished. If that rule is diminished disorder will follow and we do not want disorder in this country.

One of the things that can diminish the rule of law is disrespect for the law of the land. Even in small matters such as the quashing of traffic summonses, the condoning of after-hours drinking, or even the indulging in it, or the unreal remission of prison sentences—and all of these things have been happening with frightening and distressing regularity—all of these diminish the rule of law. As I have said, anything that diminishes that rule is an unpatriotic and dangerous act.

I consider the application of the rule of law at this time to be essential to the well-being of democracy in Ireland. The first rule is that no man can be punished for a breach of the law except in an established way before the ordinary courts of the land. The corollary of that is that no man should be tried except in the ordinary courts of the land. If the Taoiseach has found a prima facie case against two of his Ministers then, as the person ultimately responsible for the upholding of law in this country, he has a solemn duty to see that any trial of those men does not take place behind closed doors in a party caucus but that it is held in the tribunals of the land. Every man, no matter what his rank, must be subject to the ordinary process of the law.

Technically, the motion before this House is to approve new Ministers. These are Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Party which met on Wednesday evening at 6 p.m. to hear officially for the first time about certain rumours they might have heard beforehand. They heard officially from the lips of their leader that two of the most powerful members of that party had been dismissed for treachery. That party comprises 70-odd Deputies and yet in 50 short minutes they were able to hear that verdict from their leader, able to question him on his statement, and 70-odd Deputies were able to debate among themselves the consequences arising from what must have been, even to them, a shattering disclosure.

I do not believe there was any debate within the Fianna Fáil Party rooms; in the 50 minutes there could not have been. It is my belief that someone, whether the Taoiseach or the men he had dismissed, said to the lobby fodder that comprises the Fianna Fáil Party "We stick together, boys, or we are out forever". I think this was said and that there was not a man with guts enough to object because they came back here like lambs and voted. Because there was nobody man enough to object, there is nobody of sufficient stature and integrity to be a Minister of a Government of Ireland.

What appals me about this debate is that all the speakers have had to come from the Opposition side. As a novice in this House perhaps there is a convention about which I know nothing, but as an ordinary citizen it strikes me as extremely odd that nobody from the Government benches has got up to defend his Taoiseach, to say what he thinks about the statements of Deputies Boland and Blaney. Do they not realise the enormity of what has happened? Have they no conception of the shame this is causing me and other people concerned with our nation? Is this a political matter to be clouded over as quickly as possible, to get rid of these nuisances on the Opposition benches so that we can all go home?

I am a novice in this House but I consider what I have seen and heard in these last few days truly appalling. I consider this Dáil has been soiled and fouled and that it can never be purified again unless by a general election.

It is now 44 hours, a little less than two days, since I last had occasion to contribute to the work of this House. In the speech I then made, because the events we are still discussing were so new, I had to pose a number of questions to which at that time I could not give any answers. For the sake of justice and equity I then had to express what I chose to call a number of "perhapses". In the intervening 44 hours they have ceased to be matters of "perhapses". In the light of evidence and of the appalling silence, these have now become matters on which it has been possible to form opinions.

I want to deal, first, with the credibility of the Taoiseach—our Taoiseach; alas, my Taoiseach. I can no longer accept his credibility because, on his own admission and on what has been said by speakers in this debate, I am faced with the choice that he has done one of two things in the last three weeks. Either he has framed, for party political purpose, persons who were his competitors for the ultimate power in the party, or else in a period of two weeks or more he has been negligent at a time when common prudence apart from a legal training, would indicate that the people he has charged would be covering their tracks, hiding the evidence and making it difficult to bring to light the real facts. Either he framed his opponents, or else his charges are true and he was negligent in pressing those charges. But, either way, he has lost the right to be leader of this Government.

There was doubt 44 hours ago as to whether the party to which he belongs could retain any serious credibility. Perhaps they have been railroaded, as the last speaker has said— and I compliment him on what was a most impressive maiden speech. Perhaps they were railroaded by somebody standing up and saying: "We hang together or we hang separately", so they came back after 50 minutes saying that the winner was all right and that unity prevailed. In the intervening hours, however, not one person found the courage to go back on that shameful unity, and therefore the whole party has lost its credibility.

What should one think of what can be called the leadership of the Opposition, not in the Dáil but inside the Fianna Fáil Party, those people who, temporarily at least, have been dumped overboard so unceremoniously? Two of them we have heard today in this House. On one of them I shall not comment, Deputy Boland, because I was not here. It is an interesting exercise in this Parliament to watch the facial expressions and to try to read what is going on in the minds of Deputies as they are speaking.

I was here for the speech of Deputy Blaney, a speech which started with a total, explicit, emphatic denial of those charges. If, Sir, I overstep the bounds of what is proper in a Parliament, you will guide me and correct me, I trust, but I shall have to express my thought as precisely as I can. In regard to the first part of Deputy Blaney's speech today we have a choice of two things to believe: either he is a sincere and honest man who has been framed or else he is a polished and total liar. It is one or the other and it is equally disgusting either way. To turn it the other way round, either the Taoiseach is a sincere and upright man, who has been betrayed and lied to, or he is a total liar—one or the other for both of them, an inescapable dichotomy and equally disgusting either way.

I want to turn now from the opening part of Deputy Blaney's speech to its main content. It was more striking for what it omitted than for what it contained. It was full of evasions; it was full of the most enormous holes but, sadder still, it was also full of hate. I said to a Fianna Fáil Deputy, who was asking me my impressions of this House a few months after entering it, that what appalled me most about it was the amount of hatred in it— hatred, be it said, at that time that came from the victors, the people who won, however, dishonestly, the general election. We who came in here with high hopes not fulfilled were able to be charitable, but the victors were spewing hatred towards us and towards our supporters. When I say "us" in this context I am using it for a collective opposition.

Today we got a look into the mind of Deputy Blaney, and in the repetition of events of his childhood we perhaps got a key to why that hatred is there. If people suffer from disturbing experiences in early childhood we can understand they may be disturbed people for the rest of their lives. To the extent that we can understand it we forgive it, but that sort of hatred, that sort of psychological disturbance, even though we may understand it, totally unfits a person, in my view, for holding high offices in any country.

His speech was full of harping back to a tragic past. It was an effort to re-create bitterness for political advantage, bitterness which I think decent people all over the country wish to lay at rest. It was a very tragic, very harmful, very wicked speech. But it was also a very cynical speech in this sense: Deputy Blaney repeated something the Taoiseach had said on television and elsewhere. Deputy Blaney said: "The Fianna Fáil Party is not split. It is not even splintered." The Taoiseach said the same thing on television: "What split? There is no split."

At this stage it is surely a waste of breath to argue as to whether one exists or not. There is no point in proving things that are so totally obvious, but what is distressing and disgusting about both of those utterances is the contempt they show for public opinion, for the people of this country. Because of their office, because of the position they hold in their party, they are inevitably listened to by the people at large with a little credence and respect. They say things that in the end are simply mocking the people. It shows that in their hearts they despise the people and that they believe the people are foolish enough to believe anything they may utter, however improbable it seems. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries designate, Deputy Gibbons, said a very interesting thing today. It was nicely put, I thought, too. He said you must always bargain for a residuum of credence. It is all that is left for Fianna Fáil now, that residuum of credence on the part of people who find it impossible to change their minds and to re-assess situations.

I find it very serious, if the charges are true, that the Taoiseach gave to people he considered had broken the law grievously enough to entail their dismissal from ministerial position the time to cover up their tracks. If the charges are true, then he is not just politician enough but he is lawyer enough to appreciate the seriousness. If they were true then it was necessary to put them in circumstances where they could not possibly conceal either the objects of their exercise or the various contacts, the various documents or the various other things that would have made legal proof possible. It looks as if the Taoiseach wanted to have the benefit of being able to make the charges and dismiss the people while at the same time avoiding the possibility of the charges being provable in a court of law. It looks as if, once again, he was trying to have it both ways. It is a perverseness on his part which could have the most enormous repercussions. You see, according to his own account of two days ago and I quote: "I felt it was my duty to request their resignations as members of the Government. Each of them denied"—as they did today—"he instigated in any way the attempted importation of arms. They asked me for time to consider their position. I agreed to do so."

That is fine. So, he thought, he says earlier on, that there was prima facie evidence. He asked them to resign. They asked for time and he gave it to them then and he is a lawyer and a very experienced politician. OK, maybe there was a time when he got blank denials from these two people that he found it his duty to praise so fulsomely after dismissing them—they have since issued them to the public—Deputy Haughey today by a statement and Deputy Blaney by his speech in this House—he might legitimately have doubted the validity of the evidence he has, but then he says: “In the meantime I authorised the continuation of investigations and I made personal investigations myself”—OK, maybe there was a doubt about it—“following which I decided to approach the two Ministers again.”

So that, on a second investigation and a personal investigation, far from believing their denials, far from believing that he had been misled by whatever evidence he got initially, he said he believed the initial evidence because he decided to request their resignation again.

In the light of this, surely the days spent allowing them to cover their tracks—it must so have appeared to him because he must at that time on re-investigation have been convinced that the charges were true—cannot be interpreted merely as charity to one of the two who was then injured. It has to be assessed, I think, by this House and by the people as a whole as complicity because he had attained the objective that he wanted if the theory that it was simply a way of getting rid of political opponents is the true one.

However, people have analysed the actions of the Taoiseach and of one of the dismissed and one of the resigned Ministers who came into the House today. I think it is a time of great confusion for the nation and I want to pass away from this section of my speech to try to look at some of the effects of the past 48 hours or so on the nation as a whole because at a time when it seems to me that the Government both individually by certain Ministers and collectively have sown confusion and doubt and the seeds of future disasters in this country, Members of this House have a duty to try to talk directly to the people, to analyse the difficulties that have been brought about by this Government action, to try to direct and guide them so that we may with the least national damage get out of the terrible mess that we have been landed in.

If we are to form judgments about the correct thing to do now and try to utter those judgments, we have to analyse a bit the effect on different parts of the country. Let us look at the effects on the north. Let us look at the effects on traditional Nationalists. If the traditional Nationalists believe the Taoiseach's charges then they will conclude that persons that they thought were their political allies were simultaneously in cahoots—if I may be permitted the term—simultaneously in collusion with another section of the anti-Unionist forces. The traditional Nationalists of the Nationalist Party must inevitably feel a sense of betrayal, a sense of being bypassed, an even further blow to their already impaired political credibility in the Six Counties.

Much more important, of course, is the effect of these actions on the Unionists. There is not a single Unionist organisation any more; there are various strands. I am prepared to state as a member of the Labour Party, as a socialist, that there are hopeful strands in Ulster Unionism. One of the most hopeful strands has already been driven out of Parliament and others of them have been enormously weakened in their efforts to hold Unionism to some sort of creative and constructive course.

Mr. Chichester-Clark now finds himself, oddly enough, in the middle of the road inside Unionism because the effect of this will be for the Paisleyites, for the Protestant Unionists, for the most extreme and bitter and bigoted sections of northern Unionism to be able to say: "You see, we were right all along. Everything we told you about distrusting the south is true. They are not to be believed. They are liars. They have soft words, words of peace, and actions which betray those words".

So, the effect of this is precisely to strengthen Mr. Ian Paisley and his colleagues and to destroy the possibilities of building up a middle section in northern society by which the two communities may speak to each other, may get to trust each other, may get to know each other, in the fullness of time one would hope might even get to love each other and to live together in amity. That is the effect on Unionism—to strengthen inside Unionism everything that personally I find disgusting and that I believe the majority of members of the Fianna Fáil Party find disgusting.

You see, the net results of foolish actions are to produce effects contrary to what people wish. I do not think that the majority of Fianna Fáil subscribe to the theory that the worse it gets for Northern Ireland the better it gets, that the more hatred, the more death and the more division of the community you get the better it will be in some mystical way. I do not think they believe that. That is the effect they are getting; that is the result of these actions.

We have said always as socialists, as members of a Labour Party, that the way in which we saw unity coming was the unity of people who work together, who had common interests as workers, who learned to trust each other on the factory floor, in the shipyards, in their daily jobs. It was the unity of the working class. We applauded the unity of the working class. We applauded the unity of the Belfast shipworkers last year. We applauded their efforts. We were proud that it was the labour movement in Northern Ireland, irrespective of religious background, irrespective of ethnic grouping, if one accepts ethnic groupings in a rather mixed-up population, we were proud it was the working class who fought the efforts at sectarian division. We treasure working class unity because we look on a united working class as the basis of a united country, as the custodians of all that is decent and progressive. They are the people who exploit no one. They are the people who oppress nobody. They are the people who have no economic reasons for attacking each other and distrusting each other.

Consider the result of an action like this. One does not have to be clairvoyant, to go to Belfast, or to be very familiar with Northern Ireland to appreciate the stresses these actions will place on the unity of the Belfast working class in the Belfast shipyards, a unity which was about the only ray of light in northern events in the last year. The effect will be to divide where unity is what is necessary, to build distrust where trust is what is necessary, to split the people and to engender again the hatred which we all agreed in this House last October was the one thing to be avoided. We agreed that it was on the basis of people being able to accept each other as fellow human beings with valid points of view, being able to trust each other and to work together in harmony, we agreed that it was on that basis, the unity of the working class, that one might be able to build on to a real unity and not a unity imposed by force, a unity involving the oppression of one section by another.

I am as little willing to have a unity which involves oppression of the Protestants in the north as I am unwilling to have the present situation which involves the oppression of Catholics in the north. If we cannot have unity, a united country where the promise of the majority can be believed and the fruit of our work can be accepted, then we have no right to ask them into our country at all. This particular matter under discussion has set back the prospect of that unity that was seen to prevail in the shipyards last year. I hope that the unity that was built in the shipyards last year will weather this piece of irresponsibility on the part of a Dublin Government.

Think of the effect, when talking about the north, on the militant republicans, the people who for so long have been so brutalised and so oppressed that they feel, not that they can win with arms, but just that they can achieve some sort of catharsis, some sort of ending of an intolerable situation, feeling that they themselves will die and other will die too. That is a natural feeling on the part of people driven to an extraordinary level of frustration. This frustration, of course, has been contributed to by the present Government. It was contributed to when Mr. Lemass, in his drive for a détente with the north, set about obtaining it on the basis that none of the injustices was to be talked about by his party any more. But the effect of that on a section of the people in the north who are sincere, who are honourable, who are wrong in thinking that solutions can be found by guns, the effect of that will be to encourage them profoundly in that belief. It will further encourage them in the belief that they only have to wait, that the guns are just around the corner. The effect on that section of the northern community will be a disastrous one.

Think of the effect on the Civil Rights movement, which seemed to me to present a great possibility of peace in the north. The effect can only be disastrous. I am proud that all over Northern Ireland the Civil Rights movement was initiated and pushed forward, not by the associates of the traditional "republican party"—I do not accept that description and I put that phrase in inverted commas—but by the socialists, by the people of the left, believing the time had come to talk about certain things: equality in housing, equality in voting, equality before the law, equality of job opportunities; and believing that, when those were attained, the possibility of building a real unity would grow stronger. What are they to think now? They are to feel betrayed by the south. They are to feel themselves under intense pressure both from the physical force republicans in the north and from Unionists alike. They are to see themselves, the only hope of real progress in the north, ground down between the two extremes. That is what this action will engender. That is a scandalous thing to have on one's conscience.

What will be the effect on the Unionists who were not bigots, who believed that being part of the United Kingdom was the best thing for their country, who did not hate us, and who did not wish to oppress, who were ashamed of the inequalities, and there are such Unionists? They are now prisoners of the Paisleyites. What will be the effect on the Catholic Nationalists who wanted to move away from the traditional Green Toryism of the Nationalist Party and the religious and social ghettos? They will now find themselves driven back and the bridge between different religious ethnic groups, which was the hope of Northern Ireland, has been destroyed by this irresponsible military escapade. It is not an escapade. It is a piece of boy scout romanticism.

Think of the effect on the south and think of the effect on the political situation we have to face. Think of the effects inside this Republic over the next 18 months. We are told by the Taoiseach and by Deputy Blaney that there is no crisis, that there is no split and the Fianna Fáil Party is united. It is unnecessary to say that I disbelieve that. I do not think it is meant to be believed by anybody in contact with political realities. It is not necessary really to say that it is not true. We are in for a very bitter struggle of a very dangerous kind. How could the "military escapade" section of Fianna Fáil conceivably come out on top in the party, and not just in the party, but in the nation as a whole in a general election? There is a strategy by which they could do it, a profoundly dangerous strategy for the country. These people now have a vested interest in trouble in the North of Ireland. They have a vested interest in the outbreak of violence during the summer because, if there is a sharp deterioration in relations between the two communities in the north, and if there are people killed, perhaps some members of the British Army first and a larger number of Catholic Nationalists afterwards, they may conceivably belive they can ride to power on the upsurge and indignation engendered in this part of the country.

That is really a horrifying prospect because the course you are set upon then is what I could only call an Israeli solution to the problem of Ireland. The Israeli solution is that all the Catholics should be driven out of the North of Ireland and you would have a six-county, one-religion, semi-fascist state with the possible reciprocation that all Protestants should be driven out of this State and that we would have a one-religion, profoundly conservative, authoritarian State. That would be great; that would be a logical solution to the problem of Ireland. That is something that Mr. Paisley would like. This is the path that these geniuses, these republicans, these people worthy to put themselves forward to claim leadership of the nation, are now setting out upon.

One section of them now has a vested interest in confusion, in destruction, in death, because there is political advantage in it. There is the salvaging of what now seems to them a precarious political position. Think of the effect of these passions; think of the effect of a lot of Blaney speeches, set in the circumstances of a pogrom in the North of Ireland, on the youth and the working class of this country, on its economic development, on the whole texture of public life in this country. It is a spectacle. They have put peace for the future and the development of the whole nation in peril.

What a culmination for Republicanism —an Israeli solution, a Protestant statelet and a Catholic statelet. What a culmination for people who claim to be the inheritors of the mantle of Tone and Emmet. What a total reversal of the principles they professed to uphold. But history sometimes contains these total reversals. This is what happens when the form itself, possession of power, being in power, becomes more important than the content of power because the content of power is what you do with it; and when you decide that you will hang on to power at all costs you are led into this sort of perversion.

I suppose that so deep are the feelings in this country at this time that it will be very difficult for me to try to speak to the rank and file of the Fianna Fáil Party all over the country but it is something that none the less I shall endeavour to do. As I said before, I grew up in a house that was Fianna Fáil and I recognised, apart from my own first political attitudes, my own growing up, the validity of the Fianna Fáil posture in the thirties. I recognised that they released real social energies in the thirties. I realised that the people who rallied to Fianna Fáil in 1932 and afterwards were very good, partriotic, sincere people and in many ways they were the most dynamic and valuable section of the whole community. But analyses of political attitudes have shown in many countries that while-at a time of great upheaval, people change their political ideas, in the absence of such upheaval they go on believing the same thing and supporting the same parties even if those parties change. What has happened now is that the Fianna Fáil Party have totally betrayed all the points of view, all the policies on which they came into power and are therefore betraying the people who have given them their support and still do.

It is, therefore, profoundly important for us to make the distinction between the decay in the leadership and the honour, sincerity, patriotism and decency of the great mass of the people who support the party. I shall have something to say about that later on. I want to ask where it was that the party went wrong. because when I hear the word "Republicanism" uttered by the Fianna Fáil Party it is very often uttered with sincerity. They think that they are Republicans and they do not know why it is that their good intentions are incapable of being brought to fruition and that their actions seem to drive further away the goal which they profess to wish to reach and which I think most of them do wish to reach.

What is, in fact, the crisis of policy that exists? Why is it that the old Republicans must feel that everything they set out to do has in some way evaded them? Why is it that a mistake which originated a very long time ago should now leave the party in the extraordinary situation in which it finds itself to day? It is like the curate's egg; it is no use being excellent in parts. It is no use being Republican in parts. It is no use being a Republican if you think: it would be nice to have a Republic but we could still be part of the sterling area. We can write "pound" on the note in Irish letters but it is still part of sterling. You do not need to control your own currency or to have currency control at all. You can be part of the sterling area which, as Deputy Boland said today, is dominated by British imperialism. You can be part of the financial grouping dominated by British imperialism. You can permit the free flow of capital from here to there and back and you do not need to control your financial system but you can still be a Republican if you put "Republic" on the pound note in Irish. But when you do that when it is not an Irish pound you have already set out on the path of deceit which ended in this debacle of today and yesterday.

A Republic means that you have control of your economy but you see, we are too small, too weak and inept and so we cannot really build our own economy. We must bring people in with tax holidays, with almost no investment of their own capital. We have to beg people: please develop the economy for us, because, although we are a Republic, we do not wish to retain control of our economy. Republicanism in song and in language without Republicanism in money and in industry is basically hollow and impossible and self-contradictory and bound to end where the party has now ended.

It has ended in two bits, it has ended in a bit which regardless of the personalities and the deceits involved, in the long run jumps when various collections occur and financial and industrial power hold the strings. That is one bit. That is the bit that can say, as the Taoiseach said here in 1967: "We accept the EEC totally and all we mean by negotiations about EEC will be, firstly, how much representation do we have in the European Parliament, and secondly over what period will entry be phased." But that could mean accepting the loss of sovereignty as a Republic without any qualms; that could mean finding the EEC compatible with Republicanism because Republicanism was confined to words. The Taoiseach did not see that it was necessary to be Republican all the way through and not just in parts. That is one section which, although Deputy Boland denounces imperialism—I concur with him in disliking it and I am old fashioned enough to use the same old fashioned names as he today used —is so dependent on imperialism as to be unable to struggle against it.

Then there is the Blaney/Boland, the rural bit of the party, that knows that, when it comes to framing actual actions that might make the country more genuinely republican, more genuinely independent, it is "not on".

In a perfectly honest attempt, in some cases, to salve their consciences they go in for exaggerated manifestations of their national identity in some ways, and for military escapades of a romantic sort in other cases. Of course, national unity is very important to them, but it seems to me that it is important to them as a substitute, as a sort of psychological lighting conductor for the things they know they cannot have. It is not based on the ordinary people. It is anti-working class. It is not for the purpose of introducing many things which republicans believe in. It is, as I say, a sort of psychological soother because they know that the real heart of their republicanism lies in the control of our economy and this they are not either able or willing to assert. That is the basic division that has led the party to where it is today.

This is the reason why a socialist in a wry sort of way, in a very tragic sort of way, can be permitted to say: "I told you so." In fact, if they would study him, Connolly told them so. He said quite clearly that it was impossible to be genuinely republican and, at the same time, be in alliance with big industry elsewhere. In the long run, since we are a small country with small industry the only way to be republican, according to Connolly—and I believe today's events validate it-is to be socialist as well. The only genuine republicanism now is socialism based on the working classes.

We are faced now with the task of asking over the heads of any party, and over the head of Parliament, directly of the people: "What do we do now?" I hope it is still to Parliament they will turn for the answer to questions like that. I hope they have not reached the stage of having contempt for Parliamentary institutions and in which different sections set about implementing different solutions by force. We must try to give some answers at this early stage to the question : "What do we do now?" If I might use the language of the moment the first thing to do surely, if any of my analyses about the effects in the north and south are correct, is to "cool it".

Military escapades now of any description will end in the sort of holocaust which has been described from different parts of the House. We have the task at this moment of defending democracy, not just in the north where there is an obvious need, but in the south as well. It seems to me that people in high places who are willing to do the things which the Taoiseach says two of his Ministers have done, if they see their power threatened, are willing to by-pass not just this Parliament but the whole of the democratic process.

We have to say quite clearly to the people in the south where it is less obvious as well as to the people in the north, that democracy has to be defended at this moment against any challenge to it. We have to say as a Labour Party, as socialists, that if it is true that the only ray of light in the north last year was a united working class, then for God's sake let us keep and extend the unity of the working classes, the men of no property, the people who exploit nobody, the people who are the custodians of what is honourable in this nation's traditions. That is up to us as socialists, as a Labour Party, as a labour movement. It is on this rock of working class unity within this part of the country and also working-class unity in the north that the efforts to set up an anti-democratic régime in this country will inevitably founder.

If we are to be credible, if we are to undo the damage that has been done to the efforts at unifying this country in a way that is acceptable, then we have to build a better life for all sorts of working people, not just working class people but small farmers, small shopkeepers and everyone like that. That is why in this precise context the struggle for social justice at this time now becomes a priority. That is why from this side of the House we have to take up and push forward so far as we can all of the civil rights issues in the North of Ireland and why it becomes a profoundly anti-patriotic deed to carry out any action which damages the unity and strength and the future of the civil rights movement.

It is also important in this context, if there is to be a future for real republicanism, and if we are to avoid the blind alleys into which frustration has led some of the republican movement, to strengthen the public sector of our industry so that in the circumstances of the free trade agreement, in the circumstances of the EEC, in the circumstances of the threat to a separate national identity at the economic level which is the fundamental level, we may be able to continue to exert some control over our resources. The strengthening of the public sector, far from being irrelevant at this time, becomes a more urgent demand.

We have the task here of building up a Republic into which we can ask the people of Northern Ireland of every description to come. We cannot in honour do that at this moment. I believe the voices we heard today of Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney were the voices of religious bigotry. In fact, I would go further than that. I think they see what they would consider the Celtic, Catholic strand and the Protestant, Presbyterian, Unionist strand, what they would possibly think of as the Scottish or English settler strand, as being two ethnic groups. Deputy Boland suggested that he would like to reverse the Plantation of Ulster after nearly 300 years. They were not only speeches of religious bigotry. They were speeches bordering on racism. They were looking on the majority in the north-east of this country as different ethnically from the people in the rest of the country.

To me the most horrifying moment since I came into this House was the occasion of a maiden speech by Deputy Fox. It was more horrifying than anything that has happened today because, when he was adducing evidence to this House that a campaign of bigotry had been waged against him, he was howled down from those benches and you, a Cheann Comhairle, did not hear a member of that party accusing him of forging a document he was holding up. We heard the authentic voice of bigotry which is the betrayal of republicanism from those benches. Nobody in the party was ashamed of the howling down that a man got during his maiden speech. Subsequently, if we wanted more proof one of the central figures in the events of the past few days, Deputy Boland, called Deputy Fox a B-Special. He was compelled grudgingly and half-heartedly to withdraw. That was the authentic voice of bigotry from that party. Bigotry is a denial of Republicanism. They are incompatible. One could not be a party to bigotry and be in the Republican party at the same time.

We know how hard it is for people to change their political allegiance. Once they are set on a course they tend, unless in times of great upheaval, to go on following the same voting patterns. This is depressing. Many investigations about voting patterns reveal that this is true. Most of the major swings in support for political parties come from the actual change in the voters. Some of the top age groups pass on and new people come in at the other end. That shows change. In any pattern if we followed up through the years, we would see there is not much swing in political opinion except in times of great social upheaval when old people can change their political allegiance quite quickly. I would suggest to the people that this is a time of such social upheaval. This is the time when the actions of the Fianna Fáil Government have put in question all that is most dear to us in terms of democracy, unity, independence and stability.

It is a major question. I would beg some of the best people in the country who gave their political allegiance to the Fianna Fáil Party in the thirties, to pause and examine the validity of what they do in terms of the reality which has now been revealed and in terms of the truth which has now emerged. I beg such people to stop before this intra-party quarrel destroys the whole fabric of this country. This intra-party quarrel can be pursued until the useful things Fianna Fáil people did in the building of the nation are destroyed. The people should indicate that they repudiate not merely the Lynch explanations, not merely the Blaney-Haughey-Boland blank denials, whichever turn out to be true, but that they repudiate the whole lot—both sides—this whole party which, as I said, had a useful role. People change; parties change. The Party were once constructive. They have long since ceased to be an engine for national progress and are now an engine for national disaster. Somebody said a long time ago that outworn engines become brakes. Fianna Fáil are now a brake on all national development. If we are to say anything to the people at this time, we should tell them to repudiate the leadership, whichever side it comes from, to repudiate Fianna Fáil to repudiate the whole rotten lot.

I am not so vain as to think that my resignation from the position of Parliamentary Secretary is going to affect the position greatly during the week. I am quite satisfied that there are many people, both inside and outside the House, who are wondering why I took the decision I did on Wednesday morning. There are many people in the House, in my own constituency and throughout the country, who know me, my family and my background and because of this perhaps they were not so surprised.

I have never been a member of any organisation other than Fianna Fáil. I believe the decision taken in the early days of 1922 resulted in the establishment of Fianna Fáil and if that is true I was born into it. I remember as a very small boy in my village in south Wicklow, where there was not a great deal of support for Fianna Fáil in the early days, having to do things at election times on behalf of the organisation that now fall to the lot of the menfolk. I was not alone in this because the other members of my family were just as deeply involved. I recall in the early 1930s I found it very difficult to get boys of my own age-group even to speak to me or to be associated with me because I was the son of a Republican. I have never changed my views just as my father never changed his views. I never denied the fact that I was a Republican. I did not have to join any other organisation because I was quite happy and satisfied that the aims of Fianna Fáil would some day bring about a solution to our internal problems. That is why I remained a member and worked for the party. I do not think I could ever have been accused of being bitter although perhaps I had as good a reason as many others for being bitter. I do not wish to say anything tonight that would appear to be along those lines.

My father became a Member of this House in 1944. It was my privilege to succeed him here ten years later. When I came in here I naturally became associated with the members of the political party. I was a very proud young man coming in to a party led by our founder-leader and a majority of whose members here were Civil War veterans. There were some young people like myself who had the same kind of background as I had. It was not unnatural that we should get together to discuss Fianna Fáil, their policies and the problems of the country. If I found myself in the company of people like Neil Blaney and Kevin Boland at least the republican-minded people in my constituency and throughout the country will understand it. I do not expect the people on the Opposition benches to understand it. By a coincidence I became very active in the organisational work of the party. Here again I found the same people and this, too, brought us closer to one another. Then I had the privilege of being re-elected in 1965 and of being appointed a Parliamentary Secretary to one of these individuals. A good few years afterwards, I found a change in leadership here that resulted in a change of Ministers in Departments and I found myself again with one of the people who, as far as I was concerned, really mattered.

I took my decision on Wednesday morning last at home without having consulted anybody, good bad or indifferent, but my wife. In fairness to my wife I want to say that she did not have much problem in agreeing with me when I decided I was going to resign from my position as Parliamentary Secretary. I do not want anybody to think that this was done by me out of loyalty to two individuals. It was done out of loyalty to the strong Republican ideals which I hold. I have no apologies to make to anybody for my holding these views. I looked forward to the day, which I hope is not far off, when this problem of Partition is solved. So long as it remains unsolved, there cannot be real peace in this country.

I remember an occasion when another Government was in office here and I was a member of a local authority. During the period of office of that Government people died because of this unsolved problem. I suppose it could be said that some people might try to take advantage of the Government at the time; that was never my form. I remember saying on one occasion that so long as Partition remained young men would die in trying to get rid of it. That is why I hope that, with God's help, it will go and go soon.

The fact that I resigned my Parliamentary Secretaryship does not in any way affect my loyalty to the Fianna Fáil Party. This is something that people may find it very difficult to understand. So long as that party remains the Republican Party that it is and so long as it holds dear the aims of its founders—and that was restated by the Taoiseach at the recent Ard-Fheis—then they have my support.

Somebody said yesterday—I think it was the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Cosgrave—that when this is over, sooner or later there will be a general election; later, I think myself. However, whenever it comes—and come it will because I am a realist and I know that our Constitution provides for it—my political party in my county will decide whether or not I shall be a candidate. If I should be so honoured as to be one of the candidates then it will be up to the people of my native county to decide whether I was right or wrong in my decision yesterday morning. Whatever their decision will be, it will be fully accepted by me. In the meantime I just want to make this further remark. So long as this party continues to hold dear the real aims of Fianna Fáil, then the Taoiseach, the members of his Government, the Parliamentary Secretaries and the Parliamentary Party will have my support. None of them need have any doubt whatever on that score.

I, like every other man of goodwill in this House, was shocked and appalled by the events of the last few days, or rather by the facts which came to light in the past few days concerning the events of the past.

We do not know yet exactly what happened. We do not know all that happened. We do not know the exact circumstances of the happenings. There have been conflicting statements. Deputy Paudge Brennan's statement of a few moments ago has not shed much light on it. I think he says he did what he did, not just out of loyalty to two persons, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland, but on account of his Republicanism. I am not quite clear whether he was referring to his resignation from the Parliamentary Secretaryship or whether he was involved in the events of the gun-running. But that is symptomatic of the talk which surrounds this whole tragic matter.

The Taoiseach has said that he took certain steps. Three Ministers of State have been dismissed and one has resigned. The two ex-Ministers who have spoken in the House have denied the charges. As Deputy Keating and probably others have pointed out, the differences between what the Taoiseach said and what the two former Ministers have had to say are very interesting. Ohters on this side of the House may also have pointed to this fact. I have not heard all the speeches because no man can sit here for hours, however interesting and fascinating and important the debate may be. One must go out for meals and so on. I missed the contributions of other people who pointed to differences in the speeches by the Taoiseach and by the two former Ministers. They have denied that they had anything to do with gun-running. I heard the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, say that he had nothing to do with gun-running in the country. He was asked in an aside by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien whether he was including the north, but I do not think we have had any particular light on that aspect of this whole, sad, tragic affair.

One can discuss this matter from many aspects. One can discuss it from the point of view of the Government, from the point of view of the effects on the north and from the point of view of the effects on the whole of Ireland. One can discuss it from the point of view of what young people will think and what the public will think. If they are as confused or as bewildered as most Members of the House, then the Government or what is left of them are very wrong not to give a clearer lead and not to give concise information.

I do not like to say this but it would appear that as between the Taoiseach and two Deputies who are ex-Ministers, one is faced with the horrible alternative of entirely disbelieving one and thereby making out the other to have told untruths. Deputy Keating pointed out with all humility that we are placed in that position that is so sordid for the whole country. It is a tragedy that as between three of the highest officers of the State we must believe two and disbelieve one or vice versa. However unpleasant that may be it will pass but what will take a long time to clear up is the harm that these men have done to the country. I do not know at this stage whether further information is about to come to light but I have heard whispers to that effect.

I do not know, either, where the guns and ammunition were going but I presume they were going to the north. However, no matter where they were going it was to a part of Ireland and anyone who sells arms of any kind cannot sell them with any tag because there is no limited right of usage of a gun, a hand grenade or any of the other terrible modern weapons of war. Once these weapons fall into the hands of individuals, God only knows what use will be made of them.

Deputy Blaney talked about the past and parts of his speech were moving in their incitement. The speaker who has just spoken referred to the psychological aspect of the Deputy's childhood. To some extent, we are all prisoners of the past. Deputy Blaney must be able to break from the tragedy and the sadness of his upbringing. There are many men in this House and many who have been here but have now been called to their rest who broke free from the past and decided that the bitterness and tragedy which they experienced should die with them and not be passed on to the youth of the country.

I remember when the External Relations Act was repealed I was not very happy about it. I cannot recall what I said when speaking on the Fifth Stage of the Bill but I can remember what was in my mind at the time but I did not express it because, perhaps, I did not consider it right to do so. It was that young men who got on their bicycles in those days would have been going out to undertake nefarious deeds. In those days the people were not as mobile as now and young men went out on their bicycles with their heads down wearing caps. They ran the risk of killing either themselves or others. I was conscious that the Bill would stop that practice in southern Ireland and it did stop it. Whatever were the losses and they were negligible, the advantages of that Act have outweighed any disadvantages that there might have been.

I abhor and loathe the use of physical force. I remember one night during 1916, while I was recuperating from an illness and staying in Greystones, being taken out of bed and shown the red glow in the northern sky. That was Dublin on fire. I saw men going through Greystones in trains from the south and for the first time in my life I found the green, white and orange flag hanging out of trains. Whatever dramatic effect that may have had on me at the time, even greater was the effect of knowing that many thousands had died in the great war. Anyone of my age who has lived through two great wars, who has lived through the Rebellion and through the Civil War has had more than enough of guns and of the harm they can do, because guns are never used for fun. As somebody said today it is not cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians. This is a serious thing. I have a horror of war and many people of my generation have that horror too. They have seen too much of it.

Even if one is prepared to hand out guns without, perhaps, thinking of the horror of it, surely it is apparent and indeed patently obvious that the north cannot be brought in with the south in that way? In this country we have two hard line sections. In the north we have the Unionist extremists, the lunatic fringe of Unionism. In the south we have the IRA, which is a lunatic fringe too. In between are the men and women of goodwill who wish to see their country governed properly, who wish to be at peace and able to go about their lawful business. Anything that is an infringement of that can only hinder the settling of the situation between north and south and hinder the doing away with the Border for which we all wish. It is only on methods that some of us may differ. When the Unionists in the north scream it affects the extreme Republicans in the south and vice versa. Let us here in the south hold on to our Republicans. I have nothing against Republicans. It is very good. Let us hold on to our Republicanism but let us always bear in mind that the ultimate aim is doing away with the Border, the pacification of Ireland, so that future generations will not have to go through what men, women and children went through in 1916, in 1918 to 1921 and during the Civil War.

When I first came into this House there was a certain amount of cross feeling, an echo of those tragic days. I thought there was remarkably little, considering the short period of time that separated the two sides of the House. Then quite suddenly it all seemed to go and the rule of law which faltered perhaps sometimes, that thing of great beauty, the idea that all men are equal before the law and that the ballot box is the most important thing, was accepted and it appeared to be genuinely accepted among high and low in the country. I say that not in a social sense. I am thinking of Ministers of State and ordinary citizens. They accepted that we were a democracy and our young people were and are proud of this being a democracy. One sees them being taken round this House. They sit up there in the gallery. One sees teachers, lay and religious, taking them around and pointing proudly to the pictures that are here. Those children do not mind on which side those men stood in the Civil War. They know they all stood fundamentally on one side and never left it, the side of the love of Ireland. They may sometimes have interpreted that in different ways. We have come far enough to accept that.

That is why to men of goodwill this was terrible event. I do not think there can be any explanation. I would like to think there could be a reasoned, rational explanation but it must be settled whether we have a general election or not. I shall not try to make party politics out of that. I do not think that is of paramount importance. It may happen. It may be of paramount importance that we should hold an election. It may be of paramount importance to every man of goodwill in the Fianna Fáil Party, to every man of goodwill in the Labour Party and to ourselves but equally well it may not be a time to do that. We have heard and we understand the phrase "papering up the cracks". We on this side of the House do not want to see the cracks papered up. In fact, in so far as it lies in our power and in the power of the Labour Party too, we will not allow it but equally we will not wantonly try to interfere with democratic processes if democratic processes are to be used sincerely and for the right reasons.

We do not want to see ever again a situation in which Members of this House are in any way implicated in letting loose the dogs of war. The worst, bitterest and most horrible form of war is civil war. We must not do that. We must take no steps that would exacerbate that difficult, awful situation in the north. The summer is coming, the dog days when men's minds. even in the northern part of our island, turn almost inevitably to strife. Let us do what we can.

I do not want to hold the House up. I am probably echoing what many people have said. I shall not speak for very many minutes more but I should like to finish on this sentimental note. I heard Deputy Blaney speaking tonight and, as I say, that strange, sad, bitterness came out. He said he had lived amongst people of different faiths and different politics—that is the real truth—and that he lived in amity. He went to school with them and he played with them. I know he is that sort of a man. I remember one night I was very tired after a by-election and he would not let me drive home. He drove my car and drove me up to my own house and his own car followed. He was then taken home. That is just a small thing. He does not do himself justice as an Irishman when he forces his mind into the past and lashes himself with pity, because young people might misunderstand it.

I hope this matter will really be cleared up, that the Taoiseach will give us the details and that there will never again be on the part of, not only Ministers of State, but Members of this House a repetition of that, and that we will follow the democratic principle. Let us be true to the democratic principle, let us be true to the principle of peace, good Government and gentle persuasiveness and some day the north will be glad to come in with us. There will be no question of trying to force them because to force them is not only wrong, but is bound to fail.

I rise to support the motion in the names of my colleagues in the Labour Party:

That the Dáil and the country at large have no confidence in the present Government.

Is this motion being debated?

This motion is not before the House.

The motion is in conjunction with the appointment of Ministers.

That motion is not before the House and cannot be debated.

The events of recent days and the political volcano which has shaken this nation, and which still continues to erupt with regular violence virtually every hour, has certainly shocked and saddened the consciences of all right-thinking people. In that context, having regard to the changes which are taking place from hour to hour, I am sorry the Taoiseach is not here at present to hear not merely the voice of concern speaking in this national Parliament but to convey to us what the true situation is from time to time.

The most recent evidence avilable to us paints another picture of a worrying nature, the role played by ex-Captain Kelly in this whole sordid episode. I understand that the evidence which this man has now made available is in stark conflict with the views conveyed to us today by the Minister for Defence, Deputy James Gibbons, who is now proposed as the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. While not seeking to prejudge the issue, I think it is right and proper that somebody, especially the Taoiseach himself, should clear the air in respect of this matter.

The allegation of Deputy Boland today that the Taoiseach was not being frank with the House, was not telling the whole truth is given weight by the statement of Captain Kelly tonight. The Minister for Defence would seem to be placed in a particularly hot seat. It is only the Taoiseach who can tell us the facts of this matter, whether Captain Kelly is right or whether the Minister for Defence is right. If it transpires that Captain Kelly is right —and only an impartial tribunal and probably a court of law can decide this-then I suggest and submit that Deputy James Gibbons is an unfit person to occupy the high position of Minister for Defence, and in those circumstances it would be an insult to this House and to this nation to propose his name as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

It is important, therefore, that this particular episode be cleared up as quickly as possible. We have now to contend with a most sordid, sinister and alarming situation which clearly threatens the security of our State and undermines our basic institutions. We believe the Taoiseach has lost not merely the confidence of his Ministers but the confidence of the country at large. If when the general election takes place, and people are insisting that one should take place, it will not be fought on mere bread and butter politics, it will not be fought on health or welfare or the economic future of the country. The issue now before us and before the nation is the fundamental matter of war and peace, whether the gun will come back into Irish politics, whether the sovereign Parliament shall ordain that there shall be one Army, or more, one Constitution and one law.

The issue now is whether we are going to allow this drift towards anarchy, this reversion to the law of the jungle as certain former Ministers would seemingly wish. Up to now when people tampered with the pillars upon which our democratic system is based they had to face the rigour of the law and were rightly punished. We must ask whether the Deputies responsible for this chaotic situation will be arraigned before the law so that the truth of the whole affair will be brought out in public. Whether they were individuals or groups, up to now those who offended against the Constitution or the laws of this country were punished. No Minister of this State has the right to flout the law, to flout the decisions of this House, or to flout our Constitution.

It now appears that is the position. We have had this outright contempt for the leader of the Government, for the decisions of this all-party assembly in respect of our approach to Partition and the dangerous situation which has existed in the north for some months past. We have had Deputies displaying the same old familiar arrogance, showing contempt for our hallowed institutions and when they did not have their way and their say they denigrated the Civil Service, repudiated their Taoiseach and our institutions. All who seek to stop them in their evil designs are castigated and in this situation we are asked to believe that there is no crisis in this country.

There is a crisis of the most serious kind and the worst aspect is that the Deputies who have come in here and tried to explain their behaviour have shown no repentance whatsoever, have repudiated any suggestion of guilt and have given us nothing but a display of spurious loyalty to the party. It is fair to say that loyalty in the Fianna Fáil Party, and the front bench in particular, was such during the years that no Taoiseach would have had the temerity to dismiss a colleague without grave and compelling reasons. Before Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey were dismissed I am sure the Taoiseach did serious heart-searching and that he only dismissed them for obvious dereliction of duty of the gravest kind. This spurious attempt at loyalty is, perhaps, understandable. Fianna Fáil have got to stand together now. It is the unity of rogues who have been caught out. They realise they must either hang together or hang separately and they are choosing to hang together for as long as they can. They dare not face the country on this fundamental issue of national security, on the fundamental issue as to whether the gun comes back into Irish politics.

I believe that the Taoiseach must have known a lot about this sordid episode before he spoke in this House some 24 hours ago. If he did not know about the actions of his Ministers who were undermining the security of the State, it is fair to suggest that he was out of touch with events or, perhaps, he was afraid to deal with these men. We know that Deputies Haughey, Blaney, Boland and Moran are, politically speaking, strong, domineering men; they are arrogant and ruthless. It would take a lot of courage to deal with men of that calibre. It seems to be the opinion of a large number of people that, were it not that this information of such a startling nature came into the hands of Members of this House and the cat was let out of the bag, the Taoiseach would have sat on this matter and would never have revealed the facts. These people would still have their portfolios, they would still continue to operate their Departments and carry on with their mad game of importation of arms for illegal organisations, thereby undermining our whole democratic system.

This veneer of loyalty, this gathering together of Fianna Fáil Deputies, this alleged unanimous support for the Taoiseach, is an absurdity no sensible person could accept. It is particularly revolting to find the men who were indicted coming in here, beating their breasts and declaring anew their loyalty to the party and to their leader. We all know, and the Taoiseach most of all realises, that these men sitting on the back benches of Fianna Fáil constitute a serious threat to him and his continued existence as leader. On this occasion they have merely bided their time, waiting for an opportune moment to attack. The Taoiseach and his incoming Cabinet must feel very uncomfortable about having to carry on with such strong domineering, arrogant, extremists operating from the back benches.

Men such as Deputy Boland have always displayed a desire for power. Does anyone seriously suggest that this Deputy will be content to remain for long on the back bench? He has shown his desire for power on many occasions. He was the chief architect of the two attempts to destroy democracy in this country: the attempt to abolish PR and have the straight vote adopted, and the gerrymander that went with it. We must thank God today in this Assembly and congratulate the Irish people for their wisdom that they saw through the designs of this unscrupulous man and rejected his attempts by a massive majority just three years ago in his ruthless attempt to abolish PR and rivet himself and his party in power indefinitely. The mind boggles at the thought of what would happen now if PR were abolished, if the straight vote were brought in and minority voices silenced in this House. The mind boggles at the things they had in store for the Irish people if they secured a massive majority in this House.

You have no standing at all in the country.

The Deputy's Party have not a screed of respect or credibility at the present time. No one can ever again believe what is being said by Fianna Fáil Ministers in this House.

(Interruptions.)

If the debate is to continue in an orderly fashion interruptions should not come from any side of the House.

There should be no provocation.

Deputy Treacy is in possession.

I do not have to prove to the country at large the ridiculous posture of this Government and this party at the present time in the shabby pretence of unity they are seeking to display. We know full well they are rent asunder by internecine strife. It has been going on for a long time but it has now come out in the open. It will be very difficult to paper over the cracks which are now evident in this party. These are not minor differences; they are fundamental differences of ideology, fundamental differences on the issue of war or peace in this country.

It must have been a great shock to the people when they learned that responsible Ministers of State were seeking to embroil this country in war, were embarking upon war and bloodshed. Deputy Blaney sought to create a bloodbath in the North of Ireland, but it is certain that Deputy Blaney, Deputy Boland and Deputy Haughey would not be in the bath. Deputy Blaney and others were seeking to bring guns into this country.

There is no evidence at all.

Why was he sacked then?

Deputy Blaney would not be the one to operate the guns.

The Taoiseach is wrong then?

Would Deputy Treacy be allowed to make his speech? If other Deputies wish to contribute the Chair will recognise them in due course.

It is appalling to realise that responsible Ministers of State have been using the instruments of State, their offices, the Civil Service and indeed, it is alleged, various Departments of State, Agriculture, Justice, Industry and Commerce, Defence; even the Red Cross has been mentioned, and the consular services. It is despicable that Ministers of State would so abuse their privilege as servants of the taxpayer as to engage in such nefarious practices and that men of this calibre should be seen to have consorted with and aided and abetted illegal organisations.

One of the main reasons these Ministers give for their disagreement with the Taoiseach in what he has done is their harking back to their allegiance to Republicanism. Republicanism, they say, is what activated them in this mad escapade. The Fianna Fáil (Republican) Party has long since ceased to be the Republican Party in this country. It is difficult to understand Deputy Boland and others resurrecting Republicanism, because we well remember who adhered to the republican and socialist cause. The Bolands have anything but a good reputation in dealing with republicans.

Shame on the Deputy to say that.

There were many republicans sent to their death by the rope and bullet and many more thousands incarcerated, especially during the war, by the so-called Republican Party. By reason of their anti-republican attitude during these crucial years, especially the war years and immediately afterwards, there emerged another republican party called Clann na Poblachta which made considerable progress for some time, in order to assert again the true principles of Republicanism. There are still elements of Sinn Féin in this country who would repudiate, and rightly repudiate, any suggestion that Fianna Fáil were the inheritors and the only inheritors of the philosophy of Tone.

For a long number of years the Fianna Fáil Party have forgotten utterly and completely about true Republicanism. The evidence of this is in their actions and attitude towards the elimination of the Border. Reference to the Border has not been made in any world assembly for a long, long time by Fianna Fáil spokesmen, be it the Minister for External Affairs or anyone else. They were as silent as the grave on this issue in the United Nations down the years. It was only when the holocaust broke loose last August, and by reason of the stand taken by members of this party, that they were provoked into taking a stand before the world on this fundamental issue. Republicanism in this context is a sham and a pretext. It will not convince anyone. The reasons for this are deeper and more sinister.

If Deputy Neil Blaney and his Donegal Mafia want to create a private army in Northern Ireland, let them do so and let Ian Paisley deal with them but he has no right whatsoever to involve the Irish people in this escapade. He has no right to usurp the functions of this House or his high office in order to create a private army, certainly not in this part of Ireland, and he has lesser right to use the machinery of State here for this purpose.

The Taoiseach, the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party are now reaping the harvest from the seeds they sowed in the minds of the Irish people, especially prior to the last general election. They are reaping the whirlwind now. In April to June of last year they talked of alien influences in this country, about the security of the State being in danger, about anarchy and, in the main, they sought to impute these things to our party. They sought Reds under our beds. Led by their Taoiseach they embarked on the most vicious and despicable smear campaign ever engaged in in the political history of the country.

You are not doing too badly yourself.

Deputy Dowling is well known as the chief mudslinger of the Fianna Fáil Party——

I will deal with you in a few minutes.

——the muckraker of this House. He, too, carried on this slander everywhere.

There has been enough muckraking in this House today.

Do you not deserve it—smuggling guns?

(Interruptions.)

The interruptions must cease.

On a point of order, could we have some order?

We are doing the very best we can.

Deputy Dowling is a pastmaster at what I shall now deal with—the role of the character assassin, the role of the slanderer and the calumniator, the role of the liar and the deceiver. This was the campaign carried on in the last general election when they told the people that the Labour Party policy was alien to their aspirations, that there was something essentially evil about it, that we were the people who would tear down the pillars of society. Little did we or the Irish people think that within 12 months all the evils that they were attributing to us would be displayed openly in their own party. The Irish people now know who the anarchists are and who are the people who are seeking to tear down the pillars of our society. They know now that they are not in the Labour Party. When the Taoiseach was going on his tour of the country, visiting in particular religious houses, convents, presbyteries and schools, having on his face a sanctimonious expression, he whispered "communists", whispered "anarchists".

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Have we to listen to this type of tripe?

Deputies

Yes.

He little thought that he would have to be dealing with persons of this ilk in his own party within 12 months. Everyone now knows who the conspirators are and now realises that that campaign was one of vilification. There would not be a God if this did not boomerang on themselves.

The chickens came home to roost.

That is what Ian Paisley said and Ian was right. The chickens have come home to roost.

Stevie will be roosting somewhere else.

Stevie is able to look out for himself.

He will have to. We know what has happened to Fianna Fáil.

Would Deputies allow Deputy Treacy to make his speech?

I must advert to that campaign of vilification because it was, and everyone now recognises it to have been, a vicious smear campaign. The Taoiseach must have used up many tons of red paint trying to paint our faces. Some of that stuck and very many decent parliamentarians in our party failed to be returned to the House as a result. It was a most dishonest and dishonourable campaign, one of the worst ever carried out in this country.

The mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceeding small. There are now in his own party the alien influences which are seeking to secure arms in communist countries as well as in democracies. They were very close to the Taoiseach himself.

I do not feel the Taoiseach should be exonerated from any blame in this whole matter. The Taoiseach led the campaign of vilification at that time. He made a particular point of visiting convents, presbyteries and schools. He engendered fear in the hearts of many people that the Labour Party were insidious and dangerous, that their ideology was alien and that if elected to power we would nationalise everything. He said all these things and schoolchildren were brainwashed. I know this because I and some of my colleagues suffered as a result.

The Taoiseach and his henchmen talked of many things in that campaign. They used communism, Castro and Cuba. Little did we think that within 12 months we would have a little Castro in the Fianna Fáil Party in the person of Deputy Neil Blaney, seeking to set up a banana republic in this country.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

With guns bought in Czechoslovakia.

(Interruptions.)

It is people like the Deputy who sneer——

Go away out of that.

Would Deputy Donegan please cease interrupting and would the——

What about Deputy Dowling?

Just a moment—and would the Parliamentary Secretary please allow Deputy Treacy to get on with his speech?

He is not a Parliamentary Secretary yet.

A Deputy

And he will never get there in my opinion.

The Taoiseach, with his sanctimonious expression and his veneer of the honest man, purported to be the repository of all that was good and holy in this country during the last general election campaign and the rest of us were all to some degree evil.

Holy John!

We now know the truth. The facts are known. The men who were the real danger to the country and who had no respect for the institutions of the State, or the security of our people, who were prepared to consort with anyone at home or abroad to attain their despicable ends, were the people closest to the Taoiseach himself. It was a particularly despicable campaign of slander and lies.

Hear, hear.

And it is only fitting now that the party which perpetrated this great fraud on the Irish people should suffer the humiliation of finding themselves hoist with the same ideology themselves. As I said, they used the religious orders——

Now the Deputy has already said this four times.

And it would be right if he said it five times.

The Taoiseach said it on 1,004 times during the general election.

He used the brothers, the nuns and the little children——

The Deputy is aware that repetition is out of order. I have allowed the Deputy to make this statement at least four times.

Deputies

Arís, arís.

I am not given to indulging in repetition, but I want to assert that not only did they cajole in this fashion, with this mock piety, but they threatened and they intimidated. We know it to be their stock-in-trade. People were threatened that they would lose their jobs and pensioners were threatened with the withdrawal of their pensions. They fastened on the weakest and poorest sections of the people, the people who are drawing the dole, the recipients of old age and widows' pensions, and so on, and they threatened that, if they did not vote for Fianna Fáil, they would lose these pensions and they would lose the dole. All these things were done in the last general election campaign.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

They bullied the poor and they bribed the rich.

Hear, hear.

They have continually adopted the line that they in the Fianna Fáil Party are the almighty party and, if they think you are in a weak position and do not support them, then you will get nothing.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I have known this intimidation to occur. I have known it to be said: "If you vote for Treacy he will nationalise industry", or "if you vote for him you will lose your job." And it was whispered many times in the ear of defenceless people: "You have a pension, have you not, and mind it."

Deputies

Hear, hear.

We know the campaign that was waged in the last general election. It is indeed revealing to find that party, which carried out that kind of campaign, in a shambles today. I have referred to some of the Ministers involved in this sordid matter. I referred briefly to Caoimhín Ó Beoláin, Deputy Kevin Boland. It is pertinent to point out that there is an excuse for the arrogance of this man.

But there is. This man, strangely enough, was never a TD in the strict sense of that word. He had never to do the hard grind of public representation or sit on public boards, such as many of us have had to do.

He was a member of Dublin Corporation.

He came into this House and the first day he came into this House there was placed upon his shoulders the mantle of a Minister of State. He was never allowed to sit here as an ordinary TD and it must be very uncomfortable, indeed, for him, after his long sojourn in the various Ministries of Defence and Social Welfare and Local Government, to sit in the back benches and be a backbencher for the first time in his life, an ordinary rookie TD. I do not want to advert at length to his dereliction of duty in regard to the provision of homes and water supplies and sanitary services and the colossal scandal of housing which he has left behind him, but it is only fair to say that I always regarded him as a most unfair Minister in that, on every conceivable occasion, he gave the kudos to his own political hacks, even though others of us had earned the reward of the reply to or the acknowledgment of representations.

I have already said that he was power hungry and I do not believe he will be content to rest in the back benches without asserting his claims to power again in the future. He is now obviously turning his venom on his own leader. He says he did not agree with the dismissals. Are we to take it that Deputy Boland condones the actions for which Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey have been dismissed by their Taoiseach? He also, not having had his own way, resorted to the last desperate act of threatening to resign. He did, in fact, resign. A man who behaves in that fashion towards his leader, adopting a threat of that kind in very difficult and painful circumstances, is a man bereft of reason and I am sure that his plea of loyalty in this House today will fall on very deaf ears indeed where the Taoiseach is concerned.

Deputy Blaney is also a very strong-willed man. If he wants to create a private army in the North let that be, but he has no right to involve the Irish people in this mad gamble. Nor has he any right to use the institutions of State for the purpose of armed rebellion. Deputy Blaney and his colleagues are trying to create a power keg which is bound to blow up and many lives are likely to be lost. If there is bloodshed in the north and guns are used the Taoiseach must realise that responsibility lies on his head. If illegal organisations can secure arms of this kind at the behest of Ministers, the Fianna Fáil Government have much to answer for.

Deputy Haughey's association with this nefarious and sordid business came as a surprise to all of us. In his statement today he claims that he is innocent of the accusation of bringing ammunition into the country. The Taoiseach has an obligation in replying to the debate to give more facts as to the reasons why these Ministers were asked to resign. It is not good enough to say that they disagreed with the Taoiseach and the Government in respect of the attitude towards the Border. The full facts of the whole affair must be made known. It is not enough for Deputy Blaney or Deputy Boland to come into the House and avail of its privileges and in vague generalities and, with pleas of loyalty and adherence to the Republican cause, seek to roll the other fundamental issues under the carpet.

The Taoiseach must be more frank and honest with the House and tell us also of the conflict of evidence between the ex-army officer, Captain Kelly, and the evidence of the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons. We would have much preferred if Deputy Haughey had concentrated more on dealing with the Budget in a responsible manner——

Hear, hear.

——rather than that he should do the lazy and indolent thing and by one stroke of the pen increase the turnover tax without any serious endeavour to select the luxury goods for taxation and ease the burden on the most necessitous sections of the community.

It was an indolent and irresponsible Budget which did nothing to deflate the economy, a Budget which of set purpose sends costs spiralling again and gives an opportunity to every exploiter and usurer to exploit our people. In the past few weeks since the Budget was introduced every housewife realises that the price of every essential commodity has increased out of all proportion.

We cannot have a debate on the Budget.

I am commenting on Deputy Haughey's Budget vis-à-vis his endeavours to bring in arms here for illegal use as distinct from his primary duty of dealing with the economic affairs of the country——

Nevertheless we cannot have a debate on the Budget.

——and introduce some stability in respect of prices and safeguard the people from exploitation. He failed abjectly in that regard and was seemingly engaged in nefarious activities.

What the people want most of all is to see justice done in relation to this sordid episode. If there is to be any respect for law and order the people who have been guilty of such serious offences, if not crimes, should be brought to the bar of justice where there will be full, fair and impartial investigation into the whole affair so that we can regain some semblance of respect for this House, so that we shall regain our honour and respect for the institutions of State that have been so sullied in recent days by the irresponsible and dangerous activities of Government Ministers. I, therefore, ask the Taoiseach to give us an assurance when replying that he will not tolerate these people in the Cabinet, in his party or in the House but will see to it that for what they have done they will receive the same treatment as any other citizen would receive in the same circumstances. There are at present some men under long and severe sentences in England for merely having attempted to secure arms. It will be interesting, therefore, to know what will happen to these people who have so disgraced this House and society.

I did not intend to speak at all today. I came here at 10.30 this morning to listen and I have listened until 11.30 tonight. One's patience becomes exhausted at times. First, I want to refer to the motion before the House so that those who are listening will understand how far the Deputies who were supposed to be discussing the motion went outside it. The motion is:

That Dáil Éireann approve the nomination by the Taoiseach of the following Members for appointment by the President to be members of the Government—

Jerry Cronin,

Robert Molloy and

Gerard Collins.

I am happy to support this motion and to say that these are honourable men. I wish them the best in the future. I know they will carry out their duties for many years to come with dignity and understanding.

Many matters have been injected into this debate here tonight including the attack on the dead father of Deputy Blaney and the Boland family. It is pretty difficult for one to exercise restraint but these false charges that have been made here tonight will be answered in detail. According to Deputy Keating it would seem that it is a crime to be a republican. We are republicans and proud to be republicans; we will always be republicans and it is no crime to be a republican in this country.

A bogus republican.

Men have died for this Republic and for the unity of the country. Men were executed because they would not compromise their principles down through the years. We have no apologies to make for being republicans. Throughout the debate we have seen that Fine Gael and the Labour Party can be congratulated as men of great imagination and men with a keen sense of rumour. Through the day they carried on a recital of distortions and lies, of unfounded allegations and character assassinations. We are happy and proud to be with the men on this side of the House and very happy to stand behind the Taoiseach——

And Deputy Blaney?

Many attacks have been made on him, particularly by the last speaker, and I noted that he did not make those attacks when the Taoiseach was present. The Taoiseach is a man of courage and understanding. He did not run away or would not run away from his responsibilities as he sees them. He had two options on this occasion. One was to do nothing and the other was to run away as you gang did on a previous occasion. He did not do that. He did what he thought was right and proper. We support him as the leader of this party and as the president of our great organisation. We support him for his courage and understanding in doing what he thought was right. He has the right in accordance with the Constitution— and this party agree on this—to hire and fire as he so desires. That is his right and if he decides to dispense with members of his Cabinet that is his affair.

He did what he thought was right and we stand behind him just as the party stood behind him unanimously yesterday. It has been suggested here today that we had no right to speak. We had a right to speak and we did speak. We asked questions where questions were necessary. It was not a case of being brought into a room, as was suggested by some of the Opposition speakers, and told what to do and getting out in a hurry. It may show the efficiency of our party that we were able to deal with the problems in such a short time. It did not take us three or four weeks with hundreds of meetings, as it did other parties to deal with small problems which they had. We dealt with them effectively and efficiently and we pledged our support to the leader of our party and to the party, because we know it is the only party that can do anything or has done anything for this country.

Many matters have been injected into this debate and it is necessary for us to examine some of them in detail. The attack by a new Deputy on the father of Deputy Neil Blaney, on the father of a dead man who was a good Republican and who has a good Republican son——

The father of a dead man? He is dead but he will not lie down.

The father of Deputy Neil Blaney was attacked by a new Deputy from the Fine Gael Party. We know they would try to discredit even the dead. There was an attack on the Boland family when Deputy Treacy said they had a bad record in relation to this nation. Was he referring to Harry Boland? Was he referring to Gerry Boland? Was he referring to Deputy Kevin Boland? He said "the Boland family". The Boland family have a Republican tradition better than Deputy Treacy or any member of the Labour Party or the Fine Gael Party.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy had his say and he will listen now, and he will not again insult in this House men like Neil Blaney's father or Harry Boland. I am sure that he and the other members of Fine Gael and Labour who spoke here today would not say outside this House what they said under the privilege of the House. I am quite certain they would not, because they are a crowd of cowards. They have always proved that. They have come in here from time to time and made serious allegations that they would only make in this House. When they were challenged outside they would not make them. We are a party with a leader and a policy which I am sure the people of this country appreciate. They appreciate the fact that the Taoiseach took the steps that were necessary and desirable in his opinion. We have a united party and we face the future with a united party. We were told recently of the attempt to overthrow the leader of the Fine Gael Party in May, 1971.

May, 1971?

Deputy Ryan was brought in and paraded on a number of occasions and after he got a course of corrective training he apologised to the people.

This is only 1970.

A Daniel come to judgment.

I was giving them another year to go. We heard quite a lot from the rabble rousers of Fine Gael and Labour. We know they are efficient at this business. They proved it today. The previous speaker did not know what motion was being discussed. He stood up and spoke to a Labour Party motion which proves he was completely out of touch with the affairs of this House. He did not know what motion was being discussed here today. He used Tuesday's speech instead and I note that he did not conclude the speech but put aside the balance for next Tuesday when he can again carry on with the type of character assassination he carried on here for an hour or so.

(Interruptions.)

I will not speak on behalf of Deputy Neil Blaney or Deputy Kevin Boland or Deputy Haughey. They spoke on their own behalf and there is no need for me to say what I think. They have made their statements and that is that. This party stands fully behind the Taoiseach. We are concerned with the unification of this nation. Like many other people in this House I served this nation honourably under arms. Today I was appalled to hear some Members of the House insulting the Defence Forces of this country. There may be one person in that force, or one person who was in it, who broke his oath to the nation but the bulk of those people are honourable and respectable men who are serving this nation honourably under arms and will continue to do so. They have done so with dignity in the Congo, in Cyprus and elsewhere. Nobody in the Opposition can point the finger at the members of the Defence Forces or, indeed, the members of the Garda Síochána who carry out their duties effectively and efficiently.

We will not allow the Deputy to abuse them either.

Order. Deputy Desmond has already spoken at length. He might allow another Deputy to make his speech.

We were accused here tonight of being loyal to Fianna Fáil. This was one of the accusations made by the Labour Party. We are proud to be members of this party. It gives me great pride to be a member of this party, having listened to the boloney preached here by the muckrakers and character assassins from the Fine Gael and Labour benches. They spoke with one tongue today and I am quite sure they will do the same in the future. That is the only way they can possibly survive.

We are concerned about the unity of this nation. I agree with some of the views expressed here in relation to the unity of the nation. I do not agree that any illegal organisations should be supplied with arms. Members of my party do not agree that illegal organitions should be supplied with arms. Each and every one of them stated that today. I am quite sure that our Defence Forces are competent to do their job, that the Taoiseach will do the job for which he was elected, and that the Government will carry out the job for which they were elected. The sooner these three men who are the subject matter of this motion are appointed the better, because the longer the Opposition keep them out of office the longer they are delaying the business of this House in connection with such things as the Housing Bill——

The Taoiseach caused the delay.

——and all the other Bills that are on the Order Paper. The longer they keep this debate going the longer they will delay the implementation of the valuable and necessary Bills which are going through this House at present. I can well understand their desire to ensure that there will be a delay in putting through effective and progressive legislation but, nevertheless, however long they may like to discuss this motion, the day will come when those young men will take up their duties and prove that they can do the job in a highly effective and efficient manner.

Which the other lads did not.

We believe in the complete unity of this nation. We believe in the ideals of Tone and Pearse and Brugha and Liam Mellowes and Rory O'Connor, men of uncompromising principle. They are our ideals and they will always be our ideals. The complete unification of this country is our ideal. We will not allow rabble rousers to insult Republicans or good Republican families. Not alone have they been insulted but members of such families were shot. The wayside crosses in every county are monuments to courageous men who fell at the hands of the assassin whether it was the foreign enemy or the native slave. Many of them lost their lives on the gallows—victims of the British hangman. We will not allow Fine Gael or the Labour Party to insult these people as they have done here today. We know their views on Republicanism for many years. I was not born until 1922. I never introduced this subject in the House before. I have deep feelings for courageous men of uncompromising principles. When I see them attacked by rabble rousers it angers me. Respect for the dignity of the House prevents me from saying many things which I should like to say to the rabble rousers here today.

I do not want to see a blood-bath. The only possible solution at present appears to be the policy enunciated by the Taoiseach and by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party as endorsed at the Ard-Fheis. One has only to read the constitution of Fianna Fáil to know what we stand for. We stand for each and every one of those aims and ideals. There are many young men in this country motivated by a desire to free the nation. This terrible picture stems from the infamous Treaty for which so many courageous men lost their lives.

That is my view and I have the right to express it just as the Opposition have the right to express their views. We heard references to the Irish Independent. One knows the type of stuff the Irish Independent has printed over the years. It was quoted by every member of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party in relation to the attacks on honourable men in this party. Since I came in here tonight the Taoiseach has been referred to in a variety of ways in his absence.

The Taoiseach was not here all the time.

I was here for several hours today.

The previous Labour speaker was pulled up by the Ceann Comhairle for repeating himself several times. He was using the one speech over and over again. When the Taoiseach came here tonight to put the position before the House he had taken a number of decisions. He put his future at stake on the basis of decisions he had made. This is the action of a courageous man and not the type of man Deputy Tracy depicted on a number of occasions. I shall not go into details because of the type of filth the Deputy poured out tonight. The Taoiseach will lead this nation for a long time to come. The people are satisfied and will respond when they are called on to respond in his favour again.

We heard references to a statement supplied by the police to Deputy Cosgrave. It was indicated that this was on headed Garda paper. It would appear that there is a double agent in the police. This House should demand the name of the man who signed the document given to Deputy Cosgrave. How much was that man paid for the information? Let us examine the situation and see was he paid for it. The Deputy is under an obligation to place that letter before the House in order that it can be examined and analysed.

It satisfied the Taoiseach.

(Interruptions.)

This man should be dismissed.

He is doing his duty.

If he wishes to supply information to a variety of people he is not doing his duty.

That was his duty.

He is betraying the oath he took to do the job he was employed to do.

(Interruptions.)

I disagree with the statements made by some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies here today. If we have a security service it is up to us to use the information as it comes to hand. This is not a State where authority is immune from ethical consideration. Each person is equal in this State. It is up to the Taoiseach to use whatever legal means are at his disposal. We vote money here year after year for this service. I see nothing wrong in the Taoiseach using information supplied to him in this way. Some Members thought this was not right and proper. Money having been voted in this House, the Taoiseach is entitled to use the service and on that score I disagree with some Fianna Fáil speakers.

A foul suggestion about Garda Fallon's murder was introduced into the debate. Indirect efforts were made to tarnish the names of many men here with the murder of Garda Fallon. We hope that every Member of this House knows that the foul and brutal murderers of Garda Fallon will be brought to justice as soon as possible.

You are taking a long time about it.

That may well be. There are some people in this country who were never brought to justice. They are knocking around since 1922 and before it.

The year you were born?

Mr. J. Lenehan

You are right on that one, anyway.

Who are you telling?

That is a popular expression over there.

Mr. J. Lenehan

And they are all on the far side of the House.

The Army and the Garda are forces for which I have the height of respect, as has every honourable man here. But references have been made here today by the Opposition casting reflections on the honourable men in the Garda and Defence Forces.

A Deputy

That is not true.

And the Special Branch.

Not alone were the Garda and the Army attacked but the Legion of Mary and the reverend mothers in the convents.

Deputy Paddy Burke will talk for them.

It would appear from Deputy Donegan's remarks here today that we will have to get either the Special Branch to arm or to protect the Garda in the future because he appears to have no respect whatsoever for them. He might do the same thing with them as he did with the tinkers in his gun running escapade.

Mr. J. Lenehan

No bullets left.

Deputy Noel Browne introduced a new line into this debate. He spoke about contraceptives, the disabled, emigration, unemployment, care of the aged, housing and a variety of other matters, and divorce. I do not know how all this comes into the motion by the Taoiseach seeking the approval of Dáil Éireann for the appointment of certain Deputies as Ministers. Nevertheless, Deputy Noel Browne injected those matters into the debate.

You are going well. Keep at it.

Mr. J. Lenehan

You are on a winner so long as you stay on the confraternity.

Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien in his contribution today complained that Deputy Blaney did not let him know what he was doing in the north. Of course, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien did not tell us what he was doing in Ghana, in New York or in the Congo. Why should Deputy Blaney or anyone else tell him what he was doing?

I was not a Minister responsible to this House.

The Deputy was responsible at another time to another organisation.

This man is responsible to this House. Let us hear about that.

We know the type of people the Deputy associated with in Ghana and in other places.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Up a monkey tree.

The ex-Minister is under no obligation to tell Deputy Cruise-O'Brien when and where he goes.

This is the beginning of the next general election.

He has an obligation to tell the Taoiseach where he goes.

Buffoonery is not in order.

If it were, they would be saved by it.

In his speech Deputy Keating referred to the 50-minute meeting. As I said earlier, each Member of this party had an opportunity of speaking. Members of this party did speak and asked whatever questions they desired to ask.

For 35 seconds.

It shows the efficiency and speed with which we can deal with major problems.

Come on. Tell us more. Has the Deputy lost his comic-cut?

You were out of a job of cleaning the gutter.

Mr. J. Lenehan

He did not get £50,000 for a fake farm, either.

You were in Fine Gael until the mid-1960s.

The House should allow Deputy Dowling to speak.

I wish he would do so.

Maybe he has finished.

It is very difficult to hear him.

Is the lady with the curly hair on the back bench of Fine Gael speaking?

You cannot even distinguish——

Earlier today Dr. Noel Browne spoke of the methods we would employ in order to achieve the unity of this country. He says that if they do not come in willingly then we will bring them in at the point of the gun.

That is not true. Deputy Noel Browne never said that.

It is true. The Deputy was not here.

I was here and heard him and it is not true.

It is not true.

Mr. J. Lenehan

It is absolutely true.

This is what Deputy Noel Browne said. Why not send for the record and I shall wait for it?

Get the record.

If the Ceann Comhairle will allow me to go for the record, I am prepared to go for it.

The Deputy should have it there with him if he wishes to speak about it.

This position has clearly been explained not alone by the Taoiseach but by other Members of the party who spoke here today. They have clearly outlined the policy of Fianna Fáil in relation to the unity of Ireland. They have never indicated that this was the method that would be used for the unity of the country. Although many years ago I believed that physical force was the way, I do not believe it now.

Did the Deputy ever use any?

I served this nation honourably under arms.

The Deputy has been up in arms ever since.

I lost my job. The trade union organisation did not do much about it.

The talent is getting very scarce, anyway.

I have plenty of material here to keep me going. Deputy Bruton will have to wait until after midnight.

I can wait.

If Deputies would allow the Deputy in possession to speak, everybody would have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

He is not speaking at all.

Give the Deputy in possession an opportunity to speak.

They are refusing it to me. When Deputy Keating was speaking, he was judging men by their facial expression, not by what they said. He indicated that Deputy Blaney was a man of hatred; that Deputy Boland was a man of hatred. However, he himself poured out nothing but hatred here for an hour or so. There was no question there of forgiveness. How could Deputy Keating judge on facial expression whether men had hatred in their hearts? Why did he not listen to what they had to say? They had one desire: to see that this country does the right thing and goes the right road. That is what all believe in.

I can quite understand Members of Fine Gael and Labour who are trying to discredit tonight the Budget that was introduced here the other day and to mix it up with the motion now before the House so that they would be able to present a different picture. They are not concerned about the unemployed, about the disabled, or about the widows or orphans. They are more concerned about divorce and contraception and a variety of others matters about which Deputy Dr. Browne spoke for so long.

Mr. J. Lenehan

A nice boy; he was exported from Mayo when he was only three months old.

I shall deal now with the security of the State. I am satisfied that the State is secure although efforts have been made here today by Fine Gael and Labour to undermine that security. There is no need for anybody to be terrorised as was the desire of members of the Opposition. We have absolute confidence in the security forces and we are confident they are carrying out their duties in so far as the security of the State is concerned.

We know, too, that this type of approach by Fine Gael and Labour was an attempt to draw in other forces from outside the State. The suggestion has been made by the Opposition that Deputy Cosgrave informed the Taoiseach of the matter concerning the two Ministers at 8 o'clock in the evening and that by 10 o'clock the same evening the two Ministers had been asked to resign. Of course, the position in relation to this matter was clearly outlined by the Taoiseach and by others. In this connection, may I say that whoever was the renegade or traitor who sold the information must be dismissed from his post if he is a member of the security forces or of the Garda Síochána. It was indicated that the information was supplied to Deputy Cosgrave on franked Garda paper but I know from people who were standing behind the Deputy in the lobby when he read the letter that it was a plain sheet of paper.

He saved the country from disaster.

Deputy Dowling should not start a witch hunt against the Garda Síochána.

I have no time for renegades or traitors whether they be in the Labour Party or the Garda Síochána.

(Interruptions.)

If Deputies will cease this kind of conversation across the House and address the Chair perhaps the Deputy could continue.

In conclusion I should like to say——

No, we are beginning to enjoy ourselves.

Will Deputies allow the Deputy to conclude if he so wishes?

It would appear that the Labour Party would like to hear more. While Deputy Dockrell was speaking he referred to cowboys and Indians and to cops and robbers. This was his type of contribution to a debate on a serious matter. I do not know to whom the Deputy was referring because it would appear that the Indians are all on that side of the House.

There are a good few cowboys over there.

Too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

I would appeal to the House to approve of the nominations as outlined in the motion. I hope that these men will soon be able to take up their appointments so that the work of the country which has already been held up by the activities of the Opposition can be continued. If there are people in the public gallery who have heard the speeches of members of the Opposition I say to them that they need not come back on Tuesday because the speeches have been the same today as they were the day before yesterday and we can be sure they will be the same again on Tuesday.

According to reports in yesterday's papers an officer recently resigned from the Army, admitted that he was involved in the affair which led to the forced resignation of a number of Government Ministers. The officer qualified this by saying that his involvement was only slight, although he did admit involvement. Patrick Kennedy, who is an MP at Stormont, was today reported as saying that Captain Kelly, the officer to whom I refer, is a friend of his and is a good Irishman. Mr. Kennedy said that anything the officer did was done with the full knowledge of his superiors, his superior in this case being the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons.

In this House today Deputy Gibbons denied that he had any involvement in this affair. However, a statement by Captain Kelly to the BBC and as issued by them to press and radio tells another story. I quote from Captain Kelly's statement:

Under privilege of the Dáil, Mr. Gibbons has attacked me. All he has said is a tissue of lies. Any work which I did I brought to the knowledge of Mr. Gibbons at any and every opportunity. He is completely aware of anything I did prior to my leaving the Army.

On May 1st when I was arrested by the Special Branch I claimed privilege and asked for Mr. Gibbons to be called. Mr. Gibbons advised me to tell everything I knew concerning my work as an intelligence officer. I rejected this advice because of the implications involved. It was suggested that I speak to the Taoiseach which I did. In my hearing, Mr. Gibbons, before leaving the office (this is the office of the Special Branch) indicated that I was a competent and respected officer and that I should be treated as such. I found my family in a hysterical condition on account of what had been said in the Dáil.

Referring to Deputy Gibbons, Captain Kelly said:

This man is an unmitigated scoundrel and I say this not under the privilege of Dáil Éireann. I met him at his office in Leinster House on April 29th and I gave him a full account of my work. We parted on amiable terms. Mr. Gibbons has often indicated that I was doing an excellent job for the country as an intelligence officer.

This statement clearly implicates Deputy Gibbons in this affair. Now, where do we leave the Taoiseach's statement that not even the slightest suspicion should attach to any member of the Government in a matter of this nature? How is that statement to be applied in this case? The Government may seek refuge behind the line adopted in the current edition of the periodical This Week. They may seek to adopt this story to state that Deputy Gibbons covered himself by telling the Taoiseach at the end of last year of his knowledge of this matter. I quote from the current issue of This Week:

The next development, coming up to the end of the year, must have been a bombshell to the Taoiseach. He was consulted privately by James Gibbons, the quiet, unflappable Kilkenny-born Minister for Defence, who had some very disturbing information.

Gibbons had reports from Army sources that the connection between the IRA Army Council and the two Cabinet Ministers was still being continued. The reports were vague; there were no times, places or hard-and-fast details to back them up.

Unverified, the information he brought could not be acted upon immediately. Lynch was left in a lonely dilemma of doubt, which he had no clear way of resolving.

More concrete evidence was not too long emerging, however. Within the last two months, hints, rumours —and a lot of more factual material —snowballed.

However, this is not conclusive evidence that Deputy Gibbons was not himself implicated in the plot. There is no reason to believe that he may not have been covering himself by going to the Taoiseach while in fact continuing in the plot with Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey, backing both horses at once. No matter what way we look at it either of two situations must represent the true facts. Either Deputy Gibbons did tell the Taoiseach at the end of last year as in the This Week story that he knew of the plot, in which case the Taoiseach did nothing about it and has misled this House in saying that the first knowledge that he, the Taoiseach, had of this affair was on the 20th April, or—the alternative—the Minister for Defence himself was involved in the plot behind the Taoiseach's back and did not go to the Taoiseach. In this case the Taoiseach's implication that no further Ministers were to resign when he stated to Tom McCaughren of RTE yesterday morning—excuse me, I had better start that again.

Who wrote it for you?

He is well able himself.

(Interruptions.)

In this case the Taoiseach's implication that no further Ministers were involved, when he stated that no other resignations were anticipated to the RTE reporter, Tom McCaughren, was totally untrue.

Mr. J. Lenehan

There is another copy of This Week. Take a look at it.

Now, what price do we put on the honesty of the Taoiseach? If further evidence were needed of the Taoiseach's deceits we need only look at a recent matter which was raised in this House. The Taoiseach alleged that he asked Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey to resign on the 29th April. However, on the 5th May in this House when the leader of Fine Gael asked him if there were to be any further resignations the Taoiseach told him that he did not know what Deputy Cosgrave was talking about.

How did I know what he had in mind?

He stated on the following day, the 6th, that as far back as the 29th April he had asked Members to resign. Yet, he came into this House on the Tuesday and told Deputy Cosgrave that he did not know what he was talking about when Deputy Cosgrave asked him if there were to be any further resignations. Can anybody believe the Taoiseach any more?

End of story.

Mr. J. Lenehan

No one would heed you.

I rise this evening for a number of reasons. I did not intend to speak on this motion because I felt it would go on far too long and that many things would be said that people might regret later, but I rise now because, as the day wears on, it has become increasingly obvious to me that most of the statements that came from the Government side of the

Let us examine the position. We are here tonight to approve a motion nominating further new Ministers. The reason House are inaccurate to say the least, we find ourselves in this position is that the Taoiseach says that he believes two of his senior Ministers are involved in a plot. These senior Ministers retaliate and deny it emphatically. This to me is elementary: somebody is telling an untruth. As well as these two Ministers, another Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary resigned. Three of these people have contributed to the debate today. Deputy Boland, who was not asked to resign, he resigned himself, to his credit at least appeared to be sincere. To the other two I could not attribute any vestige of sincerity. The performance of the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in the House this evening was nothing short of scandalous. He came in here and ranted and raved about the Civil War. There are many on this side of the House and on the other side of the House who were not born until after the Civil War. Indeed, there are some on this side of the House, and they must be on the other side too, who were not born until during the 1939-45 war—and after it, Deputy Bruton reminds me. It is time we got away from talk of the Civil War.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

People come into this House and boast that their fathers and their grandfathers were great patriots. Maybe they were, but it is no credit to them that they were born into these families. This is an act of the Almighty. Some of us were born into families with national traditions——

Deputies

Hear, hear.

——and we can be proud of it but others were not and it is not their fault. For God's sake let us work for the good of this country now. I was taught that one's first duty was to one's God, then to one's country and to one's family. I hope the same traditions were taught to every Irishman in this Parliament. Maybe I was naive when I came into this House and accepted that any Minister appointed by a democratically elected Taoiseach would work for the good of the country. Can this be said of Ministers who are indicted by their own Taoiseach? Can it be said of them that they worked for the good of the country if they conspired to bring arms into this country?

There was a lot of loose talk last Wednesday, today and tonight about patriotism. Yesterday my small daughter said to me: "What is patriotism?" As I hunted around to explain to a ten year old what patriotism is I said to her: "I think the simplest way to say to you what patriotism is is that it is working day in and day out to make a nation strong". Can the Taoiseach and members of his Cabinet say they work day in and day out to make this nation strong? It appears to me some of them have worked day in and day out to bring down this nation.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Those who are guilty have brought shame on this country, shame on their own side of the House and unfortunately shame on the entire House. It might be funny to listen to Deputy Dowling ranting, raving and amusing everyone if it were not for the type of situation we find ourselves in in this country today. For God's sake let us try and retrieve the situation. Let us make ourselves proud to be Irish and let us be able to face the rest of Europe. At the moment we are in a position that we have a Taoiseach and Cabinet who must be in the most disgraceful condition in the whole of Europe. I can say that we must be viewed by foreigners like the banana republics of South America.

I cannot prove who is right but certainly, if the Ministers claim they are not guilty, then the Taoiseach has done them a disservice. Let us remind the House that the Taoiseach is a lawyer by profession, or was before he became Taoiseach and I am sure he did not act without weighty evidence. I am equally sure he would not have acted at all if he had not been pushed by Deputy Cosgrave. A Fianna Fáil Deputy said to me: "I am afraid that only for Deputy Cosgrave we could have got away with it." That is the feeling in this country, that if you are Fianna Fáil you will get away with it.

There must be law and order in this country. If there is to be law and order the same law must apply to Fianna Fáil as to the rest of the country. It must apply to Cabinet Ministers the same as it does to the man in the street. At the moment we do not see this law applying to the Cabinet Ministers and it is time we did. I see in the hasty cementing together of the Fianna Fáil Party loyalty to one thing, loyalty above all else to the Fianna Fáil Party. You are putting your party before your country. In the name of God, let the Taoiseach go to the Park before it is too late, before we are disgraced before the whole world and let us try and retrieve this situation.

We have done harm to the North of Ireland. Fianna Fáil speakers would give the impression that they are the only people who are interested in the North of Ireland. There is not any Member of this House, no matter what side he is from, who is not genuinely interested in a peaceful solution to the problems of the north. Let us not inflate the position any further by lies, untruths and denials from the very highest on the far side of the House. Let the Taoiseach get up and let him assure the House that we will have the truth. Let the people of the country judge for themselves. The only way the people of the country can express their views to this House is by electing a Government for the country. Let them have a chance, knowing the full facts, to choose the Government they want, and I am quite sure they will not return the Fianna Fáil Government who are sitting opposite us tonight.

It is indeed a pity, listening to the references made by Deputy Hogan O'Higgins, that the party opposite did not implement her ideals and carry on with the work of the nation over the past few days. That has not been the case. The party opposite made every effort to panic the nation, to sling every type of mud that could be slung across this House. Nobody can say here tonight that an effort was made by them to face the situation that the nation was facing, to help in this difficult time.

Every effort has been made by the party opposite to make innuendoes about every Member on this side of the House. However, Deputy Hogan O'Higgins said: "Let us get away from the Civil War. It should not be mentioned." I know the people on the far side of the House do not want to hear it mentioned. I heard Deputy Tom O'Higgins mention here the other night that action should be taken and I heard the new Deputy here this evening say that the rule of law should apply. Deputy Joe Dowling made a passing comment here that there were still people roaming the countryside who should have been dealt with by the law a long time ago, who were protected from 1922 to 1931 by the then Government, and who should have been brought to justice afterwards.

I am perhaps one of the few Members of this House who in 1922 stood and saw two of my comrades, two sick men, taken out of their homes, taken a mile away and brutally murdered on the side of the road. The members of the Government of that day condoned that type of thing. They condoned the shooting of another man near Beaufort, they condoned the blowing up of the men at Ballyseedy, the men at Countess Bridge and the men at Bahaghs, Cahirciveen.

Níl cuid den tairiscint é sin.

I am referring to what took place when you were in Government. Some of your Deputies went back into the past and I am going back the whole way. This is something the young people of this nation should know. As a result of the Nuremberg Trials the leaders of wartime Germany were executed. There were leaders in this country at that time—they are still around—who should be brought to trial for the outrageous, diabolical murders for which they were responsible. I know the people opposite do not want to hear this kind of thing. I never intended to raise it in this House but what happened in those dark days has to be brought home to our younger people.

Deputy Cosgrave proudly boasted the other night that from 1922 to 1931 they served this country faithfully. I was subjected to violence by the security force of those days. Our ordinary work was held up. You could not go outside your door at night because armed police and armed detectives were about. That is the kind of law that existed in the dying days of the Government of that day. The people of Ireland in 1932 put that Government out of office, and, but for two short periods, they have kept them out ever since.

Let us face facts. I am not in here to rake up the past. I believe that we in this House have a duty to the nation, that we have a duty to our country to build it up. We have enough trouble trying to develop our western counties and give a livelihood to our people. We should not listen to the kind of contribution made by Opposition speakers in the past two days.

In his opening speech this evening, Deputy Keating commented that the first thing he noticed when he came to this House was the hatred that existed. That hatred comes from the far side of the House; and it is obvious from the contributions made in the past few days that the people opposite have not changed. They are still saying the same things. The Irish people are evaluating what they have said in the last few days. Any ideas the Opposition might have that they would get the support of the nation if we went to the country tomorrow morning are incorrect. They would find themselves in the same position as in the past. However, the Opposition need not worry because we will not be going to the country. When we came into this House yesterday the longest faces were on the Opposition back benches. They were the most relieved people when they found out after our meeting that we were all solidly behind the Taoiseach and that Fianna Fáil still existed as strong as ever.

Let us face up to the situation and try to regain the confidence of the nation because we have much work still to do. We will always have plenty to do in this country to build and extend. Great opportunities are open to us in the next few years. We should try to build up a country which would show any foreign industrialist the many advantages of siting industries here. We should try to do all we can to build up the kind of country for which the men of 1916 laid down their lives. All our people have the right to live in this nation and it is important that we provide the necessary way of living to enable them to do this.

If the people opposite tried to help us in this way rather than trying to get the nation into a state of panic they would be doing a much better job and they would be seen by the people of the country in a much better light. By making contributions similar to what they have done in the last few days they certainly will not further their own interests. For as long as they continue with this type of contribution I consider it my duty to keep before the people the background of the Opposition Deputies and of their friends, many of whom are still around and who should have been brought to justice for the atrocities for which they were responsible.

I should also like to refer to a remark made by Deputy O'Higgins the other night that a senior Garda officer was prevented from carrying out his duty. This is my interpretation of what the Deputy said. I am not too sure that he was not referring to the death of Garda Fallon. However, as I understand the position, a Garda officer is bound by his oath to carry out his duty. If there was a Garda officer who was so prevented it is the duty of Deputy O'Higgins to report that fact to the Garda Commissioner. That fact should be laid before the commissioner and the Government, and any officer who has been found wanting in the execution of his duty should be dealt with immediately by his superiors.

In conclusion, I would ask all people here not to send out from this House confused ideas to be published by the Press and radio. Certainly, the utterances of many Deputies in the past few days will not be of any help to the people of the country, and certainly will not help Fine Gael. That party must realise that they are not getting the message across to the people. They are still making outdated contributions which are of no help to the nation.

Like previous speakers on this side of the House I am intervening in this debate not just for the sake of speaking or merely to prolong the debate but because I consider that no Deputy should cast a silent vote on this important question now before the House. The magnitude and importance of this affair should not be overshadowed by references to 1916 and 1922 or any other part of our history. That history has its place in Irish life but it certainly does not have relevance to the important subject of this debate.

I disagree with speakers who have tried to overshadow the serious matter of this debate by emotional references such as we have heard from Fianna Fáil speakers. We are dealing with allegations here that affect the lives of people now living in this country. We are dealing with allegations of interference in the democratic process of this nation and with the grave allegation of people in authority betraying the high trust placed in them. These are the things on which we should be concentrating in this debate. It is important for all Deputies to let their opinions be known on those matters. We represent the country as a whole and we should let the people know our attitude to what has been disclosed here by the Taoiseach in the last few days.

It is not enough for a party to meet behind closed doors and to come out with a decision after a mere 50 minutes. Deputy Dowling may congratulate himself in this matter of reaching a decision in such a short time, but that will not be sufficient to satisfy the people. Each member of the Fianna Fáil Party should let us know if he intends to vote in favour of this motion. Even though the terminology of the motion in one way is misleading, the essence of the debate is that either we agree with what has happened in Cabinet circles over the past few weeks or months or we disagree and denounce the conduct that has been brought to light in this House in the Taoiseach's statement. This is basically what the vote at the end of this debate will be about and nothing else. Therefore, if Fianna Fáil members are voting in support of that kind of conduct they should let their reasons be known to the people who elected them.

There is no doubt that the rank and file of Fianna Fáil members of this House were in a state of shock when this news became known to them. We know they were suffering from shock, but it is very difficult to know whether it was the shock of having to face a possible general election or shock at what was revealed. I do not know which really shocked them more. However, when they found they were able to close the ranks and that there would not be a general election, they recovered from the shock. Perhaps it did not concern them or shock them at all that these revelations by the Taoiseach should have been made. Of course, the decision of the Fianna Fáil Party on this matter is quite beside the point. It was not a condemnation of the activity of the dismissed or resigned Ministers. It was a decision giving the Taoiseach power to appoint certain people to the Government and that was the decision that was conveyed through the Press to the public.

We do not know yet whether the Fianna Fáil Party accepted the allegations made, whether they have said they are right or wrong. What we want in this unfortunate affair is the truth. We have heard many versions. We have heard further statements here quoted by Deputy Bruton which differ from statements made from the Government benches even this evening. We have heard the Taoiseach's statements. We have heard the statements of the dismissed Ministers and the resigned Minister. They are completely at variance. Either the Taoiseach is wrong or the former Ministers are wrong. According to the Fianna Fáil Party both groups are right. Nobody is wrong in Fianna Fáil.

The Taoiseach says the Minister for Justice was not asked to resign, but Deputy Boland says he felt the Minister was asked to resign. Then the Fianna Fáil Party say they are both right. There has been this attitude right through this debate in which the Taoiseach was acclaimed for his statement. The former Minister for Local Government received claps—of approval, I presume—this morning. The former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries received claps of approval this evening. Therefore we wonder what kind of spell is hanging over the Fianna Fáil Party at the present time. The statement made by the former Parliamentary Secretary was probably the most straightforward and honest statement of the lot, when he came clean and said he resigned out of loyalty to the strong Republican principles of the dismissed Ministers.

What amazes me is the smugness and glibness of the Fianna Fáil members in this whole affair. They seem to think nothing has happened, that nothing wrong or bad can happen in Fianna Fáil, that they are infallible and that the public have a very for giving attitude to them. It may be that the public have a forgiving and forgetting attitude to the actions of Fianna Fáil but on the present issues I do not think the public will have such an attitude to them. That is what frightens the party at present and holds them together, saying: "We will cling to one another. If we let go we will drown." That is indicative of the present mood of Fianna Fáil.

When Fianna Fáil are really in trouble Deputy Joe Dowling is thrown in to divert attention. This happened again tonight. With his usual farseeing intellect he tried to make light of the situation, tried to attribute false motives to people on this side of the House. He also referred in a critical way to the Garda Síochána. He seemed to be very annoyed that, according to him, a member of the Garda Síochána betrayed the Fianna Fáil Party.

The Garda Síochána belong to the nation, not to any party, be it the party in power or a party in opposition. I was frightened by the attitude of Deputy Dowling on this question. He seemed to be of the opinion that a member of the Garda Síochána who, in the pursuit of his duty, co-operated in any way with anybody other than the Fianna Fáil Party was betraying the force. This is a very sad commentary. This is a comment that should not have been passed and that should be withdrawn by the Deputy. He went so far as to accuse a member of the Garda Síochána of selling information. Of course, this is so ridiculous that I suppose I should not refer to it at all, but the fact is that it has been placed on the record of the House and it should be categorically denied that this is so. This is another attempt to divert attention from the real issues involved in this case.

Deputy Dowling also spoke of important social measures being held up by this debate. This debate is not of our making. It arises because of the alleged activities of members of the Cabinet and it is our duty to get the full facts, the real truth. I am certain that if we had got the real truth this debate would not have been so prolonged. Unless we get the real truth damage will be done to economic, industrial and tourist development. These accusations, left without proper and full explanation, will damage the country.

Therefore, I would impress upon the Taoiseach the importance of letting us have all the facts, all the truth. I would impress also on all the rank and file members of the Fianna Fáil Party that they should realise the issue they are voting on when eventually they go into the division lobbies. It is not simply a question of appointing certain Members to be Ministers. The question is far deeper and graver than that. There are some aspects even of the appointment of Ministers that should be and could be discussed in the House but all these matters are overshadowed by the facts revealed by the Taoiseach.

There is one thing that strikes me in the appointment of Ministers and the reshuffle of Ministries. I find, possibly in the confusion and hurry, the Department of Social Welfare is reconnected with the Department of Labour. We spent hours debating in this House and it was agreed on all sides that the Department of Labour should be separate from the Department of Social Welfare. After hours of debate and agreement on this vital question of divorcing these two sections of the Administration we find that in this confusion a backward step is taken and the Departments are linked once again. That is only a very small matter vis-à-vis the major issue before the House. We will welcome another opportunity to talk about that and other shortcomings in the Cabinet changes. Deputies should not cast a silent vote on the issue before the House tonight but should let their voices be heard.

I rise to contribute to this debate because I represent a constituency that contributed in a big way to the freedom we have in this country today, suffered a great deal and did not get much satisfaction. Did I ever think that a situation would arise in which the people would be sold down the drain by an Irish Government? Did I ever think that a Government, full of power, full of arrogance, that controlled every issue in the country, that controlled the Civil Service, the Garda Síochána, the Army and the Fianna Fáil people, would be in this position? All that they went in to govern were the Fianna Fáil supporters. They never thought anything of the rest of the people who in their eyes were West Britons, people with whom they should not be concerned, people who should not be here, who should be exported. Their sole aim was and is to govern on behalf of Fianna Fáil. We find them at the height of their power, with everything under control, and now the bubble bursts.

What do the Irish people think today of a Government having that power putting the people in this position? Wherever we go we see that the people are stunned. It is no wonder that they are. They are stunned because they thought that the Government, 50 years after we got our freedom, would not let the country slip into this position. Surely the Government had experience. They had the example of other countries. They had the power. They had the influence. It has come out quite clearly now that members of the Government were well aware of what was happening, not today or yesterday, but months back. I am very sorry to say that they neglected to do their duty to the people. They have done untold harm to the country, to its economy, to its tourist industry and to everything on which it depends. They have, for their own ends, sold out the country. No wonder they are afraid to resign. They know full well that, if they faced the people again, the answer they would get is "No". The people are no fools. They gave them a chance. They took the chance and they played with the people's interests.

(Interruptions.)

I do not think I have ever interrupted a speaker here and the Deputy from the Atlantic shelf can keep his mouth shut while I am speaking. Here we have a case of the highest Ministers of State involved in the sordid affair of buying arms from a communist country. What links do they have with that country? The members of the Labour Party spoke the truth when they said at the last general election they were painted pink and even red; it was said they were not fit to be in control of the country. Here we have Ministers of State, or their agents, going into Czechoslovakia and buying arms for importation into this country. For what reason—to start a war that would ruin the country for generations to come? These same Ministers and this same Taoiseach at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis recently adopted a motion whereby they agreed that the only way left to bring in the North was through tolerance and agreement. They did not keep to that motion very long. Not alone did they deny the party the right it had, but they took the very ground from under it.

I listened to Deputy Blaney speaking here today, a solid Republican. I remember for over 40 years, before every general election, we had them marching on the North. It was always the day before the election. Nothing ever happened after the election. They were marching for the North every general election with the glint of battle in their eyes, but it was like the old song—tomorrow never came. I wonder if Deputy Blaney would have been half as aggressive in the Bogside as he was down in Killarney with his supporters the night of the election. Killarney was a safer place to do battle than inside the Bogside.

I heard an ex-Fianna Fáil Deputy boast recently about how they got into power. It was no news to me for I was well aware of it. He said: "I went into my local booth in the morning and I asked the presiding officer how many votes were cast and he said ten. I got the block and I stamped the lot and put them all together and put them in. `Come out now,' sez I, `and I will stand you a drink. Your job is done.' "

Deputies

That is not true.

They got into office by intimidation and personation and that is known to the people.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Lenehan will cease interrupting.

I know what the Deputy is wearing all right and I am telling him that the people of this country will know what he and every one of the Deputies over there are wearing before the week is out.

I am sorry that Deputy Haughey was involved in this. He has denied it and I will not prejudge him. I am sorry he is involved. He was an excellent Parliamentarian and a likeable man. He will be a great loss to this Parliament, but I can tell some of the others that I am not a damn bit sorry for them because, when I put down a question last week here about a gentleman who was taking out nationalisation, and the only qualification he had was vilification of one of Ireland's greatest men, I got no satisfaction of any kind; he got his nationalisation but I can assure you he is not a Republican.

The people will judge Fianna Fáil on what Fianna Fáil have done. They gave Fianna Fáil power. Fianna Fáil told them it was the only party fit to rule. What will the people say now? What can they say? The answer is there in front of them in black and white. Fianna Fáil are not capable of ruling. Fianna Fáil has done something that this country will never forget, something never done in this country since it achieved its independence.

What was that?

"Revolution" is the word.

The best thing to do with the like of the Deputy opposite is to ignore him. I would ask the Taoiseach to consider seriously the position. I would appeal to him not to prolong the agony for himself and his party but to go up to the Park while there is yet time and not keep the poor old gentleman up there waiting for him. I appeal to him to hand over his seal of office and let the people decide forthwith what type of Government they want.

Go dtí seo a dhíospóireacht tá daoine ag caitheamh droch-mheas ar a chéile agus sin á dhéanamh acu in ainm na tíre. Ó thosnaigh an díospóireacht seo táthar á rá gur ceart grá a bheith againn ar na daoine sna Sé Contaethe, gur ceart aitheantas a thabhairt don Phrotastúnach, don Chaitiliceach, don duine bán agus don duine gorm. Ar an dtaobh eile den scéal, níor stad lucht an Fhreasúra de bheith ag masladh na dTeachtaí atá ar na bínsí seo. Conas is féidir leo a bheith dáiríre faoi thuiscint nó faoi ghrá, grá pearsanta nó grá tíre, muna mbíonn ar siúl acu san am gcéanna ach an masladh? Glacaimse go bhfuil gach éinne anso chomh díograsach liom féin maidir leis an tír. Glacaimse gurb é mian gach Éireannaigh saoirse a bheith againn lá éigin agus go dtiocfaidh an tsaoirse sin go síochánta. Nior mhaith liom go ndoirtfí fuil ar bith chun an tsiocháin sin a bhaint amach. Bá mhaith liom féin siúl síos Sráid Uí Chonaill leis na daoine is dúire mBéal Feirste agus greim láimhe againn ar a chéile.

I have listened with as much patience as possible to the many contributions that have been made to this debate which on the surface would appear to be on a motion regarding the appointment of new Ministers but which, for reasons best known to other speakers, they have utilised to indicate their ideas of what Irish freedom should be. We have had long journeys into genealogy, history and party affiliations each man trying to establish, he would have us believe, what he thought should be done in the cause of Irish freedom. I have heard speakers indulge in what they called charity; appealing to this side of the House for tolerance, telling us how intolerant we were, trying to convince us that they were the sole guardians of minorities here, there and everywhere while simultaneously indulging in a form of intolerance and cruelty to people who sit here such as I have never heard before. There is not much point in talking about tolerance and preaching about it when by your very utterances you show you have no interest in it.

I only mention this as an indication as to why I cannot accept the contributions I have heard. I see Deputy O'Higgins opposite me now and he reminds me of his contribution which, in the main, was fair political comment. On the other hand, in a situation where he was preaching about the tolerance and concern and the regard which we should feel for our fellowmen in the North I do not know why he should have pointed his finger towards Deputy Boland and expressed what I consider to be rather personal ill-will and an ill-wish, politically at least.

I listened to Deputy Keating who stood up full of self-righteousness and would have us accept him as the custodian of all that was proper in our attitude towards our fellowman and at the same time I heard him indulge in a form of cynicism and criticism that gives me to think he is well versed and educated in the art of doing the mean thing gracefully. I saw him, during Deputy Dowling's contribution, sitting back, sneering and sniggering and looking to the gallery and looking around trying to make little of Deputy Dowling.

I cite these instances, not in any special criticism of the Deputies concerned, but as indications of their insincerity and reluctance to practise what they preach. Unfortunately, I missed Deputy Bruton's contribution but I am sure that like other members of his party he told us how concerned he was for genuine Irish freedom. I imagine he would associate himself with his fellow-speakers who told us how concerned they were about removing Partition. Mentally at least, I am sure he agrees with all the heroic offerings we got from that side of the House.

As an indication of Deputy Bruton's insincerity I refer to the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Justice when he endeavoured to make the point that it was a waste of time for members of the Garda to have to learn the Irish language. He said this after making a rather elequent and telling case for persons needing psychiatric treatment, such as prisoners. He told us how we should be organised to look after them and protect them. But during his contribution, especially when he said he did not see why gardaí should have to know the Irish language, I interrupted, as reported at column 131 of the Official Report of 2nd December, and asked what I hoped was a reasonable undisturbing question and to me a very important one: "Does the Deputy deny me my Constitutional right to talk to a garda in the Irish language?" There was nothing emotional, passionate or incorrect about that. I suggest I was speaking on behalf of many Irish people.

Knowledge of Irish is not required for entering this House. Why should it be required for entering the Garda Síochána?

Deputy Bruton replied: "I deny the Deputy the right to expect the garda to have to listen to him." He was followed, as I said before, by his foster-father, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, with a resounding "Hear, hear." These are the people who will tell us of their interest in the North, tell us the great heroes they are, how they are hungering for Irish freedom, for tolerance and for the day when we will have a 32-County Republic. What are they hungering for if in that Republic a citizen cannot, if he so desires, at least speak to a member of the Garda in the Irish language?

The Taoiseach indicated to this House that because of certain information he had to hand he felt obliged to take certain action. That to me was a very responsible statement by the Taoiseach. I do not think he prejudged the situation in any way. It is quite obvious from the contributions made by the Opposition that they prejudged it. They have already convicted. I am surprised that the Opposition with so many legal men, having regard to the special circumstances of the announcement, did not hold their fire until they had more information.

I regret if anything I said disturbs anyone on the Opposition benches. That was not my intention. My intention was, if I could in my inexperienced way perhaps, to give them my honest reaction to what I heard since the debate began. They expressed certain fears about the situation as they saw it, about what would happen in the country and about the dangers and damage that might ensue. I could read in quite a few of their contributions what I consider to be wishful thinking rather than any genuine fears.

I do not know what happens in the field of politics. I do not understand the situation in which a special licence is given to a politician to twist certain words and to denigrate virtues. I do not think that should happen. That has been happening.

Deputy Pattison suggested that we seem to fear a general election arising from what has occurred. I personally have no such fears nor do I imagine there are any such fears on these benches. From my chats with people around the House before this debate took place I consider that the round of applause which was given to the contribution made by the leader of the Opposition was given because no general election will take place. That was after they had heard that the Fianna Fáil Party were united, as they feared ultimately but hoped not for the present, and that there would be no general election.

Three hours before precisely. Four to seven.

The disclosures of the past few days will stand forever as a shocking indictment of the Taoiseach and his management of this country. These events will stand as a monument of inefficiency and mismanagement. I say this with regret. Indeed, in his present dilemma, which is most unenviable, the Taoiseach has my deepest sympathy. Under his leadership lawlessness goes unchecked and revolutionaries are proving an ever-growing menace to our society.

Within the short space of three years our balance of payments has swung from a surplus of £15 million to an estimated deficit of £60 million. Prices are increasing more rapidly than in other OECD countries with the exception of Iceland, Yugoslavia and Portugal. Our national debt stands at the highest ever peak at nearly £1,100 million requiring nearly £100 million to service it annually. Now our Government are disgraced in the eyes of the world. There are allegations of conspiracy and counter-conspiracy. There are plots to import arms illegally and these plots involve Cabinet Ministers.

The Taoiseach tells us that they have unanimity within their ranks. Fianna Fáil say this after their famous 6 o'clock party meeting. Members were supposed to have given their leader a unanimous vote of confidence. What hypocrisy. It is obvious that at that famous 6 o'clock meeting the gauntlet was thrown down. The ultimatum was issued. They had to stand together or face political suicide by going to the country. At that meeting the strongest of all animal instincts prevailed, the instinct of self-preservation. Self-preservation was the order of the day and the dissident groups concurred.

Why did they do so? Because if their own party could cling to power they would still be Members of this House of the Oireachtas. They would be backbenchers in the Government party, ideally situated to continue their intrigues and their plots. If there were a general election I do not think there could be any doubt but that the Fine Gael Party would be returned to power and a full-scale investigation would be carried out. These men who are alleged to have betrayed this country would stand subject to the laws which they themselves enacted. No man can stand above the law. No man can flout the law.

The Taoiseach above all men must show total and absolute respect for the law. These men must be arraigned before the courts of the land. They must be judged on the allegations and the prima facie case now held against them. What is happening at the moment? There is a total lack of credence in most statements that are being made at present. The Taoiseach tells us he has a prima facie case. The former Government Ministers involved refute this categorically.

In this evening's edition of the Evening Herald the former Minister for Finance is quoted as saying:

I have not had the opportunity to examine or test such information or the quality of its source or sources.

In the meantime, however, I now categorically state that at no time have I taken part in any illegal importation or attempted importation of arms into this country.

Where is the Taoiseach's prima facie case? Why was the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, dismissed from his Cabinet post? The allegations too have been denied by the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Again the Taoiseach maintained that he had a prima facie case against these people. It would now appear that the Taoiseach has known of these developments within his Cabinet and within his Government for a considerable time. I quote from This Week. In the edition of 15th May it is alleged that the Taoiseach was told some time in August or September of last year that Deputy Blaney was in close contact with the northern command of the IRA. The Taoiseach apparently ignored these intelligence reports. It is stated that the next intelligence report which reached him was more alarming. It indicated that men who were known to be members of the IRA council in Dublin had been in consultation with both Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey in the city, not once but several times, and that they had met the two Ministers separately and together. It was also alleged that Deputy J. Gibbons had reports from Army sources that the connection between the IRA council and the two Cabinet Ministers was being continued.

Captain Kelly, who resigned his commission, has stated this evening that Deputy J. Gibbons was totally involved. He said that Deputy J. Gibbons was aware of his work and commended him for it. The Taoiseach, who has made no statement whatsoever about Deputy J. Gibbons, intends to appoint him to a very senior Cabinet position. The Taoiseach is asking us to support him in that move. Until the Taoiseach comes out and categorically denies that Deputy J. Gibbons was in any way implicated in the alleged importation of arms I shall certainly oppose him. This matter appears to me to be much more serious than would appear from the way in which it was being treated by certain Members of this House who have indulged tonight in a comic opera. I ask the Taoiseach whether any of these arms have been imported. To whom were these arms given? Were they given, as has been alleged, to subversive groups who were determined to disrupt the organs of State and the whole structure of our society?

We have been told that all the attention has been directed towards the defence of our defenceless people in Northern Ireland. Was it intended to send armed members of an illegal organisation over the Border? Was this the intention of the dismissed Cabinet Ministers? Has any consideration been given to our Army in case of such an eventuality? Were the Army lines to be infiltrated before this was to take place? One might ask which was to come first, the north or the south. Was there, and is there, a plan for a massive military coup in the Republic to be followed possibly by armed intervention in Northern Ireland? Perhaps it was to be vice versa. Maybe it was to be simultaneous in both places.

These are serious possibilities which must be examined. What action has the Taoiseach taken against these people in respect of whom, he maintains, he has a prima facie case? He has allowed them to continue as backbenchers in his own Oireachtas Party. I should like to ask the Taoiseach to give this House and the people an assurance that a full, relentless investigation will be carried out and that, if these men are guilty of treachery, they will face the courts of the land. These ex-Ministers have not admitted any culpability. Instead they have made speeches in this House to whip up misguided, emotional Republicanism, to which youth is particularly susceptible. I submit this exploitation of the youth of our country is misguided. They are inexperienced and irrational. Many of them are going through a phase that most of us with very proud republican traditions went through when we were young. Most of us had the intellectual capacity to reason out our Republicanism and to realise that the day of the gun was gone. Nothing can ever again be achieved in Ireland at the point of a gun.

It is frustrating to try to analyse the motivation for these plots and intrigues on the part of former Ministers who have been charged, not alone by Deputies but also by their own Taoiseach, with these activities. If this is what they call Republicanism, then to me it is perverted Republicanism. If this is what they call Nationalism, it is perverted Nationalism. How can they reconcile Republicanism in the purely Irish context of complete and absolute separation from Britain with our total, absolute and ever-growing monetary dependence on Britain? I should very much like to hear them give an explanation.

These ex-Ministers, if the charges are true, would arm a certain section of the community in north-east Ireland. I firmly believe they would do exactly the same here in southern Ireland: they would arm subversive groups bent on the destruction of all the organs of our State. Those of us who are rational about north-east Ireland can well appreciate that many of our people in that area do not wish to join us at the moment—some of them, because they belong to a privileged class, a class of vested interests, others because they have been alienated by the bitterness, hate, bigotry and prejudice instilled into them for over half a century. Still others have been alienated because they enjoy far better social services there than we can offer them here.

What, if the allegations are true, would these ex-Ministers have us do? Force them down to come within our jurisdiction at the point of a gun—and they would do this in the name of Republicanism. They would do this in the name of Nationalism. What a perversion of those two glorious words.

I do not think the Taoiseach should be exonerated of all culpability because, to me, he is guilty by association; he is guilty by default. He made no move against those ex-Ministers until he was forced to do so by the leader of our party, Deputy Cosgrave.

The Taoiseach, I submit, has become contaminated by the arrogance of his own Cabinet. It is quite disgusting for me, as a new Deputy in this House, to witness the disdain and the contempt with which even supplementary questions are treated in this House. It is an appalling spectacle because, no matter how simple they appear to be, particularly in the context of the national scene, they are important to some people—people in many cases merely looking for their rights.

The Parliamentary question is, for most of us, the only means we have of making serious inquiries in this House. These, as I said, are very often treated with contempt. The Taoiseach has tolerated this attitude. He has tolerated this behaviour since I have come into this House. I must say I am most disappointed in him. He had many warning signs of impending events of a very serious nature and he failed to take any action whatsoever. Now, he continues to keep these men, who may, as I have said, and not with any levity, be guilty of treason. I understand treason to be such a serious crime that the death penalty still applies.

The Taoiseach owes a responsibility to the people who have placed trust and confidence in him. This responsibility can only be fulfilled by going to the people and letting them decide whether or not they wish him to continue with the mandate they gave him in the last general election. For the moment, the troubles in this country are being pushed under the table. They are being sneered at; they are being made a joke of. I submit that this country at the moment is in a very serious plight—and the crisis has not passed. There is no doubt about it but, under continued Fianna Fáil Government, it will again raise its ugly head.

The Taoiseach now has a glorious opportunity of explaining fully the state of this country. The people, I am sure, demand it. If we are to make any progress, this absolutely revolting mess must be cleaned up once and for all. If we are to make any advancement whatsoever the co-operation and goodwill of every working man and woman must be sought. The true state of our economy should be exposed, no matter how painful it may be. The people should be told—not in a hypocritical way—what disasters are pending. The Taoiseach should tell the country—indeed he should tell the world—what has in fact happened. He should stop the speculation which is rife at the moment. I sincerely wish he would do it for his own sake, for the sake of his party, for the sake of all parties in this House—indeed, for the sake of the country as a whole.

I rise to speak at this somewhat late hour because I feel that everyone in this House, no matter to what political party he belongs, should express his opinion, on what has happened here. Let us make no mistake about what has happened here. It will have vast repercussions on us in every sphere. Anyone who has been abroad as much as I have—surely the Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Dr. Hillery, will agree with me on this—knows that many people regard Ireland as just one unit. Already the repercussions of what has taken place in the Six Counties have had a considerably adverse effect on us here. On top on that, suddenly this explosion bursts on the country—not unexpected from this side of the House but certainly unexpected by the followers of the political party in power today. The thoughts of many people must be directed to the fact that what has happened in the Six Counties is likely to happen here. Already, not having escaped the repercussions of the disasters in the north, we place ourselves in a very perilous position here. I belong to a political family who have had the honour of representing this country formerly in the British Parliament before we had our own Constitution and Government here, and subsequently here, since the inception of this State.

This is one of the most serious issues to face the country. Like other speakers, I do not think we have seen the end of the revelations and the disasters. I do not think that any Fianna Fáil Deputy knows exactly the extent to which this rot has permeated the Government. It is all very well for the Government to say they are a united party, but this morning we witnessed what, in my opinion, was a most disgraceful exhibition when two former Ministers came in here and practically accused the leader of their party of telling lies. One could put no other construction on the matter but that either the leader of the party was telling lies or they were, because both had a different story. What are we to believe and what is the country to believe? However, this is not the real issue. The real issue, the important issue, is that the prestige of this Parliament has been lowered not only in this country but throughout the world. Like everybody belonging to me, I am, and always have been, a constitutional Nationalist. I would do anything to defend democracy, to defend the right of free speech and to defend the right of individuals to live their lives in peace.

We reached a dangerous situation—the Government may deny it if they wish—when the Garda Síochána were afraid to act because they had not the force of authority behind them. We reached a situation in which members of the Government in a position of trust were at variance with their leader, although I am glad to say that both men came in here today and attempted to make an amende honorable by saying that they do not believe in physical force. However, there can be no doubt but that the statements made by them have been conducive to revolution. In such event, it is the ordinary people of the country who suffer. I know that because, as I have said, all my people were constitutional Nationalists. We were caught in the 1922 split of the physical force movement when there was pillage, plunder and lack of order. It was then that the late Mr. W.T. Cosgrave, the former President of the Executive Council, took charge and re-established law and order. Forty years later it fell to his son to discover what was going on within the Government and to make that information known to the Taoiseach. If it were not for that, I am convinced that the Government would not have gone so far as they have now gone and that they had no intention of doing anything.

I do not accuse the Taoiseach of being a dishonest man but I accuse him of being a weak and complacent man because he allowed these happenings to build up gradually under his control. One can only hope that, having at last decided on what is necessary, the Government will eradicate these festering sores and endeavour to govern. One can only hope, also, that the Taoiseach will have the force of personality to continue to govern.

Many speakers have suggested that the Government should resign. In that case we would be faced with a general election. I wish now to express an opinion, but I must make it clear that this is my own personal opinion. I and as I am sure, in their own way, the majority of Deputies in the House place or should place the nation before a party. They should realise that, above everything else, the safety, the life and the freedom of the individual must come first. Although the full facts are not at present available, I believe that underground forces may still be at work and that, if Dáil Éireann were to be dissolved, we could face an election such as the election of 1918, which I am old enough to remember. At that election the gun was used; people voted under the threat of the gun. As a youngster at that time I was a supporter of the Redmondite Party, the party which upheld constitutional methods. If Dáil Éireann were to be dissolved at this time I can envisage the use of the gun again, but this time the gun would not be used against the Redmondite Party but against the Government and against all lawfully constituted candidates seeking election to Dáil Éireann.

The Taoiseach has acted, but he acted belatedly. I would ask him now to show the courage of his convictions, to have the moral courage to govern, because it is no use trying to cover up the irregularities that exist.

Our Parliament and our nation are in danger. The prestige of this Parliament has been greatly lowered by the vacillating action of the Government. I hate speaking on a debate such as this and I hate referring directly to individuals but I consider it to be the duty of every Deputy to assert the right of a free people in a free Parliament. In the world of today, where there are so many disturbances and revolutions, such as they have on the campuses in America, all the people have to fall back on is a democratically elected Parliament. Therefore, I say to the Government that they should have the guts to govern—they have not shown them so far—and to honour the memory of all who served and fought in the past for freedom. They should remember that the fight for Irish freedom did not start in 1916. There is no monopoly of patriotism on the Fianna Fáil benches, because there are as good and better Irishmen on this side of the House as ever sat on the Fianna Fáil benches.

Although I am a constitutional Nationalist, I honour the memory of people like Collins, although such men were physical force men. At the same time, they laid down their lives so that this Parliament could be set up and so that the Irish people could live in peace and comfort.

Let Fianna Fáil take heed of what has happened. I do not know for how long they will be able to continue in power, but I express the personal opinion that it is their duty to stay in office and to govern, as it is also their duty to clear up the mess that exists and thereby ensure that all those who have contributed so much to this country may raise our Parliamentary standards again, so that Ireland may continue to be in the future as she was in the past: a democratic Parliament, upholding the rights of the individual regardless of what may be his political affiliations.

The Deputy need have no fear. There will be no dissolution.

I have had the honour of being a Member of this Dáil since 1961. At all times I have been very conscious of the special privilege which membership of this Parliament confers on anybody who has been fortunate enough to have been elected to it. I have listened in this debate to passionate and emotional speeches from the opposite side of the House in which the words "Republicanism" and "patriotism" have been bandied about. There has been a deliberate attempt by the Fianna Fáil Party, not for the first time, to convey to the people the impression that patriotism and nationalism are virtues to which only Fianna Fáil can lay claim.

There are Deputies in this party who can validly and rightly lay claim to close family associations with the struggle for freedom and independence. There are Deputies in this party, like the distinguished leader of this party, whose father and close relatives were members of this Parliament, who helped to lay the foundations of this State, who helped to lay the foundations of the democratic institutions which we enjoy today. I am proud to be one of those Deputies who have family connections right back to the early days of this State and to this Parliament.

I regarded this Parliament as a serious place where serious business was to be transacted and during almost nine years membership of this Parliament I have never indulged in personal abuse nor in any type of mudslinging. I have deplored it on many occasions because I felt that Parliament was a place where the nation's business was to be transacted and where the Members were expected and obliged to devote their time, their attention and their energies, whether as ordinary Deputies or members of the Government, to this task.

I have been shocked, dismayed and disillusioned that such things as have come to light over the past few days could happen in a free Parliament in a democracy such as ours. I am particularly shattered to find, and it is a tragic and terrible thing, that there are men who have been elected to membership of this Parliament, who have occupied the highest office in this land, who have abused their rights, their privileges and their power in the manner in which these men have done.

I was in my own constituency of Limerick city yesterday and the reaction there of the ordinary person was one of shock and dismay. The reaction of the citizens was well expressed in a banner headline in this weekend's issue of our local newspaper—the Limerick Leader. The banner headline contained only three words: “The Nation Reels”. People have been shocked and dismayed by the terrible things that have come to light. The reaction of the ordinary person—and as I have often said I regard myself as being privileged and honoured to represent, as an ordinary plain person myself, the ordinary people in my constituency —was “How could such terrible things take place? How could such things happen? How could men who have been elected to the highest office in this land stoop to such folly?” These were some of the reactions which I found among ordinary men and women in the constituency I have represented for almost nine years.

The extraordinary thing is that the two members of the Government who have been dismissed from office—Deputies Blaney and Haughey—were two members of the Government who had built around them the aura, the mystique and the glamour of the modern whiz-kid, leaders of the jet set, outstanding men who have been held up to the people and particularly to the youth by the media of communication as being outstanding examples of modern, progressive, hard-headed, nononsense politicians, men who have been able to manipulate the media of communication in such a way that they projected an image of modern Irish patriotism. One of them was described on many occasions as "the golden boy of Irish politics". The same man was recently described in this House by a former journalist who is now a member of the Dáil as "a much maligned man". I refer to the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Charles Haughey.

It pains me to think that we have reached the situation that we have reached here tonight. No matter how we may dislike the uglier aspects of public life or politics facts are facts and we must state our views. I believe the Taoiseach stands tonight before this nation as the leader of a Government irreparably discredited and holding on to office now through fear. The Taoiseach must remember that for a number of years now he has been the leader of a Government which contains members whose names have been synonymous with high living, with high spending, with land speculation and with property deals. This has not just taken place in Dublin. We know all about it in Limerick too. The Taoiseach has been the leader of a Government which has operated the diabolical patronage system known as Taca. The Taoiseach has also, as we have learned in the past 48 hours, been the leader of a Government which contains men who have now been exposed by the leader of this party as gunrunners. It is a well-known philosophical dictum that power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believe this is what happened in the present case.

This is the whole problem.

Deputy Blaney said this afternoon that he could forgive but never forget. I want to say to the Taoiseach, to his Government and to members of the Fianna Fáil Party that the people of this country will never forgive and they will never forget the outrageous happenings of the past few days.

Who would ever think that in June, 1969, less than 12 months ago when the Fianna Fáil Party got a mandate from the Irish people in a general election to govern and came into this House with the second largest majority a Government ever had we would find ourselves faced with the crisis we have this week? There is an old saying and a true one that power is a potent weapon. I believe one of the reasons for the happenings of the past week is that the Government have become drunk with power. At least it is fortunate the Irish people did not return two Fianna Fáil Deputies in the last two by-elections in Kildare and Longford-Westmeath. If they had, I am sure we would have a Government even more drunk with power than they have been over the past 12 months.

I have never been known to refer in this House to members on the Government side or to Deputies but we must get our facts straight. I am afraid from what we have heard over the past few days and from what we have read in the papers that somewhere along the line the facts are not being given straight. The Taoiseach sacked two of his senior Ministers, Deputies Blaney and Haughey. Deputy Boland resigned. He told us yesterday morning the reasons he had for resigning from the Government. The Taoiseach also stated in this House on Tuesday last, 5th May, and I quote from volume 246, column 518 of the Official Report:

The Taoiseach: I should like to announce, for the information of the Dáil, that Deputy Michael Moran yesterday tendered his resignation to me as a member of the Government. I have advised the President and he has accepted the resignation with effect from today. It was my hope to introduce a consequential Motion for the appointment of another member of the Government today. This is not possible and I will do so tomorrow at 11.30 a.m.

Mr. Cosgrave: Can the Taoiseach say if this is the only Ministerial resignation we can expect?

The Taoiseach: I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.

Mr. Cosgrave: Is it only the tip of the iceberg?

The Taoiseach: Would the Deputy like to enlarge on what he has in mind?

Mr. L'Estrange: What did Deputy Blaney say last week when he threatened the Taoiseach in public?

(Interruptions.)
Mr. Cosgrave: The Taoiseach can deal with the situation.
The Taoiseach: I can assure the Deputy I am in complete control of whatever situation might arise.
Mr. Cosgrave: But smiles are very noticeable by their absence.
The Taoiseach accepted the resignation of Deputy Michael Moran. We were told that Deputy Moran resigned from the Government for health reasons. If I heard Deputy Boland correctly yesterday morning he said that Deputy Michael Moran was pushed.

That is exactly what he said.

Who are we to believe and when are the Irish people to be told the truth from this House? Again, in connection with the sacking of the two senior Ministers the Evening Herald yesterday evening carried the headline: “Haughey: `No Part in Guns Plot' ”. I quote from the Evening Herald of Friday, 8th May:

Mr. Haughey said that he did not propose to make further statements, but added: "I have fully accepted the Taoiseach's decision as I believe the unity of the Fianna Fáil Party is of greater importance to the welfare of the nation than to my political career".

A decent statement by a decent man.

How decent was he?

Very decent.

Just above that statement in the Evening Herald there is the following:

"I have not had the opportunity to examine or test such information or the quality of its source or sources", said a statement from Mr. Haughey, issued today at the offices of Messrs. John S. O'Connor & Co., Solicitors, Upper Ormond Quay.

"In the meantime, however, I now categorically state that at no time have I taken part in any illegal importation or attempted importation of arms into this country."

Whom are we to believe? The Irish Times of Friday, 8th May, states: “Boland suspected by Special Branch”. During the course of the interview with Dick Walsh, the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland, said that in all probability all the members of the Cabinet had been under the surveillance of the Special Branch for some time. He said he had no evidence that he was one of those under surveillance by the secret service although he had a feeling he was. This is what we hear from ex-Ministers, and if Deputy Boland believes all the members of the Cabinet have been under watch by the Special Branch are we not in an extraordinary situation in this country? Has the Taoiseach not alone no confidence in the Ministers he sacked but no confidence in his remaining Ministers? From all the reports it is difficult to know who is telling the truth.

Since Deputy Lynch became Taoiseach he has had the name of "Honest Jack". When the Taoiseach is replying to this debate, if there is anything else wrong in this Government let him make a clean breast of it to this House and to the country. Had the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Cosgrave, not gone to the Taoiseach on Tuesday night, I wonder whether we would have had the sackings of the Ministers this week?

We in this party were called names by a Deputy who spoke earlier. Personally, I am proud to belong to Fine Gael with our leader who is prepared at any time to face the people. When he does they will have the opportunity of deciding on a Government on whom they can depend, and the sooner that day comes the better. After the events of this week I do not think the Taoiseach has any alternative other than to dissolve the Dáil, go to the country and let the people decide for themselves. If that line is taken we will come back into this House with Deputy Cosgrave as Taoiseach, to give the people the decent, honest Government they deserve.

I shall commence by mentioning a quotation by the Taoiseach a couple of years ago which I am sure Deputies will remember. As Minister for Finance he introduced a Supplementary Budget and his opening remark was: "What went wrong with my Budget?" I suggest that in the last few days the Taoiseach has asked himself a few other questions. He has probably asked: "What went wrong with my Minister for Finance?""What went wrong with my Cabinet?" Indeed it is quite probable that he has said to himself: "What went wrong with myself?"

That is an important question.

I wonder when exactly the Taoiseach knew of this disastrous happening within his Cabinet? According to himself he was aware of it a few days prior to the introduction of the Budget. Will the Taoiseach tell the House what would have happened had Deputy Haughey not met with this accident? Would the Taoiseach, who was then aware of what was happening, have allowed Deputy Haughey to introduce this Budget? We must remember that the Budget is probably the most important document to be introduced in this House in any year and the Taoiseach has stated here that prior to the Budget he was aware of the recent developments. The only reason he gave why Deputy Haughey did not introduce the Budget was that he had an accident. Do we assume that were it not for this accident Deputy Haughey would have been allowed to introduce the Budget?

In this Parliament the Taoiseach is the head and next in seniority and importance is the Minister for Finance. I would imagine the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would possibly come next in line. The Taoiseach has told the House that he did not interview Deputy Haughey because of the accident the Deputy suffered; that he was afraid it might do irreparable damage to him and the medical advice was that he should not interview Deputy Haughey. However, why did the Taoiseach not take the necessary action against Deputy Blaney? Why did he wait so long? Deputy Blaney was rubbing shoulders with him every minute of the day. Surely he was not afraid of doing irreparable damage to Deputy Blaney.

He did a fair bit of damage to him lately.

Why did Deputy Boland resign? According to the Evening Herald of 7th May, Deputy Boland told almost 1,000 people at a Dublin factory that he would not serve under what he described as Gestapo rule. What did Deputy Boland mean by “Gestapo rule?” Can it be otherwise than that the Government were under Gestapo rule, and, the Taoiseach being the head of the Government, is it not reasonable to draw the conclusion that Deputy Boland would regard the Taoiseach as head of the Gestapo? That is logical enough, but Deputy Boland has assured us that he is determined to serve to his utmost the Fianna Fáil Party and the head of the Fianna Fáil Party, who is the Taoiseach. On the one hand he refused to serve the Taoiseach as head of the Gestapo and on the other hand he is willing to serve the Taoiseach as head of the Fianna Fáil Party. When the Taoiseach spoke he did not mention Kevin Boland: he mentioned Caoimhghín Ó Beoláin. I do not think anyone will for a moment think that Caoimhghín Ó Beoláin and Kevin Boland are not one and the same person.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Belton is in possession. Deputies must cease interrupting.

When the crisis came the Taoiseach asked leave to adjourn the Dáil until 10 p.m. He was questioned about that time and he explained that the Fianna Fáil Party were having a meeting at 6 p.m. and he could not reasonably expect to be in a position to come back to the Dáil any sooner than 10 o'clock. What happened? Fianna Fáil held their meeting at 6 o'clock or very soon after it and within an hour the meeting had concluded and the story was that all was well, all were willing to serve.

You were disappointed.

(Cavan): What about the papers the following morning?

Even Deputy Moore will agree that with 75 Deputies plus I do not know how many Senators, if they were to talk this out in a sane, sensible manner, they could not possibly do it in less than an hour. Therefore, it is clear to everybody that this matter was not discussed or thrashed out. It was just a cover-up, a face-saver: "We will all go down and say everything in the garden is rosy". I cannot understand this attitude of either Caoimhghín Ó Beoláin or Kevin Boland. He must have a split personality, if he can serve the Taoiseach as leader of the Fianna Fáil Party but will not serve the Taoiseach as head of the Gestapo. I do not know what Ministers the Taoiseach can have confidence in in his Cabinet. He has indicated by his actions that he has no confidence in Deputy Haughey or Deputy Blaney. Deputy Haughey assures us, according to the Evening Herald of Friday, 8th May, that he had no part in the guns plot. I do not know whether he had or not, but surely the Taoiseach must at least have a suspicion that he had; otherwise why did he sack him? I quote what Deputy Haughey says from the Evening Herald:

I have fully accepted the Taoiseach's decision as I believe the unity of the Fianna Fáil Party is of greater importance to the welfare of the nation than my political career.

In another column beside it I see a heading relating to Deputy Haughey: "His supporters are very upset", and it goes on to say:

The Fianna Fáil Party supporters in Dublin North-East are, according to constituency election agent, Mr. Patrick J. O'Connor, "in rebellious mood."

They feel their man is being very wrongfully accused and very badly treated and they are most upset, said Mr. O'Connor, the well-known Dublin solicitor who was responsible for releasing Mr. Haughey's statement today.

I do not know if Deputy Haughey fully agrees with the Taoiseach's ruling, and yet the man who issued the statement for him says Deputy Haughey's supporters are in rebellious mood. Can it be, on the one hand, that Deputy Haughey is quite pleased to accept everything but that, on the other hand, Deputy Haughey's supporters are in a rebellious mood? The two things just do not add up. There is only one course open to the Taoiseach: he must have a complete and very detailed inquiry in respect of each and every member of his Cabinet, because Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney were sacked or forced to resign.

Again, on the word of that gentleman, Deputy Boland, Deputy Ó Moráin was forced to resign. That is three of them. A Parliamentary Secretary has resigned. That is four. I do not know what role each of the other Ministers may play in this drama. Surely the Minister for External Affairs should know of any happenings or any collusion or anything from outside endangering the safety of the nation. I do not for a moment suggest—and I would be shocked to think—that the Minister for External Affairs would have any part in it. I do not believe it. But he should be aware of any of these happenings.

Then we come to the Minister for Transport and Power. Quite recently in the Dáil, and even since the Taoiseach admitted hearing of this occurrence, the Minister for Transport and Power, when Deputy L'Estrange passed some remark about anarchists, said that the only anarchist in this House was Deputy L'Estrange. Will the Minister for Transport and Power now be kind enough to come forward and say that the people sitting beside him and in daily communication with him and who sit at the same Cabinet meetings with him were a lot more entitled to be termed anarchists than Deputy L'Estrange was?

Take the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. According to Deputy Boland, phones were tapped. If phones were tapped surely the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs must have issued some authority for the tapping of those phones? Will the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs tell this House if such accusations are true? Remember, they are not being made by Fine Gael or by Labour. They were made by Deputy Boland who is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

This speech of Deputy Boland's was unique. It was unique in that it was the first time that Deputy Boland spoke without interruption. Normally, there used to be continuous interruptions when Deputy Boland, then Minister for Local Government, was speaking. This time he spoke uninterruptedly. It was also unique from the point of view that for the first time Deputy Boland was not attacking the Opposition. Whom was he attacking? He was attacking the Taoiseach. He devoted practically all of his speech to an attack on his own Taoiseach. That is worthy of note. It is unique in the history of Kevin Boland.

According to Luke.

According to anyone you like. It is, nevertheless, a fact. Even the speech of Deputy Blaney today was unique because, again, Deputy Blaney, for the first time to my knowledge, spoke without interruption. While Deputy Boland devoted all his time to an attack on the Taoiseach, Deputy Blaney devoted all his time to an attack on the Opposition. He told us his life history, how he was born, when he was born, who his ancestors were, why he was in Fianna Fáil. He used the phrase that he would be unfaithful to his heritage were he to be anything but Fianna Fáil. He is quite entitled to that opinion. He mentioned in an aside that Deputy Boland would also be unfaithful to his heritage if he were anything but Fianna Fáil. Did anybody notice that he did not mention that Deputy Haughey would be unfaithful to his heritage? The Taoiseach, the Ministers and most of the Fianna Fáil Party, if not all of them, know that Deputy Haughey was not born into a Fianna Fáil heritage. He was born into a different heritage, a more decent heritage.

He saw the light then.

Quite possibly, but according to Deputy Blaney, if you do not continue in the heritage in which you are born you are unfaithful.

It is preferable that way.

Therefore, according to Deputy Blaney, Deputy Haughey must be unfaithful to his heritage. It is just a simple deduction.

Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another.

In Castlebar Deputy Haughey was bred, born and reared.

We can have only one Deputy speaking at a time.

I do not know what part any other Deputies may or may not have played but any Deputy or any Minister who is innocent—I am sure some of them are innocent —should welcome this inquiry; and should really call for it, to show to the public and to the Irish people that they are innocent. They should be glad to avail of the opportunity of an inquiry.

Despite the fact that the Taoiseach said that he knew some days prior to the Budget what was happening, I wonder why he delayed so long in taking action. I wonder what his reasons were. Remember, on the night before he disclosed this to the Dáil, Deputy Cosgrave went to see him at 8 p.m., and Deputy Cosgrave told him what he knew. Deputy Cosgrave intimated to him that, if the Taoiseach did not take action, Deputy Cosgrave would regard it as his duty as leader of the main Opposition party to let this Assembly and the Irish people know what was happening. Can we be blamed for thinking that, were it not for Deputy Cosgrave, the Taoiseach would not even then have disclosed to the Dáil what was happening? I think great credit is due to Deputy Cosgrave for the way in which he handled this situation. He could, had he so wished, have made political capital out of it. God knows, political capital has been made out of a great many less important things by Members on that side of the House. We all remember in the by-election campaign, the by-election that Deputy Joan Burke won, all the fuss there was over one paltry letter. We all know the great furore and the excitement that was created.

Hear, hear.

What would have been the course of events had some of those people over there had the knowledge that was in the possession of Deputy Cosgrave? I think Deputy Cosgrave has earned the respect and the gratitude, not alone of this Assembly but of the Irish nation——

Deputies

Hear, hear.

——for the responsible manner in which he went about this task of his.

His father's son.

He refused to make political capital out of it. He put the interests of the nation far and away beyond any gain or any political kudos for himself. In that connection, I think it is very interesting to see in no less a paper than the Irish Press of Friday, May 8th, an article which is headed: “By our political correspondent, Michael Mills.”

Mr. J. Lenehan

Truth in the news.

They have changed that slogan. Does the Deputy not read the Irish Press?

If the Deputy will wait a moment he will realise how truthful it is on this occasion. The article says:

One factor which played a big part in preventing an even worse political situation was the responsible and very fair way in which the leader of Fine Gael, Mr. Cosgrave, dealt with the information which had come into his possession recently. If he had disclosed this information in the Dáil instead of going first to the Taoiseach he would almost certainly have brought about the downfall of the Government. He and his top advisers spent a long time debating what should be done and he decided that the interests of the country rather than the advantage of his party should have prime consideration.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Truth in the news.

It is truth in the news for once, maybe the only occasion. I think this House and the Irish people should be very grateful to Deputy Cosgrave for the magnificent way in which he handled this situation. Those of us who know the tradition or, to use Deputy Blaney's words, the heritage into which Deputy Liam Cosgrave was born, do not wonder that Deputy Cosgrave handled this in the manner in which he handled it. He was being true to the tradition of his father, his father who, 50 years ago almost, when this country was struggling for its existence, when two of the greatest men of our time, Collins and Griffith, had died, not because he wanted power, not because he wished for power but because of what he regarded as his duty—he did not shirk his duty —ensured that this State, having won its freedom, would prove that Irishmen were capable of ruling in this country.

It is very significant, indeed, that very responsible people—high ranking people in the Garda and the Army— when they wanted to expose this matter, when they realised that the Taoiseach possibly did not have the knowledge at his command to expose it, having regard for the safety and the preservation of this nation, confided in Deputy Cosgrave. It is a tribute to Deputy Cosgrave that such a thing should happen.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach now one question: does he consider that these Ministers, two of whom he has thought fit to sack and the third who, Deputy Boland says, was forced to resign, are fit people even to be Members of Dáil Éireann, much less to be Ministers of State? If anybody in this House is unfortunate enough, through no fault of his own, to become bankrupt or insolvent he is adjudged not to be a fit person to sit in Dáil Éireann.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Is that any greater crime than that of which the sacked Ministers are suspected? Can the Taoiseach say that they are fit people to remain as Members of Dáil Éireann? He will probably say that he has no right or no power to terminate their term here as Deputies. Probably he has not but, in the event of a general election—we hope in the near future—will these men be put forward as candidates of the Fianna Fáil Party? If they are selected at local level will the Taoiseach agree to ratify them as fit people to stand for election to Dáil Éireann?

Mr. J. Lenehan

Fianna Fáil are never short of candidates.

They were once when the Deputy became one.

We all regret that two Ministers, two reasonably young men with a fair amount of ability, should be involved in this. We all regret this had to happen to them, but they should remember the old saying that those who play with fire risk getting burnt fingers. If they played with fire, and the Taoiseach at least suspects they did, then they must take the consequences. When the Taoiseach was talking last night——

(Cavan): Deputies opposite should advise Deputy Lenehan to go back to sleep.

——he tried very hard to arouse sympathy for the sick ex-Minister, even for the ex-Minister who was healthy enough not to surrender his office without a struggle. Fine Gael may have some sympathy with the ex-Ministers for getting themselves into this position but their main sympathy is not for those who possibly could be regarded as having betrayed the nation and their own office. Our sympathy is with the decent, honest citizens who paid the salaries of those Ministers while at the same time those Ministers were plotting possible bloodshed and anarchy.

Hear, hear.

Since news of those events first burst on the nation I have been in a few cafes and restaurants and in one or two publichouses and heard the conversations that were going on. This topic was freely discussed even at street corners. Most people were asking the question: "Will those ex-Ministers be charged for this offence?" Their very reasonable argument was that if an ordinary citizen was even suspected of having dealings in arms he would find himself in the Bridewell in a very short time. That was the unanimous opinion. They wondered if there was one law for the ordinary people and a different one for Ministers. Some people said perhaps those ex-Ministers would like to be regarded as patriots, even misguided patriots. They wondered if this very polished Deputy Haughey and the rather boorish Deputy Blaney were importing arms to protect the Catholics and Nationalists in Northern Ireland. I can tell the House public opinion does not tend that way. The argument—and mark you it is reasonable—was that those ex-Ministers, if anything, were hardheaded businessmen——

That is pretty dirty.

But this is what the public are saying. I do not say it.

It is what a Fine Gael Deputy would say.

This is not thought; this is fact. We will tell you more about it.

(Interruptions.)

I am not giving this as my opinion but it is what I have heard, that those ex-Ministers, being hardheaded businessmen, were definitely in it to make a profit out of it.

That is a disgraceful remark.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Disgusting.

That is what was said.

Mr. J. Lenehan

They had enough money already.

I would agree.

(Interruptions.)

Would Deputy Lenehan please control himself?

My opinion is that they were not in it for money but solely for power.

Mr. J. Lenehan

They were not.

They were in it because, as has been said before, power corrupts.

A misquotation. It tends to corrupt.

I think it more than tended in this case.

Would Deputy Moore give us his version of it?

(Interruptions.)

They were more concerned with power than profit although I am repeating what has been said around town.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Bunkum.

I believe they saw themselves as dictators and that in their personal pride they intended to own the country entirely. Can the Taoiseach tell us where the money to buy the arms was coming from?

Perhaps Deputy Lenehan could tell us.

Deputy Donnellan should cease interrupting and allow Deputy Belton to speak.

Was any of this money to come from any bank raids that have taken place recently or from any State Department? I do not know. We all know there has been a spate of bank robberies in recent times. We know that the gardaí have risked their lives to try to apprehend the raiders. We know that Garda Fallon died bravely, and we hope not vainly, in an attempt to apprehend raiders. May I say that Garda Fallon was personally known to me. I know his brothers, his father and his mother. He died upholding the honour and dignity of the Garda Síochána as it has always been upheld by members of that force through the years since it was established under the Fine Gael Government. Fine Gael do not wish to gain any political kudos out of this——

Not much.

"Truth in the News," Fianna Fáil's own publication, has said this.

It did not say that.

I read it before and if the Ceann Comhairle allows, I shall read it again.

Just for the benefit of the Fianna Fáil Party.

In the Irish Press of 8th May it is stated that one factor which played a big part in preventing an even worse political situation was the responsible and very fair way in which the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Cosgrave dealt with the information which had come into his possession recently. “If he had disclosed this information” it says, “in the Dáil instead of going first to the Taoiseach he would almost certainly have brought about the downfall of the Government. He and his top advisers spent a long time debating what should be done and he decided that the interests of the country rather than the advantage of his party should have prime consideration.”

You are speaking of Deputy Cosgrave, not the party.

It says he could have brought about the downfall of the Government.

(Interruptions.)

It is going to happen anyway.

(Interruptions.)

Fine Gael stand for social justice. Fine Gael regret that Ministers can remain untouched and untouchable by the law of the land and by the Taoiseach who uses his majority in the Dáil to ensure this. Fine Gael's record is one of good service. Fine Gael are proud of their traditions. We are proud of the part we played since the establishment of this State. We are proud of our founders, Collins and Griffith. We are proud of the father of our present leader, Liam Cosgrave. We are proud of an earlier Minister for Justice, Kevin O'Higgins, who laid down his life for this country. We are also proud of the men who are living today, who are ready and willing and would not hesitate, if necessary, to lay down their lives.

I do not think that the inquiry which I suggested is the real solution to this problem. It is probably the second best solution, but the only real solution is for the Taoiseach to be honest with the people and let the Irish people decide on this question. Let him put it to the Irish people and see what their verdict is. We in Fine Gael have not the slightest doubt as to what the verdict would be. Deputy Murphy said this evening that the Irish people would give a good prescription to the Taoiseach and the Government, a long period of retirement. Possibly the Government would agree with this because I am told that the Tánaiste said this can happen when Governments are too long in office. Deputy Murphy was quite correct when he suggested that the Government should have a rest.

When I was speaking about the different Ministers I omitted to say that the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, should welcome such an inquiry. I believe Mr. Kennedy, a member of the Northern Ireland Government, said today after the 1.30 p.m. news that the officer who has been named, Captain Kelly, was a personal friend of his for many years and that, knowing Kelly well, he was quite sure that any action Kelly engaged in was not engaged in without the knowledge of the Minister for Defence. I believe Deputy Gibbons, Minister for Defence, spoke today and denied all knowledge of Kelly's activities. He stated that for some time he doubted whether Captain Kelly was suited to the work on which he was engaged in the Army. If he suspected this for quite a long time, why did he not take any action? Surely there is some room for doubt as to whether he was doing his job.

We might also take into consideration the position of Deputies on that side of the House apart from the Ministers. I read the other day that all Cork was completely behind the Taoiseach.

(Interruptions.)

Would Deputies please control themselves.

I also read that Senator McGlinchey said that everybody connected with Fianna Fáil in Donegal was solidly behind Deputy Blaney. We must assume that everybody connected with Fianna Fáil includes the Fianna Fáil public representatives in Donegal and this brings into question the position of Deputy Brennan, Minister for Labour. Is he still in full agreement with Deputy Blaney or the Taoiseach? It would also bring the Ceann Comhairle into question, not in his capacity as Ceann Comhairle, but as a public representative in Donegal. It would also bring in Deputy Cunningham and Senator McGowan. What is the attitude of those people?

Our solidarity kills you.

Your solidarity behind which leader?

(Interruptions.)

For quite a long time this split has been in Fianna Fáil but they have managed by several different methods to polish it over or to paper it over. At last the wallpaper cannot cover the cracks. The split has now come out into the open. This division in Fianna Fáil has come out in the open and the fact that they are split down the middle.

(Interruptions.)

Surely it must be hard for Deputy Cunningham to decide whether he is with Deputy Blaney or with the Taoiseach. I understand Deputy Cunningham is in the running for a Parliamentary Secretaryship. It might suit him to be on the Taoiseach's side despite the fact that Senator McGlinchey said they were all behind Deputy Blaney. No amount of shifting of Ministers or of promotion from one post to another or the promotion of backbenchers to posts as Parliamentary Secretary can help. It may hold for a short time but it cannot hold for very long. The Fianna Fáil Party would be well advised to do the decent thing. The Taoiseach would be well advised to take a taxi to the Park and dissolve the Dáil and let the Irish people decide, because surely the Taoiseach must know as we and everybody in the country know that after this split and division in Fianna Fáil things can never be the same again.

I should like to open my remarks with words used by Deputy Paddy Burke. Every year he uses an expression, whether the Budget is good, bad or indifferent and the expression is: "Great things happen in our time". This is true in this case but it is no laughing matter. It is wonderful to see this arrogant Fianna Fáil Party being hammered down and to see Deputy Brian Lenihan coming in after 1¼ hours with his hands in the air saying: "How are you fixed? There are no worries and no trouble". That is the very opposite to what has been happening. The Taoiseach would find it very difficult to win. He has his football team in the Seanad of 11 votes which he picked himself. I do not know how he got them. There was some Cork blood in most of them. The Taoiseach had every young fellow there looking for another £4,000 or whatever is added to the salary. Older people are looking for it too.

If these two Ministers were gunmen and if it is true he will now have two Ministers who have told several untruths in this Dáil and outside it. Over the years we in this party here and the members of the Labour Party asked them about corruption and were laughed at. If they are telling untruths about serious things how can we believe them about anything? When we mentioned corruption the Fianna Fáil Party denied it, and this cannot now be believed. I agree with Deputy Murphy that the best thing Deputy Lynch, the Taoiseach, could do would be to take a permanent holiday and leave here. The Fianna Fáil Party are in disarray. They have been going around the House for the last few days and they are being led by the most incompetent leader. The Taoiseach is dithering and changing his mind. There is a cloud over one of the Ministers whom he proposes to appoint. We have two Ministers accused of buying arms and bringing them into this country. The papers, and particularly the Unionist Party in the North of Ireland, jumped to the conclusion that these arms were for Northern Ireland. They could be for a coup just as easily. Deputy Haughey looked like a dictator walking outside his mansion today. He made his money since 1957 and now he is bringing arms into this country.

Deputy Belton should not talk about how money was made. This is a very sensitive area for Deputy Belton.

You can say what you like here or publicly outside and I will not take an action.

(Cavan): Deputy P. Belton did not make £250,000 in ten years.

We hear that they are trying to keep the Fianna Fáil Party together. I wonder is that true. How can we believe the two Ministers accused of gun-running? Have they something else in mind? Will something else happen before the week-end? Deputy Blaney made the most disgusting speech he ever made. He was inciting people to rise. He wanted the use of arms, and bloodshed. He was trying to get the youth of the country on his side and telling them he was a man who would lead them. He said that he was a Republican. What Deputy Blaney did not say was that Fianna Fáil were in power for 32 out of the last 38 years and the Border is still with us and they have done nothing about it. All of a sudden Deputy Blaney thinks he has the ability to take over or to be one of the top men taking over. Around the House in the last couple of days in the yard and in the restaurant there were thousands of Fianna Fáil people. There were no Republicans among them. They were big businessmen, architects and auctioneers.

(Interruptions.)

If I made money I made it without Fianna Fáil or Taca. I made it on my own ability and that of my staff and I can stand over it.

The Deputy has not shown much ability here.

I proved myself in business and I could not say of the Parliamentary Secretary that he did the same on circuit. He could barely make a living out of it. At least I can prove that. Now, we heard Deputy Blaney shouting here today. We heard him shouting during the Limerick by-election about the 77. Seventy-seven people rebelled against the Government of their country and they were executed. From 1932, 37 were executed under the Minister of that time because they rebelled against the Government of that time. Call it what you like— 37 or 77: they were executed for rebelling against the Government of the country.

It is very sad stuff.

Deputy Blaney tried to talk about what happened 40 and more years ago. We are trying to talk of something that happened in the past couple of months and which came to light in the past couple of days. We also heard Deputy Boland. He attacked the Taoiseach, the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party. He spoke about spies watching him, and other matters. Nevertheless, he will back the leader. This was the man who was so arrogant that, against all advice, he introduced into this House legislation to amend the Constitution in relation to voting and held the referendum. When he was defeated by a huge majority, he then told the people who voted against him to go to hell, that he would have the three-seat and four-seat constituencies to suit himself. That is not really proportional representation and comes near, in effect, to the single seat constituency. This was done for Fianna Fáil—and to hell with Ireland and the Irish people. This will not succeed now. Deputy Boland talked about spies and so on, but the attitude still is to hell with Ireland and ahead with Fianna Fáil.

At a by-election in West Limerick I was in a village a mile away from where my mother was born. I went into a licensed premises and there were two persons there—one Fianna Fáil and the other Fine Gael—having quite a hot discussion. I was taking a drink at the bar and the two people were arguing over a certain matter. I asked the owner of the public house if what was being said was true. The argument was that a blind person was caught riding a bicycle; she was collecting the blind pension. She was caught and the pension was taken away from her. It was got back by Fianna Fáil representation. That is factual.

I now come to something that happened in Dublin. This is something nobody likes to speak about but I feel that when there is gun-running in a country and lives are involved, one's friends and other people must be forgotten. One must think of Ireland rather than of friendships alone. In my constituency we have quite a Protestant vote. Two Protestants were appointed to small jobs, such as inspecting horses in Europe, and so on. This is a "perk" they got because they were friendly with the Minister for Finance. The next thing to happen is that the Minister for Finance, according to the Taoiseach, is involved in bringing in guns presumably to bring up to the North to shoot the Protestants there.

I can relate an episode about the Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, when he was Minister for Justice. A Labour Deputy who is not now in the Dáil told me the following story because I represented Dublin North-East. He said he was driving up the Howth Road one day, exceeded the speed limit and was pulled up by a policeman. He admitted the offence and was asked for his name.

Be coherent. Address this House.

The Minister should go back to sleep.

We cannot hear Deputy Belton.

Deputies opposite should take the wool out of their ears. They might also get something in between the two ears while they are at it. Anyhow, this ex-Labour Deputy was told by the garda that there was no point in charging him because he would get off like the rest of them.

We see the arrogance of Fianna Fáil in Dublin North-East. Four candidates were elected, one of whom is Deputy Cruise-O'Brien. In this House, Deputy Haughey refused to answer a question by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien. That is the type of stupid arrogance and nonsense to which Fianna Fáil subject the members of the Opposition in this House.

Good. We can hear the Deputy now.

Deputy P. Brennan resigned from his post as Parliamentary Secretary. I do not think many people here could say what he was working at. Certainly I could not. He was in and out of the House. He was picked to organise, but he could not do that for Fianna Fáil. The Taoiseach was saved the task of sacking him.

Has Deputy B. Lenihan made a contribution? What is his portfolio now?

I should like to ask this question of the Chair. I have checked this now for the ten to 15 minutes during which the Minister has been interrupting me. The other day the Chair told me that Deputy Harte was asked to leave the House because he had been interrupting for 20 minutes. If Deputy B. Lenihan, Minister for Transport and Power, continues for another five minutes to interrupt me will the Chair put him out of the House?

I cannot hear the Deputy. It is very difficult.

The Minister should go back to sleep. There are little butterflies in his ears.

The Taoiseach had the evidence to warrant the sacking of these Ministers. He said they were gun-runners and involved in the illegal importation of arms. Let the Taoiseach give the same information to the police and let them be arrested—or is the Taoiseach to stand over the fact that he can sack two men but yet he does not hand them over to the police? Will these two sacked Ministers continue to sit in Dáil Éireann and be allowed to vote to keep this Government in power while there is evidence against them which, if it were proved, would mean they were guilty of a treasonable offence? Is the vote more important to the Fianna Fáil Party and to Ireland than justice? If this was the case of an ordinary citizen who was not a Member of Dáil Éireann or of the Fianna Fáil Party, he would be arrested and would be up before the courts by now. Is the Taoiseach willing to have one law for Fianna Fáil and another law for the people of Ireland?

In Glengall Street there was a big banner which read: "United we stand; divided we fall".

I will outlast all interruptions.

I would point out to the Chair that there is a Minister over there who has been interrupting.

I told the Minister to desist. I do not need any instructions.

The Minister has been interrupting a lot.

Deputy Belton. Would Deputy Harte please allow his colleague to make his speech without interruption?

We could be on the edge of civil war and the person responsible for that situation is the Taoiseach. He is a very weak Taoiseach who was not able to control his Cabinet while they were shouting at variance with his statements. He now sacks two Ministers for the alleged attempt to import arms but he would not have done this if it had not been for the fact that he was questioned by Deputy Cosgrave at 4 o'clock on Tuesday evening and supplied with the information at 8 o'clock on the same evening. Deputy Cosgrave could have called a Press conference at which he could have made known the situation. The country would then have faced a general election because Fianna Fáil could not have continued. By 10.30 on the same evening two Ministers had been sacked and one had resigned.

(Interruptions.)

Is it in order for the Minister to continue interrupting?

Order. Deputy Belton.

The Ceann Comhairle should ask the Minister to stay quiet.

I have already asked him to do so.

He should be asked to leave the House.

There are enough of them going.

Deputy Cosgrave, as was admitted in the Irish Press, is the person of the moment. He is the one who has safeguarded us from anarchy and from this rotten Government. The Irish people should never forget what he has done on this occasion. Neither should they forget the responsible attitude which he took in relation to this matter, putting his country before his party while Fianna Fáil are thinking of nothing else but of saving the party and to hell with the country.

The Taoiseach is interested only in closing the ranks and trying to hold on to office for a while longer, while Deputy Cosgrave has shown himself to be a very good leader and an honest Irishman. He is the man to lead the country.

If the by-elections had not been held until after the Budget had been introduced, Fianna Fáil would have accused us of a post-Budget victory, but the elections were held before the Budget and we won. Deputy Cosgrave has been accused of being, maybe, a quiet man. This stems from the fact that he is a shy man. For some years, newspapers here have had political correspondents who are reasonably fair. However, sometimes they are inclined to slant comment to suit themselves, particularly when an election is in the offing. Very often this is done by submitting the Fianna Fáil comment and omitting the Fine Gael one.

Is the Deputy making a point?

Since I started speaking 25 minutes ago the Minister has continuously interrupted. Is the Minister to receive more favourable treatment than an ordinary Deputy or, as in the case of the Taoiseach, is there one law for the Ministers and another for the people?

There are very few potential Taoiseachs now left but there is one person who has headed the poll in his own constituency and who is respected by the people and that person is Deputy Cosgrave.

A political gossip correspondent writes for the Irish Times on one day each week. That man is very vain and thinks that every comment he makes is correct. When he makes a correct comment he tells us about it on the following week.

What has this to do with the motion before the House? It is an irrelevancy.

It appears that some time ago this columnist met Deputy Haughey at Killybegs. Since that time he has been praising the Deputy in his column while he has endeavoured to ridicule the leader of our Party by referring to him in such terms as "Little Liam." Is not this a nice person to have working for any paper?

This is not relevant to the debate. We are not discussing those who write for the newspapers. What we are discussing is the motion before the House.

I am letting the House know what has been done by publicity to try to destroy a man. That man they have tried to destroy is the man who has forced the situation of the moment and who has succeeded in having exposed two men whom the Taoiseach has referred to as gun-runners.

There must be some order.

If we are to have order it will be necessary to have the Minister removed from the House.

Mr. J. Lenehan

The Deputy is making an idiot out of himself.

What an intelligent interjection. Turn-over Joe.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Lenehan leaves the House but is back again in a few minutes to interrupt and cause trouble.

Mr. J. Lenehan

If the Deputy will come outside the door——

Deputy Belton is on dangerous ground. I saw his behaviour in the Lobby the other night.

I would do it again.

Can we come back to the motion before the House?

The Taoiseach thought he would sweep this crisis under the carpet as he must have done with many other crises and troubles in the Fianna Fáil Party. But on this occasion Deputy Cosgrave knew too much and brought it to light. The Taoiseach in this crisis, proved that he was weak. He was afraid— until Deputy Cosgrave put everything before him—to sack anybody. We had Ministers going around attacking people at various dinners. We had to remove guards who did not do their duty. We had arrogant Fianna Fáil Ministers going all over the place. We see the arrogance of Deputy Lenihan tonight, trying to put a face on it.

Now let us take the history of the Taoiseach. He allowed the referendum to take place. If the people had not been wise enough and if the Government had won what would have happened? Do you think this would have been noticed today? Do you think any civil servant would be allowed to say a word? Would he not be put in jail? This is what Deputy Boland wanted.

(Interruptions.)

Let him off.

Deputy Boland said today that he could not allow anybody, no matter how bad the Minister was, no matter what he did, to be a double agent.

We saw the present weak Taoiseach —he may not be there very long—he is the man who dismissed Micheál Ó Móráin.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Micheál Ó Móráin is dead sound.

He would want to be a bit sounder than you anyway.

It is between you it is.

Poor old Joe.

Deputy Belton.

Where have all the bright boys gone?

Who is in possession, a Cheann Comhairle? Am I in possession?

Deputy Belton according to the record.

I wonder if they could be quietened?

We will do our best to keep them quiet for you.

Your best is not very good at the moment.

Joe, will you sing them a lullaby?

Mr. J. Lenehan

Shut up, you East Donegal smuggler. What are you?

Do not talk about smuggling in this debate for God's sake.

(Interruptions.)

It is great to see that the Fianna Fáil Party treat treason— and that is what it is—as jocosely as they do. The people of Ireland will be glad to hear that. There were about two in here all day. They did not give a damn. Now they are in and they are willing to interrupt and they do not give a damn one way or the other.

The Taoiseach appointed Deputy O'Malley as Minister for Justice. A short time ago Deputy O'Malley had a row and threw a bottle or a glass full of drink and when a guard tried to stop him he told the guard to take his hands off or he would remove him. This is the new Minister for Justice.

(Interruptions.)

What about yourself?

I am not Minister for Justice or Minister designate; he is or he may be. I do not know whether he will ever get it or not. This is the man the Taoiseach appoints. There was a man who was not allowed to stand for Fianna Fáil at the last election because there was a photostat copy of a letter shown here. That man has a top job in an Irish company. That is what the Taoiseach has done. A man who is discredited is made director of the Irish Sugar Company.

We know what happened to the man who organised the letter.

Deputy Ó Móráin was able to give a house against the normal procedure, down the country. He spoke in Dáil Éireann and made a marvellous speech. The papers wrote up his speech but not one of them said whether he answered the question he was asked or not. He did not but his speech was written up.

Deputy Thornley mentioned the Profumo case in England. Profumo was involved with two prostitutes. He was not dismissed for his involvement in that.

Mr. J. Lenehan

There are whores on your side anyway and well you know it.

Did you hear that, a Cheann Comhairle?

Mr. J. Lenehan

I will name them for you.

Will Deputy Belton continue his speech?

When the Taoiseach gets up he will get the same treatment, I can promise you that. In this case Profumo was not dismissed for his involvement but he was dismissed for telling untruths. We had even the Taoiseach telling untruths here and we have two dismissed Ministers telling untruths. We had the Taoiseach saying here that there was only one effort to bring in arms—£6,000 worth. It is £80,000 worth and we do not know how much has come in already because the Taoiseach has never been definite about it.

I admire Deputy Tully. In every debate he comes up with two or three great points. I only got bits of this but I think what he said on this is worth reiterating. First of all, where did the money come from to buy these arms? Was it money from the Exchequer? The Taoiseach has not yet told us where the money came from. Those arms were bought. The security service will be able to find out. Did the money come from the Exchequer? Was it collected by turnover tax put on by this Government? Was the money supplied by Taca members for profit? Was the money stolen from the banks? There were three ways of getting it. It did not appear from the sky. I do not think any of the accused men would hand out their own money.

(Interruptions.)

You will get money from me but not to shoot Irish people. Deputy L'Estrange brought up a matter in Dáil Éireann. Deputy Lenihan was probably Minister for Justice at the time. He wanted to know why the IRA were allowed to attend a funeral in Mullingar with revolvers strapped to their waists and when the guards wanted to interfere they were told not to touch them. This happened. I asked in Mullingar and it is definite. This is some organisation like the IRA. The IRA were not involved in this but it was some organisation——

Will the Deputy speak up?

(Cavan): If the Minister would stay awake he would be able to hear.

If the Minister was not so stupid and insolent and if he sat up properly he would hear. He is like a big fat child there doing nothing. It was some organisation similar to the IRA or Saor Éire that also caused the death of Garda Fallon, but when these people were walking around with revolvers the superintendent would not be let do his job. That is correct.

If you say so it must be.

The four Ministries involved are, Finance, Agriculture and Fisheries, Defence, to a small extent, and Justice. They are four very strong Ministries. The money is available in Finance and in Defence we have the Army. The other Ministries are very small. Therefore, you can take it that three-quarters of the Government are gone and you are laughing as if nothing had happened.

(Cavan): He is quite happy with his Department. It is a good one.

It is more power than transport anyway.

The Taoiseach has been a front for Fianna Fáil, and I must say a very bad one. He may have a very innocent looking face but one can also say it is a very weak one. He has proved very weak in those circumstances as he has been dithering around. Let us look at the political history of the Taoiseach. He was in Education and he left it the same as he got it, with nothing done. He was in Industry and Commerce and he left it without any change or any improvement in it. He went to Finance then. Admittedly he was put in there shortly before a Budget. He got rid of the married woman's policy. This was one of the most stupid things any man could have done.

He got rid of what?

The Minister would not know anything about it.

(Interruptions.)

Look who has arrived.

I do not think you should allow those ignorant interruptions from the Fianna Fáil Party. That party are laughing but half of their Government have been dismissed.

Deputy Belton without interruption.

They are laughing now despite the state the country is in.

He got rid of what?

The Chair must insist that there be no interruptions from any side of the House. Every Deputy who wishes to speak will have the opportunity of doing so.

And the Minister.

And the Minister. Any person who wishes to speak will get the opportunity without interruption.

Ministers are not inclined to speak.

There are not too many of them.

The Taoiseach, as I said, was in Education and left it as he found it. He did nothing in it. He did the same in Industry and Commerce. When he came into Finance his opposite number was the late Gerry Sweetman and if ever I saw a lamb led to the slaughter it was the present Taoiseach.

What did he get rid of?

It is called the married woman's policy.

We know the Minister was a sucker there.

(Interruptions.)

The Chair is in possession at the moment. Deputies ought to co-operate with the Chair in doing its job. This is a debate and Deputies on all sides of the House ought to co-operate in debating the matter which is before the House. If Deputies do not wish to listen to the comments of other Deputies then they have their remedy by leaving the Chamber.

We are trying to listen but we cannot hear what is going on.

On a point of order, is the Chair going to allow the remarks of some of the Deputies opposite to stand on record?

It is a tradition in this House that we never hear the remarks of Deputy Lenehan from Mayo.

That is a fine tradition.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I did not carry out 75 executions.

(Interruptions.)

(Cavan): On a point of order, might I respectfully submit to the Chair if the Minister for Transport and Power, who is apparently representing the Taoiseach, would behave himself in the Chamber and give good example we would get on much better.

That is not a point of order.

It is a point of information for the Minister for Power.

After all the sackings.

Would the Deputies allow the debate to proceed or does the Chair have to leave the House?

Also in that period the present Taoiseach as Minister for Finance introduced capitalisation on the money a person would get on the sale of land. We all knew that should be cut down to a certain extent. The late Gerry Sweetman and myself spoke on this at that time and said that this was not going to stay. The man who changed it was Deputy Haughey who, as we all know, a short time after got a bit of money for land. That is his business. We have had many people here talking about what we should do about buying arms illegally but over the last number of years the Government have reduced the Army from its maximum of 12,000 to 5,000. What I have said many other people have also said and it will be said for many days to come. As long as this House is sitting, without going to the country, then every single day, and probably every hour of every day, you will be reminded that either the two men the Taoiseach accuses of smuggling arms, or who were involved in the illegal importation of arms, should be put out of this House and charged or the Government should resign. This is what we want. We want to go to the country now. I do not believe there is any Government in any country in the world who would have the neck to stay in power when two of their top ex-Ministers are accused by the Taoiseach of bringing arms into the country to rebel against their own party and their own country.

We are discussing a motion here today:

That Dáil Éireann approve the nomination by the Taoiseach of the following Members for appointment by the President to be members of the Government:

Jerry Cronin,

Robert Molloy and

Gerard Collins.

This is the Motion that was put before the House at the outset of business today. The Opposition asked that there be no limitation to the scope of the debate and also that there be no limit to the amount of time on the Motion. They have got their request and we are very glad of it. However, it is only right and proper that we should refer to the three men who were mentioned here. We in the Fianna Fáil Party are very glad that we have three outstanding young men to come in here and we ask the House to give approval to their nomination as Ministers. They are young men who are following in the footsteps of the Republican tradition. They are men whose people before them came into Fianna Fáil in 1926 and 1927. We make no apology to anybody for the lines this party are following. Indeed it is very heartening on this side of the House that we have men of such ability, such ideals and the right spirit to take over office.

Unfortunately, this debate has not been confined to the three names mentioned in the motion. There has been character assassination by the parties opposite. They have called people robbers, traitors and every other possible kind of name. I challenge them to repeat those statements outside the House and we will see what will happen. They tell the Taoiseach that he should be man enough not to take these Deputies into his confidence and into his party when he goes into the lobby. The two leaders of the Opposition should examine their consciences and look at their own parties. I say to Deputy Cosgrave, as leader of Fine Gael, that he has within his party a man who was convicted and told in the early forties by a circuit Court judge that he was a perjurer. He is still in the Fine Gael party; he still goes into the lobbies and Deputy Cosgrave will not get rid of him. There is another man in his party also who was convicted and received a jail sentence for burning out of his house a man with a wife and family and this man also goes into the Fine Gael lobbies. Let Deputy Cosgrave examine his own conscience and his party. It is not long since a Fine Gael Shadow Minister attacked unfortunate itinerants and fired shots at them. It is common knowledge that he bought out the witnesses. I ask the leader of Fine Gael to look at these men. Nothing like this can be said about Deputies Haughey, Moran or Boland. They are not guilty of anything like this. Deputy Corish is following the same line——

It is a bit late in the day——

It is early in the day.

(Interruptions.)

Order. Deputy Meaney is in possession.

We have been listening for the last half-hour to the Deputy with the high alcoholic content, Deputy Paddy Belton, and he should be quiet for a few moments. Deputy Corish would want to look at his own party, the party that is torn between pink and red. He would want to look at the card-carrying communist members of the Labour Party——

You had the "unanimous consent" like the communists——

We know those communists are out to wreck this nation. They want to get rid of the democratic system. The Deputy would want to go down to Deputy Coughlan who it is stated condoned the shooting-up of the Maoist shop in Limerick. I do not agree with those people but——

That is a confounded lie. I am not like you——

You condoned the shooting. You said in the papers it was bound to happen. Your leader and your party had not the guts to expel you——

(Interruptions.)

Deputies

Chair, chair.

Deputies will please sit down.

The heat is on.

Deputies will sit down. Again, the Chair would appeal to Deputies for their co-operation and ask them to carry on the debate with some decorum. We cannot have a debate if Deputies are being shouted at from one side of the House to the other. If Deputies would address the Chair the personalities might not fly so freely. If Deputies would address the Chair then each in turn could make his contribution to the debate.

Sir, I will now address the Chair. Is Deputy Meaney going to be asked to withdraw his false charge against Deputy Coughlan?

A Deputy

That is not a point of order.

It is a point of order.

A charge was made against me by this Deputy that I condoned and encouraged violence in Limerick in my position as Mayor of Limerick. Nothing could be further from the truth. I said in my opening statement when I was asked to comment——

The Deputy is making a statement now.

——that I did not condone violence.

The Deputy is making a statement He will have an opportunity of speaking.

I demand that the Chair call on this Deputy to withdraw the allegation; it is completely false and unfounded.

The Chair has no way of controlling Deputies making political charges in the Chamber. The Chair deprecates this but Deputies can make their own denials in their own time.

On a point of order. Is it not the accepted procedure in this House that if a Deputy against whom a charge is made says it is false that the speaker withdraws the remark?

On a point of order, will the Deputy who alleged that the speaker told a confounded lie be asked to withdraw that remark?

(Cavan): On a point of order, is there any truth in the rumour that Deputy Cunningham is in the running for a parliamentary secretaryship?

These are not points of order. The normal procedure in the House is that when a Deputy states that a statement made is not true then normally that is accepted. If a Deputy states that a statement is a lie he is not thereby imputing that the individual who quoted it is a liar. He says it is a lie. That is what the Chair understood.

Is it in order for the Deputy to say that what Deputy Meaney alleged is a lie?

What the Deputy said was in reply to an accusation; he said it was a lie. This is what the Chair understood the Deputy to say.

(Cavan): It is no wonder that Deputy Cunningham has had to wait so long for promotion. He does not even know the rules.

We do not like to discuss people individually because the Dáil is the place where one discusses party policy. However, we on this side of the House have since early morning listened to attack after attack under privilege of this House on our Ministers and Deputies——

(Cavan): And ex-Ministers——

And we are proud of them. This is a united party. The Fine Gael Party are sorry for themselves——

(Cavan): Is the Taoiseach proud of them?

The Chair is not going to permit interruption of the Deputy in possession.

We are a party who will go into the lobby and vote together. The only regret in the Fine Gael Party is that the pro-O'Higgins group have lost the opportunity to unseat Deputy Cosgrave at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis which will take place in the near future. Some of the Deputies in Fine Gael know that he is getting a little too strong and they are sorry that he is not in a weaker position. Many of the Fine Gael Deputies have been trying to tell us that it was he who really forced the Taoiseach's hand in this case. The Taoiseach knows what is happening and, as happens always between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael were a fortnight behind with the news.

(Cavan): £2,500 a year would make you vote for anything.

No. I was taught to stand for a principle.

What principle?

The Republican principle.

Which Republican principle?

Will Deputy Collins resume his seat?

Why does he not resign like Deputy Paudge Brennan did?

Will Deputy L'Estrange cease interrupting?

I would suggest that the cement strike be settled as soon as possible to plug the broken walls around here.

Deputy L'Estrange has come in here as usual. We all know by now what he is, the muck spreader of the Fine Gael Party. He says that we on this side of the House have committed treason and so on, but he is the man who when he was disposing of his farm did not offer it to the Land Commission. It was the same as selling his birthright for gold.

On a point of order, the Deputy is completely wrong. I sold my farm and bought another. I offered the farm to the Land Commission, but the man who bought the farm paid only 5 per cent——

The Deputy will have an opportunity of speaking later.

Therefore, Fianna Fáil must not have looked upon him as a foreigner.

Will Deputy L'Estrange please resume his seat.

I offered my farm to the Land Commission——

(Cavan): The Land Commission had no money to buy it.

——so the Deputy can withdraw that falsehood.

I will not withdraw it. It is a fact. He sold it to a private individual maybe for £25 more instead of giving it to the Land Commission to divide among smallholders. I put it to the Deputy: did he for the sake of a few pounds——

I offered it to the Land Commission but they did not buy it.

That is irrelevant.

There is a great deal of talk about this side of the House being in disarray, but we can state emphatically we are not in disarray. We are not here just for a month or a year but for the rest of this term. We are not afraid to face the people. If we have any difficulties, we are well able to resolve them. We have in our Taoiseach an honest man, a man with the highest reputation.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy must be allowed to make his contribution.

It is getting funny now.

Deputies must not interrupt.

Our Taoiseach has the highest ability. He has the best reputation of any politician in this country and the people as a whole look up to him. He is well fitted to lead this nation. Having regard to all the personal attacks that have been made I should like to refer to an incident which occurred when we were voting for the appointment of Deputy Des O'Malley as a member of the Government a few nights ago. A scene occurred the like of which was never seen in this House before. While I was acting as teller Deputy Paddy Belton made a personal attack on me, using obscene language. That should not be tolerated. He is a member of a party who claim they can run the country in a proper manner, but the people will never give them a mandate. They can talk away for the rest of the night but we know we can defeat them tonight and when we go to the country in 1973.

It is quite noticeable by the tone of the speakers on the other side of the House that they do not want to go to the country. It was particularly noticeable on Wednesday night last when they succeeded in bringing in three Ministers and a Parliamentary Secretary who tried to convey to the people that all was well in the Fianna Fáil camp. That was a desperate attempt to paper over the cracks in Fianna Fáil.

This night reminds me very much of our history of many years ago when this State was being founded. Late nights were spent here by Ministers because it was too dangerous for them to leave this House. They remained firm because they had a job to do, to establish this State and to establish law and order. Those men who spent long hours here, as we are doing here tonight, achieved their purpose. A crisis has arisen here and the party on this side of the House are here to emphasise the danger in the attempt which was made at gun-running by men who were Ministers only a few days ago.

News got to the people throughout the country at 7.30 or 8 o'clock on Wednesday morning that two Ministers had been asked to resign by the Taoiseach. Everyone is convinced now that Deputy Moran was also asked to resign. The Fianna Fáil Party may say what they like, but the people took a very serious view of the announcement and became very suspicious of the conduct of the Government they had elected with one of the biggest majorities of any Government yet elected. Naturally enough the electorate were disappointed. They were promised all sorts of benefits; prosperity was around the corner, but ten months after the election this is what they were told, having suffered the shock of a server Budget about a week ago, a Budget that was introduced by a Minister who could not appear in the House.

Saddened as the people were on hearing such serious news it was a consolation to them that such a discovery was brought home to the Taoiseach and that it was on the advice of the leader of the Opposition that those two gentlemen had been told they would have to leave office. Nearly 50 years ago Deputies were in this House until 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning. Fifty years later another leader of our party is responsible for the Dáil being in session last Wednesday and tonight. That goes to show the sincerity of the party to which we belong.

I think, and the public think, that the Taoiseach should have moved far more quickly. This State was given a Garda force and an Army second to none. The people have the greatest confidence in the Garda force and in the Army, the Garda established by General Eoin O'Duffy and the National Army established by General Michael Collins. It is too bad that the Taoiseach should have remained silent in regard to information of a serious nature, without taking drastic action and getting to the root of the trouble, until at 8 o'clock Deputy Cosgrave told him that, if he did not move, the matter would have to be made known to the Dáil the following day. Then at 10 o'clock two Ministers were relieved of their offices. That is a very serious thing to have happened. That is not the way in which the people of the country should be treated. The people treated Fianna Fáil generously and appreciation was not shown.

The people wondered why more changes were not made in the Budget. They now realise why there was not some effort made to redress the balance of payments position. They now know that there was trouble in the camp and that the easiest thing for the Minister for Finance to do was simply to double the turnover tax and to give some small increases in social welfare payments and in the beef subsidy scheme. There it ended. It was, as Deputy Tully described it, a lazy man's budget. It was not that the man was lazy; it was that there was trouble in the camp and he had other things on his mind.

Fianna Fáil must realise that the people are becoming suspicious of them. For 12 or 18 months past throughout the country banks have been raided and the raiders got away. There was an attempt made at pursuit but no arrests were made and there were no prosecutions.

Recently a young garda was shot dead in a Dublin street. There was a great hue and cry. Nothing came of it. The people are becoming very suspicious of the Government. I do not wish to detract from the Garda Síochána or the Army in any way. About a week ago the Minister for Justice, following an incident in a hotel in the city of Dublin, went into hospital and shortly afterwards tendered his resignation. That and the other things I have mentioned arouse suspicion.

Law and order is breaking down throughout the country. If an ordinary person is discovered with firearms or if somebody in a quiet rural area fails for any reason to have his gun licensed. he is summoned and severely reprimanded and may have to surrender his gun.

The people are now very anxious to know what action will be taken in regard to the two Ministers who have been relieved of their offices. The Taoiseach, being the honest man that he is or supposed to be, did not relieve those two gentlemen of their Ministries without very good reason. The country is inclined to the view that the Taoiseach would have tried to get over the problem without dismissing those Ministers had it not been for Deputy Cosgrave.

It is time that Fianna Fáil got out. It is noticeable that they do not want to get out. I do not blame them because Fianna Fáil could not go to the country and ask the people for their support in present circumstances.

Fianna Fáil have succeeded in getting 75 Members returned to this House. Fianna Fáil worked hard for the last number of years. Many of them worked hard in their own interests. The information available today is that some of them have become very wealthy men. That is a sad thing to have to say. When the people put their confidence in those gentlemen that confidence should not have been betrayed. The persons concerned should justify that confidence. They should live on the salaries provided. When men become millionaires, go into the million bracket in the course of ten or eleven years, the public become suspicious. The privileges and the power that those Ministers had were used in order to accomplish wealth through the purchase of land and the purchase of property. That is something that should not happen. People have told me what they see going on around this city and in many parts of the country.

If Fianna Fáil were to go to the country today there would be no doubt whatsoever as to the result. The result would be a change of Government and the affairs of the country would be put into the hands of men who would be capable of dealing with them. They would be put into the hands of the sons and daughters of some of those men who sat here in this House, as we are doing tonight, so that the safety of this country would be ensured. That is something of which we are proud on this side of the House. The very fact that it should be a son of the late President William T. Cosgrave who was responsible for bringing this matter to light is something that proves beyond all doubt that the Fine Gael Party, whether in Opposition or in Government, have the very same fundamental interest in the affairs of this nation.

I, like every other Fianna Fáil speaker in this debate, am fully behind our Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, and the policies being carried out by the present Fianna Fáil Government. I know that Fianna Fáil is the only party capable of running this country. I believe in the policies of Fianna Fáil. My constituents in South Kerry want Fianna Fáil to remain in office because they, too, know that Fianna Fáil is the only party capable of running the country. Fianna Fáil is synonymous with Ireland.

We have heard in this debate character assassinations. We have heard vilification of ex-Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Government. I say, without fear of contradiction, that we are proud of these men and what they have done for Fianna Fáil and for Ireland.

Is the Taoiseach proud of them?

I represent Republican South Kerry. No one will silence the voice of Kerry in this debate. We entered the last general election knowing full well the smear campaign that would be carried on by the Opposition Parties and we had the smear campaign against the Taoiseach and his Ministers.

Will the Deputy particularise?

Will Deputy Collins cease interrupting?

I only want clarification.

The Chair will permit no clarification. The Deputy in possession will be allowed to speak. Others can speak in their turn. The Chair again appeals to Deputies on both sides of the House.

(Interruptions.)

When will Deputies have any respect for the Chair? When will Deputies co-operate with the Chair in trying to conduct this debate?

We carried out a very successful election campaign despite the allegations and the accusations made in this House just as in the last few days and we came back with 75 Deputies, an overall majority. It must be remembered that there were allegations that we would have a mini-Budget.

We had gun-running.

The next time a Deputy interrupts the Chair will send for the Ceann Comhairle and will ask that the Deputy be dealt with. The Chair is no longer prepared to put up with these interruptions.

The Opposition were shocked when our books balanced at the end of March. They were even more shocked when they discovered on Wednesday night that there was not even a splinter in Fianna Fáil not to mind a split. Fianna Fáil is more united now than ever before, and that is some solidarity.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Tá an ceart agat.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will you send for the Ceann Comhairle?

The Chair will decide when to send for the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I did not interrupt.

You said you would send for the Ceann Comhairle at the next interruption. There is the next interruption. Send for the Ceann Comhairle.

The primary objective of the Fianna Fáil Party is the re-unification of our country. The 26 Counties are on a firm footing. We must maintain our steady economic progress. At the same time, we are all of us deeply committed to the Fianna Fáil programme and policy. We have our priorities right. We must think, too, of our fellowmen across the Border and our primary objective of re-uniting the country. The people of Kerry know that that is the primary objective of Fianna Fáil. Whether the Opposition realise it I cannot say. As Deputy Tim O'Connor said, the people of Kerry have a very proud tradition. He could recall events that occurred long before I was born. I and every other Deputy am 100 per cent behind the Taoiseach and the Government and I deplore the disgraceful tactics of the Opposition in their efforts to create a crisis when, in fact, no crisis exists.

I deplore the efforts of the Opposition at character assassination. I deplore their insistence on an all-night sitting of Dáil Éireann when there was no need at all for such a sitting. I deplore their attempt to link our ex-Ministers with Saor Éire and illegal organisations, without any proof whatsoever. I shall not detain the House any longer. We are quite happy in Fianna Fáil so long as Fine Gael and Labour maintain their present tactics. While they do so they will always be in Opposition.

The leading news item in Thursday's Irish Times reads:

The Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch, last night with emotional frankness accused his two former Ministers, Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney, of the attempted illegal importation of arms from the continent.

Arising from the motion before the House concerning the elevation of three members of Fianna Fáil to Cabinet rank, this discussion has developed. This is the most serious affair to come before the Parliament since the foundation of the State. We had difficulties in the past and it is in the nature of things that every government and parliament will have difficulties, minor and major scandals, but this is of such primordial importance, so very fundamental that it has rocked the foundations of the State.

I think none of us could do justice to the enormity and gravity of the offence which the Taoiseach claims his Ministers have been party to or privy to. This is not a question of a Minister being guilty of some minor default or appropriating to himself some money or assuming undue privilege. It is a most fundamental issue involving the lives, property and safety of every individual north and south of the Border.

We have heard much tonight from Members on the opposite side and it all revolves around one thing, the one problem uppermost in their minds. The only thing that seems to affect or bother them at present is their unity, in other words, their self-interest. We heard that before.

To come back to Thursday's Irish Times, the first paragraph of the leading article reads as follows:

If we lack unity in other things there is certainly a consistency of pattern in party politics, north and south. The unanimous vote of confidence in the Taoiseach expressed last night at Leinster House will raise a watery smile from the least sophisticated citizen: we have heard it all before; the names, then, however, were O'Neill and Unionism.

That simple paragraph may be prophetic. It may show what is about to happen in this country in the next few days, weeks or months. I do not know how long the Taoiseach will be able to preserve that unity about which we heard so much last night. The previous speaker, particularly, hammered the table in front of him to emphasise the tremendous unity and solidarity of the Fianna Fáil Party. In fact, it is obvious to everybody that there are serious difficulties and disruption in that party.

Uncontrolled importation and distribution of guns and similar lethal weapons can mean only intimidation, robbery and murder and it will not be confined to one part of Ireland but will be all over this island. Its extent will depend on the number of guns and lethal weapons imported uncontrolled. Two Ministers have been formally accused of this appalling conduct by the Taoiseach and have been dismissed. These men have remained members of Fianna Fáil and of the House to date. It appears they have friends and backing in the House and God knows what friends and backing they have outside it. A dangerous situation has been created and allowed to develop.

I must censure the Taoiseach as the man mainly responsible for his vacillating behaviour in allowing these developments to reach the stage to which they are now come. It is completely unconvincing to me for anybody in the opposite benches to try to cover this up as some kind of a patriotic gesture calculated to abolish Partition. It is no such thing. Despite any protestations coming from the opposite benches I do not believe that Fianna Fáil are interested, or have been interested for many years, in the abolition of Partition. They have been in power since 1932 and they have done damn little about it. Up to yesterday they believed they would be in power to the end of this century. Does a party occupying that monopoly position, a party that so obviously has an avarice for power really want to have 1,000,000 Protestants join us here in the south and, perhaps, go out of power as a result? They are doing nicely at the moment; why rock the boat?

I am not, and have not been convinced for a long time that all the Fianna Fáil protestations about Partition are genuine. I do not believe the present crisis arises from either patriotism or republicanism or idealism. These are merely clichés, merely embroidery, a nice covering with which Fianna Fáil members have tried to wrap up a horrible performance. I believe it derives primarily and fundamentally from avarice for power, place and privilege, avarice for financial gain and economic opportunity. Primarily, I say, it derives from avarice for power. I believe this development does not extend to all members of Fianna Fáil; it is probably limited to a few but the few have been strong and forceful enough and greedy enough to force us into the present terrible crisis.

This crisis did not happen today or yesterday. It is the end product of a rot, of progressive moral deterioration, which has been inbuilt in the Fianna Fáil structure for many years. We had minor incidents in the past. I say minor because they are minor when we view them vis-à-vis the present crisis. For instance, we had the famous case of the Locke Distillery. That upset the nation at the time but, looking at it in the context of the present situation, it was, as the Minister for Health, Deputy Childers, would say, small beer. It was merely wrangling for a bit of loot and it caused serious repercussions inside the country at that time.

What repercussions will this cause? It is a far graver situation altogether because it affects life. It affects the lives of hundreds of people perhaps. The Taoiseach must be aware, and I am sure he is aware, that last October there was a move in Huddersfield to spend £200,000 for the purchase of arms. The men were charged. Purchases of that nature, purchases mentioned in the newspapers of close on £1 million, coming into this country by various channels, apparently, make for a frightening situation. Does anyone think that we in this island of saints and scholars are such holier-than-thou people that, given guns freely and completely uncontrolled, we will control ourselves? We are no different from any other people. Perhaps we are even worse. The uncontrolled distribution of lethal weapons can lead only to the things I mentioned in the beginning.

Fianna Fáil tell us they have closed their ranks. I wonder do Fianna Fáil know exactly what their position is? Do they know how far this malaise has spread amongst their own members inside or outside this House? I wonder are the Fianna Fáil members walking around here looking over their shoulders and wondering if they can trust the next man? How many members of Fianna Fáil knew of this situation before it broke? I assume the majority were surprised, shocked and humiliated, but did they know or do they now know, how deep-rooted this is and how far it has spread even in their own party? A situation like that is like an infection. You do not know where it has been incubated or how far it has spread. Nobody knows, because nobody can read into another man's mind and nobody can examine another man's conscience.

We do not know even now, and we may never know, how close we were to a coup d'état, how close we were to a military takeover or, perhaps, the establishment of a dictatorship. The wholesale dissemination of arms in a small island such as this can result only in one thing, bloodshed, the shedding of the blood of Irishmen be they Protestant or Catholic, and be they northern Irishmen or southern Irishmen. Deputy Boland spoke here today——

Yesterday.

Yesterday. He spoke well for Deputy Boland. In many ways, misguided though he is, he has his own honest, rough approach to things and, while I think Deputy Boland is completely wrong on many aspects, we have to judge him on his past performance. He was the strongest mover, the dominant man, the strong man of the Fianna Fáil Party some short time ago when that party moved to abolish proportional representation. The people at that time did not accept Deputy Boland's thesis. They did not give him or his party the power which he sought. They believed that the abolition of PR would result in too much power for one party and that that would be dangerous. I would never accuse the Irish of being people of great perception but in this respect they were wise. Now they can all look back and say how wise they were.

How narrowly we have escaped. Events as now unfolded must show clearly to the people how wise they were in their time to preserve some check over the establishment in this country of one all-powerful monolithic party, certain members of which have seen fit to behave, as they appear to have behaved according to the Taoiseach in the past few days and over the past few months. Deputy Boland having failed to abolish PR did what he could within the constitutional limitations open to him. He butchered and gerrymandered the majority of the constituencies to secure the maximum representation and the maximum power for himself. Some 100,000 people were displaced outside their constituencies in the re-arrangements he made, which culminated in his being able to secure probably four or five extra seats for his party.

I showed here by a series of amendments at that time, and the validity of those amendments was not questioned, that this could be done quite simply by a movement of 20,000 people. There is nothing sacrosanct in county boundaries but the purpose which motivated Deputy Boland was not good local administration or good government, but merely to secure a monopoly of power. While Deputy Boland probably made the best case, and was not dismissed but resigned, we have to take the plausible arguments which he made in that context.

Deputy Boland says that he will not serve under Gestapo rule. Apparently he regards the Taoiseach as a modern Herr Himmler who was the head of the secret police in Germany. He resents any form of check or control upon his movements as a Minister. I would certainly agree that, in normal circumstances, it would be highly objectionable that any Minister should be subjected to phone tapping or other forms of control of that nature, but we must recognise that we were not passing through normal times. We were passing through a terrible crisis and, if the Taoiseach had not done even that much—and God knows he did little enough and late enough—we would be still more critical of him here today.

Deputy Boland says he will serve in the Fianna Fáil Party and as a Deputy. He would take ministerial office again if asked but, apparently, he would not take it under the Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch. He must therefore set about removing that Taoiseach if he is to fulfil his ambitions. That is apparently the loyalty that we now have in the Fianna Fáil Party. Deputy Haughey is also fully behind the Taoiseach, as he feels the unity of the Fianna Fáil Party is more important to the nation than his own political career.

We can all recall a time in Hitler's Germany when there were various purges of the officers and politicians in Hitler's following. How many of them died under Hitler's orders with their hands raised shouting "Heil Hitler"? It seems that we will have the same mentality here. They are all loyal; they will all serve again. Are we convinced? Is the Taoiseach himself convinced? Is the country convinced? Ultimately that is the test we must face and the question we must answer. If the country is not convinced and has not confidence in this assembly, the trust in Parliamentary methods will break down.

Will the Irish people believe in the Ministers who have been removed from office protesting that they were not guilty, that they did nothing wrong, but still remaining in the party and professing loyalty to the Taoiseach whom they claim has treated them wrongly? Will the Irish people believe in these protestations of loyalty? If the Irish people do not believe in the fundamental reality of this institution and of the men here, they no longer believe in Parliament. It is clear, then that the Taoiseach must clear out the stable and must go to the people. The Taoiseach must realise now that in the minds of many people there will be a sense of distrust.

The Taoiseach has named two ex-Ministers, Deputies Haughey and Blaney. The position about Deputy Boland is rather ambiguous. The Taoiseach said that Deputy Boland tendered his resignation. Deputy Boland says that he was, in effect, pushed. I do not know what measure of equivocation is being used to describe what happened here. Am I to understand that Deputy Boland tendered his resignation but did so after being ordered or requested to do so? That is something which the Taoiseach should make clear. One is left with a very unpleasant suspicion that both of these gentlemen have many fellow-travellers in this House who are masquerading behind the Taoiseach and protesting their unity and loyalty. Time may unfold that and then it may be too late.

I have sympathy with the Taoiseach in the position in which he finds himself. Deputy Cosgrave confronted him at 8 p.m. with information which he had at his disposal. At 10 p.m. two Ministers were dismissed and a third Minister had resigned. It is only reasonable to conclude that, had that confrontation not taken place, these Ministers might still be in office. The suspicion remains that efforts have been made to cover up this disgraceful episode, and that this was done in the interests of party unity and of remaining in power. No doubt the Taoiseach may tell us now that he had no such intention and that he moved as quickly as possible once he got positive confirmation that there was serious trouble in the offing. The suspicion must remain in all our minds that the Taoiseach might have attempted to cover up, under some pretext or other, the sordid, despicable and dangerous practices of his Ministers for which he was later compelled to publicly sack them.

Great power is vested in a Prime Minister. He appoints all the Ministers of State and the Parliamentary Secretaries. He can reshuffle the Cabinet if he thinks fit and terminate ministerial office at any time without offering any reason. I understand this to be the constitutional position. Great authority also carries corresponding responsibility. That responsibility must be exercised continuously and must be exercised immediately the occasion demands. It permits of no dilatory procedure and of no procrastination. Anything else is merely vacillating and can only lead ultimately to graver troubles. This is where the Taoiseach failed. I am not in any way implying anything improper in respect of the Taoiseach. In his personal capacity he is a very estimable and good-natured man. I doubt if he has the rigidity of character or the grit to be a Taoiseach, and particularly a Taoiseach in charge of the type of men of whom, unfortunately, he was placed in charge.

The Taoiseach may not be able to remove his offending Ministers as Deputies from this House but they have emphatically stated their determination to remain in Fianna Fáil. To what purpose? Do the Fianna Fáil Party, as such, or whatever Members are here, or does the Taoiseach himself think that this is in the interests of the party or of the Taoiseach or of the country? Does he see any inherent dangers ahead?

In these islands, and we have not a perfect code here, we have been comparatively free for many years both in England, Scotland—not so much in Northern Ireland recently—and down here of organised crime. Our murder rate is low. The murder rate in the United States is, I believe, about ten times that of the British Isles or here. There are many reasons for that. I would submit that the primary reason is the easy access to guns and lethal weapons which obtains all over the United States and which the United States Government has so far failed to control or contain. Admittedly, it is a different country. You have racial problems there. Probably, even under the circumstances obtaining here, they would still have a higher crime rate.

However, it largely derives from the easy access obtaining in American States to guns of various descriptions. We had in this Chamber, standing there on the left of where the Ceann Comhairle sits, the late President of the United States, Jack Kennedy. He died in America. He was assassinated. His assassination was made much easier, if not caused by, the easy availability of lethal weapons for every Tom, Dick and Harry in the United States. Do you want a similar position to obtain here? Does anybody think that, once guns come here, their distribution can in any way be controlled? Is it not obvious to anybody who thinks about it that any organisation in possession of modern, attractive, lethal weapons would easily secure young men to join that organisation merely to be in a position to secure a gun or a revolver.

As I said already, I have a certain sympathy with the Taoiseach. Allowing for the fact that he has shown an undue degree of vacillation, weakness and incompetence he did—I must say this in mitigation of his position—inherit some of the problems now besetting him. He has been hoist with the petard of years of posturing in this country—since 1932, 1933, 1934, indeed, since the foundation of the State. We have talked about Partition but we have done practically nothing about it. In fact, we have moved more and more away from fellow Irishmen north of the Border. I know, I accept, that they are open to the most severe criticism; but have we put our own house in order? Have we not, in this country, introduced every possible barrier against re-unification—legally, constitutionally, industrially, culturally? We have wrapped ourselves up in a little green flag in our 26-county state. We have not moved towards the development of the foundation of a pluralistic society. Our flag here is green, white and orange. It was first raised in my own county, Tipperary, by John Blake Dillon under arms. We have forgotten the orange in that flag. We have made no serious attempt— as we should have been doing from the day the State was founded up to the present—to create an atmosphere which would ultimately lead to unity and to the development of a pluralistic society. We have moved merely to develop our green celtic state.

If, now, we find these difficulties more firmly rooted than they ever were before, we here in the south are as much to blame for it as the north. Yet we keep prating about Partition. I blame the party on the Government benches principally for that. They had a longer time to do something than any other party but they did not do it. True enough, at any Fianna Fail gathering it was trotted out—the one outstanding problem, the re-unification of the national territory. This was like a ritualistic war-dance, performed for local consumption and then discontinued until the next occasion; but nothing really happened and no effective effort was ever made to establish a situation here conducive to ultimate unity.

We adopted the notion that the north should accept us on our terms— terms which could not ever be acceptable to many in the north. If we were genuine in our wishes to do that, we should have made attempts, all down through the years, to try to understand the conditions obtaining in Northern Ireland so as to establish some rapport between them and us. It is this position; it is this inherited attitude; it is this peculiar, hypocritical brand of Republicanism, this posture by Fianna Fáil, which has now placed the Taoiseach in his present position. This is what he inherited. It half absorbs him. But, added to that, was his own weakness, his own vacillating character, which some might call good nature. He now finds himself in a political crisis. He now finds himself in the position that his personal word, his personal integrity is being questioned by Ministers who were yesterday sitting with him in his Cabinet.

The interview given by Deputy Boland, as reported in Friday's Irish Independent, covers some of the points made by the Deputy in his speech here today and elaborates on some further points. The interviewer, Mr. Kerry McCarthy, had this to say:

He also told me that he believed that for some time members of the Government were of the firm opinion that their telephones were being tapped. "In the case of one Minister this has definitely been established," he declared.

The report continued:

He repeated again a declaration he had made earlier in the day that he could under no circumstances work in a Government whose leader kept members under Gestapo-type surveillance. "I could not see the events of the last few days happening in any other democratic country. All that was missing was the beautiful blonde spy," he said.

I do not know to what extent Deputy Boland missed the beautiful blonde spy but apparently she was all that was missing to make his day complete. Further on in the interview, Deputy Boland is quoted as having said:

He was astonished that Mr. Lynch had dismissed two senior Ministers on the basis of secret and unconfirmed information supplied to the Government as against the word of the Ministers who denied they were implicated in any arms plot.

When the interviewer asked Mr. Boland if he was surprised that Mr. Lynch had so readily accepted his resignation, Mr. Boland said "certainly not." He added:

Of the four senior Ministers who have gone in the past few days, "I am the only one who voluntarily resigned. I am sure that the ex-Minister for Justice, Mr. Ó Moráin, was asked to resign."

These remarks are apparently contradictory to what the Taoiseach has told the House. It is the duty of the Taoiseach to take the House and the people into his confidence and to make a complete statement on the whole situation. I expect that the Taoiseach has much more information than he has given the House in his opening statement on this matter. Deputy Blaney made a very emotional speech here today.

A very inflammatory speech.

I made some notes of the speech——

A very mischievous speech.

Unctuous Desmond.

Deputy Blaney denies that he had any association with Saor Éire or with any other subversive organisation. He stated that he had not contributed one penny towards the purchase of guns and he asserted that he had nothing to do with the escape of those who murdered Garda Fallon. He also stated that he knew of no association of his brothers with any illegal organisation in the country. He admitted that he refused to resign but we are not clear about the reason he gave. I gather it was in some way calculated to help the people in the north.

Deputy Blaney then went on to relate ancient history. It was an inflammatory speech in which he paraded his own ideas and his impeccable patriotism and loyalty to the Taoiseach and to Fianna Fáil. It did not appear to him that there was anything in his recent behaviour as alleged by the Taoiseach that might be irreconcilable, hypocritical and bellicose.

Very clever.

It was an emotionally charged speech calculated to inflame primitive emotions, a speech not befitting the position that he had held.

I was present at a meeting of the Dáil some time after the northern crisis in August. Perhaps I am a simple man, but I concluded as I think did most people, that there was unanimity in this House among all Members that the use of physical force in relation to Partition was out. We all welcomed that declaration but it now appears that there were some silent dissenters. When the matter was discussed at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis in January, the Taoiseach appeared to have been satisfied that he had the approval of his own party.

I can understand a member of any party not seeing eye to eye with various points in relation to some matters or acts of his party. Generally, one thinks the matter is worth raising, one expresses one's opinion and then one abides by the majority decision. However, there are certain times when there is a crisis of conscience. Perhaps it might happen once in a man's life. If it happens to a man who is a member of a political party and he finds that he can no longer reconcile his conscience with the majority opinion of that party, he owes it to himself and to those whom he represents to state his case and to resign from that party.

If he occupies a senior position and finds himself unable to agree with the policy of his party, he should resign. Deputy Blaney, for instance, could not see eye to eye with the unanimous decision of this House taken last year. That was the time for him to talk. That was the time for him to come in here and say his piece, and not today. That was the time to place himself in the hands of the Taoiseach and to say to him quite simply and openly: "My conscience does not allow me to agree with you on this matter. What do you want me to do?" The Taoiseach might have said to him: "If you can still continue to do your job as a Minister you may continue on, provided you do not let your views impinge on the general attitude of the majority of your party". Or he might have said to him: "I think you should go" or the man might have said it himself. That was the time to do it. That was the time for him to state his position unambiguously. That was the time for any other Deputy of any party, if he did not agree, to stand up and to say his piece. Deputy Blaney did not do that. Deputy Haughey did not do that. They remained in this Government, in this House, apparently accepting and apparently agreeable to the unanimous decision of this Parliament but, at the same time, according to the Taoiseach's allegation, apparently also indulging in practices of quite the opposite nature.

Now the Taoiseach finds himself in the ignominious position of having to come into this House and wash his dirty linen in public. I have already referred to the Taoiseach's weakness, his vacillation, his failure to come to grips and to nip in the bud the situation which has now developed into a national scandal.

During all last summer there was as we all know a dangerous situation developing in Northern Ireland. There was also a less dangerous situation developing down here. There was a general election. We profess to have a tremendous interest in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it is a lately awakened interest, since the civil rights movement began—it has been rather dormant for many years—but, at all events, we all profess it. Yet during all that summer—and the Taoiseach, I am assured, was kept reasonably informed of developments in Northern Ireland—he made no determined effort to secure a consultation with his opposite number in Great Britain, Mr. Wilson.

If Partition is an evil largely deriving from British actions in the past they still possess some responsibility in the matter and they still have effective jurisdiction over Northern Ireland. Here was the Prime Minister, the head of the Fianna Fáil Party, the party of reality, the party that was always going to abolish Partition, standing idly by during the long, hot summer. Beyond some feeble letter sent some time in the spring, no practical, concrete step was taken by him to secure consultations with his opposite number in Great Britain. In effect, the Taoiseach spent most of that time campaigning around southern Ireland, calling on reverend mothers and giving exhibitions with a hurley ball. I suppose it won the election. I am sure it helped. But it was not the kind of activity, the kind of exercise, that one would expect a responsible, effective Taoiseach to indulge in during that long, hot summer.

There is recognised in all modern Governments what we call collective responsibility. During all that long, hot summer Deputy Blaney was allowed to put forward his own peculiar solution for the problems of Northern Ireland. These solutions were contrary to those the Taoiseach and the Government had apparently adopted. Ultimately, on 14th August, the Taoiseach took action. It is now clear, or it seems to me anyway, that this was an action partly forced upon the Taoiseach at that time by a recalcitrant and difficult Deputy Blaney. He sent our Army shadow boxing to the Border and he sent poor Deputy Dr. Hillery clowning to the United Nations. I know Deputy Dr. Hillery did his best. His best was very little. He did not even succeed in getting the Irish problem put on the agenda, but he was allowed to make a statement. They heard him politely. That was the sum total of Deputy Dr. Hillery's efforts at the UN. Mark you, he was lauded when he returned to Ireland as a man who had done something marvellous, a man who had achieved something. He had been allowed to read a statement.

The anties on the Border were, to my mind, quite inexcusable. At different times our Taoiseach who apparently was, perhaps, against his better judgment, led into this type of action has given different explanations. One explanation which he offered is that troops were there in case the British troops might ask them in to provide a joint peace-keeping force. Fat chance that the British would invite our troops into Northern Ireland. The next explanation he offered was that they were there to help those who might flee across the Border from the issues which were likely to break out in Northern Ireland and which, in fact, did break out. If that was the purpose it would surely have been a prudent thing to keep communications very clear and very open. If mere medical help was the purpose, then the Army Medical Corps with some help from the Red Cross should suffice and the Government Information Service make it very clear that no equipment or officers were being dispatched to the Border. The last and most recent explanation he gave was that the troops were on the Border to prevent infiltration from the south into the north. These are three different explanations and you can pay your money and take your chance.

This was to my mind a most dangerous exercise by a small country. It was beyond our capacity in a military sense then and is now to embark on force in respect of Northern Ireland. We all knew and agreed that even if we could do so a captive people are no use to anybody. The Taoiseach attempted to rectify the situation. Shortly after the Fine Gael Party published their ten point programme on Partition the Taoiseach took himself to Tralee and there made his conciliatory speech affirming, among other things, that the ten point Fine Gael programme was actually the traditional Fianna Fáil programme. We were all together again and Deputy Blaney was out of the running for the time being.

I recite those events because they should not have occurred. I believe a resolute Taoiseach with the strength of the House behind him should have insisted from the beginning on collective responsibility. He was vested with the authority to do so and if he had done so he would not be sitting in the dock accused by this side of the House and by his own ex-Ministers.

I should like at this point to put a few questions to the Taoiseach to which I hope he will reply. I should like to ask him if at any stage he received any information from Interpol or any agency outside the State in regard to this matter. Apparently investigations into the importation of arms had been going on for a considerable time. It was stated that sums of money up to £1 million had been offered to procure arms. I mentioned the Huddersfield deal already. It seems to me extraordinary that information that was apparently available to international agencies was not available to the Taoiseach.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach when he applied the security arrangements to his ex-Ministers. How long has this form of surveillance been in operation? Was it merely put into operation following the approach by Deputy Cosgrave to him? I should like to ask him whether the statement by Deputy Boland to the effect that Deputy Moran was sacked is correct and if he would state whether or not Deputy Moran was invited or requested to tender his resignation. I should like to ask the Taoiseach if he would give us the date he first instructed our security forces to begin investigations on the question of ministerial implication in the importation of arms into this country. I should also like to ask him if he is in a position to state how the purchase of the smuggled arms in question was negotiated and the source of the money for the purpose.

According to the newspapers, there was a considerable inflow of money from American sources. The money was collected in Great Britain. I would be particularly anxious to know that no State funds under one guise or another were in any way diverted to those purchases. I should further like to ask the Taoiseach if he could tell me whether the Garda have interrogated Deputies Haughey and Blaney and their respective brothers in regard to the activities for which he dismissed the two Ministers, or analogous activities in respect of the importation of arms. I would ask him if he is in a position to state whether citizens of Northern Ireland were brought to the south at any time last year for special army training and if he will state on whose authority this was arranged, the extent of the operation, whether he was informed about it beforehand and if he gave his approval and whether any financial commitments fell to be met by the State.

He has already told us when he first received information about the arms smuggling that has culminated in the present difficulty. I would ask the Taoiseach whether crates labelled for the Red Cross arrived at Dublin Airport and, if not, where they were intercepted? I should like to know what arms they contained and whether such crates got through customs without examination after ministerial intervention. I should like to know the name of the Minister who intervened, the name and address of the consignee and the ultimate disposal of the consignment. I should like to ask the Taoiseach what legal action is open to him or contemplated by the Government in respect of the deposed Ministers and others involved in recent arms smuggling. I know the Taoiseach will probably reply that this is a matter for the Attorney General and that the Attorney General is dealing with it already.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach if he proposes to take steps to tighten up our security arrangements with a view to avoiding further illegal activities. This is a matter of paramount importance. We have no guarantee that further smuggling of arms will not be continued in this country. I do not know to what degree arms have already arrived here. The recent spate of bank robberies would suggest that they certainly are coming in. I would ask the Taoiseach to furnish the people with complete details, so far as security arrangements will permit, of this arms smuggling episode. It may be that at this point he will not have the fullest details but I trust that he will let us have all the information at his disposal. The position in which the Taoiseach finds himself is an unpleasant one and his credibility is being questioned.

Hear, hear.

Not alone in fairness to this House and to his own party but also to himself he should make the fullest disclosure of all relevant information dealing with this unfortunate matter. I do not believe we have seen the end of it; it will not merely disappear because we wish it to disappear. For too long the Taoiseach has indulged in this kind of wishful thinking, trying not to see something that was only too obvious, trying to avoid an ultimate confrontation with circumstances and conditions that would not go away. It is the tragedy of a man in one of Shakespeare's plays who could not make up his mind.

Since the foundation of our State we have unfortunately had an extremist element which has been always difficult to contain. Both political parties have been embarrassed. A political party often fails to face up to a difficult situation. Every party lives by votes but one can buy votes at too high a price. During the years Fianna Fáil have found themselves in that difficulty partly due to the fact that they are prisoners of their own past. Now the chickens have come home to roost and they are some chickens. When the Taoiseach comes to reply this evening or tomorrow——

He has better staying power than your leader.

——I would ask him to give us the fullest possible information. I would also say to him to take his courage in his hands and, whether he remains Taoiseach or not, for his own peace of mind he should go to the country and ask the people if they want a change of Government. Do they want a change of party in this House or do they not? Procrastination is bad for the country. The vacillation the Taoiseach has shown in handling the problems of his Government has got him into the present difficulties and further procrastination which he may be inclined to indulge in will merely lead him into greater difficulties. It would be better for the country if the Taoiseach would now make up his mind to call a general election.

Speaking on this motion to replace the Ministers who have been found by the Taoiseach to be unfit to retain office does not give any Deputy pleasure. However, as it is of vital importance to the nation every Deputy feels it is his duty to contribute to this debate. The events of the past few days have moved so rapidly that one finds it difficult to keep pace with the statements, the denials, the counter-statements and further statements. At this hour of the morning it is difficult to know who to believe and what to believe. We must rely on the statement of the Taoiseach that some of his Ministers have not been loyal to him. This is a rare thing to happen in any Government. The people of this State are alarmed at the situation which has arisen when men who have been trusted with office and who have been given their seal of office by the President have betrayed the trust reposed in them. It would be normal to expect any Taoiseach to be saddened by finding himself in such a position.

Over the past few days the people were wondering where we were going, what security there was within the State and what efforts were being made to secure some stability for themselves and their families. Were it not for two important institutions we have, our Army, under our Minister for Defence, and our Garda force, under the Department of Justice, we might wonder where we would be this morning. It is well to know that in the future if in a Government any Minister of State should be tempted to be disloyal to his Taoiseach we have within the State two organisations which would prevent any Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries from throwing the State into chaos.

It is well to remember that when our predecessors in Cumann na nGaedheal established the Army and the Garda force they did so in spite of severe opposition. Both of those institutions justified the confidence that was placed in them by the people who founded this State and have never been found wanting, but in recent months there was a growing fear among the members of those two organisations who could not get from the Government assurances that everything was being done that should be done and there was a general feeling of uneasiness and unrest which is a bad thing in any State.

It has been said time and time again since this debate started that rebellious tendencies had shown themselves in many ways and in many counties. Questions have been asked: when will we have respect for law and order? When will those who break our laws be brought to justice? Every Deputy would like to see that we would have within the State when this debate finishes, a respect for the people who maintain law and order and that the Ministers concerned who hold the portfolios will see that this law and order will be enforced. Some time ago the Taoiseach made a wild statement that the Fine Gael Party had nothing to be proud of. I was rather surprised that he should make such a statement. Now he can remember that the leader of that party in the very gentlemanly way you would expect him to do it approached the Taoiseach and warned him of the danger the State was heading for. I hope the Taoiseach is grateful for that warning. We are glad he acted on the advice and on the warning given by our leader.

I am very proud to be in that party that the Taoiseach thought had nothing to be proud of. I should like to remind him that, when an emergency faced the country in 1939, our leader put on the uniform of an Irish soldier and served the country, as many Deputies on the opposite benches did also. I should like to remind the Taoiseach that Deputy Liam Cosgrave's father, many years before that, gave service when the first spark took fire which inspired this country to stand before the world and to fight in order to show its nationhood. I am proud to be in that party despite the Taoiseach's suggestion that we have nothing to be proud of. I am proud to serve under a leader who, when the State was in the present crisis, again stepped in and prevented a serious situation arising.

We, as a party having within our ranks young intelligent men, will always be in a position to provide an alternative Government, a Government which can be relied upon. We can select from the Deputies on this side of the House men who can be depended upon to be loyal to our Taoiseach when we come into office.

I am sorry that three responsible Ministers of State are in the position that they are in this morning. It is a rare occurrence. I hope no such situation as has arisen this week will ever again arise in this country. I do not propose at this stage to lay too heavy a hand on any of those men. Their actions speak for themselves. We could be charitable at this stage. We should devote the time that is left to us to an effort to restore confidence in the institutions of the State, to undo the harm that has been done, to convince the people that the primary concern of Deputies is to have a Government in power which will make a serious effort to restore stability for a period and, if then unable to do that, that will take the alternative course of asking the people to elect a Government that will be in a position to do that.

It was an extraordinary thing to have a former Minister objecting to the methods employed by the Department of Justice and to the source of information available to the Taoiseach as to what is happening within the State. When that Deputy was Minister for Defence he was well aware of the methods employed by our Army, fully aware that there was an intelligence section within that Army, as there is today, thank God, through which necessary information would be obtained in order to secure our safety against fifth columnists either from within or without the State.

I find it very difficult also to understand why any Minister who on his own admission was an officer in the Regiment of Pearse, who swore loyalty to the State and to the Constitution, should object to the methods employed by our Army to obtain necessary intelligence for the security of the State. It is difficult to understand the change of heart that occurred in a person who one day was a Minister and the next day became a Deputy.

The sequence of events has been so rapid that it is very difficult to know at this stage who is discredited. Reference has been made to an Army officer who served in the capacity of intelligence officer and who should be relied upon and whose information should be acted upon. I listened to a statement made by that officer quoted here tonight by Deputy Bruton and, as far as I know, the former Minister for Defence, now the designate Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, has denied the authenticity of this officer's statement, which complicates matters still further. A statement from the Taoiseach at this stage should clarify many of the things about which we are not clear.

There is one Minister, who, I feel, is very embarrassed because of the position in which we find ourselves. He is an honourable man who can always be relied upon to be loyal to any trust reposed in him. I refer to the Minister for External Affairs who is recognised in this country, in Clare and in every country where he has gone, as being a decent and respected man.

Yes. He is from County Clare. Have the events of the past few days made his position any easier in the negotiations for our entry to the Common Market? Have the events of the past few days improved the status of our representatives abroad? Has the respect for our peace-keeping forces abroad, in Cyprus, the Gaza Strip and the Middle East, increased as a result of the events of the past few days? It would take a very united front by all Deputies within this House to restore the confidence which the world generally had in us and bring the country back to what we would like it to be. Because of what has happened in the past few days I believe it is now necessary to increase the strength of our security forces.

Now that we are approaching the tourist season, I should like to feel that those who come here can be assured that they are coming to a country in which there is stability and in which the Government are in full control of the affairs of the State. In the interests of those who are dependent on the tourist trade we must do everything we can now to bring about an atmosphere which will encourage tourists to our shores in the assurance that they are coming to a peaceful State. Every medium of communication should be used to spread the message abroad that we are a peaceful people. The sooner that is done the better it will be for everyone.

I think the men proposed to fill the vacant Ministries cannot be overrated. As far as I know, they are all reliable men. I am glad to see Deputy Jerry Cronin in the Department of Defence. He can be depended upon to act in a responsible way and I am sure the Army will give him the same loyalty they have always given to Ministers for Defence. Despite some of the things that have been said, I am sure Deputy O'Malley will be able to ensure that the forces of discipline he controls will get full authority to act in a way which will ensure that our people are safeguarded in their individual capacities.

If we could divorce our approach from emotional considerations and deal with the important principles involved that would be very beneficial. The security of the State and of its people is of primary importance. Nothing should be done and nothing should be said which might endanger that security. When this debate is finished I hope that those whom we represent will feel that we have made an honourable effort to ensure for them a peaceful existence. I hope people will be satisfied that this is the last occasion on which it will be said that there were rebellious tendencies within the State which attempted to overthrow or bring into disrepute certain Departments of State.

I do not often speak in debates here. I do so now in sorrow. May I be allowed to voice my views not merely as a Deputy but also as a mother? I am apprehensive for the future, the future not alone of my own family but the future of all the families which, since the end of the last war, have enjoyed peace. In any true democracy the only real asset is peace— peace in the city, peace in the town, peace in the market place and, above all, peace in the home. This country is renowned for such peace and security in the home. I do not mean that financial security is the dearest wish of every mother, wife or sister. Fear is the natural enemy of such security. Anything that gives rise to fear should be carefully avoided. Not to cause fear and thus preserve security should be the aim of all public representatives.

The Taoiseach by his delay and his failure so far to give the facts has initiated this fear. The speeches of Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney have fanned the flame of fear. Their words are calculated to upset individuals and families north and south of the Border. To do this may, in the short term, give them some sort of heroic image: in the long term their words will be judged for what they are—messages of hate. On such words the people can place no reliance. These are upsetting words, harmful to peace of mind. I fear that these are words that will drive young minds along the path of destruction. I appeal to the Minister, to the Taoiseach and to the Government to stop this talk now, to tell the truth. The people who sent them here deserve it.

When one rises to speak in this debate, which deals with the appointment of three Ministers, one's mind is immediately directed to the circumstances that brought about this situation and to the reasons for this motion. As one living in the east of the country and not as closely connected with the northern problem as many other Deputies are but at the same time very much concerned that every effort should be made to establish moderation, I feel it is reasonable to say that a Government from which two Ministers are sacked and one has resigned is in dire trouble, not only because of the three people involved but especially because any of the three was a potential leader of Fianna Fáil. They were certainly policy-makers within the party.

Deputy Blaney was crack organiser and strong man whose strength, at the grass roots level of the party, is unequalled in many constituencies. Deputy Haughey was, one might say, the economic and financial expert whose ability was recognised by all sides of the House. Deputy Boland was the man who, after the referendum campaign, did so much with his Electoral Bill to return Fianna Fáil to office. Having regard to all these facts, how can anyone now say that all is well in the Fianna Fáil Party and that the dissensions that so obviously exist have now been healed? How can anyone say that, particularly after hearing the emotion-packed speech of Deputy Blaney and the statement by the Taoiseach—the first the words of a republican hardliner and the second the words of a passive moderate?

The Fianna Fáil Party cannot be all things to all men. The events of the past few days leave it discredited before the House and the country. It is not a pretty sight. It is one that brings the credibility of members of the Government into question and leaves the House and the nation discredited and shamed in the eyes of the world. In the past few days talk in the corridors and lobbies of the House has been generally about the credibility gap that exists but with the events of the last 48 hours that gap has widened to a yawning gulf that no change of Ministers can close or paper over. The Island of Saints and Scholars will soon be known as the island of gunmen and gun runners.

What really must concern everybody is the effect the disintegration of Fianna Fáil is having on the nation. We are being asked to appoint three Ministers. No matter what members of the Government may say or how anxious the Opposition, in charity, might be to believe them the facts are that the people have lost confidence in the Government. Its duty is to the country, not to itself or the Fianna Fáil Party, nor is its function to ensure retention of power. The principles of democracy must be clear. Only 11 months ago the Fianna Fáil Cabinet was the youngest in Europe; today it is the youngest burst-up Cabinet in Europe.

In the Irish Independent of yesterday, Deputy Ó Moráin, when asked why he resigned, is reported as having said: “No comment”. Obviously, the question arises: did he fall or was he pushed? One hears from Fianna Fáil speakers on many occasions that the interests of this country are synonymous with the interests of Fianna Fáil. Perhaps that is apparent within the Cabinet or within the Parliamentary Party, but it is certainly not apparent from the outside to the people in the country in general.

When Fianna Fáil first came into office nearly 40 years ago, to a great extent they pursued a policy of idealism which was not consistent with the economic requirements of the State. Nevertheless, it was an idealistic policy. Many people felt at that time that more realism was called for and, as the years went by, some realism did manifest itself. The party could now do with some of the idealism of the past so that their duty to the country and to democracy would be done.

I say this with a certain sense of sadness and also because of the outbursts of emotion by Deputy Blaney here this evening. One respects a person with deeply held views, but outbursts of that nature will no nothing but harm at this time. Those of us who were born since the Treaty should respect the people who were prepared to make the supreme sacrifice so that we might be able to come into this House in freedom and peace. We should respect those people no matter what side they took during the terrible tragedy that followed the Treaty.

In this House in 1970 no effort should be made to inject into Irish political life some of the heat, hate and bitterness of the past. Any member of the Cabinet whose opinions did not conform with the policy on Northern Ireland as defined by the Taoiseach should, in all honesty, have severed his connection with it. How many times have we heard the Taoiseach say there was unanimity in the Cabinet and how many times had he to put the record right after members of the Cabinet had made statements on Northern Ireland? In the light of the happenings of the past few days these statements are further proof of the deep rift that existed within the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party for some considerable time.

This debate is taking place not because of any act or any action of ours but because the Taoiseach felt that he could not allow certain Ministers to continue in office as a result of information he had. While some people may request Deputy Cosgrave to place the source of his information on record, the Taoiseach knows the source of his own information and, when Deputy Cosgrave made available to him the information he had, he decided to take action against members of his own Cabinet before the country became aware of the real position.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Where is he now?

Where is who now?

Mr. J. Lenehan

Fathead, shut up.

Certain things have been said, but can they in all honesty say that everything has been said? There is a duty on people who are elected to this House to find out the real truth so that the people of the country will be given an opportunity to make up their minds. The main duty of an Opposition is to make the Government do their duty, and more particularly a reluctant Government.

Over the past number of years there has been a growing sense of frustration among our people. Our young people have become cynical because of the broken promises of the Government, because so many things were promised and so few delivered. Over the past few days all hope has been shattered and, no matter what changes take place, the Government have been discredited before the people. I say with great respect to the Taoiseach that this is not a question of keeping Fianna Fáil in office.

It is a question of getting them out of office.

Not a chance.

It is not a question of the Members of the Fianna Fáil Party remaining in power. It is a question of bringing politics in the minds and hearts of our people back to what it was in the early days of this State. This is what should determine the Taoiseach's attitude now.

There is a great obligation on every Member of this House to contribute to this debate, which is one of the most important debates that has ever taken place here. I should like to add my contribution. I am a young Deputy. I am a young man who has taken a keen interest in Irish politics since my days in national school. I have admired all of those men I read about in our Irish history books, the brave men of different generations who worked for Ireland, who fought for Ireland——

Mr. J. Lenehan

And lived on Ireland.

——and many of those men made the ultimate sacrifice of giving their lives for Ireland. I have great admiration for all of those men down through history, men like Owen Roe O'Neill, Red Hugh O'Donnell, Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, Kevin Barry, all those patriots who served Ireland so gallantly and so well. They were men from all parts of this country. They were men of different religious views but they all had one thing in common and that was their love of Ireland. Perhaps the most glorious period in Irish history was 1916. Perhaps it is the one that we all read about much more attentively than we read about any other period.

Easter Sunday, 1916. Everybody here should remember with pride the heroic stand taken by Pearse, Connolly, Plunkett and the other true and loyal men who loved Ireland more than life itself. A few short years after this event, we succeeded in wresting independence for 26 of our counties. The event, in its own way, set in motion a trend of events that reverberated throughout the world. These events at that time offered hope to people all over Europe and all over Africa. These events offered hope to men of every class, colour and creed. A flame was ignited in 1916 which has never been quenched throughout the world.

In Ireland at that time, Michael Collins described the Treaty and regaining of independence as but a stepping stone. I feel it still can be a stepping stone. I believe that ultimately it will prove to be but a stepping stone. Time passed and tragedy followed with civil war. Former comrades in arms, who had fought side by side, separated and fought on different sides. I believe no one will doubt and very few will contradict that, on both sides in that civil war, there were brave and loyal men dedicated to a cause in which they believed. Many men died in the struggle at that time. I cannot say who was right or who was wrong in this civil war. However, I think an epitaph written over the graves of two young men who fought and died in the American Civil War will help to illustrate the point I was making. It was written by the father of those two sons who died fighting on differing sides. The epitaph the father wrote was as follows: "God knows which of them was right for I certainly do not know".

The effects of the civil war here set this country back decades. We missed the opportunity to show our fellow countrymen in the Six Counties that we here could manage our own affairs, could provide our own Government, could live in peace and harmony. Instead, we provided the doubtful, the cynical, the hesitant with an opportunity of finding reasons for not coming in with us. From this civil war they got the material for their argument that we could not live and work together.

In later years we have overcome a lot of these disadvantages. We have overcome the setback, the bitterness, the hatreds and the wounds brought by the civil war. We have overcome those wounds and at last they have begun to heal. We could meet people with different political views and discuss events. We could all meet as Irishmen and we could discuss our different feelings in regard to our country. People began to forgive and people began to forget.

Deputy Blaney, however, has been able to forgive but, I am sorry to say, he has not been able to forget. I believe that events such as those are better forgiven and forgotten. When I was growing up in this country and when I was a young man I believed that this country at that time was one of the finest and greatest examples of a democracy in any part of the world. I felt it offered freedom and equality. I felt it was a place where a person could live in peace and harmony with his neighbour, where one could go about one's business without fear of interference or molestation.

I felt is was one of those countries where a person could apply for a job without being asked his religious or political beliefs, where a person could conduct his business without fear of attack by armed bandits, a place where people could live life as it should be lived, a place where people could interest themselves in the various arts, in the culture and history of this country, in sports and language. I felt it was a place where people could interest themselves in everything that helps to make life worth living; a place where people could live for the present and plan for the future. I felt it was a country that was becoming renowned all over the world for its hospitality, its friendship and its peace.

Irish boys and girls who had left this country at different times, because they were unable to get jobs here, looked back on it and remembered home here as something that offered peace and happiness. They were anxious to come back here. I believed that in the Six Counties until a few short years ago any reasonable man or woman could look down here and note how things were progressing. I am certain many of them would have wanted to join and work with us.

The night had been long but, with the dawn, one felt a new day would break over Ireland. The poet said: "All is changed, changed utterly; a terrible beauty is born". I should like to paraphrase that a little bit and just say of this moment: "All is changed utterly—and it has changed in the past few years." We have seen a situation arise in Ireland where jobbery has become a way of life. We frequently hear now that, all other things being equal, a person belonging to Fianna Fáil has a better opportunity of getting a job here. We have become accustomed to violence in our streets. Armed bank robberies have almost become commonplace.

There have been at least 13 bank robberies during the past two years and, as far as I know, there is not one person serving a sentence as a result of being convicted for any of these robberies. Recently there was the tragic event of the shooting during the execution of his duty of a member of the Garda Síochána, one of the most highly respected police forces in the world. These, then, are some of the events that have taken place. We now have a former Minister who has said that the Taoiseach has appointed a Super Special Branch to spy on members of the Government. The former Minister for Local Government, as quoted in Friday's edition of the Irish Independent, said:

A ‘Super Special Branch' had been secretly set up by the Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch, to spy on members of the Government.

The columnist added that Deputy Boland told him:

... he believed that for some time members of the Government were of the firm opinion that their telephones were being tapped.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Good man yourself.

This morning the same ex-Minister openly contradicted the Taoiseach in regard to the resignation of a Minister. In the interview to which I have already referred, Deputy Boland is quoted as having said that:

Of the four senior Ministers who have gone in the past few days, I am the only one who voluntarily resigned. I am sure that the ex-Minister for Justice, Mr. Ó Moráin was asked to resign.

We have had different information in regard to this particular Minister. On Wednesday, 6th May, as reported at column 642 of the Official Report, the Taoiseach told the House:

On Monday, 20th April and Tuesday, 21st April, the security forces of the country at my disposal brought me information about an alleged attempt to unlawfully import arms from the continent.

Further on in the same column the Taoiseach is reported as saying in relation to the two Ministers:

I told them both I had information which purported to connect them with an alleged attempt to unlawfully import arms, on the basis of which information. I felt it was my duty to request their resignations as members of the Government. Each of them denied he instigated in any way the attempted importation of arms. They asked me for time to consider their position. I agreed to do this. In the meantime I authorised the continuation of investigations and I made personal investigations myself, following which I decided to approach the two Ministers again and to repeat my request that they tender to me their resignations as members of the Government. I did so on the basis that I was convinced that not even the slightest suspicion should attach to any member of the Government in a matter of this nature. Having told the Ministers that I wished to have their resignations forthwith, each of them told me he would not give me his resignation until this morning.

As we are all aware, the Ministers concerned have denied any association with the importation of arms. A further situation has now developed whereby a Captain Kelly has involved the Deputy whom the Taoiseach has proposed to be Minister for Agriculture. Why did the Taoiseach propose the appointment of this Deputy if he believes that not even the slightest suspicion should attach to any member of the Government in a matter of this nature?

There have been contradictory statements. People who had been held in high esteem by this House and by the country have denied that they were connected in any way with the importation of arms while the Taoiseach claims that they were so involved. The Taoiseach should give the House further information in this regard. He should tender all the information at his disposal so that we can see for ourselves why he has dismissed the two Ministers. A further explanation is needed so that we can judge for ourselves, because the explanation already given is not adequate.

For now, we shall have a look at the situation as it exists. We have people who adopt the old hard line attitude, the attitude of hatred and bigotry, and who endeavour to stir emotions in people in all parts of the country. Whatever else can be said about these gun-running plots nobody can deny that this situation has been brought about by Government inaction or, shall we say, Government action. There can be no doubt but that the Government have allowed themselves to slide into this situation and that they are solely and collectively to blame for any repercussions that may result from these events. This is the year 1970.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Did the Deputy think it was 1960?

Now, now. Do not be naughty.

We are preparing to enter the EEC. After entry it appears certain that the Border will go. After our entry to the Common Market I believe the Border, after a very short time would become an anachronism. I believe that the lives of the people here would benefit from entry. Everyone would benefit. The people in all parts of Ireland would receive equal social welfare benefits. The Government White Paper would lead us to believe that after entry we would see an improvement in our standard of living and in our living conditions. A few years is a short time in the life of a nation; a few days is even less. Let us hope that the events of the last few days do not jeopardise our chances of entry to the EEC.

Hear, hear.

Let us hope that these events in the past few days will not damage our negotiations for entry. Nowadays we must look outward. We can no longer be insular. We must look to Europe; we must become part of Europe, if we are to survive and live and work as an Irish nation. The events of the past few days have shocked and saddened the people of this country. I am certain this crisis will pass——

(Dublin South Central): It will, of course.

——and even though the people are shocked at the moment I am certain that all over this country commonsense will prevail in the coming months. The one lesson all of us can learn and if I could send a message to the people who are not here this morning, many of whom will never hear what I have had to say, it would be this: the mechanism of a democracy is extremely delicate and because of this it requires regular examination. If a party is in power for too long patronage follows and this can result in a situation in which the Army comes completly under the control of one party; the judiciary in its own way can be manipulated by a political party.

That has never arisen here. That is nonsense.

I am making the point that democracy——

The Minister must have a guilty conscience.

Certainly, in regard to the judiciary too—all hand out Fianna Fáil touts.

(Interruptions.)

It is an awful thing to have to say but it is quite true.

The judiciary should not be referred to as touts and the Deputy knows that.

That is my view, too, a Cheann Comhairle.

The point I am making is that in any country in the world if a Government continues too long in power it can lead to a situation in which there is manipulation by the Government of the Army, of the judiciary and of the police.

I object to this in regard to the judiciary——

The Minister may object but it is perfectly in order.

He said it can happen, not necessarily that it did happen here. The Minister has a guilty conscience.

Order, Deputy Enright.

The point I was making—and I believe it was a valid point—was that it can, in its own way, lead to a situation in which the Government can manipulate the judiciary. It can lead to manipulation of the police and of the Army.

We appointed Deputy Tom O'Higgins presidential legal adviser to the supreme court in this country and I am personally responsible for it. Deputy Tom O'Higgins is presidential election adviser in regard to legal matters and was appointed by the Government on my advice to the Supreme Court of this country.

The Minister should get some sleep.

Deputy Tom O'Higgins knows it.

The Minister should get some sleep.

If a Government are left in office, if democracy is not worked properly, it can lead to the situation I mentioned. This is one of the greatest dangers facing this country at present. There must be checks and there must be balances. They are essential in the Army, in the police and in the judiciary. This is one of the fundamentals of a democracy. The Government have been in power for a continuous run of 16 years and, again, for the last 12 years.

This is bad for democracy and people outside should remember that to safeguard this democracy, to safeguard this House, to safeguard the institutions of this country they will have to have a change of Government. They will be offered an alternative Government and, in their own interests, in order to prevent situations like this recurring, they should make certain that they change the Government.

I believe the only way we can ever hope to bring in our fellow countrymen in the North of Ireland is by the example we show them of living in peace with our neighbours, whether they are Catholic or Protestant, rich or poor, old or young. We must all live together; we must all work together for the good of one another and for the good of Ireland. With examples like that I feel we can become a 32-county Ireland, an Ireland which will be held in respect, an Ireland which will be able to look to the world with dignity as a complete unit. I believe this can happen if we make the most of our democratic institutions.

I would like, speaking on this motion, to refer to the resignation which has caused one of the vacancies in the Cabinet. On the 5th of this month at 4 o'clock the Taoiseach stated:

Deputy Michael Moran yesterday tendered his resignation to me as a member of the Government.

Yesterday morning we heard Deputy Boland in this House contradict this statement. We heard him say that this resignation had been called for. The Taoiseach denied this when Deputy M. P. Murphy of the Labour Party asked: "Was the resignation asked for?" The Taoiseach in reply said: "The resignation was tendered." This is at Vol. 246, column 519, of the Official Report for Tuesday 5th May, 1970. This is the first appearance of a crack in Fianna Fáil and it is the first appearance of a crack in the Taoiseach. At column 519 Deputy Cosgrave asked the Taoiseach: "Can the Taoiseach say if this is the only ministerial resignation we can expect?" and the Taoiseach replied: "I do not know what the Deputy is referring to."

We heard this ten times before. Have you all got a prepared script?

You will hear it many times.

Deputy Cosgrave then asked: "Is it only the tip of the iceberg?" The Taoiseach, quite innocently asked: "Would the Deputy like to enlarge on what he has in mind?" He then assured us all he was in complete control of whatever situation might arise.

We have heard that before.

I know it is very hard for the Minister to stay awake but he should not do it by interruption.

Deputy Byrne should be allowed to make his speech.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

The Taoiseach asked Deputy Cosgrave to enlarge on what he had in mind and enlarge he did. At eight o'clock that night Deputy Cosgrave went to see the Taoiseach and approximately within an hour of leaving him the Taoiseach had sacked two high-ranking Ministers and had the resignation of a third high-ranking Minister. The Taoiseach had got to take those steps because of the allegation and the prima facie case which he said he had that those Ministers were involved in unlawfully importing arms.

Is it in order for the Deputy to read out something like this?

The Minister is interrupting to keep himself awake.

Deputy Dr. Byrne is entitled to refer to his notes.

He is reading out a prepared script. I would suspect it is Deputy Garret FitzGerald's.

This was not the end for quite soon afterwards we had the resignation of a Parliamentary Secretary. In the meantime, since we started to debate this motion, further cracks and crevices have appeared in the Fianna Fáil Party. An Army captain has alleged that the then Minister for Defence was involved in some way in this subversive activity and has stated to the press that he informed Deputy J. Gibbons of all his activities. When will this resignation come? When will it be handed in? Will it be handed in like Deputy Moran's resignation was handed in? What can we believe from what is being said over there? It is in black and white in the Official Report of the 5th of this month, it is contradicted on the 6th and now again on the 8th we have further contradictions. This is coming from supposedly reputable people on the far side of the House and coming from the Taoiseach. Yet the Taoiseach still accepts the support of people he does not think are of high enough calibre at present to be members of his Cabinet.

The Taoiseach has kept those people in his party and he has kept them on his back benches, where they are paid their ex-Cabinet Ministers' pensions and also their salaries as Deputies. They are still being paid by the taxpayers even though they are not good enough, even though they are so bad they had to be sacked. The Taoiseach insists that he remain in office, and that his Government remain, with the votes of those men and their associates in the Fianna Fáil Party. The money for the guns was meant to come from the taxpayers' money. We witnessed Deputy Blaney yesterday in the House making——

Has the Deputy any evidence? That is a serious charge.

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

The Minister was asleep all night. Will he whist now?

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Deputy Blaney went around the country, following the events of last August, making speeches promoting the use of force, purporting to support the use of force for solving the problems in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach at one time in his life was a sportsman and distinguished himself on the playing field. I can remember in 1967 when James Dillon, the previous leader of our party, was on a television programme, a self-portrait, and he was asked what advice he would give to young people who were going to enter politics. He said: "Beware of entering politics lest your soul shall be damned". I feel this would now apply to the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach has allowed his soul to become damned in this matter. The Taoiseach is ignoring the will of the people. He is bringing back on to the pitch players who have already been thrown off. He has no mandate from the people to do this. The Taoiseach is allowing the disqualified men to fight on. He has disqualified the boxer and he is now letting him back into the ring. He has given him a platform. The Taoiseach by his action in staying in power, with the support of the men he has kicked from his Cabinet, is kicking the Irish people when they are on the ground. I would like to know what action, if any, the Taoiseach would have taken had he thought nobody else in this House was aware of the activities of certain members of his Cabinet.

As late as four o'clock on 5th May the Taoiseach stated that he was in full control of the situation and was not expecting any more resignations. Yet at ten p.m. that night three Ministers had been removed from the Cabinet. Would these men still be in the Cabinet had the Taoiseach not been made aware that others knew what was happening? The Taoiseach has given top priority to loyalty to Fianna Fáil when he should be loyal to the country. He should go to the country and ask the people what they want him to do. Our leader, Deputy Cosgrave, is and always has been loyal to this country as was his father before him. He is the greatest statesman this country has and he has proved it by the way in which he has handled this delicate affair.

The Taoiseach as a sportsman knows that there comes a time in every fighter's career when he must lose. In my opinion the Taoiseach is no longer a sportsman, he is a bad loser. He will not go and seek his new mandate from the country, which is now essential in order to continue the democratic procedure necessary to maintain the institutions of this country. He should resign and call a general election. When he loses the election he should ensure that Fianna Fáil do not come back into the Opposition benches as they first came into this House in 1927. They should come in to present a formidable Opposition and thereby contribute to the good Government of the Fine Gael Party.

We must remember what has happened to the country under Fianna Fáil rule. In 1932 when Mr. W.T. Cosgrave handed over Government to Fianna Fáil he handed with it a loyal Army, a loyal Civil Service and a loyal Garda force——

Mr. J. Lenehan

It was more than you handed over; you had no money.

——all of whom were fully prepared to serve whatever Government was elected by the people. It was the insane economic measures adopted by Fianna Fáil which, in 1932, caused our exports to drop from £36 million to £18 million in 1938. This is something from which the country has never recovered. It was the time of the introduction of the dole and free beef and the small farmer never recovered his independence.

It is early in the morning to tell fairy stories. Tell us about loyalty to the British Army.

Do not get annoyed.

(Interruptions.)

What is Deputy Cosgrave going to get back from Fianna Fáil? He is going to get an Army demoralised by recent events and by maladministration in the past five years. He is going to get an Army which has been completly run down and whose Minister has been accused by one of the Army captains of being a participant in this plot to bring guns into the country.

Mr. J. Lenehan

We are well able for you.

So this is what Fianna Fáil are like early in the morning.

We will get a Navy without any ships which will be very convenient indeed for the smuggling of arms to this country. We are going to inherit an economy which is in a disastrous state. Let us look at the Army. The Taoiseach has appointed a Parliamentary Secretary to try to make some attempt to clear up the mess into which the Army has fallen. There is no confidence whatever in the administration of the armed forces. During the year I pointed out certain deficiencies that existed in the equipment available to the armed forces. They were supplied with 16 armoured cars and yet the shells supplied for these cars misfired two out of three times because they were mortar shells and the Army could not get the Government to purchase the proper shells. As a result the armoured cars are practically useless. I pointed out these defects last year and I said that the number of troops our Army can actually put into the field is less than 1,000——

Mr. J. Lenehan

Nobody needs you.

Do not be rattled by the sage from County Mayo. Make your case, we have plenty of time. There will be new incidents every hour during the day.

It is quite possible to allege that the Army, Air Force and Navy have been allowed to be run down deliberately. The morale of the Army is a its lowest ebb due to the bad housing and service conditions in which the troops find themselves at the moment. With the permission of the Taoiseach we have troops serving side-by-side with the British Army in Cyprus. If we are going to accept the position that the British are capable of keeping the peace in Cyprus, are we not going to accept that they are in a position to keep the peace in the North? If we do not accept that there is no point in having our troops in Cyprus. When the troubles started in the North of Ireland last August it appeared to me that we should have sent for these men and brought them back here. I do not know why they were not recalled.

I am in full sympathy with fellow republicans and I could understand the tremendous upset which occurred last August when people were being shot down and attacked in the Bogside. But, if anything was to be done about it as regards Army intervention, then was the time to do it and not now. The situation which exists in the North of Ireland now is completely different from what it was last August. There is now a completely different arrangement there. Our people were then attacked by the B Specials and by the extreme Protestants. Now the B Specials have gone and the extreme Protestants are kept away by the British Army regiments. The Catholics up there have some defence and are permitted to join the new Ulster Defence Regiment. It is either one thing or the other: either accept the British as a responsible peace-keeping force as we appear to do by our action in sending our troops out to keep the peace with them, or else do not accept them in Cyprus. However, it is a contradiction to say these men cannot be accepted as keeping the peace in the north while our Army serves with them in Cyprus.

Deputy Blaney made a heart-rending and inflammatory speech here. One has great sympathy with him because he holds his republican views very strongly but obviously the road to hell has been paved with good intentions. We all felt great sorrow and wanted to do something last August, but what could we do apart from diplomatic negotiations and what the Minister for External Affairs did at that time? It appears as if it was working out fairly well. Now we have brought on a position similar to that which existed here in the Thirties. We have now replaced the arch-Republican de Valera with Blaney in a small part, and in the north instead of Brookborough they have Paisley, once again in a minority, but even though a minority very dangerous to the lives of people both north and south of the Border.

I was speaking recently to an MP from Stormont who tells me that the activities of members of the Taoiseach's Cabinet of recent days has really polarised these extreme groups and has set back for many years the progress that had been made in the North of Ireland negotiations for reunification. The credibility gap between what the Taoiseach says and what is actually true appears to be increasing rather than decreasing.

It is easier to get guns into Ireland at the present time than it was a short time ago to get food and medicines into Biafra. I have no evidence of this but it appears that one of the small airports in Ireland has been used over the past six months by small aircraft for gun running from the Continent.

(Interruptions.)

Which airport?

There is a great lack of Fianna Fáil defenders in speeches but plenty of interrupters.

A Deputy

Which airport?

In Kerry. It is not a question of whether guns have come into this country but how many. Is the Taoiseach prepared to tell this House how many guns have come in here?

The position the Garda Síochána find themselves in at present is an unenviable one. They have just lost their Minister for Justice. It was reported he tendered his resignation but it appears the portfolio was taken from him. I spoke recently to a senior member of the Garda Síochána who had resigned and he pointed out to me that when he joined the force first they used to look round and say: "What more can we do for the building up of the State? What way can we help?" He resigned in disgust over political interference in the Garda Síochána. Many gardaí have gone to the stage where they realise what has been going on. They have had their ear to the ground and realise that while they may have had a little bit of proof it did not get very far. They have lost all confidence in the Government.

I wish to refer to Deputy Childers's appearance on television on Wednesday last. He said there was no split or division in Fianna Fáil. Yet Deputy Kevin Boland received tumultuous applause from the backbenchers in the Fianna Fáil Party following his statement in which he referred to the Taoiseach's dismissal of Deputy Moran and in which he referred to the Gestapo-like handling of the situation and the extreme surveillance which had been exercised by the Taoiseach over his Cabinet. It is very obvious that not only is there a split but quite a big crack and it is only a matter of hours before this crack widens. Deputy Childers referred to the magnificence of the Fianna Fáil Party and the fact that it could purge itself and how tragic it was it had not purged itself more often in the past. I agree with him on the second part of his statement that it was a pity it had not been purged more often. However, would the Taoiseach have carried out the purge this time but for the fact that he was aware other people knew of the allegations which had been made? This is the biggest point in this whole matter of the resignations. Would these men still be in the Cabinet but for the fact that the Taoiseach was made aware of the situation approximately six hours after he had stated in this House on three separate occasions that there was nothing whatsoever to be worried about, that he did not know what Deputy Cosgrave was referring to, that he had complete control over whatever situation might arise? This is the biggest credibility gap that could possibly have occurred, that within six hours of his making this statement three Ministers should go from his Cabinet.

What purge has the Taoiseach carried out? He is still sitting over there. His party is still attempting to run the country. The members he has thrown out of his Cabinet for subversive activities are still members of his party and are supporting him to keep him and his party on that side of the House. I would expect them to resign from the House.

There will be a new Taoiseach. That is the next move— the week-end move.

Is this an honest approach?

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy in possession.

The credibility gap which Fianna Fáil has presented to the country over the past number of years has been increasing of recent years and there is now a fantasic credibility gap. We on this side of the House just do not know what to believe. We do not know when we are being told the truth.

That feeling is shared by the other side as well.

It appears as if the attitude is to put the Fianna Fáil Party before everything else, to put forward this cloak of unity, to put forward the Fianna Fáil Party before the people, before the welfare of the State. This is not honest. Anyone who is labelled with the tag "honest" for supporting this or initiating it is certainly not being honest with himself. We have known for some time the open declarations made by Fianna Fáil that political jobbery is a necessary evil. We know why Fianna Fáil are in power, why they are over there. It is not because of their policies on economic expansion, of education or external affairs. It is because of the fact that so many people—I know many of them— are receiving certain special attention in their different walks of life. It is obviously an open policy with Fianna Fáil. It is not a policy that deserves any credit. It is one thing to do it; it is another thing to come out and say you are doing it. It shows the contempt they have for the Irish people.

I remember recently in the Dublin South-West by-election being outside a church when a Fianna Fáil man was speaking and his contribution was that the great advantage of having the Fianna Fáil candidate elected was that he would be able to get the Minister to do whatever one requested him to do, whereas the other fellow would not.

(Interruptions.)

Can Fianna Fáil, in all honesty, claim to be the government of the people at the present time? Do they feel that the people have any confidence left in their party to govern the country? Can they really say in all honesty that now or at any stage they have been a government of the people? In the 1965 election they had 500,000 votes against approximately 600,000 and in the 1970 election they had approximately 600,000 against a combined 700,000 for the Opposition parties. Yet, the Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, will say that he represents the majority of the people and he does not.

Is the Deputy talking in favour of the straight vote now?

The Taoiseach is sitting over there because of gerrymandering, misrepresentation and personation.

(Interruptions.)

There is a Deputy addressing the House.

The Fianna Fáil Party are not giving government by the people or for the people. Down the years that party have shown that it is for themselves and their supporters. The distress which has been evident over a period has now come to a head. The one ting that the Fianna Fáil Party can say about themselves as regards integration with the Unionist Government in the North is that they can gerrymander, misrepresent and personate every bit as well as the North of Ireland and that is what has them over there but they will not be there again.

We should like to know how the Fianna Fáil Government in 1965 could by some wave of a magic wand open up all the mental hospitals in Ireland and allow the patients out to vote and yet deny the vote to the 18 years olds, the people that they have recruited for the Army, who pay taxes to the Exchequer. They will not even consider giving them the vote because of some fear for survival. They will not spread the voting. We in Fine Gael have called for this. It is a progressive step. We fully support this and would like to see this change made in the Constitution. Our 18 year olds have gone to the Congo and Cyprus. Some of them have died in Cyprus. They should certainly have some say in the running of the country. This has been denied them because of the intense will and desire of Fianna Fáil to hold on to what they have. I do not think that Fianna Fáil particularly want to hold on to what they have now because they certainly have not very much. It is safe to say that the country is not left very much at present. This country is the laughing stock of the world. The eyes of many countries are centred on this Parliament. We are the laughing stock of Europe. How can we negotiate for membership of the European Economic Community when members of our own Government have been sacked because the Taoiseach felt he had sufficient information to indicate that they were participating in importing arms into this country for alleged use against the forces of authority in the North of Ireland? What kind of reputation are we going to bring in with us? What kind of heritage are Fianna Fáil going to hand over to Fine Gael when we take over government in a very short time?

It is quite clear that there is now grave doubt as to whether the Taoiseach would have taken any action were it not for the fact that he was made aware that other people had authoritative information on this whole matter. There is a possibility that these gun-running activities would still be going on and would have been covered up were it not for the fact that other people saw fit to raise this very serious matter. Possibly there were two investigations carried out by the Taoiseach, one to discover how much had gone wrong and another to discover if it could be covered up and how much others knew. You cannot have it both ways. The situation blew up and Fianna Fáil can count themselves extremely fortunate that the leader of the Fine Gael Party——

[Interruptions.]

The Chair has repeatedly said that it will not tolerate interruptions. The Chair's job is being made very difficult by this constant spate of interruptions.

There was no effort on the part of our Leader to gain any political kudos whatsoever from this.

A lot of hypocrites.

On a point of order. Is it in order for Deputy Andrews to refer to the Leader of the Fine Gael Party as a hypocrite?

I did not use the word "hypocrite". I used the word "hypocrites".

Is it in order for Deputy Andrews to refer to the members of other political parties as hypocrites?

A Deputy

On a point of order. Is it in order for Deputy Harte to speak from the passageway?

That is not a point of order.

We are prepared to take over and govern this country. Why will the Taoiseach not go to the country? Because he is afraid. We have had the recent commemoration of the 1916 patriots. It is rather bizarre to find them also commemorated in these monstrosities up in Ballymun. The blocks are named after the 1916 patriots. All these monstrosities have done is to foment hatred in the people living in Ballymun. They are called after patriots who should be revered by some proper monument, not by these monstrosities. I cannot see how a competent Minister could have sanctioned the building of these hideous flats. We know now, of course, that he was not attending to his job. The people who are living in Ballymun are utterly dissatisfied; it is called "Blaney Heights".

We, in Fine Gael, are quite prepared to take over the running of this country. It was our party founded the State and built up the economy of the State. Very little improvement has been made since Fianna Fáil took over in 1932. In fact, the country was driven close to bankruptcy, with exports dropping from £36 million to £18 million inside five years. The country is still trying to recover from that misguided economic policy. Part of that policy was alleged to be getting rid of the British landlords. What do we find today? We find the foreign-based development combines coming in here buying up our land. The landlords we got rid of in 1932 are now coming back in droves, taking over all the prime development sites and charging fantastic rents, mainly to Government Departments, and vast quantities of money are leaving the country.

This party has the tradition behind it of having handed over in 1932 to Fianna Fáil a country with a healthy economy. We will get back very little from Fianna Fáil. There can be no doubt about the integrity of this party or the reason why Fine Gael want to get into office; they want to rectify some of the grave social evils which have grown under the Fianna Fáil administration. We have the necessary endurance and honesty.

We have heard very little about the cache of ammunition found under one of Dublin's canal bridges some time ago. I never saw any further mention of the large cache of machine guns found in the North Brunswick Street area in 1967. All these things together give rise to suspicion. But there is no need for suspicion: we know what is happening now. How long has it gone on? How many men are armed? Is the present system of administration safe?

When we were in government we set up State boards and companies and if the Government had representation on them we ensured it was minority representation, the exact opposite of what Fianna Fáil do. They load their members on to such concerns. This was very much apparent when the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, was setting up the agricultural board.

Either the Tánaiste or the Taoiseach, I think, said that the only party capable of administering law and order was Fianna Fáil. What law and order have we? We have numerous bank raids, armed bank raids in daylight. We had a series of farmers' marches and sit-downs in Dublin. We have the cement strike at present and anybody who visits my constituency will be sure to see a very large protest walk because they are continually walking for some injustice or other. It might help Deputy Burke to join these walkers; he might shed a little weight. These people were driven into the gallery here one day on Deputy Burke's invitation. They kicked up a row and had to be removed. I believe it was the first time in 35 years that this happened.

Was the Deputy responsible for them?

It was Deputy Burke who issued the invitation.

Deputy Burke will show in the next election how well he represents his area.

I am sure he will. It is not my area. Even though it appears that Ballymun town should be in one constituency it is divided among three. Charlie has a slice. P.J.'s parish goes into it and Deputy Tunney has part.

(Interruptions.)

We have three common grounds for unity in Ireland of which two are open. These possibilities should be pursued at all costs. Our basic common unity is that of the playing field. This was demonstrated quite recently when the Irish rugby team played Wales and everybody, north or south of the Border, declared themselves to be Irish. We should encourage sports organisations that do not recognise the Border. Also, at heart every Irishman is a politician and interest in the formation of a common Government or the introduction of a federal system could be promoted.

If members of the Fianna Fáil Party had any self-respect to begin with or have any now left and if the Taoiseach retained any degree of honesty he would immediately go to the country. Because of the lack of confidence all over the country in the Government there is no alternative. The Taoiseach must be aware of this. He makes us suspicious of his motives in political life. We wonder whether he is here to rule for the welfare of his fellow countrymen or for his own welfare. It appears that he is prepared to hold on to power at all costs and swallow any principles he may have had. The events of the past few days leave this very dubious.

Putting a name of two words over 74 or 75 individuals does not necessarily mean they will all pull the same way. We are aware of the big division and difference of ideals existing in the Fianna Fáil Party from the grass roots up to the top and of the disillusionment felt by the rank and file at the last Ard-Fheis. Many of them questioned the validity of the words "Republican Party" appearing on their membership cards. Fianna Fáil cannot go on because, despite their shortcomings there are men in its ranks who are honest and will, perhaps, insist on going to the country for the great mandate they say they have from the people. I know they have not got it at present. They know in their hearts that they have not got it.

They can best be called an imposter Government, a party of imposters. To have any right to sit in government after the events of the past few days, after dragging the country through the mud and making it the laughing stock of the western world, they should go back to seek a mandate from the people.

I had not intended to speak but I have gone through Purgatory listening to seven consecutive Fine Gael speakers and from each one we had a eulogy of the Leader. I do not object to that because I think their Leader is held in high esteem by most of us at least on this side of the House. Listening to the eulogies, I recalled the statement a few months ago by Deputy Ryan when he prophesied that the Leader would be knifed in 1971.

All the prepared scripts given to members of Fine Gael—although I am told the previous speaker did not take a prepared script and, having listened to him, I am inclined to believe that— stressed the responsibility shown by that party, and especially by their Leader, in handling this matter. It was stressed so much that one came to the conclusion that responsibility was not the Fine Gael Party's strongest point and that on this rare occasion they acted responsibly. They certainly never stopped preaching about it.

I listened to practically every speaker. I do not think the motion to appoint the three new members of the Government was mentioned by two of them. They went on their very hypocritical way and shed many crocodile tears about the state of the country and the economy in general. All the time they used this to blacken the Fianna Fáil Party as much as possible.

They blackened it themselves.

This party have not been blackened in any way. I have not been here for a long time but, during the years I have been here, I have heard Fine Gael and Labour speakers prophesying: "You will go the next time." There was one doctor who was not a member of the Labour Party, strange as that seems, a man called Dr. Coue. He believed in auto suggestion. The idea was that you kept saying: "We will win, we will win, we will win." In that way you convinced yourself you would win. If he were alive today I am sure he would join the Labour Party. This foolish notion that they are serving democracy by their attacks here, when all the time they are just helping to damage the democratic fabric of this State——

We are waiting for the next resignations.

Deputy Moore is in possession.

Deputy Byrne knows, just as Deputy O'Leary and other Deputies know, that the last thing the Opposition want is an election.

That is not true. We will take you on tomorrow morning.

I personally wish that the Taoiseach would decide on that.

Why not say that to him.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Moore is in possession.

The other night when the Fianna Fáil meeting was about to start, some people over there were very worried in case anything would happen at that meeting which might precipitate an election. If you want to attack us, attack us honestly. If you want to criticise us we do not mind, but at least do it honestly. Deputy Byrne gave us all the old clichés. He talked about the credibility gap, but that was not the worst one he used. He talked about the 10,000 homeless families in Dublin. There are not even 10,000 applications for houses or dwellings in the city.

There is no problem.

The Minister was so busy with other affairs that he would not even prepare a list.

The Taoiseach dealt with the whole matter in his speech. Fine Gael speakers said that he would not have acted if their leader had not got this anonymous letter.

We said he might not.

I want to ask Deputy Cosgrave will he let me see the document from which he read the other night.

Why should he?

Why should he not? He mentioned it in the House.

[Interruptions.]

Deputy Cosgrave gave the impression that he was speaking from an official document sent to him by some anonymous scribe.

He knows who it came from.

That is something else. Perhaps he would disclose to the House who sent it, if he knows.

Why should he?

That is only fair. We want to honour this man. This man, acting in a public spirit, sent a letter to Deputy Cosgrave. I am sure he will get the plaudits of the country for his great act.

We know the plaudits he would get from the Deputy's party.

We cannot do this unless we know his name.

[Interruptions.]

Was Deputy Lenehan not a member of the Blue Shirts when this happened?

Mr. J. Lenehan

I was not. You were not born at that time. You would not be taken into the Blue Shirts as bad as they were.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I was not.

Yes you were.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I swear on my oath that I was not.

Yes you were.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I was not. You were in the Four Courts and you were executing people.

I am recognising another Blue Shirt.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I was never a Blue Shirt.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I was bad enough but I was never a Blue Shirt in my life.

The Chair is loathe to deprive any Deputy of his opportunity of voting on this motion but, if the Chair is not permitted to conduct the debate or attempt to conduct it, the Chair will ask Deputies to leave the House for the day. The Chair is loathe to do this but he is getting no co-operation. He has repeatedly asked for the co-operation of Deputies and he is not getting it. I will ask Deputies to remember that.

A common strain running through the Fine Gael speeches since yesterday morning was the fact that Fianna Fáil were too long in power. They never seem to remember who put the Fianna Fáil Party into power, the people, at every election in 40 years with the exception of two. There is no hope for the Fine Gael Party that the people will make a decision in their favour in the future so the point out of which they are trying to make capital, this incident or the appointment of these Ministers, will not gain them one more vote. They and the Labour Party and ourselves are classed as the Establishment. They are part of the Establishment so they are just injuring the democratic set-up and gaining no kudos for themselves. The two parties might approach this whole matter in a more constructive way.

We had an exhibition from some members of the Labour and Fine Gael parties which would have done credit to the late Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin. I have never seen anything like the witch hunt that went on here. I saw absolute hate on the faces of Fine Gael speakers when they spoke. There was no charity. I am not asking the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party to pull their punches when criticising the Government. Let them hit the party but let them not try to bring down democracy also.

This debate has gone on now since 10.30 yesterday morning. Perhaps a better description would be an inquisition rather than a debate. They attributed all kinds of base motives to the Ministers who resigned. Indeed, at about 3 or 4 o'clock this morning a Fine Gael speaker suggested that this had been done for money. I do not know how low some speakers can go. I would ask them to remember that they are members of the national Parliament and to try to maintain some tone and dignity. When the Nazis brought down the German democratic Government they did it just by ridiculing it. After that it was easy.

The Taoiseach has handled the matter with great ability. The men who resigned conducted themselves with great nobility. The Fianna Fáil Party, from the Taoiseach to the newest backbencher, acted with dignity and responsibility in trying to meet this problem. Every Government in the world has and always will have problems. The Government are here to solve these problems. I have no doubt that the Ministers designate will be appointed and that the Fianna Fáil Government will again carry this nation forward, as it has been doing in every year of office.

One of the most maligned men here is the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Charles J. Haughey. He is the man who, in every Budget, gave some extra help to the less well off of our people, to the maimed and the handicapped. Indeed, I got a letter from the Garda Síochána Pension Association; other Deputies may have got such a letter also. It read as follows:

Please convey our thanks to the Minister for Finance

—who was then Deputy Haughey—

At last we have a Minister for Finance of integrity and ability who saw that these ex-public servants did receive an increase in their pension.

That happened only this year. I am not a physical force man, although I do not rule it out at times. The men who resigned have paid a great price. They have shown they did not just measure politics by the amount of money they got from it. Therefore, let us approach the matter in all charity and try to see the problem as it should be seen. To attempt to make cheap capital out of the present crisis is despicable.

I feel that this episode will be seen in its true perspective after a lapse of time. I feel that then we will understand. There is the old proverb "To know all is to forgive all".

Is that from some lament?

On a tombstone.

During the night, Deputy Enright quoted some line from a poem which he said was written by Patrick Pearse. In fact, it was not Pearse who wrote that poem.

Pearse was a Fianna Fáil man.

He would have been. All the best people are in Fianna Fáil.

That is my point.

Each Member of this House, whether on the Government or on the Opposition Benches, has a duty to approach this whole matter with the sense of responsibility it deserves. I do not intend to deal with the subject in the way some of the Deputies opposite have. An awful lot of harm is done by ridiculous talk about Partition. We, on this side of the House, were not responsible for it. I am not going to go back to civil war days or to the Government of Ireland Act. We have now to face the problem that is with us.

That is a sensible, practical outlook.

We must do whatever we can to remove it——

Gun running.

We shall not do it by emotional speeches. The people in the north have suffered for almost 50 years. Therefore, our approach towards the problem should be one of responsibility. If we cannot say anything that will help, then I think we should withhold our comment. I do not claim to have done anything heroic for the north during the last row up there. Perhaps if we paid more attention to the problem, we would come to the solution. It cannot be an easy one. However, I think our national Parliament must give the lead, and that is a matter for all the parties in it. We have an opportunity in this debate to show that Parliament is relevant. Some of the contributions would suggest that some people here think it is not relevant. Bear in mind a former Deputy of this House, Deputy James Dillon, be it said to his credit, always stressed here the importance of Parliament. One of the best speeches I heard from him before he left this House was one in which he mentioned trouble in Europe and here. It was a most responsible contribution. I do not want to think that, with the departure of Deputy Dillon, the Fine Gael Party is now less responsible. However, some of the Fine Gael speeches tonight were absolutely irresponsible. I am told the leading Member prepared scripts for some of the speakers. I would not give such scripts to my worst enemy.

I trust that my short contribution will help. My plea is for a more reasonable attitude to the problem facing the country at the moment. It is the primary duty of the Government to lead and to govern. Democracy will not work unless all the parts in the democratic machine are working, too.

We are to believe that there is no problem in the Fianna Fáil Party on the matter of unity and that yesterday's events were a sort of bad dream. I have never seen so many of them appearing so fit as they appear after the events of the past few days. I can understand the condemned man in the cell having a false gaiety on the morning of his execution. The gaiety of Fianna Fáil today is of that nature. The attitude is that these events were thought up by television, newspapers, the communications media who have always been against Fianna Fáil and that Fianna Fáil will fiddle away.

We have even had calls for charity. It is a long time since I heard that in this House. It is a welcome and a reasonable approach. We even had Fianna Fáil Deputies asking that there be no witch hunting. They quoted the manuscripts of Senator McCarthy. The kind of unity Fianna Fáil would ask us to accept as existing in their party at present is the kind of unity we have seen in the disputes between the various parts of the various communist parties in Eastern Europe. It is a peculiar analogy in relation to Fianna Fáil in its present crisis. There is unanimity and votes of confidence, but the true position is exposed in this House. All the elements of a Greek tragedy appear in this particular case.

I suppose there is a kind of poetic justice, too, in the fact that Parliament is discussing this national crisis. How often have we had the example in previous years of some of the Ministers who are now no longer in office, as well as other prominent spokesmen of Fianna Fáil, giving important national information at various functions of outside bodies throughout the country? At least we can now say that, during the past 48 hours, this Parliament has reasserted its place as the national forum of debate.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

There may be people who will say that this debate shows ragged edges and repetition but let us not fool ourselves because this debate is being closely followed by every man and woman in the country. A national debate is in process and this parliament is in full session exploring and questioning. The people are in touch with every new development in this crisis. There are new developments. There was a new development when Captain Kelly made a statement in relation to his working for the Minister for Defence. Had the House adjourned yesterday evening that statement would not now be part of the discussion. There may be some fresh developments during this day. The impression that most speakers have got is that we have not yet reached the bottom of this plot.

Some Fianna Fáil people will have us understand that all this is merely a matter of suspicion on the part of the Taoiseach. We had this explanation of the Taoiseach's conduct enunciated by the Minister for External Affairs during a television interview last night. The Minister said that if the Taoiseach had any suspicion of any member of his Cabinet, that member could be got rid of immediately. I am at a loss to understand how the suspicion which resulted in a call for the resignation of two members of the Government cannot now alight on the head of the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons. There appears to be a highly selective principle at work in the manner in which the Taoiseach's suspicions fall on different members of the Cabinet. I can understand the sense of grievance of those members of the Cabinet who have lost their portfolios. I have seen a look of impatience on the faces of the new men whom the Taoiseach has proposed that we appoint. Their seals of office are awaiting them in the Park but there has been a delay and they must endure this interminable talk. With all due respect to them, other matters detain us for the moment and before these new members can go to the Park certain matters must be cleared up. One can understand the feelings of the proposed Minister for Local Government who expressed himself in a vigorous interview yesterday evening, his fair locks blowing, when he said that he is anxious to get down to the challenge of his job.

None of us have any special desire to keep this House in all night session. We do not like the uncomfortable arrangements of the House but because of the importance of the subject matter of this particular debate which is not being held for the sake of argument but because the democratic institution of this State has been undermined in a way in which it has never been undermined before in the State's history. My principal charge is that if there is any guilty man in this Cabinet, it is the Taoiseach. He is the person who, in reality, is in the dock and not any member of his Cabinet. He is the man who must answer the questions that have been raised during the debate. On Wednesday night we saw the two sides to the Taoiseach. During his opening statement we had a contrite Taoiseach under obvious physical strain, explaining his very carefully prepared case and the reasons for his delay in approaching those members of his Cabinet whom he suspected of being involved in this plot. At the end of the debate we saw the other side to the Taoiseach: we saw the Taoiseach looking at the clock and blaming the shortage of time for his failure to explain and answer adequately the questions raised during the debate.

I do not know whether the Taoiseach is mentally prepared to brazen out the questions raised during this debate or whether in reply to the valid questions raised he will repeat his subterfuge of the other night and again, looking at the clock, refuse to answer questions. It would be most unwise for him to take such a course because the questions that have been raised are not ones that can be blown away. They are too serious for that and too many people are interested in hearing the replies. I would say to any young member of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party that he should use all the influence he can to persuade the Taoiseach to answer the questions because the worries and the puzzlement of the people will not be assuaged by evading these questions.

I say the Taoiseach is the guilty man because he states that until about a fortnight ago he knew nothing of this plot but a report in yesterday's edition of The Guardian suggested that the British Secret Service were in possession of facts in relation to the importation of arms into this country by illegal organisations as far back as seven months ago. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility—in fact it is very probable—that if this were the case, the British Secret Service must have been in touch with whatever security there is in the State as far back as last autumn.

The Taoiseach must have been aware of gathering rumour in relation to this matter. No facts have been given to us which would connect the ex-Ministers with any such previous attempts but what is clear is that if the Taoiseach considered his information to be such that they must be relieved of their portfolios, these ex-Ministers must have a long acquaintance with organisations involved in such importation. If the Taoiseach makes the point that he did not know the scope and extent of such associations and that he did not know until recently of his Ministers' collusion in such activities, he is incompetent and if, as I suspect, the Taoiseach had reason for suspicion some months ago we are left with the other conclusion, that he acted as a politician putting his leadership of the party above all other considerations. He is a Taoiseach who is obviously, throughout this debate, avoiding the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility, one that has always been adhered to in this State by every Cabinet.

From very early in the Taoiseach's public life his style of politics—if one could call it a style—has been a style of declared integrity. No politician in the last 20 years has made his honesty more his trade mark—his integrity, his political honour being the thing that set him apart. In any problem affecting his leadership of this Government, of this House, his concern has always been to prove that his hands were clean, cleaner than anybody else's. That, I submit, has been his one concern throughout this particular event.

I concurred with the general public opinion of the Taoiseach—that he was a decent, honourable man. The general election of 1969 changed my opinion of the Taoiseach. He then used the high place he enjoyed in public opinion to traduce members of my party in scurrilous fashion. He misrepresented and told lies about our policy. He said we wanted to rob money from the banks. He alleged from his high position, suggested, insinuated that we were not what we purported ourselves and our policies to be. The question could be asked: what do the convents of Ireland think of the Taoiseach now? I submit that he has been in top training in the longest and best-prepared Presidential campaign in the history of this State. I would like to say this to the children's Cabinet, to the young men he has now gathered around him: do not be certain that your turn will not come. He ditched abler men than any of you. He ditched Charlie Haughey. Do not be too certain that your phones will not be tapped. We have the word of Deputy Boland that he has a super-branch of the secret service reporting to him personally. Keep your secret thoughts to yourself because we have also the word of the sacked Ministers that he trusts no man in his Cabinet, that his manner is to tap their telephones, eavesdrop on their conversations, trusting none of them. We know also about his background. It is well known. I do not attack any man's background in this House save when it blends with a matter of public policy. We know and Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney know that he knew nothing about the older traditions of the Fianna Fáil Party. He had no tradition in the Fianna Fáil Party. He has shown in Government, in his style of Government, that he will not act on major problems facing the nation. His style, in fact, is non-action, taking no decision. His concern at all times is to preserve an impregnable alibi for himself—no action on the Devlin Report, no action on the plans for the decentralisation of Ministries, no action on university restructuring, no action on the grave issue of incomes, no action on the planning of industrial growth areas —all questions affecting one's standing with the public—and, gravest of all in this debate, no action on devising a policy of unity.

He was, if you remember, the reluctant Taoiseach. He did not want the office. All the newspapers knew he did not want the office. He smoked his pipe; he was in no hurry; he had no ambition. The strange thing is that all his opponents of that time, with the exception of Deputy Colley, are now vanquished, lost, gone out of public life in their role as Ministers. They are still Members of this Parliament but they have lost all official might in that particular party. I said "with the exception of Deputy Colley" and maybe his turn to be pushed will come soon also.

Now since the Taoiseach, in my analysis of the situation, is the man in the dock the way he acts or the way he does not act and the reasons why he does not act, his background, the way he looks, his motivation, is relevant to this debate and as I see it the style of non-action on his part is a snare devised by him to trap any rival in that party. My advice to the new members of this Cabinet is: if you wish to remain on in this Cabinet do not be photographed too often, do not become too popular. I think of his manner yesterday when he was explaining why he did not contact these erring Ministers sooner. He was contrite and he explained how his suspicions gathered force. His sterling honesty was proven in the way in which he gave us date and time. I noticed how shaken he was, how much he rested his case on the health condition of Deputy Haughey. He was so worried, he told us, in case Deputy Haughey's health would be impaired and naturally he, being a considerate Taoiseach, did not wish to impair the health of Deputy Haughey so he did not put these questions to him at that time. We all applauded that decent streak in the Taoiseach. Then in his concluding remark he attempted to trap the Opposition into interruption, attempted to get away on inessentials, attempted to evade the questions raised.

It is fair to say that his sole concern throughout these terrible events has been to maintain his own personal popularity while he plots his own route to the Park. Every decision this Government will take in its remaining days will be subservient to that need of the Taoiseach for permanent popularity at all costs—sedulous fostering of that image of being everyone's uncle. He will play for public sympathy at the expense of decision. He will attempt to nurture something he nurtured before now—that public sentiment which will say: "Poor Jack, surrounded by all those rough thugs—Blaney, Boland and Haughey". Where are these formidable men now? No longer Ministers. Poor Jack is still the Taoiseach. In fact he shares a deeper guilt than any of those sacked Ministers because he trapped them, executed them for offending against a policy which allowed for private reservations about the use of force in the north whilst publicly talking peace. That has been the dilemma of Fianna Fáil policy, privately talking war, in public pursuing the ways of peace.

When those Ministers made their first public utterances advocating force in certain unspecified circumstances the Taoiseach in this House defended them saying that this was Fianna Fáil policy also. No wonder they must now feel indignant and outraged. He has done no work, felt no obligation to develop this policy of his on unity. It has been easy for him to suggest that the Fianna Fáil Party are united behind a policy which, in fact, has not been worked out. He has referred vaguely to a federal solution but in answer to questions earlier this year he said no appreciable work had been done on that as yet. He dispatched Deputy Hillery to the United Nations last year on what turned out to be a fool's errand.

I saw one of the new Ministers, Deputy Gerry Collins, on television. He kept repeating with touching faith that the people trusted the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch. They did to some extent but it is now the duty of every Member of the House to look again at the Taoiseach, to question him closely on those events, and to demand the answers to those questions and not be fobbed off.

The new Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries to be must swear their loyalty to the Taoiseach. He evidently likes that. It is true they would not have won the last election but for the high regard he was held in by the people. He did not win that election in any manly fashion. In it he played on fear and he played on the genuine religious beliefs of the majority of our people suggesting that somehow we here in this party were anti-God. You may say that political argument is selective but I believe the manner in which he conducted that argument was unmanly and a genuine clue to the Taoiseach's character in the way he talks down his enemies, in the way he gets what, in fact, he wants.

I would say, therefore, that the concept of collective Cabinet responsibility is broken in the manner in which Ministers have been sacked and Ministers have been punished. Further punishment may be in store for them but I would say the man who is in reality in the dock, the real culprit in this situation, is the Taoiseach because he refused to develop a policy on the north. When those Ministers came out in public utterances advocating force he suggested that, in fact, was Fianna Fáil policy also. When he saw the signs earlier on of ministerial difference with what he claims to be his policy now he did not correct them and he did not check them. Instead, obviously, all along his deliberate plan appears to have been to execute those men at the first available opportunity. I am not defending the mistakes which those men have made but I consider the guilt of the Taoiseach is far greater.

The Fianna Fáil policy on unity has been a confidence trick from the very start. We had the theatricals of last August; we had that famous television address of the Taoiseach. In diplomatic language to talk of sending troops, even in ambulances, to the Border was a diplomatic way of drawing the sword. We have referred before to this ambivalence in the policy, peace in public, war in private. It is extraordinary when you think of the way this policy has faltered between those two extremes without being resolved in any direction.

We had the long north-south talks which went on under Seán Lemass, the former Taoiseach. The basis on which those talks went on was that areas of contention were to be avoided. In 1967 in this House I spoke about the need for seeking a price for the continuation of those talks because at that time we had the beginning of a general civil rights movement on that side of the Border. At least, during this period when Seán Lemass was Taoiseach that party over there spoke through one man on this problem of unity and relations with the north. This, of course, is also the de Valera tradition. One man, the Taoiseach, spoke on this particular problem, this national issue. It is only under the present Taoiseach that we have had a deliberate confusion of voices on the north.

It may be that other Ministers have been involved in anti-Fianna Fáil policy, as the Taoiseach understands it, on the northern question. It may be that the Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Dr. Hillery, may have made those mistakes against the party in his meetings with the various groups from the Six County area. It may be that Deputy Dr. Hillery has at various times spoken in two voices to them, repeating the same permitted mistakes. Before this affair comes to a conclusion it may be that the Taoiseach's suspicion will rest on the Minister for External Affairs.

Under his "Taoiseach-ship" he has wilfully permitted confusion on the northern question. Like so many other things he hoped the problem would go away, would disappear, no hard decisions would be taken on it and everybody would be allowed to say his piece. When discrepencies and divisions were pointed out to him in this House he denied any such divisions existed. I do not know what the background to the bargain was that made him Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party originally, whether the bargain made when he became leader was that this freedom would be permitted within his party. I do not know, but it is a freedom which he certainly has profited by because he has been able to trap his enemies, to trap his rivals, when they offended this non-existent policy, which he never developed.

Of course, the Fianna Fáil preoccupation in regard to the northern question has been to present a view that would prove popular in the Twenty-Six Counties. This has been the over-riding factor in all Fianna Fáil approaches to this question. When declaring their sincerity in regard to achieving unity they have in practice been interested merely in winning seats in this part of the island, in maintaining their control over this part of the island, fanning secret hopes of force and publicly protesting their pursuit of peace. This particular two-way approach, this devious manner of dealing with this important national question meant that they, in fact, for party political purposes continued in this dishonest way to defend and perpetuate their own political fortunes on this side of the Border.

In fact, I would surmise that the secret confidential advice of all Fianna Fáil Ministers or spokesmen to northern exponents of a physical force solution has been to offer hope of help. Their attitude has been "trust us and wait". We saw some of the spokesmen of the northern groups in Dublin yesterday evening, and there may be more in the next few days, giving their versions of interviews with various Ministers in the last few months. How many Ministers have offended the policy of peace towards the north in these interviews? Dr. Hillery may say that he never met these groups except with the permission of the Taoiseach. However, there may be others who met these groups and who legitimately, as they understood Fianna Fáil policy, offered them solace in their hour of need. Without specifying the circumstances, they certainly fanned their secret hopes that help would be available in large measure from this side of the Border.

The fact that there was no Fianna Fáil policy on the north explains the fear of having a full-scale discussion in this House on the many occasions we asked for such discussion. In the area under his control in the 26 Counties there has been a reluctance on the part of the Taoiseach to reform the laws which were ridiculed and criticised by so many people desiring unity in the north. We had his reluctance to change our Constitution in the areas that northern spokesmen criticised.

His fear of vested interests in the 26 Counties showed his lack of sincerity on this question. We could have gone ahead with plans to reform the area under our control to make this part of the country less objectionable to certain people in the north but there was a failure to act. There was reluctance to have a Dáil debate last summer and we had to wait until October. The Taoiseach indicated his fear was that the Dáil might lead the nation astray. In the event, it was a mature debate and some of us thought it would be a major influence on informing and educating public opinion on this side of the Border to the realities of the northern situation.

As our spokesmen have made clear, the Taoiseach's fear was that divisions in his own ranks would be exposed. The Taoiseach did not refer to the northern question at great length in his final speech before Christmas. It is good that this Parliament is the centre of this national discussion today. It is poetic justice that the Taoiseach and his Ministers who have often attempted to bypass this Parliament have come home here to explain these great issues of State to the elected Members of this House.

After Christmas last year the Taoiseach gave an interview to Mike Burns. During that season Deputy Blaney had made a speech in Letterkenny on the Northern Ireland question at a gathering commemorating his 21 years in Parliament. I afterwards described it as a meeting of the Letterkenny Parliament. The press spoke about the firmness of the Taoiseach; there was a much publicised firm discussion with Deputy Blaney and in this radio interview the Taoiseach amplified the nature of the discussion. He said: "I had a firm chat with Deputy Blaney." Deputy Blaney was on the same programme and when the Taoiseach had said this, Deputy Blaney replied that it had been "the shortest firm chat on record" as he claimed it had taken place on the gangway at Question Time. According to Deputy Blaney the Taoiseach said to him: "Do you agree with official Fianna Fáil policy?" Deputy Blaney replied: "Yes" and that was the end of the matter.

The problem of Fianna Fáil policy on unity is that one did not exist. Publically there was a commitment to a peaceful solution and in private there was this secret conviction that force could be used in certain circumstances. Many other members, apart from the deposed Ministers, may have been guilty of offending this peculiar policy of Fianna Fáil of which only the Taoiseach had the correct interpretation. All the Ministers accepted the policy because there was no policy; the Taoiseach alone knew the secret interpretation of this policy. He allowed these Ministers to advocate force and at this stage when they have now gone over the brink they can feel aggrieved that the Taoiseach did not correct them.

On television yesterday evening John Hume remarked that a policy of reconciliation or unity had not been worked out by this Government. This is a sensitive matter for members of the Fianna Fáil Party because they boasted that they alone understood the national question. That party above all other parties saw its role as being one of bringing about unity. However, the party is now exposed as one without any policy and Ministers are sacked because they have offended against a non-existent policy. The Taoiseach deliberately allowed them to make mistakes and now that those Ministers have gone over the brink he has punished them.

The fact that Fianna Fáil have got away with this double thinking and paucity of policy is due to the nature of the party and their Ard-Fheis. How often have we seen the Ard-Fheis at long weekends, behatted and begloved, the great ones gathering, the rural cumainn meeting together in happy congress for the weekend, the pragmatic party——

We held only one Ard-Fheis at the weekend.

Oh, yes. You abridged your discussions last year in imitation of ourselves——

It is for the same length of time but not at the weekend.

That is right. You met in more leisurely days at midweek. At the Ard-Fheis there was no policy discussion; members seemingly talked about anything they liked. Various Ministers got up at different points and made speeches. The nature of the Fianna Fáil Party seemingly is one in which the Cabinet executive wield all control. The Ard-Fheis boils down to being a public relations exercise——

There is a clár from different cumainn around the country.

There is no obligation on anyone to take action?

If passed by the Ard-Fheis, the Government act on it.

Through the National Executive.

We will probably have time at the Vote of No Confidence next week to go into that matter. However, I have a good idea if I examined your clár for ten years back I would find matters on which no action has been taken.

What about the socialist Republic?

We will come to that. At least we honestly attempt to promulgate what we think our policy is to our members. There are many divisions and disagreements on the content of that policy. We see here the terrible penalty of being purely a pragmatic party, a "Party of Reality". Here we have Ministers punished for voting against a policy that nobody understands save the Taoiseach. This is the essence of their tragedy. Their Ministers meeting northern groups tell them they can hope for force to be used. They honestly believe that to be an aspect of Fianna Fáil policy. I heard one of the northern groups saying on television last night he understood this to be the upshot of a conversation he had with the Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Dr. Hillery. However, we shall hear more from other northern groups in the weeks ahead.

There are many similarities between Fianna Fáil and the Unionists. They share the same confusion between country and party. They share the same intolerance of any opposition. Just as the Unionists consider their loyalty to be beyond reproach Fianna Fáil consider their patriotism beyond reproach.

Let us get down to the problem of Deputy Blaney in particular. Enough attention has been given to these former Ministers, and I would prefer to see this debate concentrate on the position of the Taoiseach. However, Deputy Blaney said he thought his resignation might cause a further explosion and that was his reason for not resigning. He did not specify the explosion, whether it would be in Montrose or Belfast. Deputy Blaney made a sincere speech, according to his lights. It did not contain any reasoning that I could see in the heart of it but there was certainly emotion. What I could not understand is how he could square this emotion and his memories of childhood horror at the hands of Free Staters and other villains with the co-operation and the happy relationship which exists between the Fianna Fáil Party and the Unionist groups on Donegal County Council.

There is no Unionist group on Donegal County Council.

I know the name they call themselves now.

They do not call themselves anything.

And very convenient that they do not.

There are only two, and one belongs to the Fine Gael Party and the other to the Fianna Fáil Party, and there is one Independent. There is no Unionist group by any name.

Not by name. A very happy relationship exists all round the Border areas at county council level with the Fianna Fáil Party.

The Deputy is caught out. There is no Unionist group in the Donegal County Council.

I am not caught out. The only thing one could say about Deputy Blaney is that his political growth appears to have been arrested. Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien referred to people's feelings on this matter of unity being based on childhood experience, people who in adult life had not considered this problem afresh, and this apparently is Deputy Blaney's position. Let us recall Deputy Blaney's activities in recent times. In the northern elections he called on nationally-minded people to vote, in effect, Nationalist.

What did he say?

In effect, to vote Nationalist.

Those are the Deputy's words.

Let the Deputy look up his actual words.

The Deputy is making the case, not I.

He has shown by his advice in that area that he does not understand the development of politics there. In fact, his advice in his speeches at different times has interrupted very hopeful development in that area. He has delayed a Catholic and Protestant meeting ground politically in that northern area. His speeches have from time to time been criticised by the leaders of the movement in that part of the country. His remarks have been unhelpful to the civil rights movement at critical stages, and he has been attacked at various times by their leaders.

Who are their leaders now?

I was astonished during this debate at the number of interjections in lieu of speeches from Fianna Fáil Deputies. Their problem is that their alibi is so shattered that the Taoiseach cannot trust any of them to make an extended speech.

(Interruptions.)

If Deputy Lenehan does not cease interrupting I shall ask him to leave the House.

Who has been Deputy Blaney's adviser on the northern question? None other than Mr. Eddie McAteer. True to form yesterday he spoke out in defence of Deputy Blaney. Mr. McAteer is the man who advised the civil rights movement to be satisfied with half a loaf instead of a full loaf. He is the one that criticised the march that ended in Burntollet. The function of the Nationalist Party was to be the creature of Fianna Fáil. I suppose the relationship between the Nationalist Party and Fianna Fáil can be compared to the relationship of the satellite communist countries to Big Brother in Moscow, obedient to directions from Dublin at all times. Of course, it has gone the way of all political flesh. When it does not live up to the problems of its own area, it is no more. One of Deputy Blaney's mistakes on the northern question was that he was listening to politicians who no longer represented anything vital in the northern part of the country. I recall on several occasions here criticising the content of the speeches he made, pointing out that they posed a danger of having a divisive effect on the growing unity of the civil rights movement. I was howled down by Deputies in those benches who had no understanding of the complexities of the northern question. The Taoiseach attacked what he called the scurrilous charges and stood over the loyalty of his Ministers who were fully committed to his policy and whom he has now sacked.

Our recognition has been that the diverse traditions in that area must be welded together in a unity of the common people. I recall speaking last year at Carrickmore on the final rally election platform of Bernadette Devlin and telling the people there-and it was not a popular thing to say in Carrickmore—that they need expect no help from the south. I thought that the honest advice to give them. I said their only salvation lay in seeking and working for co-operation with Protestant working people in their areas and I said that the difficulties before them were as formidable as that job, in fact, was.

Similarly, as Deputy Dr. Browne here has made clear, when events in that area had finally taken a bad turn last August, when we visited Derry, a visit which was sneered at by Deputy Blaney as being something for the television cameras—there were things more dangerous than television cameras on the weekend we were in Derry—we met the defence committee, these young people, and gave them the honest although unpopular advice that they need not expect any help in the form of Irish troops coming across the Border. We pointed out to them something they already agreed themselves, that slaughter would follow in Belfast if there was any such intervention in Derry and we recognised the seriousness of the Belfast situation. We found it difficult to give such advice. They referred to the television address by the Taoiseach and obviously they expected some help in the form of force as indicated by the Taoiseach.

It is obvious that like Deputy Boland, Deputy Blaney shares total distrust of the intentions of the British Government but we accept, as people who understand the problem in that area, that the British Government in present circumstances has a continuing role in pressing reform in that area because the kernel of our difference with you is that we accept there are Irish men and women in that part of our country who do not as yet desire unity. We accept that and we accept that one million or more of them do not wish to join us in any kind of unity apart from Britain.

The ominous thing in the statements of both Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland is their concept that their fellow countrymen in the North of Ireland are Catholics. We reject that definition of our countrymen in the North of Ireland. So, it is clear when they talk about "our people" that they mean simply the Catholics. This is seemingly their sole concern.

First, look at the record of this Wilson Government. They have abolished the B Specials, changed them out of all recognition. Wilson's phasing away pledge has been fulfilled there. Major reforms are on the way. If this British Labour Government is returned, as now seems likely, is there one member opposite who will deny that a major initiative on the Irish question will be the next step of this Government? Here is the first British Administration in half a century which has by sad experience learned something of this problem and yet Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland see this argument in simple racial English/Irish enmity. Let us all agree on the main thing.

The members of the British Labour Party in the Council of Europe do not subscribe to that.

To your statement that if the British Government was elected again——

The Deputy is talking about his friends the Tories.

I am not. I am talking about the members of the Labour Party. I met them.

They do not agree that the Wilson Government will continue reforms in the area?

Not entirely.

I do not know what members the Deputy was speaking to. It is his right to state his understanding of the matter but we have had consultation in more official quarters. I am sure the Deputy is talking about the Tories. We accept, however, that the British have a continuing role in the present situation. We do not like the British being there, naturally, Certainly, we do not like them being there but they happen to be there and we accept, of course, that British imperialism is at bottom the enemy. British imperialism is as much the enemy of the English people as it is of ourselves and it is not confined to the Six County area. It is all around us down here and both Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland have aided and abetted the spread of British imperialism down here in years past. I recall these republicans of one-eyed vision talking about this northern question. I recall that they worked for the implementation of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement which, of course, puts the final flourish of reconquest on this part of the country by British cheque books. I recall John Taylor in this House. Some Deputies will remember John Taylor, a man who has displayed his own reactionary nature even from the time of the O'Neill administration. He was in this House on that night and he said to me after all you republicans had trotted into the lobby there without as much as a thought. Not a question was raised on your side, because your Cabinet said it was a good bargain, it was necessary. The Ministers whom the Taoiseach has now sacked, who now proclaim themselves to be republicans, signed that agreement and John Taylor said that a leather medal should be struck for Seán Lemass that night, that he had finished the problem for them, this adventure of independence had ended that night. That was John Taylor's conclusion as to the political effects of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement.

A Deputy

Do you accept his conclusion?

I accept the validity of that conclusion, yes.

Do you accept the validity of the person who made it?

Sometimes the devil speaks truth.

As long as you recognise that.

We must examine statements on their merits. Constantly, every day, I read the Deputies' speeches and have to make the same decision. We accept the British Government has a continuing role in the area. We accept that the area has not the will to reform from within, has not got the community resources to reform from within. There is no cohesion there. Connolly, the founder of this party, saw many years ago with great clarity that if there was division in this country there would follow this political reaction on either side of the Border.

In fact, no political movement has suffered more than ourselves as a result of this division in our country. No party would have greater benefit in its political fortunes following on unification. We do suffer politically as a result of this division. Working people, common people on both sides suffer as a result of this division and the conclusion must follow that Fianna Fáil over the years have indulged in baby talk, infantile formulations, on this grave problem.

There was the de Valera formulation of an all-Ireland plebiscite. That was your alibi for a number of years. Of course, the all-Ireland plebiscite could hardly arise until the great reconciliation had been arrived at. It practically assumed the job of reconciliation had been completed. Then, for years, your sincerity on this northern question, from far back, has been questioned. There was the whole matter of the 1937 Constitution, scarcely a Constitution that would appeal to people of different traditions in the other part of the island. Always your temptation has been to put the Partition issue simply as English versus Irish, ignoring the complicating factor of loyalty which many Irish people in that part of our country had for the British connection. The British imperialism about which Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney talked yesterday is a far more complex thing than they realise. It exists in the 26 Counties as well as in the Six Counties.

It was interesting to hear Deputy Boland's comment on the murder of Garda Fallon. Deputy Boland was indignant, justifiably, about his telephone being tapped and he spoke out strongly about the Taoiseach's secret political police. The suggestion has been made throughout this debate that the delay in bringing the murderers of Garda Fallon to justice was connected with recent events. The Taoiseach described the suggestion as a most heinous and slanderous one and denied it vigorously.

Deputy Boland suggested yesterday, however, that he, a former member of the Cabinet, was not satisfied with the tardy pace of the investigations. His reason, which I do not accept, was that he saw this delay in apprehending these murderers as being a device by the Special Branch to extend their own influence. Frankly, I do not follow this reasoning, but it is remarkable that a Minister in the Cabinet should himself declare his disquiet.

Deputy Boland is not a member of the Cabinet.

He was a member. The Minister for Justice is only 24 hours old as a Minister and he should not be pontificating on the Cabinet position.

I am not pontificating. I am correcting something that is wrong.

Stop pontificating. More able men than the new Minister for Justice have fallen down from their thrones. I will not withdraw my admiration for Deputy Charles J. Haughey as a brilliant and able administrator. I did not agree with his politics, but he had my admiration in the areas I have mentioned. The Taoiseach yesterday sought a certain credit for soft-heartedness in that he did not speak to Deputy Haughey when he was ill; but Deputy Haughey was also a victim of this double think on the part of the Taoiseach and on the part of Fianna Fáil policy on the northern question. We do not have the details of Deputy Haughey's involvement, but I think it is fair to say that the Taoiseach must have known all along the real feelings of these men, his close advisers and his able lieutenants. He allowed them to develop these feelings and he set the trap into which he allowed them to walk. It was a principle of Machiavelli that one got rid of one's most able rivals. The Taoiseach marked down his opponents within the Party, refused to clarify his views on the north, and executed his colleagues when they made a mistake. The Taoiseach has an immense reserve of cunning. He has knifed his most able supporters within the Cabinet.

John Hume spoke last night on this question. He said that the fundamental question was the achievement of unity on the part of the people. It is not a matter of territory but a matter of combining together all the people of this island. It is quite obvious that both Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney did not regard people like Albert MacElroy, a direct descendant of Armour of Ballymoney, as one of the acceptable people of this small island. They were concerned purely and simply with the Catholic population.

We seek an election now. That is the only way to settle the issues raised here in this debate. This Cabinet smells, and that is putting it mildly. The Taoiseach is suspect. This place now smells more rotten than Denmark smelled to Hamlet. The contagion going out from this Administration will affect all the institutions of State unless we cleanse this House and replace the administration. Originally, the Fianna Fáil Party were based on sincerity and radical policies, but always there has been this double approach to the problem of unity. Some of the Fianna Fáil Party believe in a solution based on violence. There are those who believe that the north can be beaten into a kind of submissive unity. With the help of our party Fianna Fáil attempted to create a state that would become a beacon of independence, both economically and culturally. Early on, however, Fianna Fáil shelved that objective. Its main supporters became obsessed with what turned out to be their main occupation: the accumulation of greasy pence. Membership of the party became the path to patronage and wealth. Still both city and rural workers believed, while the party was under the inspired leadership of Eamon de Valera, in the radicalism of its origins.

It is, however, true to say that the people are now beginning to understand fresh things about the Fianna Fáil Party. I would hope that the events of the last few days, so to speak, enlighten them to see more clearly this so-called "Party of Reality", show them what it has in fact become and lead them to see how bankrupt it is with regard to policy on this question of unity. I hope that events will show that, though Ministers have been sacked, they have been sacked unjustifiably, because the Taoiseach never spelled out his policy on peace where the north is concerned. These Ministers have done wrong. The Taoiseach believes they have gone over the brink in the matter of using force. But the accusation can be levelled at the Taoiseach that he never attempted to rationalise and formulate in clear terms what, in fact, Fianna Fáil Party policy was on the northern question. Whatever wrong they have done, these Ministers can plead ignorance of the grand design in the Taoiseach's own mind in regard to policy on the northern question.

These Ministers could always claim that they did not know. They thought they were acting for the best and in accordance with the Taoiseach's policy. Both sacked Ministers have said they still believe in the Fianna Fáil policy on unity. Yet both are sacked for offending against the policy to which they still believe they subscribe. They cannot see where they have gone wrong.

Fianna Fáil have attempted to thwart political development and the hopeful things that have occurred in recent years in the north. They have attacked Bernadette Devlin. At this very moment they are preparing, in company with the Nationalist Party, to defeat her in the coming general election by putting up a candidate against her to ensure that she cannot be returned. This is the plan and the co-operation that exists between Fianna Fáil and the Nationalist Party. What Fianna Fáil want in the north is a green Tory Party so as to have a docile party there which would suit them for their propaganda purposes on this side of the Border. I submit that the Fianna Fáil attitude has been to utilise the problems of the north and play to the passions of the south for their own political advantage. Perhaps Fianna Fáil are even now in that area in collusion with the provisional republicans against the constitutional republicans, because both Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland said that illegal organisations were no longer illegal when one crossed the Border.

Who is responsible for the Red element going up there?

The Ho-Chi Minh trail?

I do not know but I saw these people in Newry distributing leaflets from their headquarters here in O'Connell Street. Who sent them up there?

I do not know.

The Deputy should be able to tell us.

Does the Deputy think I have some superior knowledge of these groups?

I am only asking.

I have been making the point that Fianna Fáil have been thwarting developments in the north and preventing people of different religions from coming together.

Green elements. Who is sending the Red elements?

I have said that the Deputy's party, along with the Nationalist Party, is preparing to put up a candidate to defeat Bernadette Devlin in the coming election.

The lady who sneered at our flag.

Is the Deputy sneering at her?

I would sneer at anybody who would——

Deputies should abandon this question and answer session.

I do not know what Bernadette Devlin may have sneered at but she has lived in great peril of her life for many years. I would say it is a small offence to sneer at our flag, if this is true, after those years of peril. This young girl has probably put up with more physical peril than all the pseudo-republicans opposite.

I think she was sneering at people who waved flags as substitutes for thought, not at the flags themselves.

That seems more correct.

She sneered at the flag when she came out of the court in Derry.

We do not know. The Deputy should make a speech about his suspicions and we shall judge his evidence.

I shall do that.

We had Deputy Blaney practically weeping here at one part of his speech, quite sincerely, I think, as he looked over his family history. What was going through my mind was: how many people were forced to go abroad whose families also took part in the fight for freedom and who are not here to tell the tale about the sacrifices they made to win that freedom?

The really serious policy charge that can be levelled at these Republican posturings by Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney is that they neglected to understand the changing situation in the north. They were members of a Cabinet which, year after year, went up for conversations about the weather with Captain O'Neill and, year after year in this House, we warned them of the nature of the Unionist Party. I recall being called a Paisleyite by the other custom-built republican, Deputy Colley, now Minister for Finance. I remember saying that the price of their conversations with the Unionist Party should be some progress on reform in that area. I did not expect them to go up seeking unity, but at least they should raise the injustices people were enduring in that part of the country.

The extraordinary thing is that these latterday republicans, who rushed into speeches when these talks broke down, were silent throughout these years. If we dug up the files I am sure we would see many happy photographs of Deputy Boland with Mr. Craig or Deputy Blaney with other bigots. How do these Republicans explain the years of silence? Late in the day they began to make speeches and began to attempt to divide the movement in that part of the country. The doubt remains as to whether they were addressing themselves to Twenty-Six County prejudice so as to continue misconceptions in this part of the country about the northern problem and its solutions. They certainly had not done any mature thinking on that problem.

At another time I think one of these gentlemen attacked Gerry Fitt. They attacked people who were working hard in that complex situation. First, they met the Unionists; they sought no gains. The talks broke down and they returned to their Republican base with denunciations of the Border and so on.

It has been clear that since last August a policy of collusion between sections of Fianna Fáil and extremist groups in the north has been operating. This has been noted in articles published in the past year. This makes it more extraordinary that the Taoiseach should know nothing about these developments until a fortnight ago. This is quite incredible.

Yesterday The Guardian reported the fact that the British Secret Service was acquainted with these problems for many months back. The conclusion is that the Taoiseach is either incompetent or dishonest. In either case it is clear that he should do the decent thing and resign. The credit of Parliament and the power of a party depends on more than a majority vote. It is true that Fianna Fáil can hang on, that they have a majority. They can reassure themselves and say this morning: “There is no problem; we have a majority. It does not matter about public opinion.” This can be done; but it is my profound conviction that so much public disquiet has been caused, so many suspicions aroused in the past few days of this extraordinary sequence of events that the only honest thing to do is to face the people in an election. The leader of the Fianna Fáil Party will be further discredited, as the people explore more and more the implications of this squalid business, and more people are implicated.

The other night none of them came out to defend Charlie Haughey or the other Ministers. I have often seen them here when Deputy Haughey was Minister for Finance and they were happy if he looked in their direction, but the other night none of them were here to defend him. Over previous months, obviously many people in that party shared the opinions of these sacked Ministers. In fact, many of them may still have these feelings secretly wrapped up in this party unity of theirs, in which they can have these public disagreements, in which they can plot and in which they can go into the company of illegal organisations and still declare they are behind the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil policy.

Some speakers mentioned that nobody in the country accepts this unity. It does not matter what divisions they accuse their enemies of having because, from now on, they are a divided party in the public mind. The only honourable thing to do, since in my opinion the elements in that party who pin their hopes on a holocaust in the north later this year and whose political future depends on this occurring and who now stand to gain strength in that party, is to hold an election.

Do not tell me that this children's Cabinet will be any match for a party which allows Boland, Blaney and Haughey to roam amongst the party faithful around the country. These children may have the best intentions in the world. Deputy Molloy, the Minister designate for Local Government, said that he is looking forward to the challenge. Indeed, he may face a greater challenge than he thinks and it will not be confined to continuing the dedicated work of the building of more houses which he suggests was Deputy Boland's concern.

It is obvious, therefore, that if the Taoiseach is the statesman he proclaims himself to be, and is so concerned about the national interest, before this meeting gains any more strength within that divided party he should go to the country to prevent this contagion spreading. By pretending that this problem does not exist, by hoping that it will go away, matters become worse. As I said earlier, the whole style of the Taoiseach is to take no decision on anything, to take no action. This has been his style of politics and if he is true to form he will take no action on this matter.

When the debate concludes today he will give us no answers. He will look at the clock and blame Father Time for his lack of explanation. He will hope that someone in the Opposition will interrupt him so that he can get away with some trivial excuse. This matter is too serious. The problems and questions here in the past few days are too serious. If the Taoiseach has integrity, if he wants to live up to the opinion of him of the ordinary man-in-the-street as Honest Jack, there is only one honest thing to do at this stage and that is to hold an election.

Some of us may have a shrewd idea that others may be in trouble in the election but that is common to all politicians. However, Fianna Fáil may win. In that case they have nothing to fear but, at this critical hour, they must get a renewed mandate from the people because in their midst there are people who have other policies on the north. To stop their pernicious influence spreading the Taoiseach must cancel their support within the party and go to the people for a renewal of his mandate.

Obviously we need a new Administration here with a policy grounded on true experience of the problems of the north. Quite obviously this Administration have been too cowardly to develop a policy. They have developed no policy on unity. Over the past months since August last, when we were given ample warning of the explosive possibilities of the situation, the conduct of the Taoiseach has proved that he does not intend to develop a policy. Therefore, since they have not got the resolution within their party to take any national leadership on this problem, the most disastrous thing for them to do would be to continue with the subterfuge that all is well within the party, to continue until we reach the middle of this summer with this divided party, with certain former Ministers openly backing different militant groups in the north. In that serious situation, should they continue in power, they will put the lives and liberties of every man and woman in this country in peril.

No matter what any Government Deputy says in this House this country is facing a crisis. There is no good in the Taoiseach trying to get the headlines in the national papers and claiming that there is no crisis. We are facing the most serious crisis. The attempted illegal importation of arms into this country by members of the Fianna Fáil Government will never be forgotten by the people. The man who must bear the responsibility for not taking firmer action is the Taoiseach, the so-called Honest Jack Lynch. It is fair to say that the British papers are unanimous in their view that arms have been imported into the Republic of Ireland over the past few months. How much arms, we do not know. Where they are, we do not know. What they were intended for, we do not know.

I should like to quote from the Irish Times of 8th May in which it is stated:

In London last night, Scotland Yard Special Branch, MI.5 and MI.6 were said to have infiltrated and destroyed an international plot to smuggle arms to Ireland. The report said that investigations started seven months ago and that the Special Branch intelligence officers had made investigations in Belgium, Austria, Switzerland as well as the Republic, Northern Ireland and Britain.

It is folly for anyone to say that this was going on and the Taoiseach or the Government did not know about it. I believe they did know about it and that they did absolutely nothing to stop it. As has been repeated time and again during the past 24 hours, the Government must go to the country because they are a dishonest Government containing people who, according to the Taoiseach, and I quote from volume 246, column 642, of the Official Report:

On Monday, 20th April, and Tuesday, 21st April, the security forces of this country at my disposal brought me information about an alleged attempt to unlawfully import arms from the continent. Prima facie, these reports involve two Members of the Government.

It now transpires that more members of the Government are involved. The statement issued by Captain James Kelly heightens the crisis in no small way. He has stated that the Minister for Defence, Deputy J. Gibbons, was in some way knowledgeable about the whole affair. The Taoiseach stated he did not want any slight association with anything treacherous concerning any of his Ministers. Yet, in the motion before us, we continue with the appointment of the Minister for Defence in another capacity. We do not know where this treacherous plot will end. It is only leading us and the people to a greater suspicion that the whole truth is not being told, that some information is being suppressed somewhere.

The people and this Parliament are entitled to know what in God's name is happening to our country. Such information apparently is not forthcoming. It would seem that the existence of the Fianna Fáil Party in Government is more important than the integrity of government in Ireland: let Jack Lynch lead on. He is leading us to anarchy. He is leading us into a banana republic situation. The Fianna Fáil Party does not seem to care so long as they are in power. The people will not forget the so-called unanimous vote of the Fianna Fáil Party the other night. Whatever shipments of these arms have got inside the country, and the consignments that were stopped, were apparently intended for an illegal organisation. What use was this illegal organisation——

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Were these arms going to be used for——

The courts must not have started yet. Did Deputy O'Higgins have a good sleep?

I did not have a sleep at all.

It is important to know the uses for which these arms were intended either outside or within the Republic. For instance, some of them might be used in the robbing of banks or in the North of Ireland where they could jeopardise the lives of ordinary people. There is a crisis in the Fianna Fáil Party whether they like it or not. There are two wings in the Fianna Fáil Party. There is the gun element and the gun type of Republicanism, which is not defined by anyone, and there is the old, non-gun element. I noticed that a few Fianna Fáil speakers who had the guts to speak in this debate were playing to their constituents. On the one hand they backed the Taoiseach but on the other hand the passive, radical elements wanted arms up in the north. That is that. I suppose they have to please everyone in their constituencies.

We, in Fine Gael, are unanimous that no force should be used by the Government of the Republic in Northern Ireland. Apparently that is also the policy of the Taoiseach but it is not the policy of everyone in Fianna Fáil. You still cannot settle down to ordinary parliamentary Government: you must have the guns again. If you ever bring in guns again, we in Fine Gael will do as the Cumann na nGaedheal Government did when we established this country: we will take guns out of politics again.

(Interruptions.)

The Chair warns Deputies that the patience of the Chair is nearly exhausted with interruptions like this. Furthermore the Deputy who is speaking will please address his remarks to the Chair and not to Members across the floor of the House which is provoking these interruptions.

It is important to note the reaction of people abroad and the possible effect on our country. Our tourist industry must suffer and will suffer because of developments that have taken place this week. This is a most unfortunate state of affairs and nothing that can be said can change it. This year our tourist earnings will decline radically. Consequently, this country could be faced with a serious crisis in its balance of payments.

The Deputy has no evidence to substantiate that statement.

How long will the patience of the Chair tolerate interruptions from the Government side of the House?

Sit down.

When I am finished I shall sit down. I am asking the Chair how long it will put up with rude, ignorant interruptions from the Fianna Fáil Party while Deputy E. Collins is making an intelligent speech?

They were interrupting over there all night long when Deputy O. J. Flanagan was not present.

Are you defying the Chair just as you are defying everything else?

The Chair repeats the warning given several times during the night It may be necessary for order that the Chair may have to ask Deputies to leave this Chamber. In that event the Deputies would be deprived of their voting rights today. The Chair is loath to do anything like that and therefore seeks the co-operation of all Deputies in the keeping of order to the end of the debate.

If the Chair would put three or four out one would hear a pin drop in this House.

The Chair appeals to everybody on all sides of the House to co-operate.

That the tourist industry will suffer because of the present crisis is common knowledge, unfortunately. I would like to refer, also, to the Budget that was introduced a short time ago. This Budget was a most irresponsible piece of budgetary thinking. While we welcome the increases in social welfare which the Budget contained we must point to the incipient inflation that is taking place at this point of time and say that these increases were necessary if only to maintain the purchasing power of the people concerned. However, that Budget did not deal with the important economic problems facing the country. Practically every official report published by the Central Bank and by research institutes points to a very serious balance of payments position during this year.

Hear, hear.

I suppose the Government had more important matters on their minds but the country should come first. We are faced with an autumn Budget which, in my opinion, will be the severest ever to be introduced here.

The Chair has no wish to interrupt Deputies in this matter but they will understand that the Budget is still available for discussion before the House but must not be discussed on this particular motion.

That is, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if the House is available for discussion of the Budget.

I merely refer to it in passing in order to emphasise the lack of interest of the Government in the affairs of State which affect the lives of so many people. We listened to a most contradictory speech from the former Minister for Local Government who, only yesterday morning, made the headlines in the Irish Independent because of his revelations of phone tapping and Gestapo-like surveillance of the Taoiseach. How could that same man sit behind the Taoiseach and vote for him? I cannot see the logic of all this. It does not add up. Perhaps the hunger and thirst for power is more important than the welfare of the country.

We also heard the speech of Deputy Blaney. I accept that he had a Republican upbringing, that he is entitled to his sentiments in that regard as he is entitled to be a member of Fianna Fáil, but there are as many Republicans and patriots in Fine Gael as there are in Fianna Fáil so I do not think that has any bearing whatsoever on the current crisis with which we must deal separately, namely, the illegal importation of arms. This is a serious offence. It is probably a treasonable offence and it does not matter under what guise the attempt to import these arms was made.

While the Taoiseach had prima facie evidence in relation to the plot I cannot understand how he, the so-called Honest Jack Lynch, could accept the vote here on Wednesday night of Deputy Blaney. If someone did behind my back what Deputy Blaney has done to the Taoiseach I would not accept his vote. It is also interesting to note that when Deputy Blaney came into the House on Wednesday and sat behind the Taoiseach's back there were quite a few handshakes for him and there was a fair bit of applause after he had made his speech. This only heightens the division within Fianna Fáil. I do not believe that the former Ministers will be happy sitting on the back benches and voting for Jack Lynch. They are much too hungry for power and will seek power in whatever way they can.

Other speakers have said that there is a drift in this country towards anarchy. If there is such a drift it is being aided by Fianna Fáil. The Garda force have been demoralised because of the failure to track down the murderer of Garda Fallon. Many cases have been cited here against various Ministers of what can only amount to corrupt practices or sharp practices at the very least. All of these incidents are aiding the drift towards anarchy. The people of this country have no desire for a situation in which gun power would be the order of the day. I say that the only decent thing for the Taoiseach to do is to go to the Park and hand in his resignation so that the people can make their own judgement on this crisis. The people should have their say about this conspiracy. The result of that would be a massive swing away from the Government because people are not prepared to trust such a Government. Too much has been proven against them. This Government is a dishonest Government and must get out for the sake of the country. The sooner they do that the better.

I do not mind admitting, Sir, that it is with considerable reluctance I take part in this debate. It is a sad occasion for our country. I have a personal reason for my reluctance and that is because of the admiration I felt for the Taoiseach when I first heard of the action he had taken in this matter. However, it was a very different matter when I heard the Taoiseach's opening statement in this House. It was thin to an astounding degree and his speech at the conclusion of the debate on Deputy O'Malley's appointment as Minister for Justice was even more astonishing. Let me take one example: Deputy Keating had asked logical questions and many Members of the House, not associated with the Labour Party, felt that he had put his finger on a number of points that were difficult to answer. The Taoiseach showed extreme irritation when replying to him.

Similarly, in relation to the Limerick letters which I had seen first two months ago and of which subsequently numerous copies were around the House, photostat copies and otherwise. The Taoiseach's explanation just did not hold water. Above all what upset me about the Taoiseach's reply to that person, who is supposed not to exist, though the Taoiseach replied five or six days later and he had all the resources of the State to find out whether the person existed or not, was the extreme language in the final sentence of the Taoiseach's reply that whatever had happened had taken place under insupportable provocation. I have high regard for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries and I do not think under any circumstances should Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries—and indeed this has been the tradition of the House—ever get themselves into positions in which they would suffer insupportable provocation, in other words provocation that they could not stand up to. This is the person whom we now have as the Minister for Justice—of all portfolios in the Government—this young man who could not stand up to whatever remark was made to him, presumably. I do not know what it was because we have not been told. The Taoiseach's letter was all right up to the final sentence. The final sentence in my opinion was to use his own word, insupportable, or unpardonable. I do not remember exactly which word he used.

On a point of order, I should like to point out to the Deputy with no disrespect that this letter was proven to be a frame-up and a readyup——

Not the Taoiseach's letter.

The address of the original letter was proven not to exist or, alternatively, nobody lived at the actual address from whence the letter came. I think it is only fair to say that this was a frame-up.

On a point of order, is it not right that the Taoiseach stated he had investigated this case and had shown that the facts were as stated?

These points are not points of order.

The point I want to make is that the final sentence of the Taoiseach's letter to me was not the kind of sentence the Taoiseach should write. If the matter was of no significance, as he suggested in the first part of his letter, why did he say what he did say in the final sentence? This is some months ago. If it happened in the middle of this serious crisis I would have said the Taoiseach had very serious matters on his mind and got irritated and added this sentence. I would say no more. But it has not been disposed of to the satisfaction of any reasonable person. It is not for me to sit in judgment on the Taoiseach but as a public representative on a serious occasion like this, even though I do so with great reluctance, I must contribute to this debate. I feel it is incumbent on me to give an honest opinion and I have attempted to form an honest opinion about events that have taken place.

We have had in this country a long tradition that politicians did not become wealthy. This was an excellent tradition. Unfortunately, in recent years, even if they have achieved it most honourably, a number of Ministers, while they were Ministers, have become wealthy. This has never happened before in this country and it is a matter of the utmost seriousness from the point of view of our status. One member of the Government—I am not saying he is the only one—has certainly come out of this with an enhanced reputation. That is Deputy Colley, who spoke some time ago about low standards in high places. An attempt was made at that time to suggest that he was not relating to his colleagues. I do not think anybody accepted that he was referring to anybody else but his colleagues. Where were the high places if they were not among his own colleagues? Unfortunately I did not hear Deputy Blaney's speech but I was here for Deputy Boland's speech and I had considerable sympathy with Deputy Boland in the way he spoke. If a man is fit to be a member of the Government his phone should not be tapped.

Hear, hear.

I was aware at one stage some years ago, and I made an official protest to the then head of the post office, that my 'phone was being tapped. Not alone that, but when we had our convention for the Labour Party in Dublin South-West in March, 1967, the Special Branch squad car was parked in the lane near the hall where we were having our function. What for? What were we supposed to be doing? It was a perfectly straight, above-board, political convention. What was it doing there? What has happened? Since I came back to this House nine months ago I have found that the security arrangements here are extreme to the point of being grossly irritating and objectionable from any decent person's point of view. It is only eight years since I was a Member of the House for a long period and the whole thing has changed. It may be that Deputies here have not noticed it but I have noticed it. I was here for a long period and I say this in all sincerity. This is so to a degree that irritates me extremely and indeed I am afraid I have shown that irritation at times. There are security arrangements around here. Why are they here? Why has this change occurred? Obviously there must have been some feeling somewhere some years ago that it was necessary to indulge in these extreme protective measures, the kind of measures that presumably were here during the Civil War.

I was not in the House when Deputy Blaney concluded his speech but I was informed by a responsible Member of the Seanad that when he concluded he was applauded by 17 members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

That is right.

This does not hang together for rational people. Two young Deputies spoke this morning. One of them who happens to be a relative of my own, even though a distant relative, Deputy Meaney. He was subjected to interruptions, including, I regret to say, an interruption by myself. I admire those young men who come in to defend their party, but it is no use depending on young men alone. I do not notice the shrewd old operators in the Fianna Fáil Party getting up to defend the Taoiseach. Deputy J. O'Leary also got up to defend the Taoiseach and his Party. One thing he said was that the Fianna Fáil Party were the only party capable of running the country. Many men of my age will remember what happened under the Nazi system. Many of the present generation know what happens in communist countries where the people there are of the opinion that it is only the communists who are capable of running the country.

The other evening we had the extraordinary spectacle of groups of Deputies walking around Leinster Lawn during the afternoon, meeting at 6 o'clock and all coming away from the meeting an hour later saying they were unanimously supporting the Taoiseach. Could it be that the Taoiseach said to them: "Unless you support me I am going to the country". Could that have been what happened? That is a fair and reasonable question to ask. Could it also be that they all said: "We had better toe the line"? Perhaps some of them felt a bit more uncomfortable after following that line.

Any suggestion that the importation of arms into this part of the country under an official cloak will help to reunify the country is really tragic. However, it could easily result not just in civil war in Northern Ireland but in civil war in the Republic of Ireland. We certainly have seen in recent months men who were apparently able to act with impunity and rob banks. We have not had that kind of thing for a long time, but now it is almost a common occurrence.

We have every reason to object to the kind of smear campaign which was engaged in last year during the election. I must say that was not done in my constituency but it was in the neighbouring constituency. The performance of one man in that constituency was appalling, but yet he got 2½ times as many votes as another man who was associated with him, but who did not engage in the smear campaign. That shows the extent of this kind of thing. We in the Labour Party have every right to stand up in this House and speak about this matter.

Deputy Murphy yesterday afternoon made a very serious point in his speech. He said those arms originally came from Czechoslovakia. The serious point he made was not that they were bought in any particular place but that there was a communist government in that country. We all know that the communist government there at present is very different from that of Mr. Dubcek. The point made by Deputy Murphy was that you could not really buy a pencil in that country without being checked on; yet this is the country from which those ten ton of guns were bought.

A former member of the Defence Forces who was retired, not dismissed, made a savage attack on the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, now the Minister for Agriculture designate. In this country the Ministry of Agriculture is regarded as a more superior Ministry than that of Defence. I had the highest esteem for Deputy Hilliard when he was Minister for Defence, but that is not to say that there is not a certain understanding about the ranking of Ministers.

Deputy Gibbons's name was originally mentioned in this matter, but then it disappeared from it. I am not making any allegations one way or the other but it certainly is most disturbing to think that the name of the Minister for Defence should be linked with this smuggling of guns. There is no doubt about it, whether or not you accept the story of the former Captain Kelly, he was operating closely with the Minister for Defence.

That is not what he was charged for.

Does the Deputy understand how very serious this matter is? There is no doubt about it that what Captain Kelly said yesterday was extremely slanderous. We are not living in cuckoo-land.

The Deputy should read his statement carefully.

I did not read it carefully. In the last few days I have not seen television or listened to the radio. I have been relying on the newspapers and I have not been able to read this statement carefully.

The Taoiseach said that not the slightest suspicion should attach to the Minister.

I am told that Telefís Éireann refused to publish the statement of the former Captain Kelly, that it was accepted by the BBC and then Telefís Éireann broadcast it. This is most extraordinary. I have said in recent times that we were rapidly becoming a banana republic in this country. The countries of South America will soon be able to say: "What can one expect from a turf country". If I might strike a light note on a serious matter, the word "turf" means two different things in this country and, therefore, it would apply on the double here. This country is fast becoming a happy hunting ground in recent years for all kinds of international chancers——

You have a few on the benches over there.

On these benches? At any rate let me say that they have not lined their pockets out of the Exchequer yet.

You have.

Order. Deputy O'Donovan must be allowed to continue his speech.

Deputy John O'Leary told us that Fianna Fáil were the republican party. We all remember the long period during which the term "republican party" was put in brackets under the Fianna Fáil Party. However, they never made this country a republic whereas the man who became Taoiseach in the despised anti-republican Fine Gael Party made this country a republic. When a certain day was declared republic day Fianna Fáil deliberately boycotted it. I well remember that my neighbour and myself both put out flags because we considered it an important day in the life of this State. It took the gun out of politics for a considerable period in this country.

I am of the opinion that any political party is greater than any individual in it and I go further and say that the country is greater than any political party. However, there is a great deal of evidence that Fianna Fáil have persuaded themselves that they are the country. If they want evidence on this point, as a party they got 45 per cent of the votes cast in last year's election. They are here by accident——

On behalf of what percentage of the population is the Deputy speaking?

A much greater percentage than our representation shows and the Minister knows this.

You are not entitled to speak on behalf of everybody. We are entitled to speak for the majority.

I am speaking on behalf of John O'Donovan. He is the individual on whose behalf I am speaking.

The Deputy is not entitled to speak on behalf of everyone in Ireland——

Deputy Deputy O'Donovan must be allowed Nolan can make his speech afterwards, to continue.

In a matter like this one has to try and think for oneself; it is essential. Let us not fool ourselves. No Deputy wants an election 12 months after there has been one. We put down a vote of no confidence in the Government before it was known that the Fianna Fáil Party were going to vote unanimously. The Deputy may smile but that is absolutely true. We in this party have been accused of being communists, Maoists and so on. Since there has been so much talk about this, let me tell you that by accident I passed by the Maoist march last Tuesday week in Pearse Street and one would weep for them. I told a young member of my family that I had passed this march and I said, "Give a guess how many were there". The young girl in my family was right on target, "About 30?". There were about 30 youngsters marching along, flanked by about half-a-dozen policemen, who were mainly there to see that the march did not unduly interfere with the traffic. When we in the Labour Party are called Maoists and communists the people on the opposite side know there is no truth in this statement.

I do not believe that the Fianna Fáil Party can paper over the cracks. It would have been much better if, when his Ministers refused to resign, the Taoiseach took the same decision as Deputy Costello took in the spring of 1957 when the second inter-Party Government had taken the harsh decisions which made it inevitable that they would lose the election. This shows the different approach to Government in this country. Far from demonstrating that Fianna Fáil are the only party fit to govern the country, it shows that there are other people who have higher standards about how they should behave in certain circumstances.

I saw a note in the paper about a "government of boys". Perhaps it was because it would create the least trouble in his party that the Taoiseach did, in fact, promote to ministerial rank those who had been Parliamentary Secretaries. However, they were not made Parliamentary Secretaries because they were ministerial timber. I think they were made Parliamentary Secretaries because they were young and energetic and, with the help of their official cars, they would do the organisational work of the party. I seriously object to young men who have no experience worth talking about in political life being made Ministers of State. Ministers in this country take precedence over everybody else; they are the first people in the country. Yet we had the situation where Ministers were tailed by squad-cars and their 'phones were tapped. Either they should never have been made Ministers or before anything like that happened the Taoiseach should have said to them, "I am sorry about this but I must ask for your resignation." He has an absolute right to do it. I find it very hard to believe that these Ministers were engaging in activities which were not directed towards the welfare of the country. If that is so, they will not rest on the backbenches. It is not in the nature of such men to rest; they will not go farming or anything like that. I am inclined to think the Fianna Fáil Party are in serious trouble and, if there is not a general election now, there will have to be one before the end of the year.

I speak as one of the longest-serving Deputies in this House and as one who has participated in most of the debates over the past 28 years. Never in all that long membership of this House has any matter come up for discussion that has lowered this Parliament more or brought the Irish Government into greater ridicule than the matter before us. Is it any wonder that this debate carried on all through the night? Is it any wonder that Members of this House are viewing with astonishment and alarm the serious implications involved?

I never agree with the contributions of the Honourable Member for Bannside, the Rev. Ian Paisley, but he did say a few days ago, when this disgraceful conduct was made known, "The chickens are coming home to roost"—a very accurate summing up. How true. If only Mr. Paisley knew a little more about southern politics he would not include the whole south in that statement about the chickens coming home to roost but would confine it to Fianna Fáil.

Is it not true to say that the Fianna Fáil Party has its origins in hatred, division, arms, revolt, disrespect for the law? These are the seeds from which the Fianna Fáil organisation has bloomed. To that bitterness, division and revolt one can add the exercise of robbing banks. Therefore, we can see that the wheel has turned full circle. This party has been in office for a long, long time. Deputies are expressing astonishment that the Fianna Fáil Party should hold a meeting and after less than 60 minutes of deliberation, come out with a united front moryah. I believe it to be united. It must be united. If there is any break they all lose the spoils. They are there for what they can get out of it.

Can anyone tell us how one can become a millionaire in five years? It is possible to become a millionaire in a very short space of time, because all down through the years the history of Fianna Fáil has been extremely shady. It has a bad history: railway shares, Monaghan bacon factory, Locke's Distillery, the Singer case, the Potez investment. These are all connected with Fianna Fáil's conduct in the past 30 years. It is only right that very serious note should be taken when we see that the attention of the Taoiseach has been directed to certain irregularities. The Taoiseach has explained that he could not act with any greater speed. One would assume that immediately the Taoiseach was informed of a serious situation of this kind he would act as a matter of urgency. There are thousands of people in this country who believe it was the intention of the Taoiseach to cover up this matter if it had not been for the fact that the leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Cosgrave, decided to act in the interest of the country.

There are a lot of conflicting views in relation to the resignation of Deputy Moran, the dismissal of Deputy Blaney, the dismissal of Deputy Haughey, the resignation of Deputy Boland. All the members of the Government have had experience of team-work. It is a fact that Deputy Moran, Deputy Blaney, Deputy Haughey, Deputy Brennan and Deputy Boland represented a very major portion of the Government. Many people want to know why the Minister for Defence has been excluded from the list of Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries now out of office. The position is—and it is well that the country should know it— that when there was a line-up between Deputy Colley and Deputy Lynch, Deputy Gibbons took the side of the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach did not forget it when the Minister for Defence was in difficulties. I venture to say that no matter what evidence is presented by Captain Kelly, no matter how strongly he makes his case or no matter what accuracy is attached to it, it will not help in endeavouring to have the Minister for Defence removed from office because when the Taoiseach needed a friend he had Deputy Gibbons, so when Deputy Gibbons is in a spot of difficulty, he has the Taoiseach in return.

On the front page of today's Irish Press there is part of the text of Captain Kelly's statement:

Under privilege in the Dáil Mr. Gibbons has attacked me. All he has said is a tissue of lies. Any work which I did I brought to the knowledge of Mr. Gibbons at any and every opportunity.

It is a very serious situation if a public statement is made by a man of the standing of Captain Kelly in which he accuses the Minister for Defence of misleading this House and describes what the Minister said as a tissue of lies. Surely the most serious possible steps must be taken to ascertain whether Captain Kelly is accurate in his description or whether in fact the Minister for Defence has deliberately misled Parliament? This is where the responsibility rests on the Taoiseach.

I do not think it is right to kick a man when he is down. There was a very sad spectacle in the House the other evening. I watched Deputy Haughey in the House and he was shunned and deliberately avoided by his own party colleagues, people who on another occasion would have thrown themselves in his way to seek perhaps a concession of one kind or another or to have a pleasant exchange of greetings. Human nature being what it is, when a man is down everybody is down on him. So it was that Deputy Haughey was avoided like the plague when he came into the House the other evening, by people who otherwise would have put their arms around him. We cannot condone the activities of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney.

Yes, I accept that very fully because the Taoiseach has not given this House any proof. I accept that. In the case of these men who occupied very high public positions, it is most extraordinary that there is from Deputy Haughey a blank denial and a blank denial from Deputy Blaney. In the case of Deputy Moran the Taoiseach went to great pains to tell the House that he had tendered his resignation because of ill-health. Deputy Boland, the former Minister for Local Government, went to great pains to tell the House and the country that Mr. Moran's resignation was asked for. Who is telling the truth? We have Deputy Gibbons being charged with misleading. When Deputy Cosgrave asked the Taoiseach were there going to be more resignations, the Taoiseach, innocently, asked what did Deputy Cosgrave mean, said he did not know what he was talking about, and asked could Deputy Cosgrave be helpful, and let him know what he had at the back of his mind, knowing at the same time the facts which he was endeavouring to keep from Parliament.

This is a very serious matter. A prime minister has extraordinary responsibilities. Is there any prime minister in the world who would have the telephone of his Ministers tapped? Rather than the low, mean, mangy practice of tapping a telephone or putting one's ear to a keyhole, or sneaking up behind a person's back in an endeavour to overhear a confidential conversation, would it not have been better for the Taoiseach, the moment he became suspicious of Deputy Boland, to have relieved him of his responsibility at that time, to be frank and straight with him and say: "Look, honestly, I do not like you in my company. I do not trust you. I cannot rely on you. You are not the kind of company I like to be associating with." But, no. He has not the frankness to tell Deputy Boland that.

Mark you, I sympathise with Deputy Boland as I would sympathise with anyone who laboured in that extraordinary position for so long. Fianna Fáil supporters are loud in their efforts to spread throughout the country that it is "Honest Jack" who is trying to clean up his own pigsty; that it is "Honest Jack" who is endeavouring to wash his hands clean, but it is my opinion that it is the Taoiseach himself who is the arch villain of the piece because he misled Deputy Cosgrave. He was not straight and honest with his own Ministers. He proceeded to devise a trap; he tapped their telephones. He did not have the courage to tell them he did not want their company. This is the man who is going to parade now before the whole country as the honest man, the sincere man, the man who would not be associated with anything except that which could be described as 100 per cent perfect. That is why I have a feeling that if Deputy Cosgrave had not approached the Taoiseach, poor Deputy Mick Moran would have been the scapegoat. There would have been no question of Deputy Haughey coming into the picture at all. There would have been no question of a resignation from Deputy Boland or Deputy Brennan. There would have been a complete cover-up, under the guise of the ill-health of the former Minister for Justice. The Taoiseach himself, the honest man, was going to play that trump card, and he would have got away with it, were it not for the fact that Deputy Cosgrave had the facts.

Or, perhaps, he was being blackmailed as well.

Deputy Michael Moran would have been used as the cover-up and the scapegoat. I want to say, without fear of contradiction, that from time to time we have difficult situations arising. One would imagine that in this case efforts are being made by Parliament to inquire into the activities of these former members of the Government. The position is that it is their own leader who has them in the dock, not Fine Gael and not Labour. It is their own leader. A Government which is revealed to the public as a Government in which there is suspicion and distrust between the head of the Government and his Ministers is not a Government that can rule effectively, well and efficiently. We are dealing with the appointment of three new Ministers. I wish them good luck.

They will need it.

A little bit of good luck would not come amiss on this occasion. I want to inquire now how these new Ministers propose to carry out their duties. Will they immediately take on the róle of making a special concession to the Taca subscribers? This is a very serious situation. It has become rampant all over the country. Unless we can get the people all over the country to revolt against it it will have very serious consequences for our people. Is it not common knowledge that a subscriber to Taca gets an authorisation card, which is tantamount to a key to the office door of a Minister, entitling him to go to see the Minister? The membership cards of Taca have been seen. We will have three new Ministers, probably tomorrow night—Deputy Collins, Deputy Cronin and Deputy Molloy; in order to get an audience, or what can be described as preferential treatment, all one need do is produce a Taca membership card and special consideration and privileges will be afforded. If "Honest Jack" is as honest as he pretends to be, why has he not disbanded Taca? It is well-known that Taca is the medium through which quick decisions and preferential treatment can be obtained by a loyal supporter and substantial subscriber to Government party funds. One cannot have good government if Ministers are influenced by Taca membership in their decisions. This deprives citizens of equal rights and equal opportunities since the same concessions are not available to them as are available to holders of Taca cards.

I would put the three new Ministers and the Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley, at ease by saying that they should take warning from what happened to their immediate predecessors. Although it is very hard to put an old dog off his track these young men possibly starting off on brilliant political careers would begin well by endeavouring to treat all persons equally. Human nature being what it is, I suppose it is difficult not to give concessions to those who may subscribe £500 or £1,000 or to the building contractor who can make a gift to the Minister of a new house. These problems exist. For young men in public life it must be very difficult to have a guilty conscience and to know that in order to comply with the wishes of their party they must condone injustices in order to do an irregular "justice" to the holder of a Taca card.

This Government have lowered their standards and their dignity to the lowest possible level by their association with Taca and the Tacateers and all those in the industrial, building and commercial spheres who are out to get rich quick through friendship or concessions to be obtained rightly or wrongly from the Minister. That is wrong. If the Taoiseach wants to pose as having even a semblance of honesty let him act practically and disband that organisation which is based on graft, greed and injury.

I should like to know if the Taoiseach has had any discussion with the Minister for External Affairs in regard to 25 uncompleted passports that became suddenly missing from that Department in November, 1969. Does anybody know where they went or how they got out of the Department? Who got them? What became of them? Have appropriate inquiries been made into the disappearance from the Department of passport covers which have not been written on? Is this not a serious matter? I do not know the means by which photographs can be applied or the nature of the stamp that goes on these documents but if 25 passport covers have been missing from the Department since last November I presume somebody has them. How did they get out of the Department? Were they allowed out? Handed out? Were they abstracted?

Little if anything has been said of this matter but I think the time has come when the Taoiseach should comment on it. Is it part of the campaign? Is it a sister activity of the illegal import of arms to allow passport covers to fall into the hands of unauthorised persons?

I am sure many Deputies who have spoken have been thinking about the situation in this country in recent times. The unity of Ireland will come about eventually and no matter to what party we belong we will all welcome it. Fine Gael are as enthusiastic about unity as are the most ardent supporters of the Government. That unity, we believe, can be brought about in time by peaceful means, by co-operation and negotiation. I could never understand how hard-headed northerners cannot realise that if their people came down to the Parliament in the south they would have at least 50 Deputies and could put Governments in or out. They could run the country.

They are not very likely to come after the past few days.

That is what I fear. Those past few days have done untold damage and put us back at least 50 years. This is most regrettable. Those in Parliament in the Six Counties could gain outstanding advantages from a united Ireland because we would have the industrial north allied with the agricultural south. They would be entitled to have at least 50 or 60 Deputies. I am afraid the events of the past few days will not be helpful to us in that regard. We have a very serious responsibility in the part of our country over which we have jurisdiction in relation to the administration of law and order.

Is it not true to say that law and order have broken down completely in the Republic? Is it not true to say that there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor? Is it not true to say that there is the legal law and the Taca law? Taca law is the law under which if you are a supporter of the Government your case is dismissed.

That is a reflection on the judiciary.

Oh, no. I meant the Department of Justice, not the judiciary. I want to make that very clear.

The Department of Justice does not dismiss cases.

The Department of Justice deals with fines. I have known district justices to impose fines which were wiped out by the Department of Justice. I have known cases in which the rulings of the Attorney General were rather questionable and I honestly feel that the law is not administered as fairly as it might be.

The Deputy stated publicly that he wrote to a superintendent to quash convictions about cockfighting. The Deputy said that on television.

I beg the Minister's pardon?

The Deputy said publicly that he wrote to the Garda authorities to quash cases in connection with illegal cockfighting.

The Minister knows the circumstances under which cockfighting became illegal. It was during the Fenian times. The Fenians were making pikes and they used cockfighting as an excuse for the making of the pikes. In order to get at the Fenians a law was brought in which made cockfighting completely illegal.

So cockfighting is legal now, according to the Deputy.

No, cockfighting is illegal.

Let us get away from cockfighting.

Cockfighting is illegal except when the cocks are within the Fianna Fáil Party when fighting is legal. Believe it or not, there are a good many cocks jumping very high at the moment.

There are three from the Deputy's constituency anyway, with all his talk.

Does the Deputy want to see four or five?

It will probably be four next time.

If the Deputy is so anxious for that to happen, will he use his influence with the Taoiseach to go and see the President this evening and give us the opportunity? There is a bit of good news for us. We will have the dissolution. An extraordinary state of affairs prevails as a result of an effort to import arms into this country under the guise of a genuine order for the Army. This is a matter of the greatest possible seriousness. I am astonished that so many Fianna Fáil Deputies seem to find this a cause for laughter.

To endanger the State, to endanger life, to endanger property, to encourage bank robberies and the shooting down of police are not matters to be laughed at. The shooting of our Garda may provide Fianna Fáil with laughter; the robbing of our banks may provide Fianna Fáil with laughter; the endangering of our State and the institutions of our State may provide Fianna Fáil with laughter. Remember it took great courage and sacrifice to build up the institutions of State which we have today. We have, perhaps, one of the best police forces in the world today. It can be described as criminal if the Government are undermining the activities of the police force.

We have known cases in which warrants were asked and refused. We have known cases in which the police force asked to have certain rules of procedure followed in the detection of crime. There was intervention from the Government denying them the facilities they required. In a democracy there is a great danger of a take over by the State of the role of the police. We are slowly but surely heading in the direction of the setting up of a one-party dictatorship. This is very evident when we hear voice after voice from the Fianna Fáil Party saying that no one can run the country but Fianna Fáil and that if they are not the Government there can be no Government. If they do not exercise the law there can be no law. That is all poppycock. Everyone knows that at a general election the people can have a change of Government whenever they so desire. It is very evident that they desire to have that change now.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Last June?

It is also correct to say that in the general election last June a complete scheme of misrepresentation was undertaken in a shameful and disgraceful manner by the Fianna Fáil Party who had endless funds at their disposal to misrepresent their political opponents through their Ministers, some of whom are under review today. It is correct to say that at almost every general election Fianna Fáil won as a result of a gimmick. We remember a number of these gimmicks: the drainage of the Shannon, the biscuit factory in Ballina, the round of increased wages, fake budgets, calling their opponents Communists and getting some of the clergy who were politically favourable to whisper it from the pulpit and church door.

The Deputy was the only one in the constituency of Laois-Offaly who made an accusation against this party in the last election.

If the Minister interrupts me again I will ask him if he will tell the Taoiseach about the raisins which he took out of a shop window in a hurry and those that were also taken out of the shop window of Mr. Joe Dunne in Portlaoise. Let him rest with that. I would not like the shame of having a Minister representing my constituency added to the roll of dishonour of Fianna Fáil today.

You can spend the next 28 years trying that—and you know that. Have a look at your votes over the last three elections my buck.

Before I was interrupted I was saying——

Mr. J. Lenehan

We will be back again: do not worry.

They succeeded in calling their opponents all kinds of names including communists. I heard it. In my day, I was described by Fianna Fáil as a communist—and I beat them and beat them and beat them on it. I was described from the altar, from the pulpit, from the platform, and so on. If the Labour Party, Fine Gael or anybody else takes up the challenge, they will beat them. Despite the fact that I am a knight of Columbanus, I was described as a communist.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I must leave the House now; I could put up with anything but that.

That shows how accurate Fianna Fáil are with their information. Despite the fact that I was a council member of the Knights of Columbanus, Fianna Fáil described me as a communist. In addition to all this, Fianna Fáil won an election or two on the strength of the Churchill speech. They won four or five elections on the pretence that they kept this country out of the war. Let us have an election within the next fortnight or three weeks without these gimmicks.

Why does the Deputy——

I like Deputy M. Smith; he is new to this House. When he is here as long as I am, he will not be as enthusiastic as he now is about interrupting. I should be delighted to meet Deputy Smith or even Deputy Connolly for an hour or two hours any evening down in the library and give them the benefit of my reminiscences. I have seen people come into this House who were never returned at subsequent elections or by-elections. I realise very well that if the Taoiseach goes to the Park this evening it is extremely doubtful that you will come back.

Perhaps, the Deputy would proceed with the debate and avoid personalities.

If the President were Taoiseach and a Member of this House he would have no hesitation in the world in disolving Parliament on the information which has resulted in the resignation, the suspension and the distrust shown by the Taoiseach. I feel that this whole exercise has held us up to worldwide ridicule.

When the Taoiseach claims to have evidence which he did not give to this House and which, I understand, he need not give to this House that the members of his Government have been guilty of treason, have been guilty of dishonour, it means, in other words, that these members of his Government have been discharged with ignominy. I think that that is a very serious situation. But the most serious part of it all is that, bad and all as the four or five who are gone are, there are equally as bad left whom the country does not trust. The sooner an opportunity is given to the people to rid this country of the type of happy-go-lucky adventurer, the get rich quick enthusiast who is running this country then the sooner we shall have all our national and economic ills tackled with courage, determination and, above all, with sincerity.

This whole exercise is a disgrace. It is disastrous. It is sad reading for this country and sad and bad advertising abroad for this country. I want to subscribe to the pleas made by every Deputy who has spoken from this side of the House for the Taoiseach to prove his honesty, his sincerity. He has been caught out badly. He does not trust his team. He has not trusted his team. His team have not trusted him. They are not all in step. Therefore, there is one way in which this despicable spectacle of dishonesty in public life can be dealt with and that is to allow it to be dealt with by the voters of this country on the merits of honesty.

This is a bad Government. As I said the other night, not knowing what was going to follow this Government are breaking up like the crumbs of brown bread. They have broken up. They are a corrupt collection of enthusiastic people who are out to get all they can to make themselves and their friends rich quick—and they could not care less about the Border; they could not care less about the problems of our fellow Irishmen in the north; they could not care less about unemployment or emigration; they could not care less about the housing of our people or the health services or the educational facilities. They are concerned only with swelling their own bank accounts. It is well known that after five years, men who have served in the Fianna Fáil Government can be described as millionaires living on estates. May I ask, where do they come from? With those few words, I very sincerely add my voice to that of every Deputy who has spoken from the Opposition benches in asking the Fianna Fáil Party not to be afraid to put this issue of sabotage and treason in so far as the solvency or security of the State is concerned before the public for appraisal and decision. It is a matter on which our people should be permitted to express a view and opinion. I trust the Taoiseach will see fit, over the weekend, to dissolve the Dáil so that an opportunity will be given to the Irish people to pass judgment on a Government that has lost respect, that never had dignity, that failed to have any form of a policy to deal with our national and economic problems—a Government that has not acted in the best interests of the Irish nation.

It is seldom that one decides to use as one's opening quotation the closing quotation from Deputy O. J. Flanagan. I must agree entirely with him when he tells the House in his own words that "this whole exercise is a disgrace; it is sad reading for this country". In regard to this whole exercise, the exercise which we have sat up through and listened to all last night and this morning, is it that the Fine Gael Deputies have no confidence in the view of their leader or leaders, such as they are and as numerous as they are? Is it that there is no united view or collective strength in that party? The issues have long since been stated here by their leader, by the leader of the Labour Party and, have certainly been fully met by the Taoiseach, and I am sure that any relevant question that has arisen during the debate will be dealt with in full by the Taoiseach in his reply. Is it that they are trying to create a situation of crisis in an effort to instil the notion into the minds of the people that the Dáil sat all last night through an emergency debate; that the situation has arisen in which this matter cannot be developed or discussed except through a full emergency debate which has been unprecedented in the history of the House?

Is the Deputy suggesting that we have not the right to speak?

Nobody in this House doubts for one moment that Deputy Desmond has the right to speak because nobody has used that right or, indeed, has abused that right more often than he in questioning at length the views of persons on this side of the House. Indeed, the Deputy has often engaged in uncharitable remarks on comments from our side of the House, which did not measure up to his intellectual capacity.

Hear, hear.

Whether or not they have the right to speak, that right must always be tempered by responsibility. This is something that the Opposition Members very often forget and during the course of this debate it has been evident that responsibility has been greatly forgotten.

We must re-affirm the good sense of our Press because, despite this exercise in political mockery and despite the positive attempt to create a real fear in the minds of the people that this country has been through a night of crisis, the Press have treated this attempt with the contempt it deserves. Every member of Fine Gael has been under instructions to speak so that we have heard from members who have never before given us the benefit of their views. Speeches have been written for them, so that even those Members who disagree have to stand up here under strict instructions and speak. We have heard speeches from them in 46 or 47 different voices. One voice only will be expressed on this side of the House.

What about Deputies Boland and Blaney?

We trust our Taoiseach as the leader of our party. Even those Ministers whose resignations have been asked for have accepted that the Taoiseach has this constitutional right as Taoiseach. The Taoiseach speaks with our support and with our voice. He is our voice and, as long as he is, we will back him to the hilt. If we were to indulge in the same kind of political mockery as we have been hearing from the Opposition we would be here until tomorrow morning. But it is not necessary for us to come in here and speak with 72 or 75 voices and engage in the same kind of disgrace to democracy. I will say to Deputy O. J. Flanagan that, every Deputy from his side of the House has been heard but I will also say to him and to the House that every one of those Deputies has repeated the same useless and utterly treacherous attempt to instil fear into the people. However, they should get on to their telephones because they will find that the people have not been confused and will not be terrorised by these typically useless efforts of the Opposition. In conclusion, may I say that, of course, this is a time of serious crisis for the country.

This is a matter of serious concern not only for us in this Parliamentary democracy but for the country. In taking the steps he took, in dismissing men of such outstanding ability great credit is due to the leadership of the Taoiseach. It is a tribute to his leadership. All the useless and treacherous attempts by those on the other side of the House to reflect in some way on that integrity will be seen very shortly by the people of Ireland for what it is—an exercise by those who have no responsibility and who never will have responsibility.

Deputy O'Kennedy accuses members on this side of the House of creating a crisis and then, unless it was a slip of the tongue, he talks himself about there being a crisis.

I did not say "creating a crisis".

The Deputy said that by their speeches during the past few days the Opposition were endeavouring to create a crisis which did not exist. The Deputy also said that the papers had ignored the efforts, as he described them, of the Opposition to create a crisis. Those involved in newspapers, television and radio are well able to make up their own minds. If the Deputy had had time during the past 24 hours to read the newspapers or to listen to radio or television he would easily understand the difficult position in which not only Fianna Fáil find themselves but in which the country finds itself at this time.

Hear, hear.

His contribution was short and the reason he gave for that was, he said, that the members of his party trust the Taoiseach. However, from some of the speeches made here yesterday it is very doubtful whether some members of the Fianna Fáil Party still trust the Taoiseach. If this debate has gone on for too long the person who must be responsible is the Taoiseach. We have now had almost 30 hours of debate if we include yesterday, today and 4½ hours on Wednesday night.

In not giving a fuller explanation of the situation, the Taoiseach has done a disservice to the House and to the country. He has had three opportunities during the past few days to give such explanation. I am reminded of Hamlet without the prince, although we did have the prince here for a very short while in so far as his contribution was concerned. The Taoiseach says there is not a crisis. One would not know whether to have been amused or appalled by the television interview he gave on Wednesday evening. I know he is a tired man. He has had many worries but he very blandly said that there was no crisis, that there never had been a crisis and that there would be no crisis. He said that there would be no more resignations, but I suggest that there should be, that the Minister for Defence should resign, but, above all, that the Taoiseach himself should resign.

What have we to go on? Is anybody in the Fianna Fáil Party or in the country wondering why all these speeches have been made and why questions are being repeated? The reason is that there has not been a clear explanation from the Taoiseach as to what happened with regard to two Ministers who were sacked, one who resigned and one who either resigned or was sacked. Neither has there been a full explanation as to what was the role played by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons. I do not know whether it is that the Taoiseach is very cute or very simple minded.

On Wednesday night he complained of not having enough time to reply to the debate. Whose fault was that? Was it his Whip who arranged the order in which the last three speakers would get in and the time that should be made available to them? He gave me at least the impression that the shorter the time he had the better for him because his tactics over the last three or four days have been to gloss over this whole affair in the hope that the public and the members of the Opposition will forget it. He wanted to get a quick vote on his proposals for these three or four Ministers in order to pretend to the country that because he had 13 Ministers again, because there was a full Government, all was right in the land.

The Taoiseach wasted the short time he had. I know this was a motion to nominate a Deputy to be Minister for Justice but I do not think the Taoiseach should have used up his time in order to give a description of an incident that happened at Shannon Airport in which the man who is now Minister for Justice was involved. It may have been a nomination for the position of Minister for Justice but the general debate was intended to be about the two Ministers who have been sacked and the one who resigned. I regard the comment about that as irrelevant. I do not know anything about it but it was a waste of time for the Taoiseach to take up two, three, four or five minutes in an explanation of what happened down at Shannon Airport. In present circumstances the people do not give a damn what happened at Shannon Airport. They do not care what Deputy O'Malley, the Minister for Justice, did. What they are concerned about now is stability in this country and they are concerned about the allegations the Taoiseach has made about two colleagues who have served with him for 13 years.

I know there may have been a certain amount of confusion in the mind of the Taoiseach in the last few days. I know that he has had a certain amount of physical and mental strain but it was only reasonable for us to expect that when this debate opened yesterday morning he would have made a more detailed statement. Despite what has been said by the ex-Ministers, despite the intervention of Deputy Gibbons and despite the other contributions, do we yet know the details of the allegations, the evidence that can or should be produced with regard to the sacking of Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey?

I proposed in this House, and was derided by some of the Fianna Fáil members, that the Taoiseach should get extra time. He refused it. Why did he refuse it? Because, I believe, the shortest possible time in those circumstances suited him. I trust that he will take a far longer time to answer the questions that have been posed here, the questions that have been posed in the press, the questions that have been posed by citizens of the six northeastern counties. One would imagine that he would have spent his time yesterday preparing the statement that he should have delivered yesterday morning but instead of that—I suppose in normal circumstances it would have been all right—he went down to the constituency of the Minister-designate for Industry and Commerce to a Fianna Fáil social. In ordinary circumstances that would have been all right but I believe that in the last 24 hours and since the last debate he should have been preparing a statement demonstrating to this House the justification for sacking two Ministers. It was his duty to anticipate today's discussion and nothing he has said since 2.15 a.m. on Wednesday has allayed the grave public disquiet, the fears, the doubts and the suspicions that are in people's minds throughout the country with regard to the allegation the Taoiseach made against two of his colleagues in the matter of the alleged smuggling of arms into this country.

Of course, since we had the contributions from Deputies Boland and Blaney and a statement from Deputy Haughey there is even more confusion. We wonder what sort of approach the members of the Government have to this crisis, because crisis it is, when again we remember the television appearance of the Minister for Lands, Deputy Flanagan, who when he was asked about this crisis and about the situation in the Fianna Fáil Party replied, with a smile on his face: "I know I missed a game of golf". For the first time he was interested in golf. He was asked then about the split in the party and he said arrogantly: "No split ever, now or in the future". His ignorance is such that he does not believe there could even be a split in Fianna Fáil. It is an indication of the stubbornness of members of Fianna Fáil and it is indicative of the attitude of the party who believe they have been there for such a long time they can be there for ever.

What has happened since the Taoiseach last made comment in this House on these events? We can all sympathise with and have a certain regard for what appears to be the sincerity of Deputy Blaney, particularly when he spoke of his experiences as a boy and as a youth, but I would regard Deputy Blaney's speech, apart from these reminiscences, as the greatest example of brazen evasion that a politician ever uttered in this House. He never referred once to the man who sacked him. One would get the impression, listening to Deputy Blaney, that it was the Opposition who sacked him. All his attacks were directed over here as if somebody here, or we collectively, had ordained that he should be sacked from his Ministry, that his seal of office should be wrenched from him, as the Taoiseach finally had to do.

I regard it too as an inflammatory speech. One can understand his emotions when he thinks of things gone by and of his family connections but he must learn restraint and not be giving vent to the type of speech one would expect in other circumstances from a Paisley—one that flows over to others, influences other people. That is what happens in the case of Paisley. We had that type of speech from at least three Fianna Fáil Deputies yesterday. That sort of emotion can be infectious. The Minister who is sitting before me knows that in a minor way this often happened with some over-emotional football fans, for instance. Who is the cause of a riot on the field? Who is the cause of a disturbance? It is a very small example but I think it is an analogy to the type of behaviour we have from a Paisley, a Blaney or a Boland when they start to talk about the situation in the Six Counties.

Deputy Boland spoke longer and in greater detail than the Taoseach. I ask, therefore, why did the Taoiseach not give the details, make a longer speech, take the House and the country into his confidence? Deputy Haughey has also made a statement in which he denies the allegations that have been made by his boss, the Taoiseach. However, after making these speeches, after denying that they had anything to do with the smuggling of arms, we have a most extraordinary expression of loyalty to the party and to the Taoiseach. Remember that 75 Fianna Fáil Deputies did not express loyalty to the country or to the Government; they expressed it to the Fianna Fáil Party and to the Taoiseach. The whole exercise in the last 24 or 48 hours is an exercise designed not for the good of the country, not for the good of the people, but merely to keep Fianna Fáil together and in office. Deputy Boland must be recognised by members of the Fianna Fáil Party as being somewhat contradictory if not hypocritical. He professes loyalty to his leader, Deputy Jack Lynch, the Taoiseach. He says he will abide by his decision. The Taoiseach has the right to sack and appoint Ministers. He likens the Taoiseach to a pimp and a spy. He says the Taoiseach's agents are following him. He says the Taoiseach's agents tapped his phone. He says Gestapo methods were employed by the Taoiseach. Those were the methods used by the Nazis. Those are Communist methods yet Deputy Boland professes loyalty to one who applies those methods. He says his phone is tapped. That certainly is not the action of a colleague. I wonder how far the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is engaged in that.

A good question.

He is another Minister who must be involved. It must be with his permission that Deputy Boland's phone is tapped. I should like to ask the Minister if my phone is tapped. I am entitled to that information. Is Deputy Cosgrave's phone tapped? Is Deputy Treacy's phone tapped? Are the phones of business people who might not be supporters of the Government tapped? We have come to a pretty pass nine months after an election and after a campaign in which this country was described as prosperous. The ex-Minister for Local Government says that Gestapo methods are being used and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, his colleague, tapped his phone. He probably tapped mine and that of every member of the Opposition.

Deputy Boland professes loyalty to the Taoiseach but he says there was an execution without trial in respect of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney and that was why he resigned. He accused the Taoiseach of telling lies about the ex-Minister for Justice, Deputy Moran. He suggests that it is not because he was sick that he was asked to resign but for some other reason which he did not explain too clearly. He professes loyalty to the Taoiseach and says he agrees with whatever decision the Taoiseach makes but says he is not correct when he accuses Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey of being implicated in the smuggling of arms into this country.

His phone is tapped. He is pimped and spied upon by the Taoiseach. He says that Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey were executed without trial. He says the Taoiseach did not tell the truth about the ex-Minister for Justice, Deputy Moran. He does not accept that Deputies Blaney and Haughey were guilty but still he is loyal.

I referred before to the press statement issued after the Fianna Fáil meeting but I want to refer very briefly to it again. At that meeting they swore their loyalty to the Fianna Fáil Party and to the Taoiseach with no mention of the number who voted to the contrary. There was a shock when I suggested that there was some division in the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party at that meeting. I do not know how the case was presented. I submit that anything which happens inside the Fianna Fáil Party or any other political party is their own business.

I suggested there might be a split. In view of what has been said here and in view of what has happened, surely there could not be unanimity with regard to their loyalty to the Taoiseach, particularly when one remembers what Deputy Boland said here yesterday morning? It reminds me of a statement of Mr. William Craig, who after a similar type of Unionist meeting in the Six Counties, when asked about support for the Government and their Prime Minister said: "Well, it means support for today." It is not my business but the Taoiseach and his colleagues must wonder for how long this shaky sort of loyalty on the part of Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney will continue.

There is significance in the applause which greeted the speech by Deputy Boland. Somebody said 17 were involved in the applause but there must have been a very quick count. Many more applauded Deputy Blaney. In the main Deputy Blaney's speech was an inflammatory one. Therefore, one wonders what support there is in those benches for the type of speech he made and the type of action implicit in the manner in which he delivered the speech and the words and phrases he employed. One wonders, therefore, whether the policy announced by the Taoiseach at the Ard-Fheis and the proposals he made in Tralee have the support of the majority or the support of all the members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

I should like to know why the applause was given to those two men. Were they applauded because they had announced they still supported the Taoiseach, again remembering what Deputy Boland accused the Taoiseach of in his speech? The Taoiseach should say what is right, whether his description of the resignation of Deputy Moran is correct or not.

The Taoiseach was loud in his denunciation of those who suggested that Deputy Moran was sacked. Deputy Boland had his doubts. Deputy Boland suggests that the Taoiseach's explanation is not correct and by inference suggests that he, with the other two ex-Ministers, was sacked.

Deputy Boland does not believe that Deputy Blaney or Deputy Haughey were guilty of the offences which were attributed to them by the Taoiseach. He suggests it is an informer's plot and that it was a method of exercising control. I do not know what he means. Perhaps somebody else in the House does. Maybe he could further expand on that. Perhaps the Taoiseach possesses a little more knowledge.

Deputy Haughey in his statement says that he was not in any way involved. This is the crazy situation we find ourselves in. Who would blame us for talking about a crisis? Who would blame us when one remembers that this time last week Deputy Blaney, Deputy Boland and Deputy Haughey were over there answering their questions faithfully, or so we thought, and within a week they are denounced by the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, and within hours they make statements tantamount to saying that the Taoiseach is a liar.

This situation does not occur daily. It is not a situation that is peculiar to many Parliaments on this side of the world, in Europe at least. Here we have a categorical denial by Deputy Haughey and by Deputy Boland. I should like to know, apropos of what Deputy Boland says, whether the Taoiseach suspected a plot to get rid of him. That is what Deputy Boland implies and that is what I infer from his speech. If Deputy Boland and Deputy Haughey are right it is lunatic and, might I say, criminal that the Taoiseach should use the explosive Six County situation to retain power.

We still do not know what to believe or whom to believe. I do not lightly question a person's integrity. I am careful in questioning the integrity of politicians who are much maligned, not only in this country but elsewhere. However, I implore the Taoiseach, not so much for his own sake but for the sake of the country, to let us know the facts. He has not done this so far although he has had three opportunities. On one occasion he complained there was a limitation of time but on two other occasions he had ample opportunity to give the facts. Because he has not given them, representatives from every constituency in this country have been asking that the Taoiseach would give them.

No matter what closing of ranks there may be, no matter how important it may appear to members of the Government Party there must not be a wall of silence. The Taoiseach, theoretically and in practice, could stand up at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. this afternoon and say "The Fianna Fáil Party agree with me; I have 75 votes" and then sit down. He would get 75 votes as against 62 or 63. That would be a victory in this House for Fianna Fáil but it would still leave the doubts and suspicion; it would leave dread in the minds of the people of the Six Counties.

For that reason I earnestly ask the Taoiseach to give the full facts and not let this whole matter be surrounded by a wall of silence. The Taoiseach has been asked in the last 30 hours what happened between Monday, 20th April, when he said he first heard of these allegations to Wednesday, 29th April, when he requested the resignations of two senior Ministers. What happened during the week from Wednesday, 29th April to Tuesday, 5th May, on which day he demanded that the resignations be given to him by 10 p.m.? We are entitled to know what happened between these two dates.

As Deputy Boland has said, these men have been executed without trial. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Taoiseach, if we are to make a judgment on these Ministers, or if they are to make any attempt to clear themselves, that he tells the House and, through the House, the public, what was the information he received. All we know is what we read in the Press, what the Taoiseach said here the other day. He alleged that these two Ministers were suspected of being engaged in the smuggling of arms into this country. We do not know from where; somebody suggested Czechoslovakia. We do not know from whom; all we know is what the Taoiseach said in about two or three sentences.

We would also like to know who else was involved in this matter. I am sure these two ex-Ministers had many other things to do in the last nine months but we do not know whether anybody else was involved. We do not know whether the former Ministers are taking the blame for others who might have been involved. A question frequently asked is: where did the money come from? Was it private money, subscriptions from private people, or was it financed in some way from the Exchequer? For whom were the arms intended? I am sure it was not for the Irish Army. The arms must have been consigned to a particular place and the Taoiseach must have this information.

I should also like to know how they were to be imported and distributed; to what part of Ireland was it intended to send them; were they to go to another part of the Thirty-two Counties? The Taoiseach must also tell us what Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney said when they were confronted with these allegations. They say now that they denied them. It is none of my business, but perhaps he would also tell us what information, if any, did he give the very brief meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party on Wednesday evening, 6th May. If there was a suggestion that it was an appeal to close the ranks, to back the Taoiseach in any vote that might occur on this critical issue, that is not good enough. From the contributions we have had here today it seems to me that no information was given and I trust it will not be the same when the Taoiseach rises to reply in this House. If the Taoiseach does not give this information he should either "put up or shut up".

We must remember that Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey refused to resign and this should be regarded as revolt. Deputy Blaney attempted to give some sort of explanation as to why he thought it better—for whom I do not know—that he should be forced out of office rather than resign. We do not know what he meant by that, whether it was to facilitate this Government or to ease matters in the Six Counties. His statement was quite vague and we should know why these two Deputies refused to resign.

What action does the Taoiseach propose to take in regard to those Deputies? I do not think it is sufficient to smother them up in the back benches—whether they want to be smothered is a matter for themselves. They are three Deputies with very forceful personalities, who are well able to express themselves in this House. These were two Ministers and their punishment was demotion. If similar allegations had been made in respect of two Deputies, either from this side or the other side of the House, what would have happened to them? Would the Taoiseach, the Government, the Attorney General or the Ceann Comhairle take action against them? It is not sufficient to leave those ex-Ministers on the back benches to be smothered.

If this is the only action that will be taken I suggest that the Government should resign in accordance with Article 28 4.2º of the Constitution. This article spells out the responsibility of the Government and members of the Government; it states that the Government shall meet and act as a collective authority and shall be collectively responsible for the Departments of State administered by the members of the Government. If Deputy Blaney or Deputy Haughey is guilty so also is Deputy Lynch, so also is Deputy Gibbons and so also is every single remaining Minister in the Cabinet. The Constitution says they are all responsible for the acts or alleged acts of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney.

According to the Constitution, apart from the shame and disgrace of this, Deputy Jack Lynch should resign and take the members of his Government with him. I do not think he will do that, but, again, may I ask what further action is to be taken? Would he not consider invoking Standing Order 67 of the Standing Orders of this House and appoint a select committee to take evidence on this matter and report back to the Dáil? We do not need to have any precedent for this. There have been many minor incidents here in this House, one recently in which Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien was involved, when it was alleged he made some remark about the Ceann Comhairle. He has since been proved innocent, but there were many meetings on this and a lot of evidence was taken. It was a flimsy thing.

Now we have two members of an Irish Government who are accused of smuggling arms into this country and all we do is demote them to the back benches and they get their £2,500 per year and three of them at least get pensions based on 13 years service as Ministers. They are punished by this retirement. May I suggest, therefore, that the Taoiseach look at Standing Order 67 and appoint this select committee to inquire into the allegations that he himself made against his colleagues?

I do not think the Taoiseach will do that. This select committee would have access to papers, records, would have power to summon persons before it. The Taoiseach would be summoned before it and maybe the Attorney General. Many others who would be involved would be summoned before it. The papers and the records that would be available to the Taoiseach would have to be produced. However, it seems their only punishment will be to be consigned to the back benches.

I regard the second part of Deputy Boland's speech as an incitement to civil war. He seems to believe this could be contained within the Six Counties. Deputy Boland talks about illegal organisations in this country. He has no use for them. Does he imagine that any conflict would be confined within the Six Counties? Does he not know the nature of the violence in the Six Counties in August last year when we had this terrible battle in the Bogside, in Newry and in the Falls Road in Belfast? Does he think we could remain immune from the violence of that type of battle which he believes would be legitimate in the Six Counties? Incitement of such a nature is bound to involve the entire country. He cannot talk about a peaceful policy of reunification. This, he says, he subscribes to because it is the Taoiseach's policy. On the other hand, he endorsed the right of people to engage in armed revolution in the north. This is a contradiction which Deputy Boland refuses to recognise today.

Technically, I suppose, this motion is a motion to complete the Cabinet. Is this the solution to the whole affair, to this awkward mess? Does the Taoiseach expect that on completing his Cabinet it will mean the end of the crisis? We have heard three members of Dáil Éireann proposed for ministerial office. I say as I ought to say, like everyone else, that I have nothing against them, that I have the greatest esteem for them, et cetera, et cetera. But may I ask does the Taoiseach trust them? Have they given him any guarantee that they will not behave as the Taoiseach suggests Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney behaved? Would they be good little boys and send him a declaration to the effect that, come what may, the Taoiseach would have their full support? There is another question that could be asked on this question as well: do they trust the Taoiseach? Do they know whether or not their phones will be tapped? Do they know whether or not this super-Special Branch will be on their tails? Do they know whether or not if they transgress or are accused of a transgression they will be executed without trial?

These have been three days in which there has been suspicion, allegation, counter-allegation, charge and counter-charge, three days in which the business of the nation has been held up, three days in which our democratic institutions have been in doubt. We have not been responsible for this. We have not behaved in the last three days or even as long as I am in this House in a manner that would bring our democratic institutions into doubt or in a manner which would hold up the business of the House. The sole responsibility for this lies with the Taoiseach and maybe with the two Ministers who were forced to resign.

The Taoiseach will have to give us an explanation for it.

This patching up of the Cabinet and of the Fianna Fáil Party is being carried out at the expense of disrupting the country and deepening the division between the Six Counties and the 26 Counties. The Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Party are responsible for it. The facts must be made available to the Dáil and to the people of Ireland. The people of Ireland must be allowed then to judge, and the only way they can judge is by a general election.

The eyes of all Irish people are focused now on this Assembly. They are wondering how long more the tragedy of the last few days will go on. It is difficult to find the truth. The Taoiseach says one thing here and he is immediately contradicted by his former Cabinet colleagues. The happenings are stranger than fiction. I hope—and I say this sincerely—that when the Taoiseach concludes he will dispel all the rumours and disown some of the statements made by his colleagues. As a new Deputy I looked to the seventies for progress and goodwill towards our fellow Irishmen. Little did I know that such hatred existed in anyone's heart as we heard from Deputy Blaney. It is not for me to condemn Deputy Blaney for his beliefs. I hope some day he will see Ireland as it is in 1970 and not as it was 50 years ago.

I have no intention of opening up old sores. Too much of that has been done already and very little is accomplished. It is time for all of us to be realistic about the disastrous consequences of the last few days and put them in proper perspective.

Over the last ten years the State has spent millions of pounds in selling our image abroad. The money was well spent—fair play to Bord Fáilte. They coined the phrase "Ireland of the Welcomes." Thousands of Irish people, taxpayers, invested hard earned money in hotels, motels, chalets, souvenir shops. They were assisted by substantial State grants. Now every one of them is in for a lean time this year, if not, possibly, bankruptcy. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind, the tourist industry is already suffering.

I was in Killarney last week and met the manager of a CIE hotel and managers of a few other hotels. It was a sort of social gathering. Every one of them said that already bus tours to this country for this year were cancelled.

Last week?

Yes. They were cancelled already. They were fearful as to what every day's post would bring by way of cancellation.

I do not want to interrupt but is the Deputy sure that it was last week that this happened?

Yes. I will give proof, if the Taoiseach needs it.

I do not want proof. The Deputy's word is enough.

What is the reason for the change of heart on the part of tourists? There is no point in deceiving ourselves. We must realise that 75 per cent of our tourists come from England or Northern Ireland and their money is very welcome. If the Englishman feels there is trouble in any part of Ireland, not knowing the north from the south, he decides to keep away. All the newspapers and television reporters who have come here from other countries are not doing us any good. They are doing us a disservice. This type of publicity abroad is of no use to Ireland.

I hope it is not too late to urge that this madness must cease, that we must revert to the idea of "Ireland of the Welcomes" and create the image that if a person wants peace he will get it in Ireland. We owe it to the people; we owe it to those who invested in tourist amenities and we owe it to the hotel porter, the night watchman, the waitress, the kitchenmaid, all of whose jobs are in jeopardy in a bad season.

I was surprised at Deputy O'Kennedy's outburst. I always admired Deputy O'Kennedy's contributions to debates. They were always well worth listenig to. I listened to him a while ago and, perhaps, it was because he had been up all night, but one got the impression that he wanted to stifle discussion in the House. The present political situation is the biggest event that ever happened in the history of the State and every Deputy is morally bound to make his contribution to the debate even if that involves prolonging it for another day. A Deputy must answer to his constituents when he returns to his constituency. It was good stuff from Deputy O'Kennedy. I suppose he is in the running for a Parliamentary Secretaryship and it is only right that he should have his say now. More power to him if he does get a Parliamentary Secretaryship. He would make a good Parliamentary Secretary.

The three new Ministers that the Taoiseach has nominated are from Munster. I offer congratulations to the three of them and wish them well in their Ministries. Is the Taoiseach afraid to appoint a man from Leinster or Ulster? Galway could almost be taken as part of Munster. Is the Taoiseach afraid of appointing persons from outside Munster? The Taoiseach was a good hurler and he is a Munsterman. Did he say to himself that he could trust the Munstermen more than he could trust Leinstermen or Ulstermen?

I have no intention of detaining the House but I should like to make the point that there is no room for bigotry in this country. This House should mould public opinion. Our slogan should be, "Love thy neighbour" and, as we say, "Peace on earth to men of goodwill".

I feel called upon to rise to support the Taoiseach's nominations because of the many speeches made by the Opposition over the last two days which were an attempt deliberately to give the people of Ireland the impression that Fianna Fáil is split. That is a sadly mistaken idea. I rise purposely here today to assure the supporters of Fianna Fáil throughout the country that they need have no fear whatsoever. The Opposition parties share a lack of belief in their own parties. We in Fianna Fáil believe in our party as a way of life and as a way of life for the people. We have never let the people of Ireland down and we do not intend to let them down.

When this crisis has passed we know that the people who supported us for so many years will be just as proud of us as they have been in the past. They will see that their trust has not been misplaced. Far from Fianna Fáil being split, I assure those people who may be codded by Opposition speeches that it is the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party which are in a shambles. Our supporters, who have assisted us so loyally down through the years, will recognise the Opposition speeches for the typical invective that has been so often poured on Fianna Fáil by Opposition Parties down through the years. This is nothing new. We have heard it all before.

Deputy Begley talked about the crisis affecting the tourist trade and he said there had been a cancellation of a bus tour last week. This crisis only occurred this week and Deputy Begley was trying to mislead the people. That is a typical example of what Deputy Begley and his party try to do. It has been said that Fianna Fáil is a tired party. Fianna Fáil is not tired. It is vibrating with life. If anything, Fianna Fáil thrives in an atmosphere like this where our enemies are yapping at our heels.

Enemies?

The Opposition have clearly demonstrated by their speeches that they are the enemies of Ireland.

On a point of order. Is it in order to say that Opposition Deputies are the enemies of Ireland? I suggest that should be withdrawn.

Is it in order to call people on this side of the House the enemies of Ireland?

The charge is a political one and such charges are often made in the course of debate.

We will remember that.

I make no apology for saying what I said. The people supported us at successive elections. Their trust has not been misplaced. I share, in common with the Taoiseach and other members of the Fianna Fáil Party, a deep sense of loss in this experience. Fianna Fáil, being the metal it is, will survive this. If they could not weather this they would not deserve to survive. The Opposition are delighted that something like this has happened because it hides to some extent their own shortcomings and their inability to impress the people. They are incapable of forming a Government. People will never put their trust in them. Fianna Fáil is as strong today as it has ever been. It is gaining strength all the time and no small measure of that strength is drawn from the attacks made on it by the Opposition parties.

Whistling passing the graveyard.

In my opinion these protestations of loyalty and unity seem a complete farce. Government speakers do not even mean what they say. Two Cabinet Ministers were sacked. Deputy Blaney came in here and pledged his undying loyalty to the Fianna Fáil Party, and his colleague, Deputy Boland, who resigned, also came in here and pledged his undying loyalty to the Fianna Fáil Party, to the party whose leader kicked them out a short time earlier. I cannot see the logic of this at all. The Taoiseach and the shattered Fianna Fáil Party are now earning the wages of sin, the sin of long years of neglect, of arrogance, of indifference to the needs of the people. The wages are now being doled out to Fianna Fáil in payment of their irresponsible attempts to be all things to all men.

The party was so determined to retain power that they endeavoured to be at one and the same time Republican hardliners and passive moderates—the friends of the farmer and the enemy of the NFA, the upholders of law and order and fixers of criminal proceedings, the helpers of the underprivileged and the entertainers of the Tacateer financiers. The image of the mohaired mogul has been stripped away by the events of the past few days. Fianna Fáil now stand discredited before this House and before the people. I have no sympathy for Fianna Fáil and, so far as I am concerned, the sooner they are defeated the better it will be for the Irish people, north and south.

We are concerned with the effect of these political events on the nation. Because of some of the alleged actions of former Ministers and the inaction of the Taoiseach Ireland today stands discredited and shamed not only in the eyes of our own people but in the eyes of the world. This island was once known as the Island of Saints and Scholars. In the past year the Six Counties may have been known as the place for gunmen, Paisleyites and that type of person. The 26 Counties are now linked with the Six Counties in this crisis. You have the Paisleys and the Blaneys, the Craigs and the Bolands, the Unionist Party in the North and Fianna Fáil in the South, and their motto seems to be: "Power at any cost."

Recently I watched a television programme in which various political commentators were giving their views on the political structures and political parties in the north and south. Somebody said that the Fianna Fáil Party in the south is similar to the Unionist Party in the north but has not the same machine and is not nearly as ruthless.

Today we are asked to accept the nominations of Deputy Molloy, Deputy Collins and Deputy Cronin as members of the Government. By virtue of the Fianna Fáil majority this motion will be passed. I suppose I could do as the leader of the Labour Party did and wish them well. I do not wish them any harm. I hope that whether their reign in their new offices will be long or short it will not have a similar ending to that of the reign of the former Minister for Finance, the former Minister for Local Government, the former Minister for Agriculture and, I might add, the former Minister for Justice.

Not only has an attempt been made to break the law of the land seriously but these allegations suggest that large shipments of arms have been moving, or were about to move across international borders. It appears that the deposed Ministers, or some of them, are actually engaged in violating national law and perhaps international law also. Particularly upsetting is the calculating, cold-blooded attempt to utilise the institutions of the State which have been given the job of maintaining law and order, the Gardaí and the Army, in an effort to import a quantity of small arms. I am sure that bloodshed would have resulted, north and south of the Border, if the attempt had succeeded.

It is right to pay tribute to men who resigned rather than be bullied by the Fianna Fáil Party. Some of these have rendered patriotic service to the country. It is a sad day when we hear that Ministers have been connected with the Army and the Gardaí in an attempt to bring arms into the country.

Whether we like it or not this is a national crisis regardless of what has been said by the few on the Government benches who, so to speak, decided they would make their position clear. When an officer of the National Army was involved in this, are we to take it that he violated the oath he took when he was being commissioned? Will he be paid a State gratuity as is usual in the case of an officer retiring honourably? This is one of the questions I should like the Taoiseach to answer.

I am also concerned with a report which I read in The Guardian, a British newspaper, last Thursday. It is stated, in effect, in that paper that people from the North of Ireland were coming across the Border and being afforded the opportunity and the facilities of the FCA for training in Donegal. Judging by the viewpoint expressed in recent months in many speeches by the ex-Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, this could be quite true. From the interpretation I put on what he has said, I feel that he would go hand in hand with this.

It is up to the Taoiseach to make a clear statement and to put the mind of the people of the country and of this House at ease regarding these statements and this alleged illegal activity.

The last time the Taoiseach got a chance to reply he made the excuse that he was short of time. He never told us exactly what we wanted to know. I hope he will do so on this occasion. The Government have been silent. Probably the most distressing thing of all was the contribution of the ex-Minister for Defence when he emphatically denied that he had anything to do with any of the charges made against him. Maybe he is right. Maybe he is not. We want to know whether he is implicated. I assume that it is up to the Taoiseach to clarify the position this evening.

I now come to the ex-Minister for Justice, Micheál Ó Moráin from Curradrish. He said himself when he talked of the Maggot Durkan case, as it has become popularly known, that it was he, Micheál Ó Moráin from Curradrish, who did all those things. What is his position? The Taoiseach said he resigned and Deputy Boland said he was pushed. Surely the people of this country and the Members of this House are entitled to know who is right and who is wrong. I do not hear anyone over there contradicting me and saying that the Taoiseach makes one statement and the ex-Minister for Local Government makes another.

A Deputy

If we tried to contradict the Deputy it would take too long.

The Deputy would have a job to do that.

Tell us about advertising the show bands?

Perhaps the Deputy is looking for one. Is he interested in the business? Deputy J. Lenehan will inform him on any of these matters. He is very good at that type of work, as, I may say, are many Members on that side of the House.

We had a few contributions from that side of the House and there were references to 77 people who were shot. We had passionate speeches from Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney. We could all go back and talk about our family history in politics. I have no doubt that every Member of this House could do that. I am here by tradition, I suppose, and I could also do that. I have nothing of which to be ashamed. I should also like to remind Deputies over there that I was elected to this House on 4th December, 1964, a day they will never forget.

Connacht won the All-Ireland that day, I think.

We were 6,000 behind and we came from behind to beat the entire forces of Fianna Fáil in their greatest stronghold. Of course, I can always say this as well: you were the first to approach me to stand on your behalf.

I was not the first to approach the Deputy.

I was not referring to you, Sir. You may be quite sure of that.

It was quite clear that the Deputy was not referring to the Ceann Comhairle.

I am sorry if I insulted the Ceann Comhairle in any way.

Who was "you"?

I refer to Deputy Brian Lenihan. He was the first man to approach me to stand in the by-election after my father died.

The reason I asked that was that I was alone with the Deputy in Croke Park after that tragic incident.

I was not referring to that.

I was for a while and I just wanted to clear it up.

I should like to put that on record.

And I should like to put my position on record.

I was not referring to the Taoiseach.

I just wanted to make sure that the Deputy was not referring to me. I accept his word.

There is no need in the world to refer to the Taoiseach in a matter such as this. If I ever want his advice I will certainly go to him for it. I want to put on record that the first individual who approached me was Deputy Brian Lenihan. When I hear the representative from Kildare trying to hurl an insult at me I want to say that I have nothing of which to be ashamed. I hope the Deputy's own record is as clean.

I was referring to the ex-Minister for Justice and to the fact that Deputy Boland says he was pushed and the Taoiseach says he resigned. I should dearly like the Taoiseach to make a clear statement this evening as to whether he was pushed or resigned and to tie up the events of the previous week in the Gresham Hotel with that, if that would be possible. In actual fact, I do not think it would.

What strikes me is this: where and when did all this start? The Taoiseach himself has stated that the first intimation he got of it was on 20th April, 1970. He had to wait until 6th May, 1970, before he decided to act. It is rather a jigsaw puzzle. I think the 6th May, 1970, must have been the day following the approach of our leader, Deputy Cosgrave, to the Taoiseach. I am not for one moment saying that it was on account of whatever communication Deputy Cosgrave had with the Taoiseach that two Ministers were sacked. However, it prompts me to ask the question and to say to this House that were it not for the fact that Deputy Cosgrave approached the Taoiseach on that fateful evening, would the Taoiseach have taken the action that he took the following morning between two and three a.m.? I do not know.

The ex-Minister for Local Government told us that one reason he resigned was because of the Gestapo tactics by the Taoiseach's intelligence service. Surely these tactics which Deputy Boland alleges were used against himself, and the information service or spy ring that Deputy Lynch seems to have at his disposal, were very ineffective if it took from 20th April, 1970, to 6th May, 1970, to find out all the facts he did find out? Even at that, he does not seem to have found them all. I wonder if many more Fianna Fáil Deputies or Ministers or ex-Ministers are involved in this.

From observations over the past few weeks around this House and from watching or keeping an eye on the Deputies who congregated together on the day this news broke, I noticed Deputy Molloy very much in the company of Deputy Blaney, also Deputy Gibbons. What part did they play in this? I hope that, when he is replying, the Taoiseach will tell us the whole truth and will come out in the open with the whole story—if he knows it.

I wonder what the position is of the Minister for Lands, Deputy Seán Flanagan. He was out of the country when this crisis broke.

Is he smuggling guns into Puerto Rico?

He was setting up a banana republic.

Possibly the Taoiseach will give us the answer. On his arrival at Dublin Airport it was interesting to see and hear his television interview. I have no doubt that Deputy Flanagan had nothing to do with either side of this but I should love to hear his views on it. I would like if he would come into this House and express his opinion on this crisis.

Mr. Smith

Suspicion haunts the guilty mind.

I would bet it would be one vote less for the Taoiseach's motion to appoint the three Members he has in mind for his Cabinet.

Deputy P. J. Burke made an appeal for charity as also did Deputy Moore —an appeal for charity for the fallen, charity for our fellowmen. I have been a Member of this House for 5½ years and I can say that I have seen damn little charity from Fianna Fáil. There was one incident above all in this House since I came here which exemplifies the mind and the thoughts of some Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party. When Deputy Moran was Minister for Justice he was asked a question, I think by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Corish, regarding a television programme; it took him 17 minutes to reply. The first man on his feet after that was Deputy Flor Crowley of Cork. He used words to describe the staff of Radio Telefís Éireann—and, naturally enough, he was hinting at the Labour Party and insinuating that they were communists, Maoists, Trotskyites and as many more things that I would not have the vocabulary to describe——

He can look under his bed now.

Indeed, he can. But imagine a Fianna Fáil Deputy getting up on that side of the House and making such a silly statement—maintaining that many Members of this House were what he called them. So long as the Taoiseach allows Deputies on that side of the House, who are in that frame of mind, to express themselves in that way, then the chaos in which the Fianna Fáil Party find themselves at the moment will become even worse in the future.

I say to the Taoiseach that in his reply he should let us know the truth regarding Deputies Blaney, Boland, Haughey and Moran. Surely the Taoiseach would not have dismissed two of his Ministers without having very good reason for doing so? However, they themselves maintain that they are innocent, so that I fail to reconcile the statement of the Taoiseach with the statements of these two Ministers. The Taoiseach should lay his cards on the table when replying to this long drawn out debate and tell us and the country what exactly is the position. It is possible that some of the statements that have been made, maybe some of those made by the Taoiseach and by some of the speakers on his side of the House, may have been untrue. It may be difficult for an individual to admit he was wrong in something he said but, if this should be the case in this instance, the only thing to do is to tell the truth because, in any case, the truth will come out eventually. It is the truth we want to hear.

When Deputy O'Kenedy spoke some time ago from the Fianna Fáil benches he expressed shock that so many Deputies on this side of the House were contributing to the debate. He did not fully realise the gravity of the situation, and neither does Deputy Davern, if one is to judge by the cynical grin on his face.

I cannot help it. The Deputy is the cause of it.

Regardless of whether it suits the Taoiseach or his party the truth must be told. As a result of the events of the past few days the Taoiseach should go to the country and let the people decide whether, in view of these events, they still wish him to continue in office.

It is my belief that today and yesterday will be regarded as two memorable days in the history of this nation. As an elected representative, I consider it my duty to the people of my constituency who were responsible for returning me as a Member of this House to comment on the events which have taken place in this country over, what is apparently, an unknown length of time.

I regret the comments which I must make. I regard it as a shame that any Deputy, regardless of which side he is on, should find it his duty in this day and age to stand up and question the elected Taoiseach in relation to certain matters affecting the democratic, social and political security of the State.

On Wednesday night last the Taoiseach made the following statement to Dáil Éireann:

On Monday, 20th April and Tuesday, 21st April, the security forces of the country at my disposal brought me information about an alleged attempt to unlawfully import arms from the continent. Prima facie, these reports involved two members of the Government. I decided to interview the two members of the Government—Deputy Blaney, then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Deputy Haughey, then Minister for Finance. I decided to do this on the following day, Wednesday, the 22nd April, which was the day of the Budget. In the meantime I ensured that adequate steps were taken to prevent any unauthorised importation of arms. On 22nd April, the day I decided to interview the former Ministers, I received news of the accident to Deputy Haughey, and, as a result, I was unable to interview him...

According to the Taoiseach he received this very important information from the security forces of the State but yet he let the matter stand until the 29th April. Admittedly, the then Minister for Finance was in no fit condition to be interviewed but he was in a fit condition to be interviewed on Monday, the 20th April and Tuesday, the 21st April. I suggest to the Taoiseach that, when he is replying to the debate, he should state fairly and squarely what information he received and how authoritative was that information. The Taoiseach said in his statement that he made certain personal inquiries but yesterday the former Minister for Local Government questioned the authority of the Taoiseach in this matter. Deputy Boland did not seem to think that the information received was of a nature to merit the dismissal of two senior Government Ministers.

The Minister for Local Government is quoted as follows in the Evening Herald of 8th May:

He said he was astonished that Mr. Lynch dismissed two senior Ministers on the basis of secret and unconfirmed information supplied to the Government as against the word of the Ministers who denied they were implicated in any arms plot. He said he would not be surprised if the whole thing was concocted by the British Secret Service for its own reasons. "Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney have told me that they did not arrange the importation of any arms into this country and I believe them" he said.

I suggest that, when the Taoiseach is replying to this debate, he should come out and tell this House and the Irish people who was telling the truth, whether his information was authoritative or whether Deputy Boland was correct when he stated—I believe in all sincerity—he believed it was not authoritative. The Taoiseach has a duty to Deputies and to the nation to clarify this point and to let the people know on what grounds he called for the resignation of his two senior Ministers. Deputy Haughey has denied the allegations. He is quoted in the Irish Independent of 9th May as follows:

I regret that on medical advice I cannot make a personal statement in Dáil Éireann concerning the termination of my office as a member of the Government.

Since becoming a Minister, I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to serve my country, Dáil Éireann and the Government.

I have never at any time acted in breach of the trust reposed in me and I regret that I am now compelled to refer to the circumstances which brought to an end my membership of the Government.

The Taoiseach informed the Dáil that he requested my resignation on the grounds that he was convinced that not even the slightest suspicion should attach to any member of the Government.

I fully subscribe to that view, as I have been able to gather the Taoiseach received information of a nature which in his opinion cast some suspicion on me.

I have not had the opportunity to examine or test such information or the quality of its source or sources.

In the meantime, however, I now categorically state that at no time have I taken part in any illegal importation or attempted importation of arms into this country.

At present I do not propose to say anything further except that I fully accepted the Taoiseach's decision as I believe the unity of the Fianna Fáil Party is of greater importance to the welfare of the nation than my political career.

The Taoiseach has made a certain statement. The ex-Minister for Finance has denied it in no uncertain terms, supported by the ex-Minister for Local Government. Yet these two Deputies claim that the welfare of the party comes before their personal prestige and welfare and that, in order to preserve the image of Fianna Fáil as best they can at this time, they are prepared to support the Taoiseach. I would suggest to the Taoiseach, however, that he should clarify these two statements. He says that not the slightest suspicion should attach to any member of the Government. Either Deputy Haughey in this statement is a confounded liar or the Taoiseach is a confounded liar.

The Deputy must not use the words "confounded liar."

I withdraw that statement, but if Deputy Haughey can substantiate what he said then the Taoiseach must have made a false statement in this House because the two do not coincide.

The Taoiseach said here on 6th May in relation to the ex-Minister for Justice, Deputy Micheál Ó Moráin:

I want to assure the House that that appointment was terminated on health grounds, as I have already stated, publicly and in this House. The Minister was not involved in these matters.

In his concluding speech that day he said:

In relation to the former Minister for Justice I wish to say that there is no "perhaps" as Deputy Keating tries to suggest in his case as far as involvement in this matter is concerned. I said at the start of my opening statement, and I repeat it now, that his resignation was tendered to me on grounds of ill-health.

The ex-Minister for Local Government says that he does not believe this. He says quite clearly that he believes the Minister was asked to resign. He says quite clearly he believes he was pressurised into tendering his resignation. Deputy Boland made this speech in a most convincing and, I believe, most sincere manner. Again, as in the case of Deputy Haughey, there is no similarity between what Deputy Boland says and what the Taoiseach says is the truth about the resignation of the ex-Minister for Justice.

The Taoiseach has won in this country the reputation of "Honest Jack". The first time I had the pleasure of speaking here my opening remarks were that I did not doubt the sincerity of the Taoiseach. Since that time, I regret to say, I have had to change my mind. I have heard on a number of occasions accusations made from the Opposition benches of alleged incidents which took place throughout the length and breadth of this country. Every time they were made the Taoiseach repudiated the person making them and said they were without foundation, that his Ministers were above reproach.

There is a magazine called This Week and I am sure everybody has read this week's edition. It has the Taoiseach's picture on the front page. It says here: “Fianna Fáil splits for the third time.” I want to say at this stage I am not concerned if Fianna Fáil split for the 33rd time; I am not concerned if they split and the crack never heals; I am not concerned if it is papered over three hours after I speak, but I am concerned with an incident which was brought to the notice of this House some months ago. The person who mentioned it was told that it was without foundation. I will read a couple of extracts from this magazine. The first one is:

Blaney delivered his Letterkenny manifesto last December when he said that the Fianna Fáil Party had never taken a decision to rule out the use of force if the circumstances in the Six Counties so demanded.

It goes on further to state:

In January last we confessed to a suspicion that there had been political intervention in the rather remarkable judicial performances in Buncrana court. It bears repetition.

Another colleague of the Deputy's quoted that before.

I will quote it again.

The Deputy is short of ammunition.

Not a bit. Unfortunately, we are not short of this type of ammunition. I said at the outset that it was no pleasure for any Deputy to have to make the kind of comments I am making here today. On the contrary, it is a great disgrace to the country that comments such as this have arisen. Further on this article states:

There the State solicitor, Mr. Liam McMenamin, withdrew charges against seven men of having firearms in their possession with intent to endanger life. The facts of the case, Mr. McMenamin said, did not sustain the requirement of the Act and there should be an immediate intent. This is something which should give immediate consolation to all those harbouring arms throughout the 26 Counties, IRA or UVF, not to mention all unlicensed holders of shot guns for shooting fowl and other flying objects.

Later on the article said:

"Let them go in peace," said the State Solicitor, "and leave their firearms behind them." This would echo the sentiments of the vast majority of people. Perhaps they would undertake not to do it again.

There is also contained a photograph of the weapons and the loot which was found. I respectfully submit to the Taoiseach and to the Tánaiste that there must have been some intervention by either a Minister of State or somebody in a position to tamper with justice for that to happen in a case of this nature.

I have experience in my own neighbourhood of people out for a Sunday's sport with a shotgun owned by a father or brother. The Tánaiste might have some information on this. When they were intercepted by the local gardaí in the course of their duty, and charged accordingly, in one particular case the gun was confiscated, and a fine imposed. I suggest there is no connection between an offence of that type and an offence of the magnitude of this case in Donegal. In the case of an unfortunate young fellow out for a Sunday's shooting the law was allowed to take its course, and rightly so, but a much bigger case, involving the type of weapons displayed in this picture, was allowed to go unheard. I believe the Taoiseach owes it to this House to explain how this could happen. It was quite obvious when I began to read this that the Tánaiste had knowledge of it.

I have no knowledge of it. It has already been read. I thought the Deputy might simply save time by saying this document had already been read. I have no knowledge of it.

I accept that the Tánaiste may not have any knowledge of it, but the last time it was read there was no reply made to it. I suggest there should be some reply now because it is very peculiar that a matter of this sort could be quashed without the knowledge of the Minister for Justice. Surely, if the Minister for Justice had knowledge that this case was not going to take its course, the State Solicitor acted out of turn and was entitled to be reprimanded. I have said it gives me no particular pleasure to speak on a matter of this sort.

I think we should have a quorum to listen to this very good contribution by Deputy Fox.

This is more of the tomfoolery in this debate. When they are talking about responsible attitudes on this side of the House they should show the same themselves. They are making a farce out of the House.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

On a point of order. I am sorry to be transgressing the laws of courtesy, and I will obey your ruling, Sir, but is there no charity for the reporters of this House and the staff of this House who have been on duty since 10.30 a.m. yesterday morning? There is no relief for them. It is sheer slavery.

That is not a point of order.

Where has Deputy Burke the meeting this evening?

I want to protest very strongly. There is no charity for the staff of this House. The reporters, the official staff and the staff of the House have been on duty all the time.

[Interruptions.]

That is not a point of order. Deputy Fox to continue.

I hope it is on the official record that Deputy Treacy's remark to the charitable statement of Deputy Burke was that it was "humbug".

Absolute humbug.

Deputy Fox to continue.

Deputy Coughlan rose.

Would Deputy Coughlan please resume his seat.

I do not know what Deputy Burke has said——

The Deputy must resume his seat.

The men who work here have not had time to get a meal——

The Deputy must resume his seat.

It is disgraceful the way they have been treated.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I do not know who is responsible but it would not happen in any other country in the world.

[Interruptions.]

Order. The Chair would ask Deputies to please co-operate and allow the Deputy in possession to speak. Deputy Fox.

I agree with part of what Deputy Burke has said in respect of the staff of this House. I have been here for as long a time as any of the Members opposite and, if they are agreeable to have a break for one or two hours to give the staff an opportunity to have their meals, it is all right with me; I can resume afterwards. I have a responsibility to my constituents. As has been pointed out by many Deputies, the matter we are discussing is a grave one. When I report to my constituents in Monaghan they will ask me to render an account of my stewardship. They are justly entitled to ask where I stand in relation to the mess into which this country has been plunged. Every Deputy, irrespective of party, is entitled to speak if he wishes on a matter as serious as this. If this necessitates the House sitting continuously day and night, that is not my concern, nor is it my fault. Having said that, I suggest that I might be allowed to continue my speech.

I resent having to speak on this motion and I consider that the people who were involved in this matter have brought shame on this nation. I have listened to a few of the speeches from the opposite side of the House and I was amazed to hear some of the remarks made. Deputy J. O'Leary said that the name of Fianna Fáil was synonymous with the people of Ireland. When he spoke last night he said that we on this side of the House were responsible for the late sitting of the Dáil. He spoke of republicans and told us what he stood for. I should like to tell Deputy O'Leary that six weeks ago I had the pleasure of addressing an after-Mass meeting at Klonbroney Church in County Longford at which Deputy O'Leary also spoke. I want to point out that the people who stood attentively and listened to me did not listen to Deputy O'Leary very long. Later that day I was informed that I was the first politician to address an after-Mass meeting outside Klonbroney Church for the past 14 years. I was told the previous politician to address such a meeting was the present Tánaiste and I was told he was attacked that day——

This matter would seem to be irrelevant to the debate which is before the House.

If I am allowed to continue it will be seen to be relevant. The Tánaiste was not permitted to speak for any great length outside Klonbroney Church because certain people claimed they were cousins of Dick Goss, who had been executed. I am suggesting that this man was executed for an offence similar to the alleged offence committed by the people we are discussing today.

We have had many references during the general election campaign and from time to time in this House about reds, communists, Cubans and others. On a number of occasions the Tánaiste has issued statements in the local papers in the constituency. He has continuously attacked this party. He has spoken of a coalition of Fine Gael and of Labour. He continually attacks Cubans, reds and communists. I suggest that he reconsiders his views in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the present and forget about reds and Cubans.

I did not refer to reds and Cubans. I quoted from the Labour Outline of Policy, which is a much better way.

On his election platform and in addresses in papers the Tánaiste tied up the Fine Gael Party in a coalition with reds and Cubans.

I suggest that he should, if possible, find time to state where he stands in this situation. There are a number of very important matters before us. This sitting is unprecedented in so far as it has been the longest in the history of this House. The reason it is the longest sitting is that the subject matter of the debate is of such great importance that it merits such a sitting. Could the Taoiseach tell us when he is replying if State funds were used in the alleged purchase of these arms? I do not think it is too much to expect the Taoiseach to tell me if State money was used for this purpose.

Would the Taoiseach also tell us if figures are available at this stage to show what the estimated loss in tourist earnings would be to the country? If figures are not available at this stage —and I doubt very much if they are— I suggest that as soon as they become available he give us the monthly returns.

Would the Taoiseach also inform us of the amount of foreign investment that has been withdrawn from this country since this affair became public knowledge, or if any foreign capital has been withdrawn, or if applications have been received for the withdrawal of foreign capital? If that information is not available today, I suggest that it be made available as soon as it becomes known.

I have the greatest respect for each and every individual, and if Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney were so nationalistic and felt so strongly on this matter that they thought it merited the action they allegedly took, they are entitled to their opinion and that is their business. However, I believe that as members of the Government they were wrong. If they wanted to do this they should have resigned their membership of the Government. I could understand some illegal organisation having the desire to import arms and ammunition, but I cannot understand senior Ministers of the Government having such a desire. As there can be only one army in this country it is ridiculous, to put it mildly, that any Ministers of State should be employed by any organisation or allow themselves to be employed to import arms into the State.

I want to suggest to the Taoiseach that he should drive up to the Park as soon as possible and dissolve the Nineteenth Dáil. It is the only method at his disposal whereby he can come clean and let the people pass judgment. I have no doubt that the voters of this country, having seen how the leader of our party, Deputy Liam Cosgrave, brought this plot to light, will have no hesitation in doing what they did in the twenties when faced with a similar crisis—going to the polls and electing a Fine Gael Government under the leadership of Deputy Liam Cosgrave, a son of the late W. T. Cosgrave who steered this country through similar circumstances.

I wish, first of all, to refer to a very critical remark which has been made here by none other than one of the Labour Party front benchers, Deputy Treacy, in regard to the reputation of the staff in this establishment. My colleague, Deputy Burke, made a plea on behalf of the staff here, knowing full well they had been working from 9.30 yesterday morning until now without a single break.

This is not a subject for discussion on the motion.

I agree but——

It is a matter for the Restaurant Committee. It is the Deputy's job as Chairman of the Restaurant Committee. He could do it without any publicity. He is vote-catching.

Is the Deputy finished? He will get his opportunity.

I have already got it. I have said it.

And that was nothing and he is not able to say any more.

I said it when you were not here. You were asleep.

On behalf of the staff, I should like——

Will the Deputy come to the motion before the House?

I will, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I say it is typical of the Labour Party when one of their members can applaud the effort of Deputy Burke and the other front bench member can say that it is humbug.

I must ask the Deputy to come to the motion.

This is a matter which was brought up in the debate. The responsibility for this lies nowhere else than with the Fine Gael Party's efforts here last night to frustrate the staff and each Member of the House by holding caucus meetings to try to bring about the downfall of this House.

On a point of order. The Deputy is speaking about the staff of this House and Fine Gael have nothing whatsoever to do——

That is not a point of order.

You are responsible for having this House sitting all night.

We are not.

You well know that.

We are not. The two boys who run arms are.

The Deputies will obey the ruling of the Chair and come to the motion before the House.

I bow to your ruling, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Having said that and having cemented in the minds of the people concerned exactly where they stand, I want to say that the motion before us has not been dealt with by any of the Opposition Deputies because, of course, that would be too trivial. It would be too much to expect any respect for the men nominated here for ministerial posts, that their reputation would be debated in this House rather than the reputation of the Fianna Fáil Party. We do not deprive them of this opportunity because as long as we in Fianna Fáil are on this side of the House the reputation of Fianna Fáil will stand before the people and we will not be afraid of what Deputy Oliver Flanagan, Deputy Liam Cosgrave, Deputy O'Higgins or Deputy Belton have to say about us. The reputation of Fianna Fáil is far above those individuals. Regarding the claim made by the coalition or inter-party Opposition as to splits, cracks, haircracks and volcanoes in the Fianna Fáil Party I want to assure them that their efforts to denigrate Fianna Fáil have failed miserably on numerous occasions before and have failed also on this occasion because the reputation of the Fianna Fáil Party will stand jointed as long as we have people such as Deputy Kevin Boland, Deputy Neil Blaney, Deputy Charles J. Haughey, Deputy Michael Moran, and our Taoiseach, Seán Ó Loinsigh.

Charles Haughey— guns, guns, and more guns.

Deputy Foley is in possession and must be allowed to make his speech.

Deputy Belton, whose reputation would not stand in front of that of any of the five men I have mentioned, has made allegations in this House not alone today. He made personal attacks against the reputation of none other than Deputy Charles J. Haughey.

I appreciate the frustration that Deputy Belton has suffered over the last number of years because he has been dragged in on the tail of the coat of other individuals whom he has forced into standing with him in his constituency so that he could get the flagging votes of those individuals when they were eliminated. The one thing in his mind was that he would some day top the poll in front of Deputy Charles J. Haughey. He has been frustrated in his efforts and he will be more frustrated when the next election is called in four years time.

You will have to get him out of jail.

On a point of order, surely that was not a proper remark?

The Chair is dealing with remarks like this. Personal remarks are not in order and the Deputy should withdraw it.

I withdraw.

The guttersnipe attitude of the Fine Gael Party which we have just witnessed in the front benches has been displayed on no fewer than seven occasions since I came into the House. I remember, when the Taoiseach made nominations for ministerial posts in the past, Deputy Belton and some of his frustrated colleagues stooped so low as to use extravagant means of dealing with personalities and having done so found themselves with a worthless deed, receiving no acclamation from the press. Having failed miserably there they went back to their constituencies fully convinced that the only way to defeat Fianna Fáil was to join in a coalition with Labour. These efforts have been made and we realise their frustration in this matter also. Of course the Labour Party stand on this is not too clear because they themselves are not clear who is their leader. Neither are Fine Gael. In 1965 when I came in here as a young Deputy, helped in by my colleagues Deputy Kevin Boland and P. J. Burke —I am more than grateful to both— Fine Gael had as their leader Deputy James Dillon who was paraded around the country to every fair with a ring in his nose like a bull.

The Deputy should not indulge in this kind of personal reflection.

The Deputy might be gracious enough to withdraw.

It is similar to what he said about Arthur Griffith.

They said during the election campaign that the Fine Gael Party were expressing the wishes of the people when they said it was time for a change. The people listened to what they had to say and they returned Fianna Fáil to office with a majority. Fine Gael on that occasion came into this House to parade that same ex-Deputy around the House and they told the Members that it was time for a change. Fianna Fáil having selected their Taoiseach, the Fine Gael Party resorted to cloak and dagger activities in the Fine Gael rooms and paraded that ex-Deputy there and whispered in his ear, "Deputy Dillon, it is time for a change" and they elected Deputy Cosgrave as their leader. This is a clear indication of the kind of skulduggery that goes on within the Fine Gael Party. This type of skulduggery is probably being concocted at present and who knows but that in the same Fine Gael rooms the new President-elect, Deputy O'Higgins, is being paraded in the same way with a view to having a successful run?

I appreciate that the hypocritical remarks of Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Keating are but fitting to those two individuals. I listened with some grief to the remarks made by Deputy Oliver Flanagan regarding the reputations of Deputies Kevin Boland, Neil Blaney and Charles A. Haughey. It does not grieve me one bit to hear men trying to denigrate the reputation of these two particular individuals. This man is well known as a character assassin. It is not today or yesterday the Fine Gael Party realised this and that is why Deputy Flanagan has found himself in the back benches of the Fine Gael Party not knowing whether he is going to shift outside the railings to the Seanad or across the stairs to the Labour Party.

In defending the reputations of these three men I want to make it quite clear that I am fully behind them and behind anyone with republican traditions. The traditions of those three men are well known to Deputies and to the people. I can assure you no individual in the Opposition would be fit to tie their shoelaces.

I would not stoop to tie them.

We have listened to all kinds of slagging. I am sorry I have to use the word. They dragged people into the mire and then lifted them up and said they were not bad fellows only for this happening them. It is the typical way of knifing a person in the back, cold-blooded assassination. They are cold-blooded assassins. We realise the dilemma they are in. This is an opportunity for them to try to grab a slice of the cake they have so hungrily wished for for many years and of which they have been deprived because of their policies. The people have realised the irresponsibility of Fine Gael in rebuking the Government and rebuking individuals that the people themselves had selected—the Fianna Fáil Party and their Leader, Deputy Jack Lynch. The people gave us our mandate in June 1969 and we will hold on to that mandate. When the Taoiseach decides it is time to have an election we will be satisfied to face the people with a reputation, untarnished up to this——

Up to this, I agree.

——and that reputation will stand. If the people do not accept us then, and only then, will we decide that the alternative to Fianna Fáil is inter-party Government, a Government who on two occasions have deceived the people and had to run away from their responsibilities and leave Fianna Fáil holding the baby.

I want to say to Deputy Cosgrave— he was greatly concerned about the Taoiseach being such an honourable man and having such gurriers behind him and, having been knifed in the back by men like Deputies Kevin Boland, Neil Blaney and Charlie Haughey——

Which he was.

The Deputy's best contribution since he came in here was "Hear, hear." It is the best thing I heard him say.

It is 50 times better than anything the Deputy has said. There is no doubt about that.

I want to assure you and Deputy Cosgrave that you will never have the troubles Fianna Fáil have at this moment.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

You will never have those troubles.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

These troubles will never touch the Fine Gael benches or the Labour benches, and do you know why? Because you will never accept the responsibility of governing this country, of having to decide whether you will be the popular fellows with the people or whether you will act only in the interests of the economy of the country. The making of those decisions was rejected by Fine Gael when they were in office. Today they are still afraid of having to make such decisions and that is why I say they will never have the troubles which they imagine we are sorely and deeply grieved by today. I would like to say on behalf of my colleagues—Deputies Kevin Boland, Neil Blaney and Charlie Haughey——

And Paudge Brennan.

And Paudge Brennan.

And Michael Moran.

And Michael Moran. Have you any more?

And Deputy Gibbons as well.

They are proud men who served in the party with republican traditions; a party that accepted that the Taoiseach made the decision on the evidence available to him. These men accepted this like men. I would like to reiterate on their behalf that Deputy Kevin Boland when he was Minister for Local Government and Minister for Social Welfare was a man of distinct character. He was a man whose reputation was completely untarnished and remains untarnished because of his willingness to serve this State in every way possible. This man worked day and night, with limited sleep and with all the energy available to him, to serve the people in the way in which he thought fit. The way in which a Boland thinks fit to serve the State is a way of which I and my colleagues are particularly proud. I am firmly behind my colleagues, not one of them, but each and every one of them, and this is something which Fine Gael hypocrites, the Fine Gael guttersnipes——

On a point of order——

The Deputy should not use that kind of language.

He is so low he cannot speak any other language.

I will withdraw that remark and say that anyone who refers to the people mentioned here in the manner in which Fine Gael and Labour have referred to them are nothing more than guttersnipes.

On a point of order, that is a reference to the Opposition. The Deputy referred to the Opposition as guttersnipes. Is the Chair going to accept that?

The Deputy changed his phrasing and has made a political charge. The Chair cannot control these charges, but deprecates them.

When the Deputy has served his term of apprenticeship here it is only then——

Will the Deputy address the Chair?

I apologise. We have had a lot of dirty linen washed here.

You can say that again.

As well as trying to denigrate the reputation of Fianna Fáil they have, of course, tried to bring in the name of a dead man. They have used the name of Garda Dick Fallon here so freely that one would think this man, who should be honoured for his heroism, had something to do with this particular action which the Taoiseach has taken.

On a point of order, when Deputy Foley says the late Garda Fallon's name was mentioned in the debate here, is the Deputy referring to Deputy Boland?

If the Deputy were here he would know who mentioned it. It was the reprobates in the front bench who mentioned it. They used Garda Fallon's name in such a way as to convey that they had the sole concern for the late Garda Fallon and his widow and that they would take it upon themselves to catch these people whom they assume we have allowed to go free. I have another slant on that. Infiltration by the Blueshirt movement still exists within some of the forces——

Deputy Lenehan was a Blueshirt.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I was not a Blueshirt. I deny that I ever had any association with the Blueshirts. They were the lowest type ever.

The Deputy wore one.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I did not wear one or if I did, I wore it as a blue shirt, not as a member of an organisation.

We are proud of the Blueshirts. We had to ensure we could hold public meetings and that Fianna Fáil would not stop them.

The Deputy is the first man I ever heard saying he was proud of a disgrace.

(Interruptions.)

The possibility of capturing the murderers of Garda Fallon has been limited in no small way by the implications in what was said here by the leader of the Opposition and those who support him.

Why did you not publish the photographs of the seven men?

Deputy Harte should cease interrupting.

What are you hiding?

Why did you not publish the photographs of the 77?

Why did you not ask the Minister for Justice to publish the photographs of the seven men you wanted?

Deputy Harte must cease interrupting. The Deputy will complain if the Chair takes action.

Deputy Haughey's father was a Blueshirt.

Deputy Foley raised this matter——

Deputy Harte should conduct himself. If he does not do so, I shall ask him to leave the House.

Why was the same thing not done with Deputy Lenehan?

If Deputy Belton does not restrain himself he will follow.

(Interruptions.)

I recognise that the Chair can have me removed. It will not be the first and I presume not the last time but Deputy Foley has raised a very important matter and, through the Chair, I want to ask why the Government have not published photographs of the seven wanted men.

Mr. J. Lenehan

And the 77.

(Interruptions.)

That is not a point of order.

Having given Deputy Harte rope to hang himself, I want to point out that when I spoke about the hyprocritical attitude of the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party I was being moderate in regard to those who used this opportunity to mislead the people of the country and try to convey to them that the Fianna Fáil Party have been hiding something from them. We have made our case openly here, in the public press and through all media. That case is that we stand united behind the Taoiseach in his decision.

That is what they have in Glengormley.

The Deputy should cease interrupting.

I realise that the smell of the rashers brought the Deputy down from the mountains. That is an accepted fact in the House.

That is a perfect example of the Deputy's intelligence.

It is a perfect example of the scent the Deputy has. I hope he did not smuggle in the pigs for the bacon.

(Interruptions.)

I am sure the Opposition Parties will go into the Lobbies and vote against the three Deputies nominated to be Minister, not on the reputation of the Deputies concerned but on the pretence that this great barrage is justified. They will say that they made the Dáil sit all night and have the longest sitting in its history to show their great concern about the running of the country and about keeping the Government on the straight and narrow path. But no less than a few weeks ago their concern for the old age pensioner and the less well-off citizens was such that they voted against the increases in the recent Budget.

What about the turnover tax for guns?

If these new Deputies make allegations here they should be able to produce the evidence. Some of these Deputies are only freshly imported and their reputation may well be made known to the House if I am sufficiently provoked. If they have evidence it should be produced because it is a matter of national concern and would be a help to the Taoiseach. Those people who ran so quickly to the Taoiseach with superficial evidence should now give conclusive proof if they can, that we concocted a Budget and that the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, had hidden away secret money in order to purchase arms for the people in the north. If one Fine Gael Deputy wants to make that type of allegation he should put the evidence before the House.

(Interruptions.)

It is typical of the Party opposite to make allegations that they cannot stand over. It is not the first time we had this.

Mr. J. Lenehan

They have not the price of a haircut.

A little more than you have just the same.

The Deputy would not need as much because he has not as much hair. I personally stand over the action of the Taoiseach and I also say that the reputation of my colleagues, Deputy Boland, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey remains untarnished.

[Interruptions.]

Yes, and Deputy Micheál Ó Móráin and Deputy Paudge Brennan. Deputy Brennan resigned on principle and this is something that no Member of the Fine Gael Party——

What principle?

——would ever have the principle to do. These men stand before us——

Which principle?

On a point of order, it is disgraceful the way Deputy Foley has been harassed here today from the Fine Gael benches.

It is a simple question.

Deputy Foley should be allowed to continue. It is disgraceful the way Deputy Harte and his colleagues have heckled Deputy Foley in an endeavour to provoke him and get him put out of the House.

Deputy Lenihan heckled me for an hour and he was not put out.

Which principle?

Deputy Harte must cease interrupting. He will complain if the Chair takes action.

He wants to go home. I do not want to enter into personalities. I do not mind Deputy Harte interrupting me.

May I ask Deputy Foley a question?

Deputy Harte will not allow Deputy Foley to proceed.

May I ask Deputy Foley a question?

Are you denying me my right to ask him a question?

I am denying you the right to interfere with his speech.

Deputy Foley has now said that he does not mind my interrupting him.

The Chair has been very patient with Deputy Harte and if he is anxious to be put out I will oblige him. The Deputy will please keep quite. If Deputy Foley has concluded I will call another Deputy.

We in the Fianna Fáil Party stand united in our aims and in our principles. We stand united as a team behind our Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch. These men have been mentioned with discredit by the Opposition and with credit by the Members of this side of the House. The Opposition have failed miserably to live up to the dignity of this House. They have shown to the people exactly what their contribution would be if the people were so naive on some occasion as to select them as the alternative to the Fianna Fáil Party.

It is worth stating once again why we are here on a Saturday afternoon at 3.15 p.m. after almost 30 hours of continuous debate. It is not because of the actions of anybody in Opposition but because of the action of the Taoiseach in sacking two of his senior Ministers and accepting the resignation of a third. Since the previous speaker tried to give the impression that this was brought about in some way by the actions of Deputies on this side of the House, it is as well to make this qualification right here at the start.

In a small village in Wicklow some weeks ago, the village of Rathdrum, for 1½ hours the normal law of the land ceased to operate. For 1½ hours two car loads of semi-military individuals, dressed in military clothing, invaded that small village and held up a branch of the Hibernian Bank. At least six individuals terrorised the occupants of that village firing shots into the air and firing shots at random both inside and outside the bank. This was not an isolated incident. It was not an incident for which there was no precedent. This was one of a series of raids on Irish banks that took place last year.

It was obvious to everybody in Dublin that Gardaí were watching outside each of the major branches of the banks in the city. I was not aware that this direction was given to the Gardaí in the rural areas because there was no surveillance by the garda on bank branches in rural parts. These individuals turned their attention to these banks not only in Rathdrum but in Baltinglass and Meath and other parts of Ireland.

As a result of that raid I tabled a question to the Minister for Justice asking him what further steps he was prepared to take to ensure the safety of the people in the banks and to ensure the safety of ordinary individuals going about their normal business. The Minister's reply was short and curt, as was his wont. He said, in effect, that adequate measures were taken to look after people employed in the banks in this State. Very shortly afterwards, there was a raid on a bank in Arran Quay, Dublin, which resulted, unfortunately, in the death of a very brave garda who was trying to prevent the bank robbers from escaping. These raids have been going on for some time, yet nobody has been brought to justice, to my knowledge in any case, in the past few months.

The death of Garda Fallon was mentioned by the previous speaker. He said we on this side of the House had used it to make a case against the Taoiseach and the Government. I mention it purely to illustrate the fact that in the past year the safety of individuals in this State has not been adequately looked after. When this House asked for further protection where it was needed we were told—and this is on the records of the House—that the protection was adequate.

I was horrified that the sound of shots was heard in a village of 600 inhabitants in my constituency and that peoples' lives were put in danger. The last time I heard shots fired in anger was when I visited Belfast last August. I was a member of two delegations from the Labour Party who went to make an on-the-spot inquiry into the troubles going on there.

Deputy Blaney made a rather snide remark about the Labour Party members of those delegations, as though we in the Labour Party had no right to be concerned about the people of Northern Ireland, as though we had no right to go over the Border and talk to people on the Falls Road or in Derry or in Armagh, who were beleagured by the Orange extremists there.

I was accompanied by Senator Jack Fitzgerald and Deputy James Tully on that occasion. Deputy Boland suggested that we were on a glory-seeking mission. In fact, it would be difficult to find two more unassuming Members of the Oireachtas; they would shy away, I believe, from any attempt to seek glory for themselves. We went by train, without any fanfare, and so on. We went around to various places as far as we were permitted to do so. We made inquiries and found out the needs of the people in the area.

On the Saturday-Sunday of the most dreadful week in the recent history of Northern Ireland we were able, by the fact of our being there, to get in touch with Deputy Corish in Dublin to let him know the plight of the people in Northern Ireland and the plight of the people in the urban parts of Belfast. We were able to ask him to make the Taoiseach aware of the severe plight of people on the Springfield Road and in the Ardoyne area of Belfast who were threatened by mobs of Paisley extremists that their houses would be burned out as several had been burned out in the Falls Road area. As a result of our being there, and as a result of sending back these views on the people in that area, we felt that the Taoiseach would be able to get in touch with people in charge of security in the north. As a result, British troops were put into the Ardoyne on that Saturday afternoon, thus staving off a bloodbath which seemed imminent that afternoon. Having heard for the first time shots fired in that area of Ireland, in anger against fellow-Irishmen, I never want to hear the same thing on this side of the Border.

When as a member of the inter-party delegation in London, the news came to us that there was a crisis in the Government and we were asked to return home immediately and then, when we came back and found the reason for this crisis, I was terribly saddened to hear who were involved. These people were not named by anybody on these benches but by the Taoiseach himself—people of the calibre of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney who have, I would say, international reputations. I felt it would be very sad if these allegations were true.

It was the Taoiseach who felt he must remove these men from office in case there was any suspicion, as he said himself, that they were implicated in the importation of arms for an illegal organisation. As a result of that action, the nation has reeled in shock over the past few days. As a result of that action, we here in these benches and also on the Government benches have been discussing the possible repercussions of the alleged actions of these men and of the Taoiseach's actions.

The people on these benches have every bit as great a love for their native country as Deputies on other benches. They have been protesting their love of country and their long traditions of serving the Irish nation. We, too, and our forebears have also served the Irish nation. When I listened to my colleague from Wicklow, Deputy P. Brennan, explain quietly and sincerely why he felt he must resign, I felt a great sympathy for him. I know Deputy Brennan, his family and his relations. His wife's family come from my own town. I am deeply sorry for Deputy Brennan in the decision he felt he had to make. He suggested that the people of Wicklow would decide whether he should serve them in the future. I am sure the people of Wicklow will understand the great loyalty Deputy Brennan has to his party and to his ideals and that they will therefore understand the reasons for the action he took.

In the past year, or almost a year, since I first became a Member of this House, it has been a time for me to learn my trade here. I had to decide the occasions when I should speak and on many occasions I decided not to speak. From these Labour benches I noticed that certain Ministers arrived here at Question Time and chatted together, passed jokes and so on, among themselves. I notice how this usually happened on the right hand side of the benches as I look at them and the Taoiseach and his colleagues were left severely alone. It was not surprising, therefore, when the crunch came, to discover that it was these men who generally consorted amongst themselves who were the persons affected. On many occasions we saw the attitude they took to the leader of their own party. When we heard two of them make their statements here yesterday we had little doubt that they at no stage, or only on very few occasions, held their leader in the high regard in which one should hold one's leader and the Taoiseach of the country.

It is indeed sad that in a few hours' time the Taoiseach must explain to this House, more fully than he did in his earlier remarks why he has had to let these men go. The reasons he gave for dismissing them—that it was suggested they were connected with the importation of arms for illegal purposes—have been refuted by these two men, who strenuously denied this accusation. The Taoiseach must give the reasons to the House why he had to take this action. The Taoiseach said that not even the slightest suspicion should attach to a Minister.

When the Taoiseach comes here to-day he will also have to explain the situation in relation to the Minister designate for Agriculture and Fisheries —the disclosures concerning him in the newspapers and on television. These disclosures have left doubt and suspicion about Deputy J. Gibbons. One cannot be unmindful of the fact that, up to now, he has held the portfolio of Minister for Defence. I hope that the Taoiseach will lay the full facts before the House and will let the people decide whether the action he took in relation to the particular individuals was right. The only way in which the Taoiseach can do that is to call a general election.

Listening to Deputy Foley a while ago I formed the opinion that his attitude is typical of the attitude of all Fianna Fáil people. That attitude is that, outside of Fianna Fáil, there can be no good and that it is they who have a monopoly of patriotism and nationalism here.

Deputy Foley more or less implied that the Opposition were responsible for having an extended sitting of the House. Of course, the Deputy would not accept that his party are responsible for the situation, but we all know they are. This country finds itself in a situation that has never before been experienced in the State. We are all interested in the welfare of the State. That is why we take this opportunity of expressing our views on this unprecedented situation.

Deputy Foley referred to the guttersnipe tactics of the Opposition which allegations, of course, are untrue. It was rather laughable when he said he did not wish to be personal—after he had attacked two or three Members of this side of the House. I know that he was enjoying himself at the time, so we will let him away with that. However, he referred to an era in this country when it was necessary to have an organisation to preserve the rights of democracy and to allow freedom of speech. The Deputy referred to the Blueshirts. I was a Blueshirt. I was proud to be one and I make no apology to Deputy Foley or to any member of Fianna Fáil for that.

Hear, hear.

It was necessary to have the Blueshirts so that decent people could walk the streets during that particular era. If Deputy Foley realised what he was talking about, I doubt if he would have referred at all to this matter.

However, so much for that. I must deal with the motion before the House, namely, the filling of vacancies in the Cabinet created by the expulsion and resignation of certain Ministers. Three young men have been named to fill these vacancies: Deputies Cronin, Molloy and Collins. To my mind, they are three quiet young men who will be very capable in their respective Ministries, if they are afforded the opportunity of carrying out their duties. But this I doubt because of the situation that led up to the necessity for their appointment. It is this that is the core of the whole matter.

While I was passing through the corridors yesterday I heard two Fianna Fáil veterans, one of whom is a former Parliamentary Secretary, talking loudly and one commented to the other: "Is this not a tragic situation?" to which his colleague replied: "It would not happen in our time." Unfortunately, however, it has happened in the 1970's. These veterans of Fianna Fáil were, of course, referring to the situation which resulted in the Taoiseach having to ask for the resignation of certain members of his Cabinet. Fianna Fáil have nobody but themselves to blame for this situation.

Let it be said that the situation was known to the Taoiseach for some time. Were it not for information having been made available to him by the leader of our party, Deputy Cosgrave, perhaps the facts would never have been made known. Deputy Cosgrave, with his traditionally national outlook, called on the Taoiseach and made him aware of the information he had in his possession. Deputy Cosgrave need not have gone to the Taoiseach at all. He could have come to the House with the information; he could have called a Press conference or have appeared on television and let the country know about the situation but, being the man that he is, he did not do any of these things because, as I have already said, his traditions and his birth would not allow him to do such a thing. He courteously presented the Taoiseach with the information. He did not make political capital out of it because that is not the approach of either Deputy Cosgrave or the members of the Fine Gael Party. They are above such tactics.

The Taoiseach's action in calling for these resignations immediately created the situation that we now have to deal with here. Deputy Foley blamed us for being unfair to the staff of this House. I sympathise with those members of the staff who are on duty for long hours, but that is not the responsibility of the Fine Gael Party. The people on the Government benches are the people responsible for this. They have created the situation and it is necessary to give everybody who is interested in the future of this country an opportunity of voicing his views. It is necessary to cross every "t" and dot every "i" in this debate.

The disclosures which the Taoiseach, so mildly presented to the House will need a lot of explaining before Deputies or the people of the country will be satisfied. The situation is referred to in the Cork Examiner of today's date, Cork's own paper. Remember, the Taoiseach comes from the same town. I quote:

There is an obvious temptation, in times of national difficulty such as those which are now upon us, to become a little hysterical, a little over-alarmed about the course of events and the manner in which they may affect the future of the country and the well-being of its people. There is, on the other hand, a tendency to be a little too blasé, and to play down the dangers in the situation which has now arisen in national affairs.

That is what is being done by the Government and the Fianna Fáil Pary. They have played it down and they are playing it down. There is no crisis, they tell us, nothing at all wrong; we are all one big happy family—after the sacking of Ministers and the resignation of another. Everything is rosy in the garden. No crisis at all, despite what the news media have put before the public every day since and the headlines that everybody who had an opportunity of having a Dublin paper on last Wednesday had for their breakfast. Their digestions were not helped when, over their breakfast last Wednesday, they saw headlines like these in the Dublin papers: "Ministers Sacked; One Resigned; Serious Crisis in the Country." Here in the House we have been told more than once that there is no crisis, none whatever. Two Ministers were asked for their resignations, which they did not give, and one resigned. Despite three senior Ministers leaving the Government Fianna Fáil are quite happy. They are again a united party, having the full support of those Ministers the Taoiseach did not think fit to hold office. I shall continue my quotation from the Cork Examiner:

There is every reason to avoid promoting an atmosphere of panic, since this will serve no purpose at all, but it is equally apparent that the widespread public concern that is being felt about a grave national issue cannot be shrugged off with the simple words: "There is no crisis." In the strictly literal sense, this may be true. The Government is continuing to function; Ministers have been dismissed or have resigned, and they have been replaced, but while the process of Government continues, there can be no doubt whatever that the startling events of recent days have resulted only in engendering an atmosphere of public bewilderment and not a little fear for the future.

It is no wonder we have statements, counter-statements, more confusion and the situation is far from being clear to the public. We know very well it is not clear to the party concerned. In the present situation it behoves everyone to speak and to act with not a little restraint. There are enough wild rumours and half truths circulating already. Emotional outbursts will not help but, in spite of this, there are still things that must be said and actions that must be taken. The Taoiseach informed the House that it was necessary to ask two Ministers for their seals of office.

I have already stated that another Minister resigned. Deputy Boland made a statement denying that he had anything to do with any gun running or alleged gun running in this country.

He probably, which he was entitled to do, cleared himself but it was rather extraordinary to do it by way of the inflammatory speech he made. It could not be called anything else. He categorically denied he had anything to do with the gun running. By implication he made the Taoiseach appear he was cutting their throats. He told him in no uncertain terms he had nothing to do with it and that whatever information he got from the special ministerial watching organisation, as Deputy Boland called it, and the Gestapotype methods used was not the truth. He resigned because he considered if the Taoiseach had not confidence in him it was time to get out.

When Deputy Boland realised that this ministerial watching organisation was set up to watch the Ministers, to know what they were doing, to "bug" houses and tap phones, surely it was quite apparent the Taoiseach must have been lacking in confidence in those people on whom he had put this watching organisation set up by the named civil servant. He said he definitely knew of one Minister whose house was bugged. The ministerial watching organisation was able to enter in their diaries anything which went on and to convey it to the Taoiseach. It was hard to blame Deputy Boland for resigning as a protest when he found out the true situation.

Deputy Blaney also came into the House and denied that he had anything to do with the alleged gun smuggling to this country or to the north. He made a very warm speech as regards his youth and his early days and he again, like Deputy Boland, levelled all his remarks at the Opposition side of the House. The Opposition were responsible for everything. It is unfortunate that some people want to make capital even at this late stage out of references to the unfortunate Civil War.

Deputy Blaney made good use of it. He spoke for a long time but he did not really tell us anything. Both Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland asserted their loyalty to the Taoiseach and to the Fianna Fáil Party. They freely gave their loyal support in order to keep Fianna Fáil in office.

There are fresh allegations of widespread intrigue which must be either substantiated or refuted. In this regard the Government will have to be much more forthcoming than they have been. They have not told anything yet. The Taoiseach in a very short statement in this House gave an account of what he did. He gave no explanation but naturally he is called on to give one now. There presists a feeling that the public have not been told the whole truth. While there may be reticence on the grounds of national security there is also a crying need for a fuller explanation of what has happened, both within and outside the national territory within recent months.

The public are further bemused by the fact that one of the former Ministers has categorically denied that he is in any way implicated in the alleged incident on which his dismissal was said to have been founded. The public are also bemused by the fact that the veracity of the information which led the Taoiseach to act as he did is being openly questioned. There persists the feeling that there is more in the matter than meets the eye, that too many questions remains unanswered. There is nothing answered at the moment and the situation is becoming worse. In today's Irish Press I saw the headings “Confusion lies in the crisis. Cabinet changes overshadowed. Blaney, Boland defend their stands. Minister, Army man exchange fire. Ranks close to election calls.” There is, therefore, a lot to be told and that is the responsibility of the Taoiseach.

It is the responsibility of the Taoiseach to come into this House and answer these important questions in a detailed way. The facts will have to be brought to light because the country cannot accept less than the truth. The people are entitled to a full explanation of the events that led up to this unprecedented situation. It is a tragic occasion when a Taoiseach finds it necessary to ask his Ministers to resign because it was alleged that they were engaged in subversive activities within and outside the State.

There is the feeling that law and order must be more strictly enforced against any section of the community which is guilty of transgression and this impartial enforcement must become a reality in order to restore public confidence. There is justifiable concern about the fact that a new element of lawlessness is creeping into Irish society. There have been too many instances of armed robberies, allegedly for political ends, and too few arrests. It matters little whether the planning of these raids is carried out in the North or in the South. What matters is that the security forces are not operating with maximum effectiveness and a worried public is beginning to ask why. It is no wonder that our country is getting a bad name as regards gangsterism and hold-ups and robberies which have been increasing.

From conversations with Garda officers I know they are not happy about such matters but I must say that, both individually and collectively, these officers fearlessly carry out their duty. Unfortunately, they are short of personnel which hinders them in their work. These is a suggestion in newspapers reports that there may be other elements at work which, if it is true, is not going to improve the position but will worsen it. I know one case which occurred last year in County Cork involving either 98 or 102 charges. However, the Attorney General or whoever was responsible gave a direction in the matter and the people responsible never came to trial. I consider this is a matter that calls for explanation although I must admit that there may be some legal formality involved in this case of which I am unaware.

It is bad if the impression is created that the maximum effectiveness of our police force is not maintained at a high standard. In some of the towns I know there is a policy—I do not know if it came from an unnamed Civil Service commissioner or not—of closing down Garda Síochána barracks throughout the country and depriving many parishes of any kind of protection by the Garda Síochána.

Mr. J. Lenehan

It is time they were shifted. We had enough with the Black and Tans.

The Deputy must not make remarks like this. He must withdraw that remark.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I withdraw it.

The lack of Garda personnel is responsible for much of the lawlessness throughout the country. It is very bad when people and areas are deprived of the protection and service of the Garda Síochána.

Today's leading article in the Cork Examiner states:

This is not at all to suggest that freedom of speech or expression should be curtailed in any way. To attempt any such course of action in the present circumstances would be to cause disaster but the law as it stands must be clearly seen to be adequately and properly enforced. This must be seen to be done with justice to everybody.

It goes on to say:

These are testing days not only for the Government but for the entire nation and in the strange and worrying situation that has arisen it behoves all public representatives to put party political considerations to one side and to fulfil their onerous trust as best they can in the wider interests of the whole nation. In particular, since the Opposition is the people's watchdog, it is incumbent upon them to maintain a constant vigilance and to play as constructive a role as they can in the developing situation.

That is what we have been doing here today and yesterday, maintaining a constant vigilance and playing a constructive role in helping to solve this problem and to get the necessary information so that the situation created within the ranks of the Government of the Fianna Fáil Party will be satisfactorily concluded, and so that all loose ends will be tied, and there are quite a few loose ends to be tied yet. The House expects that when the Taoiseach comes in to reply he will be able to satisfy everybody on these questions. I quote again:

The Government's task is simply to govern firmly, fairly and effectively. It is becoming manifestly more difficult.

I am beholden to this morning's Cork Examiner for giving me a great deal of most helpful information. It is extraordinary that in 1970 there is still talk of guns not alone in the south but in the six north eastern counties. With regard to the speeches made here yesterday by the two former Ministers in justification of their attitudes, they took a hard line in referring to the importation of guns into this country. Unfortunately, providing arms, or attempting to provide them for either people above or below the Border in the name of patriotism is a gross misrepresentation of the principle. It creates a serious hazard for young people who can be led or misled. One must have regard to the unfortunate situation that developed up north last August. The people of this country were happy and relieved when the gun was taken out of Irish politics. It would be regrettable that the gun should be returned to politics here by responsible Members, former Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Party, and that the foundations of a civil war should be laid.

These disclosures have shaken the country. The views of Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland are well known; they are hard liners. However, it shocked the country completely that an intelligent, able man like Deputy Charles Haughey should be allegedly associated in this affair. As regards Deputy Ó Móráin, the Taoiseach tells us he was not implicated in the gun running but resigned for health reasons.

Deputy Boland, speaking from the benches over there yesterday, said in no uncertain terms that he was pushed. That again, by implication, suggests that the Taoiseach has told more than one untruth or misrepresented such information as he had.

I do not think that it is necessary to delay the House but, as tragic as the situation is and as unwelcome and unnecessary, one good thing came out of it. There is a section of our people, a very hard working section who, no doubt, will welcome and applaud in a loud manner the removal or departure of Deputy Blaney from the Department of Agriculture. It is well known that he was on their backs for some years and was the bane of their lives. He availed of every opportunity, whenever they had demands and when he did meet them, to tell them that they never had it so good; that it will be better next year; to keep it up. He plagued their lives, especially the dairy farmers. He was the man who carried on the cold war with both the dairy farmers and the NFA. He denied to them the opportunity which is afforded to other sections of the community to make a decent living, not alone for themselves but for their families. He had never any sympathy for them, until this year, when, lo and behold, three weeks before the Budget——

The Deputy will appreciate that agriculture would not be a subject for the debate. There will be an opportunity when the Estimate for Agriculture comes before the House.

I am aware of this. This is just a reference to the departure of Deputy Blaney from the Department of Agriculture. I thought those few words would not do him any harm.

He well deserves them.

He had no sympathy with the farmers. However, he relented and told them he would get them £14 million this year. They got a sop, unfortunately.

He did not say he would get them £14 million.

He did not.

We are not going to have a discussion on agriculture.

I bow to the ruling of the Chair. I have no intention of getting into an argument. He gave them a little sop this year, which of course was absorbed two years ago by rising costs, and the farmers are now worse off than they were then.

The Taoiseach has a big responsibility in this matter. He has a great deal of explaining to do. I would suggest to the Taoiseach, as a great many other Deputies have suggested, that the easiest way this matter can be dealt with is for him to take a trip to the Park. The sooner he goes to the country the better. Well and good if the people give him a mandate to return to office, he will have justified himself but under the circumstances it is very doubtful. The Fine Gael Party would offer themselves to the people as an alternative Government and I am quite sure that, when the people will have had an opportunity of studying the long-awaited statement of the Taoiseach by way of explanation of this whole tragic situation in 1970, in Ireland, that will be a factor in the decision as to who will be the next Government. I have no hesitation in saying that it will be Fine Gael led by Deputy Liam Cosgrave.

I have said in this House before that I do not like taking part in this type of debate because it is essentially a debate on personalities. I rise now because in the special circumstances in which we all find ourselves we have a grave responsibility to join in this public condemnation and denunciation of an administration that has shown itself to be riddled with intrigue against the security of the State.

I listened earlier this evening to Deputy O'Kennedy complaining that this debate had gone on as long as it has and suggesting that the matter had been discussed in detail. He accused Opposition Deputies of trying to create the impression that there was a crisis in the country. We had the Taoiseach on Radio Telefís Éireann saying the same thing—that there was no crisis. I should like to inquire what constitutes a crisis in the Fianna Fáil organisation. Two Ministers resigned, two more are dismissed. In the case of the two who resigned we do not know whether there was some pressure on them to resign or not—this is still not clear—and a Parliamentary Secretary resigns, and this is not a crisis in Government

It makes one wonder how much the Fianna Fáil Party can cover up, how much they can gloss over, telling the people: "There is nothing at all; not a ripple on the wave; everything is going perfectly." How much is it possible for them to smother up in this way that there is no crisis now? There is no crisis after a serious situation of attempted gun-running, of attempted importation of a large cargo of guns and ammunition, for which the Taoiseach felt he must dismiss two of his senior Ministers. And this is not a crisis. These are not our accusations. It was the Taoiseach himself who said this. The onus is on him to prove that they are guilty and I do not believe that the Taoiseach has taken this action without having conclusive evidence that they are, in fact, guilty.

I, personally, am not satisfied that the ex-Minister for Defence is in the clear either. I think it will take fairly careful handling to convince the country that he is in the clear. The statement made last night by Captain Kelly certainly creates grave doubts. The impression everybody had before that was that Captain Kelly was a person himself very much involved in this illegal importation. But Captain Kelly makes it quite clear that any part he played in this whole business was fully known to the Minister for Defence and authorised by him. All these matters will take considerable clearing up. It is all very well for Deputy O'Kennedy to try to convince the people on these benches that there is no crisis over there. A statement of that kind will not convince the people that there is no crisis. The people are not going to be convinced that we were ever in a worse situation for very many years. There is only one solution. It has been recommended on many occasions here today.

The motion before the House is, of course, on the nomination of three new Ministers but, as the leader of this party, Deputy Liam Cosgrave, said when opening this discussion, the people are not at present concerned as to what member of the Fianna Fáil Party fills which post in the Cabinet. They know there is a serious crisis and they know that it would be quite unreal to be concerned about what might be regarded as a trivial matter in comparison. The people are simply horrified to think that it would be possible by any means for Fianna Fáil to continue in government under present circumstances. Several Deputies have said there is only one solution and that is for the Taoiseach to dissolve this Dáil and got the country in a general election. He may decide to hold on to power, but I do not think that public opinion will let him, and it certainly will not let him for long. I think he might as well take the bull by the horns now and let the people decide who is capable of giving them the fearless and honest type of leadership that the country now so sorely requires. I believe that when the people get an opportunity of passing a verdict on the situation as we all now see it the man who will come back here to lead the people is the man who has been responsible for exposing this whole sordid affair, Deputy Liam Cosgrave.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

One never knows what would have happened if Deputy Cosgrave had not gone down and told the Taoiseach what he knew and told him how concerned he was that the necessary measures would be taken to ensure that the country was not landed into chaos. Of course, we all know that an hour or so later there were two Ministers dismissed and another resigned. Prior to that we had a Minister resigning, allegedly because of ill-health, and his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, says, of course, that he was pushed and that what the Taoiseach has told this House is, in fact, not true. I did not think that we would ever see the day when Ministers in an Irish Government would be guilty of deeds that would so imperil the security of this State. I did not think we would ever see the day when it would be possible for a Government containing such Ministers to carry on as the Government of the country. I did not think we would ever see the day when a Taoiseach would so humiliate himself as to hold on to power with the votes and the support of Members of this House whom he himself considered unfit to hold office in his Government.

This takes an immense amount of explaining. Every Deputy on that side who stood up to speak boasted of the solidarity and the unity of the Fianna Fáil Party. They are all behind the Taoiseach and, at the same time, they are all behind the Ministers who have been knifing him in the back. We find it difficult to accept this. The Taoiseach cannot expect us on this side of the House to regard this House as a large confessional into which Fianna Fáil Deputies can come and be absolved from their sins and in which the Taoiseach can give them absolution, give them a little penance, and say: "Now be good boys in future and come back and we will all live happily ever after". This is what has happened on this occasion. But the Taoiseach well knows that every sinner has a partner in crime and I believe that these partners are still there to be flushed out.

I believe the Taoiseach knows he is taking chances. He knows he is playing with fire, but he is prepared to play with fire in order to hold on to power in this deplorable way. I said earlier that there is only one solution and the sooner the Taoiseach adopts this solution the better for the country as a whole. We are told that this has all arisen because certain Ministers in the Government did not fully agree with the Taoiseach's views on the re-unification of the country and the means to be used towards that end.

All of us were led to believe that all parties in this State had abandoned the idea of force as a means of regaining the lost territory. The Ministers who are supposed to be implicated in this illegal traffic in arms have also said this and pledged their support and their loyalty to the Taoiseach in pursuing this peaceful means of re-uniting our country. As somebody said, it is really annoying to listen to Deputies on that side of the House trying to give the impression that only they are concerned about the Border, only they are concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland. All of us in this House are equally concerned.

What is mainly wrong in relation to the North of Ireland is, I think, the fact that there is no policy on the north. There never was a policy on the north and all we know now is that the Taoiseach says, if we are to achieve the re-unification of the country, it must be done by peaceful means. We all agree with that but, when troops were being sent to the Border, and when there was a serious situation in the North of Ireland, nobody on these benches on this side of the House was consulted. Fianna Fáil were the only party that were concerned and they yet have not got the good sense to set up an all-party committee of this House which would concern itself constantly with the situation in Northern Ireland. Nothing is being done. It is a case of peaceful means—full stop.

I have taken advantage of the fact that I am a member of the Council of Europe to discuss the Northern Ireland situation with the British Labour and Conservative delegates. The impression I get from all these people is that they are sick and tired of the situation in Northern Ireland and that they would gladly get out of it if the right approach was made. This is a matter that should be discussed seriously with the British Government and an agreement could be reached by which they would announce a phased withdrawal. They know they could not jump out of Northern Ireland with a serious situation arising there. We also know that. I agree with Deputy Boland when he says the British are responsible for the situation in Northern Ireland. It is only with their co-operation that the difficulties that arise there will end. We must be more active about this matter. We are just pledging ourselves to peaceful means and doing nothing after that. We are losing contact with both the Northern Ireland and British Governments.

This whole situation has been well discussed here in the last day or so and I do not want to repeat what has already been said again and again but I should like to appeal to the Taoiseach to make a clean breast of things because either he is not telling us the whole truth, telling us all he knows, or some of his dismissed Ministers are not telling the truth. There is a clear contradiction between what he has said and what the dismissed Ministers have said. He should be at pains to clear up this situation and tell the House the extent to which these ex-Ministers, in his opinion and with the knowledge he has, are guilty. If they are guilty they should be pursued for their guilt in the normal way and through the proper courses. He should tell us what is going to be done about that. It is a very serious thing to dismiss two senior Ministers unless there is fairly conclusive evidence that they are guilty, and if they are guilty they should not be let go free.

I should also like to hear from the Taoiseach what part Captain Kelly has played in all this. If the man is in the clear his name should be cleared here because it has been smeared and it is only fair to have the situation clarified.

We have this attempted gun running, these efforts to import ammunition illegally. This is at a time when the Government have deliberately allowed the Army to run down to a deplorably low level in strength and equipment, at a time when we have serious trouble on both sides of the Border and when we should be making a considerable effort to increase the strength of the Army and equip them properly. In saying that I do not intend that the Army should be used to cross the Border. We need a stronger and better equipped Army and we shall have more peace when we have them. The sooner serious consideration is given to this matter the better for all concerned.

As regards the new Ministers whose appointments we are discussing, I have considerable doubt as to whether the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, has been cleared. The Taoiseach should state positively that he is cleared and that he had no hand, act or part in the whole business. If that is so he should be left in the Department of Defence rather than put somebody there at this critical time who has no contact with the job.

My own belief is that he is quite unsuitable to be in charge of the Department of Agriculture. It is well known that he is in serious conflict with our largest farming organisation. That is a bad foot for any man to start off on. I have also the objection that he is a Minister who cannot give a civil answer at Question Time. He is always acting the smart alec with Deputies. Even when asked a simple, straightforward question you cannot get an answer except a smart alec one.

He learned his lessons in the past few days.

He may have, but he has a few more to learn. I should not like to say anything wrong about anybody nominated to take up an important position in the Government. I wish the other two nominees luck and I hope they will do well—if membership of this Government is ever completed. I have a strong suspicion that it never will be completed. If the Taoiseach has the wisdom I think he has he will dissolve the Dáil this evening. I do not believe that Deputy Moran is seriously ill.

That does not prove anything.

His colleague, another Minister, says he was pushed, that he did not resign of his own volition or through illness. That must be answered.

The Deputy does not usually engage in this kind of talk. I can assure the Deputy that Deputy Moran is under medical care.

If the Tánaiste says that I accept it but I want the Tánaiste to ask the Taoiseach to explain why Deputy Boland says he does not believe that Deputy Moran resigned but believes he was asked to resign.

(Interruptions.)

It was my impression that he was not seriously ill because we all saw him very shortly beforehand. I should like the Taoiseach to tell the House also where is Captain Kelly if he is a guilty man. If he was guilty in any way he should not be free. There are many details that need to be filled in.

Where is Deputy Gibbons now? We have not seen him since 8 o'clock last night on the front bench.

I should like the Taoiseach to explain why having got sufficient evidence to dismiss two Ministers, he left it nine days before interviewing Deputy Blaney. Why that delay? All these details are important because these incomplete facts are disturbing the minds not only of Deputies but of the people.

I should like the Taoiseach to tell the House how long is this gun-running going on. For how long has he been aware of it? There is a report in The Guardian which indicates that this has been going on since last October or November and that there was considerable knowledge of traffic in this type of arms and ammunition on numerous occasions during the period which has intervened. Was the Taoiseach aware of this? If he was, what serious action was taken to stop it?

Deputy Tully referred to the fact that some guns and ammunition were being delivered at the North Wall. There is a reference in today's Irish Independent to this. It is stated that in the Dáil the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, said the suggestion made by Deputy James Tully that weapons for illegal organisations had been collected at Dublin Docks by Army lorries was fantastically untrue. It is headed: “Guns on lorries at North Wall.” The report says:

A claim that the warehouse area around the North Wall, Dublin, is being used as link in gun-running for the past six months was made by a resident of the area last night.

Mr. William Lynch (40), unemployed carpenter, who lives near a cargo terminus in the warehouse area at Mayor St., said last night: "On at least three occasions I have seen guns unloaded from cattle or hay lorries.

"For months there has been heavy late-night traffic in Mayor St. and I have seen guns unloaded from lorries and carried down a laneway which leads to the warehouse block and also links up with Guild St.

"The lorries usually have cattle——

There is a misprint there—

——or hay in them but when these are unloaded I have seen teams of shouting men carrying guns—I have seen the butts of the guns hanging down.

"The most recent night when I saw guns being unloaded was Wednesday."

Deputy Tully was telling the House and the Minister what we are all hearing about this sort of thing. It is very disquieting and the more information the Taoiseach can give the House the better.

I should also like to ask the Taoiseach what information was given to him by the British Secret Service, when was the Minister for Justice given this information, and did he fail to pass it on? This is important. Were the Minister for Justice and the Department of Justice in receipt of information which the Taoiseach was not getting, in spite of the special Gestapo machinery that he was supposed to have at his disposal tapping people's telephones and that type of thing? It presents the Taoiseach in a very different light to me. He is a very different man to me now, if that is the type of man he really is.

I would think twice before I would accept that the Taoiseach would have what was described as a super-Special Branch investigating the conduct and carry-on of his own Ministers and tapping their telephones. Surely it must be unheard of in a democratic country. If the Taoiseach is driven to this, surely it is time for him to quit and time to break up an organisation where that is necessary. I would be very slow to accept that the Taoiseach is the type of man who would live with that sort of machinery.

Reference was made earlier to Taca and Tacateers. Reference was made on many occasions to a crisis, and there were several denials from the other side of the House that there was such a thing as a crisis. Since this debate started this House has been haunted. The gates have nearly been knocked down by members of Taca in case anything would interfere with the avenues they have to special favours.

(Interruptions.)

This place has been haunted. We are all well able to recognise them. They are seriously concerned because the favours might disappear if Fianna Fáil disappeared. This was a very serious business, obviously, an extremely serious business to them and they have crowded out this House——

The Deputy is casting a reflection on the superintendent and his staff.

The superintendent had nothing to do with this. These people have passes and they do not have to talk to the people at the gates.

There is no crisis and the place is swarming with Special Branch men.

Before I finish I will quote the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons:

He had formed the opinion that Capt. Kelly was becoming unsuitable and certain suspicions had formed in his mind.

That needs a little further explanation. In what way had he become unsuitable? What suspicions had formed in the Minister's mind? This man is entitled to have his name cleared. There should be nothing that it is necessary to hide from the people. In the last analysis there is only one thing that will allay the anxiety, or help to allay the anxiety, of the people and that is to let the people decide on the new situation. There is a very different situation in the country now. The people over there have been found out for what they are.

The Deputy said that 100 times before, over the past 12 years.

They have been found out now, if they are ever to be found out. The people are howling it in the streets and now it appears that they are afraid to go to the country in a general election.

I do not intend to delay the House for more than four or five minutes. I want to try and reemphasise some of the points which are serious and deserve answers from members of the Government who were elected to run this country. Deputy O'Kennedy said that members of Fine Gael were instructed to come in here one after the other and speak in this debate. That is not true.

How many members of Fine Gael have not spoken?

We were told that if we considered the situation which arose in this country as a result of what happened on last Tuesday and Wednesday was serious, this was the place to say so. A number of Fine Gael speakers emphasised how seriously we take this situation. I was elected here last June and I am very sorry that in my first year in this House I should have to take part in such a debate. I am sorry and angry. I am sorry that this House, for which so many sacrifices were made and over which so much blood was spilled to allow us to establish the right to govern ourselves, has been threatened by the events of the past fortnight and to the Taoiseach's knowledge, of the past month, according to some of the papers.

I am angry that a party that claims to represent the Irish people and received 45 per cent of the votes of the Irish people should so desert the traditions for which they say they stand. I am angry that a party with the ideals which Fianna Fáil claim to hold would allow within their ranks people of the kind mentioned by the Taoiseach who would be associated with the bringing of guns illegally into this country. Talking to these people in the lobbies, as I have been doing for the past three days, I cannot believe they are satisfied with what is happening here over the past week as to how this country should be run. Members have said to me that it is the saddest day for many years in this House and that this is the biggest blow the Fianna Fáil Party have ever suffered. I hope they will be strong enough as a party and will live up to the patriotism they profess by ensuring that those people in their midst who are acting in what I consider an un-Irish, unpatriotic, undemocratic way will be rooted out and that, whatever the pain to the party itself, it will get rid of them. I can assure Fianna Fáil that, in so doing, they will be all the stronger.

We have had Deputies saying that there is no crisis but when we meet them in the corridors it is different: there is a crisis. It is our job as an Opposition to be the watchdogs of the people. It is a role I would not wish for myself. I should much prefer to be on the Government side of the House. However, I shall fulfil the role for which I was elected. I wish the same could be said about the Government.

The Taoiseach should answer the allegations by Deputy Boland that Deputy Moran was fired or "pushed", as he said, and did not resign of his own accord. Deputy Blaney, speaking for Deputy Haughey here, and also Deputy Haughey's own statement, very categorically denied that they knew anything about the importation of arms into the country. These are not frivolous matters that can be shrugged off. As somebody said here in the past few days, the gun can be used only to take a life and once a life is taken it can never be restored. Anybody who takes the responsibility of buying guns and giving them to impressionable young people will have a lot to answer for. They will answer for it to the Irish people and not in this House. The other matter the Taoiseach should clear up when he comes to reply is the statement by Captain Kelly in relation to the Minister for Defence, Deputy J. Gibbons. I was amazed that Deputy Loughnane made a joke about Captain Kelly. This situation is far too serious for that.

I did not.

Captain Kelly was asked to resign from what he chose as his livelihood.

I was for too many years in the Army to criticise him.

He must be a very miserable, unhappy man now. I must say I believed Deputy J. Gibbons last night and thought that what he said sounded true. But the spontaneity and the quality of Captain Kelly's denial of that makes me wonder. The Taoiseach has an obligation to this House and to this country to answer and adjudicate on them.

Before I conclude I want to refer to the leading article in this morning's Cork Examiner which I think reasonably sums up the attitude of the people in this country at present:

In the present situation, it behoves everyone to speak and to act with not a little restraint. There are enough wild rumours and half truths circulating already, and emotional outbursts will not help. But in spite of this, there are still things which must be said, and actions which must be taken. There are fresh allegations of widespread intrigue which must be either substantiated or obliterated, and in this regard it must be felt that the Government will have to be much more forthcoming than it has been.

If the Government are to be forthcoming, this is the place and now is the time.

A great Longford man, Richard Lovell Edgeworth, declared over 150 years ago that to speak the truth without harshness is the most certain way to succeed in every honourable pursuit. This I shall now proceed to do. The truth which can no longer be concealed from the Irish people is that, to-night as we sit here doing the nation's work, we are faced with a grave national crisis. The Government say we do not face a grave national crisis, but read the newspapers. Let the Government read today's Irish Press—the paper which has as its motto “Truth in the News”. What do we find? In large type we find the words “Confusion rises in crisis”; “Cabinet changes overshadowed”; “Night of the Dark Knives”; “Plot to kill the Taoiseach”. I am only quoting headlines from today's Irish Press. I am not commenting on them. I mention them just to show that we do face a crisis or else this paper is not telling the truth. If Government Deputies regard the Irish Press as their gospel, then they must believe what is printed on its pages. It goes further and states that the Government are in serious trouble. The present Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, has always been looked upon as a decent man. But to be decent is not a sufficient qualification for every job, and especially for the job of being leader of the Fianna Fáil Party or Taoiseach. It is essential to have the right man in the position of Taoiseach so crucial is his job for the welfare of all the people of Ireland.

We all know that the present Taoiseach is Taoiseach by accident—an agreed result between two or three warring factions in the Fianna Fáil Party. No one of them would accept the leadership of anyone else. Unfortunately, in Fianna Fáil, the maintenance of party unity is their supreme objective, no matter what the national cost. Unfortunately, that is the position which so many of us witnessed to our chagrin —others perhaps to their horror—on Wednesday night last. What is now clear is that the war between the factions did not end with the election of Deputy Jack Lynch as Taoiseach. The price he is paying today for providing the smooth, Fianna Fáil facade is that, behind that facade, these factions did what they liked and disregarded the well-intentioned private and even public advice of the Taoiseach to his Ministers.

No one of the Taoiseach's predecessors would have allowed the present disorder and disunity to develop in the country. They would have nipped it in the bud as the present Taoiseach should have done six months ago or, perhaps, even further back than that if he had been master of his job. It has been said that Seán Lemass fears that history's verdict on his career will be that it will be said Lemass led on all right but that he led on to Lynch.

This is a very sad day for each one of us who holds responsibility as a Deputy in this Parliament. Thank God, we have a responsible Opposition who have always put country before party as, indeed, Fianna Fáil should have done. Let us compare the attitude of Fianna Fáil with the attitude of our Leader, Deputy Liam Cosgrave, son of the late Mr. W.T. Cosgrave, the man who helped in dark and evil days to build up this country. I do not wish to refer to the harsh words that were said here this morning. Perhaps they are better forgotten, and at the moment it is better that we think of the future of each one of us.

When Deputy Liam Cosgrave received the information about this plot for the importation of illegal arms, he could have come into the House and disclosed that information. If he had done this, his action, without doubt, would have brought down this Government; but then, perhaps, there might have been other dangers for the nation. There might have been a danger of civil war, but he was prepared to put country before party.

When there were subversive elements in this country threatening the lives of our people, when there was warfare on our brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland in 1956 and 1957, I, as a member of Westmeath County Council, where Fianna Fáil had a majority, remember the resolutions of sympathy that were passed encouraging those people using the gun, telling them they were right and that the only way to take the Border at that time was by armed rebellion. If anybody wishes to deny, I would refer him to the newspapers of the time for confirmation of what I am saying. At the Westmeath Convention of Fianna Fáil at that time a resolution was passed stating that the only way to get the north was by armed rebellion. That convention was presided over by the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Paddy Smith, and, in all fairness to him, he advised the delegates not to pass that resolution, but they did so.

We hear talk about the great Republican Party who, for many years, had the word "Republican" in brackets. During the time to which I am referring the much maligned inter-Party Government were in power. That Government, of course, were led by Mr. J.A. Costello at that time when men of all parties came together, sat around a table and worked together for the good of the country. The only aim of the Fianna Fáil Party at that time was to put the inter-Party Government out of office as quickly as possible so that they could regain power themselves.

I will admit that by their supporting the subversive elements of that time they were helped in getting back to power, and I wish to go on record as saying that the responsible Opposition today did not behave in the irresponsible way in which Fianna Fáil behaved during those inter-Party Government years. Fianna Fáil have always put party before country.

In relation to the present unfortunate crisis I want to say that on the 5th of May our leader, Deputy Cosgrave, acting in the national interests, deemed it his duty to go in private to the Taoiseach with certain information he had which was of such importance—it was without parallel in the history of the State—that it could have brought down this Government if it had been mentioned in the House in the first place. The House already knows from the list given to Deputy Cosgrave of the Departments that were involved. These were the Department of Finance, Department of Defence and others. Two hours later on that evening two Ministers had been asked to resign but had refused and the third had handed in his resignation.

So began the crisis which is still with us and which, unfortunately, seems to be growing in intensity. It is only natural that we should ask, if the Taoiseach had not been pressurised by Deputy Cosgrave, whether he would have taken the action he did because at column 642 of the Official Report of 6th May, 1970, the Taoiseach is reported as stating:

On 22nd April, the day I decided to interview the former Ministers, I received news of the accident to Deputy Haughey and, as a result, I was unable to interview him.

What was to stop the Taoiseach from interviewing the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on that day? Here was a man being paid by the State and enjoying the facility of a State car while engaged in the importation of arms into the country. He was engaged in importing ten tons of small arms which, we are told, would cost about £80,000, arms that could easily have started a civil war which could only lead to the annihilation of perhaps thousands of our brothers and sisters on this side of the Border as well as on the other side.

None of us would ever want to see a civil war in any part of our country. Since the foundation of the State we have believed and we still believe in peaceful means to end the unnatural Border which politicians on all sides of the House long to see abolished. We believe that the Treaty could have been used as a stepping-stone to achieve that freedom. The Taoiseach should tell us why from the 22nd to the 29th he did not interview Deputy Blaney. I admit he had good reason for not interviewing Deputy Haughey. The Taoiseach goes on later in the same column to say:

I felt it was my duty to request their resignations as members of the Government. Each of them denied he instigated in any way the attempted importation of arms. They asked me for time to consider their position. I agreed to do so.

How did it happen that the two were exactly of one word? One was in hospital and the other I think he brought to his room and both of them said: "I deny having anything to do with the illegal importation of arms but I would like time to consider my position". He goes on then and we know that he refused to take any action until Deputy Cosgrave went with the information that he had and the Taoiseach then, knowing that the game was up, immediately took action. Again, lo and behold, the twins are both of one word: "each of them told me that he would not give me his resignation until this morning". How were both of them of one word again? We are entitled to know from the Taoiseach whether he is telling us the truth. Unfortunately, we have heard so many half-truths from the Taoiseach, from Ministers of State, one saying one thing, another something else, that I do not think any reasonable man could believe any of them now but I do think that the people are entitled to the truth and the whole truth from the Taoiseach when he replies here tonight.

I am inclined to think that the Taoiseach was out to pull a fast one and he failed to get away with it this time. He says Deputy Ó Móráin his resignation. Deputy Boland, who was one of his right hand men up to last Tuesday, said Deputy Ó Móráin was pressurised and had to hand in his resignation. Now whom do we believe? Do we believe the Taoiseach or do we believe Deputy Boland? Seventeen of the Fianna Fáil Party clapped Deputy Boland so they must think he was right and at the same time many of them clapped the Taoiseach. We are entitled to know who is telling the truth.

We know that on Tuesday the Fianna Fáil Whip, Deputy O'Malley, got in touch with our Whip at least twice or three times and I think the Taoiseach's office was also in contact with Deputy Cosgrave. They wanted to put on the Order Paper for that day the nomination of Deputy O'Malley as Minister for Justice. We believe that the Taoiseach hoped to make Deputy Ó Móráin the scapegoat and had we agreed to that on that day as far as the Taoiseach was concerned the whole matter was closed, but Deputy Cosgrave with the information that he had did not agree and when he asked the Taoiseach on that evening was this the tip of the iceberg, were other Ministers to resign, the Taoiseach, who is supposed to be Honest Jack and a decent man who tells the truth, asked him what he was talking about. He pretended he did not know at the time. A man in the position of Taoiseach should tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth especially in Parliament. We also know—the plot now seems to be unravelling—and realise why the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Party moved the writ for the Longford-Westmeath by-election before Deputy P.J. Lenihan was one week in his grave. It was because the Taoiseach had the information. He was afraid the bubble would burst if the by-election was held at the normal time which would be about now and he knew that they would certainly lose the by-election then, they have lost it since, as they would lose the general election if they faced the people of this country now.

The explanation the Taoiseach offered to the Dáil on Wednesday evening was so incomplete and superficial that I do not think even schoolchildren would believe him. Here were Ministers of State appointed by the Taoiseach who refused to hand in their seals of office. One of them told reporters the other day that he was not handing it in and he did not believe he would ever hand it in. We had the Taoiseach going down to a dinner in Laois and describing his colleagues, whom he had thrown out of the Cabinet barely 12 hours before, as able, brilliant and dedicated men. There is not a word about their being trustworthy. How could the Taoiseach describe those men as being able, brilliant and dedicated?

It is true.

It is true.

How can they be described as dedicated men? What were they dedicated to? Were they dedicated to work in the interests of the Irish people?

Of course.

Were they so brilliant that they were able to fool him, to draw the people's money as Ministers of State while at the same time trying to usurp the functions of the State? Do you call men who behave in that way able, brilliant and dedicated? Were they dedicated to bringing arms in here, to starting a civil war, to drawing the people's money and, at the same time, engaging in those subversive activities? I do not know who the Taoiseach is fooling but it is surprising to find a Taoiseach kicking men out of his Cabinet and at a dinner less than 12 hours later saying they were able, brilliant and dedicated.

So they are.

Deputy Lalor said it was heartbreaking for him to lose three of his colleagues. How could it be heart-breaking for any man to lose three colleagues if they had behaved as we were told they behaved by the Taoiseach? There is not a word about being heart-broken for the Irish people whom they had been fooling for so long. We should like to know what exactly is happening because at 11.55 on Friday, 8th May, having swept the ground from under the Taoiseach, Deputy Boland walked up to the Lobby and was joined by Deputy Blaney. Then Deputy Dr. Hillery went up, put his arms around the two of them, and they walked out arm in arm. I cannot understand, if Ministers betrayed the trust reposed in them, betrayed the trust of their own Taoiseach, betrayed the trust of their own colleagues, betrayed the trust of this Parliament and betrayed the trust of the Irish people, how the Taoiseach and other Ministers can still fraternise with them and call them able, dedicated and brilliant men.

We are still entitled to ask how many other Ministers are mixed up in this sordid affair. Somebody else mentioned Captain Kelly who was asked to resign from the Army. If Captain Kelly broke the laws of this country he should be prosecuted. If he has not, and if he was working, as he said he was, at the request of Deputy Gibbons, the Minister for Defence, then that Minister should be punished. I want to quote from today's Irish Times, where it says that Mr. Kelly stated:

I met Mr. Gibbons in his office in Leinster House as recently as Wednesday night, April 29th, and discussed the situation with him as it then existed. We parted on amiable terms. Mr. Gibbons had indicated on several occasions that I was doing an excellent job for the country as an intelligence officer.

He further goes on to state:

When I was arrested by the Special Branch on last Friday morning, I claimed privilege and asked that Mr. Gibbons be called. He came to the office of Chief Superintendent Fleming of the Special Branch, where we had a conversation in the presence of Superintendent Fleming. Mr. Gibbons's advice to me was to tell everything I knew concerning my activities as an intelligence officer. In the event, I rejected this advice because of the implications involved.

We are entitled to know what implications were involved. We are entitled to know, and this House is entitled to know, if Deputy Gibbons was mixed up with him. If he was fired, was it right to fire him? If he was fired, should he be prosecuted? If Deputy Gibbons was mixed up in any sordid affair with him, should Deputy Gibbons not be expelled from the Cabinet or asked to resign along with Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey? The Irish people are entitled at this moment to know where they stand because there are so many rumours floating about that nobody knows where he stands.

Mr. Kelly went on to state:

It was then suggested that I speak to the Taoiseach. I did so.

The Taoiseach appeared here twice last week and spoke but he did not take the House into his confidence. He did not tell the Irish people that on the 29th April he met Mr. Kelly, a man who was immediately afterwards dismissed from the armed services of this nation and brought to the Bridewell for questioning. It is the duty of the Taoiseach, and it was his duty last week, to come into this House and tell us the truth about this matter. Was this to be hidden and kept from the people of Ireland? Was it to be hidden and kept from Parliament? If Mr. Kelly did not speak out his mind last night, would this also be swept under the carpet? The people of Ireland are entitled to know the truth about this affair. The three men met. We are entitled to know what happened. We are entitled to know on whose instructions ex-Captain Kelly was working. The Taoiseach should certainly come into this House and give the full truth to the people of this country.

In today's Irish Times there is an article headed “Allegation on Army offer on North by Gibbons”. It states:

The Minister for Defence, Mr. Gibbons, who has been nominated as Minister for Agriculture, was alleged yesterday to have given an assurance to a deputation of Belfast Republicans that the Army was now prepared, if there was a repetition of last August's events in Belfast and Derry.

It goes on to state:

Mr. William Kelly, the chairman of the Citizens' Defence Committee of Patrick's Parish in Belfast, said that the four-hour meeting had taken place at Leinster House about a month ago. Mr. Kelly told a press conference that he and the deputation had also met Mr. Blaney and Mr. Haughey, as well as the Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch. "Mr. Lynch asked me not to give any publicity to the press", he added.

Now we have Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney who have both been asked to resign from the Cabinet; we have Deputy Gibbons and we have the Taoiseach connected with this matter. The Taoiseach asked Mr. Kelly not to give any evidence to the press.

God knows who is mixed up in this. Is the Taoiseach himself mixed up in it? If he is not, then it is his duty to come into this House, contradict this article and say this meeting never took place. It was the Taoiseach's duty to tell us the full story about this matter the other day. There is no use coming in and telling us those things when he is found out, then trying to find a way out. If he met those people, what transpired? Was everything above board? Further on in this article it is stated:

Mr. Kelly said that one of Mr. Gibbons's final assurances was that "if the worse came to the worst, there is no need to fear".

This House are entitled to an explanation. Let us put an end to the rumours that are so widespread today. Let the Taoiseach come before us and tell the people if there are any officers of the Army, any members of the Garda Síochána, any members of the Department of Justice, any members of the Department of Defence, the Minister for Defence or even the Taoiseach himself mixed up in this whole affair. It is the duty of the Taoiseach tonight to take the Irish people into his confidence and deny what is said in those articles and those rumours.

A few minutes ago somebody referred to the fact that on Wednesday evening the corridors, the bars and indeed the restaurants of Dáil Éireann were infiltrated with Tacateers. It was very disturbing for all of them to hear what the Taoiseach had to say. Some of them looked at the Opposition with arrogance, as if we had no right to criticise them. They supplied the money that put the party opposite into Government, not to govern in the interests of the plain and ordinary people of Ireland, but unfortunately— and this is something we do not like saying—they are governing and have governed in the last year or two in the interests of the speculators, in the interests of the racketeers and in the interests of the Tacateers. The whole idea now seems to be that, for the continuance of Fianna Fáil in office, they are prepared to unite to keep them there. Self-preservation seems to be their aim and to heck with the country.

The Taoiseach, at column 720 of the Official Report of 6th May, 1970, when he was speaking about the removal from office of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney, said:

I took these actions in circumstances where I felt, as I said at the outset, even the slightest suspicion might attach to a member of the Government.

As far as the Minister for Defence, the designate Minister for Agriculture, is concerned there does seem to be more than the slightest suspicion attached to him and it is the duty of the Taoiseach to prove to the House that he is innocent. The Taoiseach should come to this Parliament and, in the national interest, tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Four Ministers are no longer in his Cabinet and we are entitled to know where the Taoiseach stands and where the country stands.

There are many questions which need an answer. Many contradictions are evident; so far as the Taoiseach is concerned the credibility gap is growing and we seem to be going from crisis to crisis. We are entitled to ask: can the Taoiseach place any trust in the vote of confidence he got from his party? If he could not trust his Ministers who received their seals of office from the President, after taking an oath to serve this country conscientiously and loyally, how can he trust the same men in the back benches and how can he be confident that they will support him?

It is well-known that on Wednesday Deputy Boland, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey were in the precincts of this House, surrounded by television cameras. They were going among their friends trying to get all the support they could and when they found they could not get this support they went into the party meeting and behaved like the accused people we frequently see pictured at trials in Moscow, Czechoslovakia or similar countries.

We are entitled to ask did those able, clever, dedicated men—to use the Taoiseach's own words—not say "If we can't win tonight, let us go peacefully inside and pretend we are united behind the Taoiseach"?

Did they not perhaps plan that when they were inside the party they would use their talent and power and dedication, to whatever they were dedicated, to oust the Taoiseach and to come back to power in a short time?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

It is well known that Deputy Blaney said he was not relinquishing office and that he might never do so and we know that Deputy Haughey's parting words in the Department of Finance to the people there were "I'll be back again". People are entitled to get answers to these questions because in the midst of Fianna Fáil, keeping this Government in power, we have men who have betrayed their trust to the people. They are men who betrayed their trust to their own colleague, who betrayed their trust to the President, and who have betrayed their trust to this Parliament. We are entitled to know from the Taoiseach when he comes here tonight what kind of coalition he has got.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Is it not true that they are staying together because they are afraid that "if we rock the boat we will all sink; let us stay together or we will all drown together"?

It is so true that it becomes monotonous.

It is monotonous, all right. We know it off by heart.

Order. Deputy L'Estrange to continue.

We are also entitled to ask the Taoiseach what information he has regarding the arms. We know he said that to the best of his knowledge arms were not imported. We are entitled to ask him if it is not true that a Minister and another Member of the Oireachtas collected money in a particular county, and made speeches inciting the people to cross the Border and that the Minister or his brother actually took in arms to the Falls Road area. I am sure the Taoiseach's intelligence officers will be able to tell him that happened as far back as August and September last.

We are entitled to ask the Taoiseach what proof has he that the arms were not destined for the north. There are also many people who claim that they were for subversive elements in the 26 Counties. If that is true, then this country is facing a serious crisis. Unfortunately the Fianna Fáil Government and Party were riddled with intrigue; there were ruthless men eager for power and they were determined that if they could not overthrow their leader they would do it another way. The fact that militant Republican subversive elements were able to parade through our streets and were not arrested lends credence to this belief. It is the duty of the Taoiseach to put the public mind at ease because many people believe that some of those arms could be used in this country.

It is very interesting to hear Fianna Fáil speak about Republicanism. Do Fianna Fáil understand, with all their Republicanism, that they have thrown a liferaft to the Unionist Party who are in the same state of disarray as Fianna Fáil are in now, that they are lending credibility to the rantings of Ian Paisley instead of helping to solve the Border problem? I am afraid the conduct of those two gentlemen has set us back 20 years or more. Again, I want to ask whom are we to believe at present. I wish to quote what the Taoiseach said in volume 246 of the Official Report of 6th May, 1970.

I said at the start in my opening statement, and I repeat it now, the resignation of Deputy Ó Móráin was tendered to me on the grounds of ill health.

Again in the Official Report of 8th May, 1970, Deputy Boland stated:

If we include the new vacancy filled yesterday, it has become necessary to replace four members of the Government and I am the only one of the four who was not in one way or another overtly pushed out of Government.

Here are two contradictory statements from members of the Fianna Fáil Party. Again I quote from the Irish Times:

At last night's monthly meeting of the Shankill, Co. Dublin, Cumann of the Fianna Fáil Party a resolution was passed pledging absolute loyalty to the Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch. The resolution added: "The members look forward to all members of subversive organisations being brought to justice."

I entirely agree with the last sentiment but on another page there is a heading in respect of another Fianna Fáil Cumann: "Haughey gets vote of confidence."

How does all this tie in? I should like the Taoiseach to explain that to the House. I do not like going back and saying to the Taoiseach "I told you so", but for many months past I put down questions to the Taoiseach about the drift to anarchy. I warned the Taoiseach often enough in this House over the last year. Indeed, he was warned by Deputy Cosgrave and by myself and many others about the drift to anarchy, about the disagreement in Government and in the Cabinet in regard to the peaceful solution of the nothern question. But the Taoiseach did not heed any warnings. He continued on in his own easygoing way, allowing things to drift from bad to worse. Nothing less than a full confession will satisfy the people now. We have been told a great deal about strong Government from Fianna Fáil. They may be strong, but what we want today in Ireland is not strong Government but good Government. I wish to quote now from column 1402, volume 243, of the Official Report of the 16th December, 1969, where Deputy M. O'Leary is questioning the Taoiseach:

Is the Taoiseach aware that opposition MPs in Belfast on the Saturday of the weekend before the speech was made were aware that Deputy Blaney on Tuesday night in Letterkenny, or on whatever night he spoke there, would in fact be making a speech in which force under certain circumstances would be advocated to solve the Northern problem?

The Taoiseach stated he was not aware of the contents of the speech in advance and did not know it was being made. I know there were at least a dozen Deputies in this House who knew that speech was being made and the Taoiseach should have known also that it was being made. We have heard about collective responsibility in the past. We are entitled to ask if the Taoiseach knew what was going on under his own eyes. Did he realise the seriousness of it? Surely the Taoiseach was warned often enough about the speeches of Deputy Blaney. We had the famous Letterkenny speech. The Taoiseach is supposed to have reprimanded him and informed the House he had reprimanded him. I wish to quote from column 1404 of the same volume:

The Taoiseach: May I say, to help Deputy Corish, there is no conflict in the Cabinet with the situation and with the policy, as I have announced.

The Taoiseach said that on 16th December, after Deputy Blaney made his famous Letterkenny speech advocating force. The Taoiseach continued:

I can assure you that you people are not going to divide the Government anyway.

It was not we who divided them. It was his own members who divided them. A week after the Taoiseach had informed this House that he had reprimanded Deputy Blaney, Deputy Boland, Deputy Blaney and the Taoiseach were on the radio and Deputy Blaney said to the Taoiseach:

You did not reprimand me. You said something to me in the corridor.

The Taoiseach then said:

Neil, it was a little more than that.

There is no denying that the Taoiseach has not done his duty over the years. I should also like to bring to the Taoiseach's notice—I do not intend to read all the questions I put to him— what was said at column 12, volume 244 of the Official Report of 4th February, 1970:

Mr. L'Estrange: Is the Taoiseach aware that the Ulster Volunteer Force is arming to the teeth and that many people of repute claim that civil war is inevitable, that hate and fear are rampant, and does he not think it a good idea to point out all those things to the British Government and try to get the people to come together? Further, does the Taoiseach not believe that the speeches made by Mr. Blaney and by the hardliners at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis are also doing untold harm? Further, is the Taoiseach aware of the fact that he only reprimanded him in the corridors——

Again at column 13 the Taoiseach replied:

In the first place, in so far as Deputy L'Estrange's supplementary questions are concerned, I think the first part of Deputy L'Estrange's supplementary question is likely to do more damage than anything that has been said on either side of the border in recent months.

Now we are entitled to ask who was right when I was asking those questions. Here we had a Taoiseach who, when those questions were put to him, was not prepared to face up to his responsibility and reprimand his own Minister as he should have done. I further asked the Taoiseach at column 13:

Is the Taoiseach aware that his own Ministers and Fianna Fáil Deputies are going around to club meetings at night telling the people that they were ready to go in on 15th August——

I told the Taoiseach I could name the Ministers who were doing it and the Taoiseach said at column 14:

What the Deputy has just said is false, mischievous and highly irresponsible.

Where are the false, the mischievous, the highly irresponsible individuals? They were not on this side of the House. They were in his own party, in his own Cabinet, supposed to be his own friends. If he had heeded the warnings at that time and if he had taken the action then that he should have taken, this nation would not be in the peril it is in tonight.

I have spoken for the last six or eight months about the drift to anarchy in this country. I questioned the Minister for Justice on Guard Fallon's death. I asked him would he not agree that there is a drift towards anarchy and that the Government were not prepared to take unpopular decisions.

On April 16th—volume 245 of the Official Report—I further asked the Minister:

Is it not true that the Government are not doing their duty, that they are not giving full backing to the Garda Síochána to enforce law and order in this country? Is it not also true if the Government did their duty that unfortunate garda would not have been shot in the exercise of his duty?

Deputy Moran said:

I have nothing to add to the reply I have given to the Deputy's mischievous question, which was put down to hinder rather than to help the Garda Síochána in their work.

Here were we, members of the Opposition who were prepared to do our duty and who were prepared to try to prod the lawfully elected Government into doing their duty but they were not prepared to do it. I further went on:

Is the Minister aware that this party has stood by the forces of law and order since the institution of the State? Is the Minister further aware that, on the evening of the Wicklow bank robbery, the Garda authorities....

Is it not true that on that particular evening high-ranking gardaí asked the Minister for Justice to introduce section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act so that they could take those people in and their request was refused....

It is well known that they knew where they were at that particular time but the Government refused. If the Government had done their duty at that particular time we would not have had the unfortunate death of a guard that has since taken place.

Further, on the 16th April I questioned the Taoiseach about a case that I dealt with the other night, and I am not going to go into it at any length now. It is a case where criminals fired on the garda and were arrested and when they went to court the judge allowed them out because the doctor did not appear and only a medical certificate was produced. The Taoiseach gave an answer to that. I am still not satisfied with the answer but I suppose there is very little I can do about it. At that time, well over a month ago, I asked the Minister if he was prepared to set up an inquiry. He refused to do that.

On 23rd April—volume 245, column 1944, I asked the Minister for Justice:

Is it not true that the Government or the Minister for Justice have not, over the past year, backed up the senior Garda officers in their request to the Government to enforce law and order?

I know that that has not been done. I asked:

Is it not true that the present drift to anarchy in this country is due to the Government's neglect and to the fact that the Government have not done their duty? Will he tell me why the Taoiseach will not go on television and condemn these anarchists, the bank robbers, as he did the farmers of Ireland three years ago?

Here is the reply by a man supposed to be a responsible Minister, Deputy B. Lenihan:

In my view and I would say in the view of the Government the leading political anarchist in this country is Deputy L'Estrange.

I want to throw those words back now at Deputy Lenihan and at the Taoiseach and to tell the Taoiseach that the leading political anarchists were in his own party, in his Government, in his Cabinet and they were being sheltered by the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Justice.

We have spoken in the past at length of the splits in the Fianna Fáil Party. On 29th April—volume 246, column 259—I accused Deputy Blaney of walking out from a Government meeting because I knew it was true. Deputy Blaney said:

To put the record straight, I came out of that meeting in the same manner as I have come from every meeting in the 13 years that I have been a Member of the Government. We came out as we went in, a united Government with our leader Deputy Jack Lynch, still our leader and no question about it.

That was on the 29th April, the day the Taoiseach told us that he approached Deputy Blaney and confronted him with this serious allegation that he was engaged in gunrunning. On 29th April Deputy Blaney informed us that he and his colleagues walked out of a meeting as they had walked in, a united Government "with our leader Deputy Jack Lynch still our leader and no question about it". Who can we believe? Deputy Blaney was a Minister when he gave that information in the House and Deputy Lynch, the Taoiseach, tells us that on that particular day—and he knew for a week before it—he had asked Deputy Blaney for his resignation. Deputy Blaney went on to say:

Deputy L'Estrange and others like him who would like to start trouble over here are only codding themselves and wasting time.

He talked about splits and cracks and he said:

You will not find them over here between any Minister in the Government or between any Minister and the leader of the party, the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch. This seems to be the position in Fine Gael at present.

I want to say that at that particular time when Deputy Blaney was making those denials in the House he himself had been asked by his Taoiseach to resign and he had asked for time. Who are we to believe? Are we to believe the statements the Taoiseach made or are we to believe the statements made by Deputy Blaney?

I think we are entitled to speak of the drift to anarchy that is in this country at the present time, the fact that in Ireland today and, indeed, for the last few years we have one law for the rich, one law for the speculators, for the racketeers and for the tacateers who are prepared to subscribe handsomely to the Fianna Fáil fund.

When the Taoiseach was speaking on the Budget he talked about the conscience of the Labour and Fine Gael Parties. Any Taoiseach who at an election meeting in Mullingar or Longford takes £100 from a tacateer who is interested in getting loans and grants from the ratepayers and taxpayers should examine his conscience before he asks members of the Labour Party or the Fine Gael Party to examine theirs. In my county I mentioned it off every platform because I think the day has come when any man no matter how wealthy he may be should not be in a position that by subscribing to the party he can get from that Government what he is not entitled to because that money belongs to the ordinary taxpayers and to the ratepayers. If a man is entitled to a loan or grant he should get it. Let it be remembered that in this city today it is a well known fact that unless you go to a Fianna Fáil solicitor, unless you go to a Fianna Fáil accountant, unless you have a Fianna Fáil TD or Senator or a friend of theirs or a sister or a brother, as director of your hotel or business, you will not get a loan or grant.

The time has come when that must stop because there is a loss of confidence and, for too long, have we had low standards in high places. The Minister-designate for Finance, Deputy Colley, certainly knew what he was talking about a few years ago down in Galway. He is a very decent man. I know nothing but good of him. If I knew anything else I would say so. I will say nothing but the truth and, if the truth hurts, it is not my fault. If people permit low standards in high places it is the duty of this House to show them the error of their ways. These people are merely the custodians of the ratepayers' and taxpayers' money. It is not theirs and they should do with it only what they would do with their own. They should use it honestly. They should cherish all the children of the nation equally, not dishing out money to those who subscribe to their own political party and ignoring others.

I have said here before, and I repeat it now, that the gardaí are frustrated in their efforts to administer the laws of this land. The vast majority of them do their duty conscientiously. They are being frustrated because, having spent time and money hunting criminals, drunken drivers and so on, they very often find that when the papers are sent to the Attorney General they are very often forgotten. If a case is so bad that political influence cannot help, there is unfortunately connivance in the courts, and very often malefactors get off on a technicality. Singer got away on a technicality. We know he paid well for it.

I will give an example of a case not far from my own county. A young man, drunk in charge of a car, killed an unfortunate man. I knew someone connected with the family and I was asked to approach the Minister for Justice. I said it was a thing I did not do, that I never brought pressure to bear on anyone but, if the person insisted, I would mention it, telling the Minister that I had been asked to do this but I was not asking him to do anything for the particular individual since I believed the law should take its course. The Minister, when I approached him, told me that there had been plenty of representation. I knew there would because the father was one of the head men in the cumann. Actually nothing could be done. The case went to trial. The witnesses were brought in. The evidence was given but nobody was called to give evidence of identification of the dead man and the moment the case for the State closed counsel for the defence got up and said: "On a point of law, your honour, the body has not been identified" and the justice said: "That is right" and the man walked out scot-free. That man could tell for months before that his case was being fixed and he would be allowed out scot-free. I know plenty of others. I mentioned them on the Vote for the Department of Justice. I put a question to the Taoiseach the other day about a particular case in my home town of Mullingar connected with people dressed in green. This is our Parliament and, if we are doing our duty, we will see to it that there is only one Army in the country, our National Army of which we are so justly proud. If the Blaneys and the Bolands and the Haugheys want a private army it is the duty of the Taoiseach to put his foot down and to ensure that there is law and order and only one Army.

The Deputy should refer to them as Deputies.

I apologise. In this particular case these people fired live rounds of ammunition. They appeared on television. The files were sent to the Attorney General. The Garda were prepared to do their duty. The dust is still collecting on those files somewhere and not so much as an acknowledgment was made of the receipt of the files and nothing has happened since. Let us have law and order. The Taoiseach may be "Honest Jack". He may be a decent man. Many of us have mentioned these things many times and, if the Taoiseach is interested in justice, interested in seeing the laws enforced fearlessly and without regard to person, he should know that these things are happening. I am sure the Taoiseach reads "This Week". An article appeared in an edition of that magazine which states:

In January last we confessed to a suspicion that there had been political intervention in the rather remarkable judicial performance in Buncrana court.

The details are given. The State Solicitor withdrew charges against seven men of having firearms in their possession with intent to endanger life. The facts of the case, the State Solicitor said, did not sustain the requirements of the Act that there should be an immediate intent. That was something which should give immediate consolation to all those harbouring arms throughout the 26 Counties, the IRA or the UVF not to mention all the unlicensed owners of shotguns for shooting fowl and other flying objects. The men from the Bogside said they were doing a bit of training and the reason they were training was to defend their homes in case the occasion arose again. "Let them go in peace," said the State Solicitor, "and leave their firearms behind them". This would echo the sentiments of the vast majority of the people: perhaps they would undertake not to do it again. It is well known that out of the seven at least five were from the 26 Counties: some say the seven were. I cannot argue that.

Here we had men found with guns, stenguns, machine guns, ammunition et cetera and at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis immediately afterwards Donegal delegates could propose a vote of thanks to Deputy Blaney for ensuring that no Republicans from Donegal were sent to jail. Surely the Taoiseach is aware of all this and of all that is happening in the country? He should now come into the House and say that he will ensure that all Departments of State are properly run and that all sections of the people will get justice in future.

We have a right to speak out about public order. One of the founders of our party, Kevin O'Higgins, lost his life while performing nobly and fearlessly his duty as Minister for Justice. We founded the institutions of this country and we are justly proud of them. We are proud of the National Army but we believe there should be only one Army. We are proud of the Garda Síochána. We believe their strength should be increased but, above all, they should be immediately freed from political interference and allowed to do their duty and enforce law and order as it should be enforced.

Why are statements from illegal organisations permitted to be published? Why have the perpetrators of vicious crimes, arson, the killing of Garda Fallon and the robbery of nine banks, gone unpunished? When we now find two members of the Cabinet who are supposed to be enforcing law and order were engaged in importing ten tons of small arms costing £80,000, do we not realise why those people have not been apprehended in the past six or eight months? Is it not time political interference stopped and that the Taoiseach, now that he has got rid of those Ministers, should say to the police force of Ireland: "Do your duty. We, as a Government, will stand behind you and if you arrest a Fianna Fáil Deputy or a Fine Gael Deputy or any relation of theirs you will not be sent to Donegal, Kerry or somewhere else." Let the law be enforced as it should be enforced. The Taoiseach should condemn the bank robbers and the murderers of Garda Fallon. If they were thugs dressed in green, as they may have been, they were so dressed because they knew the people would talk about the Republican tradition and Fianna Fáil would see that they were not arrested.

The Taoiseach should tell those in charge of law and order that the Government is behind them 100 per cent. It is galling for some of us to find cases like that of a man and his friend who went out in a racing car travelling at 80 or 90 miles an hour, crossed the road, mowed down and killed an unfortunate child. They failed to stop. There were two passengers in the car who at the first opportunity reported this to the Garda. Those concerned denied they killed the child but the evidence was there. They were brought to court and they appealed and in the end they got out with two £2 fines. That is not the type of justice we want to see.

Many people are inclined to ask why did the Taoiseach allow this situation between himself and Deputy Blaney to go from bad to worse. Why did he allow the disagreement which existed for a long time between himself and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in regard to the Border question to continue? I refer specifically to an interview with Deputy Blaney reported in the Irish Independent of 27th March in which Deputy Blaney acclaimed the views of somebody speaking in Derry who said that if the use of arms was justified in maintaining Partition, then the people of the Six Counties could claim the right to undo it likewise.

Did the Taoiseach rebuke Deputy Blaney in public or in private for making that statement? The person in Derry to whom Deputy Blaney referred was Mr. Seán Ó Cionnaith of Sinn Féin who made that speech at Dungiven on Easter Sunday at a Republican commemoration. The Sinn Féin speech was bannerlined in the Irish Times on March 30th as a battle call by Sinn Féin which it was. Surely it was the Taoiseach's duty, if he had a Minister advocating armed intervention in the Six Counties to call him to account or, indeed, dismiss him at that time because that was the third time in five months that Deputy Blaney, to the knowledge of all of us, had publicly repudiated his own Taoiseach.

Yet the Taoiseach took no action. We are inclined to ask what price even now the Taoiseach's declaration that the Government is committed to a solely Constitutional settlement of Partition because I think Deputy Haughey, Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney are officers of the Fianna Fáil organisation. Their policy is indicated by the fact that they tried to import arms to start a civil war. What proof have we that they may not continue from inside the Fianna Fáil Party the same disruptive tactics that they have practised for the past year or so?

The Deputy should remember that these are allegations.

Yes, but I said "the same disruptive tactics". We are entitled to ask here the question which is being posed by many people: what effect will this crisis have on our economy? What effect will it have on the tourist industry? We have had Deputy Colley, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, travelling the world endeavouring to bring industries to this country while at the same time, according to the information we now have, we have Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey and some say Deputy Ó Móráin, biting the hand that fed them. This year we have an adverse trade balance of over £150 million. What we need is peace and prosperity.

Some of us listening to Deputy's Boland's speech yesterday were saddened because his speech tried to undermine the Taoiseach and his authority. It was an emotional appeal to the Republican traditions in the country and in the Fianna Fáil Party. It was also an emotional appeal to the subversive elements in our community. That is the unfortunate thing about it.

As I said, I should like to see in this country a Taoiseach, a Minister for Justice, an Attorney General, men who were prepared to act without fear or favour, men who were prepared to prosecute the highest in the land where they deemed it necessary. We want a Taoiseach, a Minister for Justice and an Attorney General prepared to consider the liability of Deputy Charles J. Haughey, Deputy Neil T. Blaney and Deputy Michael Moran to answer to criminal charges under the Firearms Act of 1925, the Offences Against the State Act, 1939——

Alleged charges. The Deputy must correct it to alleged charges.

——the liability of those persons for the alleged charges under the Defence Act, 1954, and any other relevant enactment. That is necessary

We have heard much in the past about collective responsibility. It seems now to have been turned into collective security to save the Fianna Fáil Party. If we have collective responsibility in the Government, which we are supposed to have, the Taoiseach should have known what was going on over the past year. He was told often enough. If he did not know what was going on and was not kept up to date, he was not fit to be Taoiseach. If he knew what was going on, then he should stand condemned in the dock with Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey.

It should be stated that everyone's faith in the Taoiseach is now shaken. Indeed, there is an old Chinese proverb which states that he who knows not and knows that he knows not, could be a wise man and you could follow him; he who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool, and you would want to be aware of him. I do not know into which category to put the Taoiseach but the people are entitled to know where they stand. The Taoiseach was given a mandate by the people who have been betrayed by the betrayers in the Cabinet. It is the Taoiseach's duty in the national interest to go before the electorate and face them in a general election. If he does that I, for one, have no doubt what the answer will be. The Taoiseach seems to be a disciple of the dictum of Lord Melbourne: Ponder, pause, prepare, postpone and end by leaving things alone; in fact, earn the people's pay by doing nothing every day, and that is what the Taoiseach has done until today.

I shall be very brief. As a fellow Corkman, I make a special appeal this evening to the Taoiseach to save the honour of the Irish Government and the Irish people by disclosing all the facts at his disposal and the whole truth of the crisis which has shocked this nation.

This debate, the longest in the history of this State, has been used to the full by the Fine Gael Party to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation and the terrible consequences which could result from it. For some time past, arms have been imported into this country from the Continent for the alleged purpose of re-uniting the 32 Counties by force. We in Fine Gael fully agree with the Taoiseach's view that Partition can be abolished by peaceful means only.

However, this view was not shared by all the members of his Cabinet. It now appears that the Taoiseach has been aware for some time that some members of his Cabinet, Deputy Haughey, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Ó Móráin, were involved in conspiracies to import arms illegally. The people of this country have been shocked and frightened by the immediate expulsions of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney. We now know that these expulsions were brought about by the intervention of our leader, Deputy Liam Cosgrave. The doubt about the resignation of Deputy Ó Móráin was strengthened by the expulsions. One apparent mystery led to another. At the same time, Deputy Kevin Boland resigned followed by Deputy Paudge Brennan.

People wondered if the Government were cracking up completely. People are still wondering, and they are not convinced. The security of this State, the honour of our country and the future of our country are at stake. The eyes of the world will look to the Taoiseach this evening to unravel the whole mystery. Was Deputy Gibbons involved? Did he fulfil his duty as Minister for Defence in the national interest? Is Captain Kelly's story false? Who betrayed the national interest? Were MI.5 or MI.6 responsible for uncovering this conspiracy?

The Taoiseach and I are both Corkmen representing different and opposing political interests. Our fellow Corkmen of all those interests expect him to lay the evidence on the line here this evening. The whole country awaits this speech from him tonight. Nothing short of the whole truth will satisfy the constituents of Cork city north west which we both have the honour to represent. the people of our native Cork, and the people of Ireland.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, before you call the next speaker will you take note that there are four members of the Government Party in the House and a heading on the paper today read: "Fianna Fáil Party fights for its life."

The Deputy has already spoken.

I am calling for a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

It is inconceivable in the history of this House and the history of this State since its inception that such an upheaval should take place involving three senior Ministers and that, so far, the Taoiseach has refused to expel them from the Fianna Fáil Party. We await his reply to this debate to-night when we shall see what the consequences will be.

Ireland to-day, because of the actions of some of our Ministers and the crass ineptitude of her Taoiseach, stands shamed and discredited in the eyes of the nations of the world. The Island of Saints and Scholars is fast becoming known as the island of gunmen and desperados because of the selfish actions of the Paisleys and the Blaneys, the Craigs and the Bolands. As a result of all that, this House has been brought to the lowest ebb it has ever reached in the past 50 years. Never, to my mind, will our former proud position be retrieved until such time as the Taoiseach takes immediate action and exposes to this House and to the Irish nation the facts behind the alleged gun-running involving some of our Ministers.

Appeals have been made from some Government Deputies to be sympathetic towards those Ministers. Personally, I would be sympathetic towards one Minister, Deputy Moran, the ex-Minister for Justice, because he is in hospital. I shall not mention his name here to-night. I believe any man in hospital should be allowed time to come back and to be present here for any accusation or attack that may be made on him. Were it not for the action of the leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Liam Cosgrave, I have my doubts that these Ministers would ever have been expelled from the Cabinet. Were it not for the confidence which senior Garda officers and senior officials in this country had in Deputy Liam Cosgrave arising out of their trust in his late father, Mr. W.T. Cosgrave and his great tradition of service to this State of which he was a founder member, we might not yet know as much as we now know. Fortunately, these senior Garda officers and senior officials knew they could turn to Deputy Cosgrave in the confident assurance that the matter would carefully be considered and dealt with. These men knew, when they approached Fine Gael, that they were not approaching gunmen or gun-runners.

We know perfectly well what gun-runners are because of what has been going on in Europe for the past four or five years. Some people have been making fortunes through the export of guns to the African States, for instance. It has occurred extensively in the whole of Africa.

This is really what is happening here. Just consider this alleged gun-running attempt here involving an Army officer and two Ministers of State. I wonder what is in the mind of the Irish people tonight on this subject while they are looking and listening here to Dáil Éireann and waiting for the report of the Taoiseach? It is not my intention to delay this House too long. I would ask these questions however: Where did the money come from? Was it patriotism or was it graft? This is the one thing that must be put before the Irish people. I have my doubts in relation to whether it was patriotism or whether it was graft. However, I shall await the Taoiseach's statement to see what action he has taken. Certainly, he would never have dismissed or expelled or asked two of his senior Ministers to resign if he had not evidence of some deep involvement.

We all remember when the former Deputy James Dillon was making his final speech in this House. I was not a Member at that time. He gave one piece of advice to every Deputy: to preserve the dignity of this House, the dignity of Ministers of State, the dignity of Parliamentary Secretaries and the dignity of every Deputy. Throughout the whole of Europe and the world the dignity of every Member of this House has been degraded as a result of this alleged conspiracy. I believe it will take years to regain the ground we have lost in this respect. There was only one way open to the Taoiseach to save this nation.

I would venture to say that 80 per cent of our population want only peaceful means employed for the solution of the problem of Partition. They stand firmly for a middle of the road approach and are not interested in extremism. They do not support any extreme element, Maoists or any other group, no matter where they come from.

We have a Christian tradition. Thank God, I have confidence in the Irish people. After his speech here to-night the Taoiseach should go immediately to the Park and seek a dissolution of Dáil Éireann and thus let the Irish people decide on this issue. I am certain I know how they would decide.

I came down here from Donegal at the beginning of this week to debate a Fianna Fáil Budget introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government. Were the rules of this House to permit me to dwell on the damage that Budget will do, I would tell the House that I was sent down here because there was an outcry throughout the country on account of the disorganisation of our economic position and of our financial position. I know the Chair will tell me I am out of order. Surely I am entitled to tell the House why I came down here? I came down here to tell the House that the building trade throughout rural Ireland was at a standstill as a result of the cement strike. I came down here to tell the House—were I permitted to do so— that were that strike to continue, the business of this State would be in a tragic position. I intended to tell the House that, as a result of the bank strike, the business economy of the State was practically at a standstill but no member of the Government appeared to be in the slightest way interested in stopping this rot that has set in. Unfortunately, when I got here I saw on the Order Paper the motion to appoint Deputy O'Malley as a Minister of the Government. I regret very much to have to intervene in this debate. This is not a debate on the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government; this is an impeachment of Members of that Government, and of the Government elected under the Constitution enacted by the Irish people.

It grieves me more that the people involved are and were close personal friends of mine. Deputy Blaney's father was a personal friend of mine for many years. I had great respect for Deputy Boland's father and he and I are still very good friends. Deputy Moran was a colleague of mine. We have known each other for many years and, socially, we have associated no later than the beginning of this year. As for Deputy Haughey, I was associated with him in the late 1920s when his father was proud to wear the uniform of the Irish Army.

The Free State Army.

I can assure the House that it gives me no pleasure to come here and endeavour to put together the puzzle we have been faced with since Tuesday last. The Taoiseach was a personal friend of mine long before he and I entered politics. He is a man for whom I had nothing but respect, as I had respect for the other members of the Government. If each or all of these men gave me their word I would accept it. It was in that spirit, then, that I came in here on Wednesday last. I was surprised that, when the motion was moved, there appeared to be a reluctance to grant the motion to the Government. I did not know why. I was told that Deputy Moran was sick and that as a result of his illness he had retired from Government. I accepted that. I was told that the Taoiseach was anxious to appoint a successor. Therefore, I could not understand the reluctance of the Opposition Parties to grant the motion. However, when I got my daily papers next morning, to my shock and surprise I read not of the resignation but of the dismissal of two Ministers of the Government. I read the allegations made against them as to why they were dismissed. I read also that one of their colleagues, against whom no charge was made, had resigned in support of them. This was unbelievable.

I came to the House and was horrified while listening to the Taoiseach's speech. The Taoiseach told us that their names had been impeached in some way or other. He did not tell us there was a case against them. He is a lawyer, and a very good one, but he told us that the evidence which he procured established a prima facie case against them. Any lawyer in this House knows that when there is a prima facie case against an accused or an alleged accused he must then go forward for trial and the onus is on the State to prove him guilty, not on him to prove himself innocent. The Taoiseach told us that this prima facie case was there. I decided that it would not be fair to interfere in the debate.

Deputies who are also lawyers, such as Deputy de Valera, are well aware that when a prima facie case is established it is then sub judice and should not be discussed. However, during the course of the Taoiseach's speech I discovered there was no intention to take criminal proceedings against the accused. I was horrified to think that a lawyer who was satisfied that a prima facie case had been established was prepared to let the matter drop at that and not give the accused an opportunity of putting their case before the court of the Irish people.

On Wednesday, Deputy Boland made a statement in which he said he did not believe that Deputy Moran had voluntarily resigned his office as Minister for Justice, thereby contradicting what the Taoiseach had said. He went further and told us that, for months back, his telephone and the telephone of other Ministers was being tapped. By whom were the telephones being tapped? Was it on the instructions of the President? I am satisfied that that was not so. Was it on the instructions of the Taoiseach that these Ministers had their portfolios taken away? As an ex-Minister of State I know what is collective responsibility and I know the confidence there must be between a Taoiseach and his Ministers. If that confidence is not there, the Government must fall. But, when we have an ex-Minister telling us that for months the Taoiseach's mind must have been suspicious, I ask why did the Taoiseach wait so long? At that stage there was only a suspicion that arms were involved and I cannot understand why arms should be involved. The three main Parties in this House—Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour—had enunciated the unanimous policy of all of us some months ago——

Hear, hear.

——and in that enunciation we ruled out force. The Civil Rights Movement in the north, led by John Hume and Ivan Cooper, told us many times that they did not want force. The Nationalist Party made a similar statement and the official Unionist Party said that they were not believers in the use of force on their side or on the side of the opposition.

Though we are unanimous that force should be ruled out, let us not forget that it was tried. Immediately before the Civil War, when the IRA after the truce had time to reorganise, time to arm and time to procure uniforms, General Frank Aiken with an Eastern Division marched north from Dundalk through Armagh. It may be history to some of you. General Seán MacEoin pushed through Cavan; General Joe Sweeney with the First Northern Division pushed into Pettigo and Peadar O'Donnell with his Brigade pushed into the Six Counties through Claggan. Here was an opportunity when the IRA or the army were united to take by force the Six Counties. I will not tell you what each of these three distinguished soldiers found. They were driven back not by the British army but by the bitter armed Specials of those days. That was our first and last attempt at force.

I do not mean to cause trouble or to open up old sores when I say that when Fianna Fáil got into office in 1932 Mr. de Valera, who was then their leader, said after a short time that he wished to give credit to the outgoing Government: that he found on taking office a well disciplined Army willing to obey the instructions of the Government of the day. There was no question of mutiny. They were willing to take from the Government and its Minister for Defence whatever instructions were issued. He found a Civil Service prepared to take the instructions of the new Government. He found the police force to which he paid tribute.

We all know of the dreadful executions of the Civil War. We all detest even the mention of them today. We know what brave men were executed. We know what brave men died on each side. We know that if executions took place the Government of the day thought it was in the best interests of establishing law and order in the State. Whether they were right or wrong that was their opinion and they were the elected Government. These unfortunate executions took place. Again in the 1930s and early 1940s the Fianna Fáil Government found that they had to take the very same action though there was not a civil war. They had to have executions and I do not blame them and I am not casting it up. These things occurred and the Fianna Fáil Government, in their wisdom, saw that it was essential to keep law and order in the State and they were right because they were the people who were elected to do it. They carried out I think between 20 and 26 executions.

Twenty-seven.

I am not blaming them. It was their duty. They were the lawfully elected Government just as the other Government were earlier on. I have never heard since of any organised Constitutional opposition to the State until now.

Deputy Boland spoke first. He came into the House and told us he did not believe the Taoiseach when the Taoiseach said that Deputy Moran who was then sick resigned of his own volition. He said he was pushed. He said that Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney were dismissed or their resignations called for on spurious evidence. He said they refused to hand in their seals of office. Does anyone know what the handing in of a seal of office is? When one has the honour to be appointed a Minister of this State one is handed his seal by the President. He takes it in his right hand and transfers it to his left and hands it back to the President's secretary. He does not see it again and he does not even get a replica. How did they refuse to hand in their seals of office? In other words, what I think he meant was, that they refused to resign, and, therefore, the Taoiseach had no option but to dismiss them. Now here we had a conflict.

Deputy Blaney made a very moving, touching speech. When he referred to his parents I am satisfied that what he said was true. He went on to tell us here in this House that he had neither hand, act nor part in any subversive organisations and he had nothing to do with Saor Éire. We know that while the headquarters of certain illegal organisations are down here they have companies and divisions in the north, not Saor Éire. I agree with all the speakers over there that the IRA refuse to recognise Saor Éire. I believe they are, as was stated by the Minister, bank robbers climbing on the bandwagon and taking advantage of what occurred. He said he had nothing whatever to do with these subversive organisations. He went further and he said that no brother of his had any connection with any illegal operation in this country—"in this country," Deputy Blaney said: Fianna Fáil was Republican and he was born a Republican. Let us, for God's sake, forget this republicanism. In 1948 the Government decided to declare this State a Republic. We are all Republicans whether we like it or not. I remember the former Deputy Con Lehane of Clann na Poblachta from those benches saying: "Thank God we have taken the gun out of Irish politics." His view was endorsed by every side of the House.

Here we have Deputy Blaney saying that he never advocated the use of force. I will not say he did but we all remember what he said. He did go a little bit further. He said: "We cannot stand idly by while people in the north are being penalised." I thought over that. What did he mean? He said: "I was in Derry. I was in the Bogside last August and later on I was in the Falls Road" and, he said, that within the recent past he was again in the north "assisting" I think is the word he used—if it is not I withdraw it—but encouraging our people to resist attack.

I read in today's Irish Independent, on page 11, the heading: “McAteer pleads for Blaney”. Mr. McAteer was a member of the Northern Parliament for many years. He was the leader of the Nationalist Party in Parliament. He is no longer in Parliament. He was succeeded by Mr. John Hume. This is what Mr. McAteer said, bearing in mind that Deputy Blaney told us that he was in the north, both in the Bogside and in the Falls Road, last year and recently:

A plea for an end to "Blaney-bashing" was made yesterday in Derry by the Nationalist Party leader, Mr. Eddie McAteer. Mr. McAteer said: "I am not a man of war, but everyone knows there are two views on the end of Partition. One see-saws regularly from one to the other, and the rebels of today become the Government of tomorrow. There are matching examples in the Unionist world. My Party remains committed to the Lynch peace line,

It would be better if he said to the peace line of Dáil Éireann. He said: "To the Lynch peace line". He goes on further to state:

but this does not mean that we will meekly bow down like sheep for summer slaughter. The screeching doves may well remember that Neil Blaney stood beside us in our hour of need and is still willing to sacrifice a bright political future to help his fellow Ulstermen. If the midnight knock comes to our door would not the gentlest of us love the feeling of security which a pike in the thatch can give.

What is the "pike in the thatch"? Is it the pike of '98? If it is, it would not be much use against the arms borne by the Ulster Volunteers and those other organisations in the north. Is that not a method of describing a firearm? I do not know. I leave it to this House to draw the conclusion. Mr. McAteer also inferred that it was Deputy Blaney who put it there.

Yesterday and since Wednesday last there have been rumours and suggestions in the national and local papers that Deputy Blaney advocates the distribution of arms in the Six Counties. I am not saying he does, but the papers suggest he does. Deputy Blaney came in here yesterday and denied this. But tonight I read in the Evening Herald:“Bonfires blaze for Blaney”. I do not mind the people of his constituency of East Donegal blazing bonfires for him. Is it because he was dismissed from the Government? I leave that conclusion to Deputies, but I do not think it is. If it is not because he was dismissed from the Government, is it because he advocated the supply of arms to the Six Counties? I do not know. Again, I leave it to Deputies. But why do bonfires blaze on the Hills of Donegal to-night? I do not think it is because the Taoiseach has rejected him. There must be some other reason, and I respectfully suggest to you that when we read the speech which Deputy Blaney will make tonight in the Market Square in Letterkenny it will not be the denial about the supply of arms in the Six Counties that was made here. However, I do not know.

I am not going to mention Deputy Haughey because he has not been here. We sympathise with him and do not intend to criticise him in his absence. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, was here. I am not concerned with the rumours which have been circulating. The Minister came in here and made a speech. One of the things he said was:

I have been informed that Mr. Patrick Kennedy, MP, in the course of a radio interview suggested that any participation by Captain James Kelly in an attempt to smuggle arms could only have been made with my knowledge and consent. I wish emphatically to deny any such knowledge or consent.

I did not know then who Captain Kelly was, but I know something about Army structure. I never heard of a captain reporting to a Minister unless he was his aide-de-camp. He was bound to send his report up through the line, through his next in command and so on, until it reached the top and then it was handed over to the Minister. I want you to bear with me further. The Minister went on to say:

I want to say also that in recent times I formed the opinion that Captain Kelly was becoming unsuitable for the type of work he was employed in.

How could he know, unless it was through that pipeline I have referred to, whether the man was suitable for the work? If he was unsuitable, surely he could have become what some of us would know as a foot slogger, an infantry man. They could find some other post for him. It is quite evident he was asked for his resignation, but that is not all. Later on, the Minister said:

I want to say that certain suspicions were forming in my mind.

That is evident from the result of his personal contacts with the captain, but listen to the next sentence where he says:

I was kept informed by the Director of Intelligence but nothing concrete emerged.

Here we have the Minister for Defence kept informed by the Director of Intelligence that a subordinate who had bypassed the Director of intelligence had gone direct to the Minister. There is something wrong there. I am not saying what it is. I ask the House to judge. In view of that this Captain Kelly, about whom I know nothing, immediately came on the air and this is what he said to the BBC:

Under privilege of the Dáil Mr. Gibbons has attacked me. All he has said is a tissue of lies. Any work which I did I brought to the knowledge of Mr. Gibbons at any and every opportunity.

Why should he bring this information to the Minister over the head of the Director of Intelligence? He went further and said "He is completely aware of anything I did prior to my leaving the Army on May 1st." I am leaving it to the House to judge; but in my opinion there is something peculiar about a junior officer going over the head of the Director of Intelligence, making contact with the Minister and keeping the Minister informed when, at the same time, there is no mention of the information he has given to the Director of Intelligence.

He goes on to say "When I was arrested by the Special Branch I claimed privilege". I think he was right, but who did he ask for? Not for his superior officer, but for the Minister. The Minister called to see him at the police barracks. We are next told "Mr. Gibbons advised me to tell everything I knew concerning my work as an intelligence officer. I rejected this advice because of the implications involved".

We are then told "It was suggested that I speak to the Taoiseach, which I did". Why should a subordinate officer speak to the Taoiseach when he could have gone to his Director of Intelligence or to the legal advisers in the Army? He goes further and tells us "In my hearing, Mr. Gibbons before leaving the office indicated that I was a competent and respected officer and that I should be treated as such." The office in this case was the police barracks. According to Captain Kelly, Deputy Gibbons indicated that in the presence of a senior officer of the Garda, a Chief Superintendent Fleming.

He goes on to speak of Deputy Gibbons and, let us remember, he is speaking of a Minister whose confidence he had and whom he contacted over the head of his Director of Intelligence. He said "That man is an unmitigated scoundrel and I say this not under any privilege of Dáil Éireann". Were I a Minister of State and if a civil servant said that of me.

I would see that he was sued for slander or libel or both. We have not seen the Minister for Defence and we do not know what happened. I am not drawing any conclusions but I am asking this House to draw its own conclusions about what happened. I do not know if all this is true or not; if it is true well and good, and if it is a lie it can be denied and I shall accept the denial.

I do not know if it is true that Deputy Blaney found alternative employment in his Department for this man but it will be easy to check. However, a peculiar coincidence occurred last night. A photograph appeared in the Evening Press last night showing Captain Kelly, his legal adviser and another gentleman, Mr. Séamus Brady. Mr. Brady is a clever journalist. We all know that all Ministers, from the Taoiseach down, have scriptwriters. It is suggested that here we might find the Minister's scriptwriter. When Captain Kelly made his statement he used the expression “an unmitigated scoundrel”. I never heard an Army officer use language such as this. I know language which Army personnel would use to convey the same meaning, but I could never imagine the use of words such as those ascribed to Captain Kelly. I shall leave it to the House to make up its mind if the phrase was suggested by a scriptwriter. Was it a mere coincidence that that scriptwriter should be there when that interview was given to the BBC? Again, I do not know.

I have spoken for much longer than I had intended. This debate will do good down here, but it will do much harm in the north. In the north we had civil rights groups of all religions coming together. As a result of this debate what I may describe as the Unionists have become more united and we have gone away from the position we were in eight or nine months ago. I pose this question to-night to the Taoiseach, one of the oldest questions in Christendom: Quo Vadis?

I want to add my protest to that of other speakers who have condemned the tragic situation in which we find ourselves today. We are in this crisis because of the treachery of those appointed by the Taoiseach to look after the interests of the Irish people. These Ministers are the servants of the people and are not their masters, as would appear from events of the last week. Untold damage has been caused to the whole fabric of the institutions of this State, and to our image throughout the world, by these events. By their actions these former Ministers have betrayed the high office entrusted to them by the people and the people are entitled to ask what action will be taken to bring them to justice. The people cannot realise why the Taoiseach, who stated he had a prima facie case against the former Ministers, still accepts their votes in this House. The Taoiseach is failing in his duty to this House and to the people if he continues to accept that support. The Fianna Fáil whip should be withdrawn from them.

Respect for law and order in this country is in great danger should the Attorney General not treat the actions of these people with the gravity and urgency they deserve. The Taoiseach should without hesitation set up a public inquiry into the events of last week and the events which led up to them. There was a very comprehensive inquiry carried out recently into a "Seven Days" programme. If it was necessary in that case is it not all the more reason why we should have a thorough inquiry into this matter? The law must be administered equally for all sections of the community. The ordinary upright citizen is convinced that should he be involved or suspected of being involved in activity of this nature he would be quickly and firmly removed to the Bridewell and would not be given bail. It appears there is one law for the citizens of this State and another law for high-ranking Fianna Fáil people. I ask the Taoiseach to spell out in his reply the action he or the Attorney General intends to take against these people.

I mentioned earlier that the image of our country is seriously impaired by the happenings of last week. We were held in high esteem and respect by the people of the world as a country of proven democratic principles. In the sixties we were accepted as a respected and utterly reliable country in the United Nations Council. Our ambassadors and other people who went to Nigeria during very troubled and difficult times were treated with the utmost respect and dignity. Our fight for freedom and our democratic institutions were held up as an example to the people of India. The Zambian Government sent her young soldiers to our country to be trained by our Army personnel.

This situation was brought about by the actions of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Boland who betrayed their own leader and their own people. Many doubts and question marks have been created in the minds of the people. In recent times there have been a number of bank raids carried out openly and daringly, and the culprits have not been brought to justice. Unfortunately in one of these bank raids Garda Fallon lost his life protecting the property and the lives of the people. This is not a densely populated country where people will get lost in large centres of population. Rumours circulate which undermine the confidence of the people in the forces of justice. Therefore we must have a clear statement on these matters.

Another question mark in the people's minds is in regard to authorisation given by the Department of Finance for the clearance through customs of guns which would put the lives of our people north and south of the Border in peril. This situation has created very serious misgivings in the minds of the people. The question the people ask themselves is: if clearance was being given for illegal importation what other authorisations or permits were or could be granted to people whom the Minister would want to facilitate? This situation has left a cloud over every Department.

Another question concerns the resignation of Deputy Moran, ex-Minister for Justice. Deputy Boland is adamant that Deputy Moran was sacked. The Taoiseach told the House on Tuesday last that he resigned for health reasons. There were also charges of phone-tapping and of Gestapo methods being used by the Taoiseach against members of his Cabinet. These charges were made by Deputy Boland against the Taoiseach. There is a grave accusation that the Taoiseach did not trust the Cabinet and had to employ extreme measures of this nature to spy on them. When did this phone-tapping commence? What information had the Taoiseach received to make him take this decision? What information did he gain from this phone-tapping?

The Taoiseach alleges in relation to the dismissal of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney that he had asked for the resignation of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney before Deputy Cosgrave went to him on Tuesday night. At 4 p.m. on Tuesday the Taoiseach announced for the information of this House that Deputy Michael Moran had tendered his resignation as Minister for Justice on the previous day. Deputy Cosgrave then asked the Taoiseach could he say if this was the only Ministerial resignation we could expect. The Taoiseach replied: "I do not know what the Deputy is referring to". Deputy Cosgrave asked if it was only the tip of the iceberg. The Taoiseach then inquired whether Deputy Cosgrave would like to enlarge on what he had in mind.

At 8 p.m. that night Deputy Cosgrave went to the Taoiseach in his office and told him of the information he had received. Within a few hours two Ministers had been sacked from the Cabinet and another had resigned. This to me is a clear indication that had Deputy Cosgrave not given this information there would have been no action in this matter. I would ask the Taoiseach to open the book and give the people the full information to which they are entitled in relation to these matters.

I do not intend to speak for very long as at this stage of the debate it is very difficult to find anything original to say but, because of the seriousness of the situation, every Deputy has something to offer to the debate.

The motion before the House is asking the Dáil to approve of the appointment of three new Ministers to the Government. We are asked to approve of the appointment of Deputy Molloy as Minister for Local Government. I should like to know from Deputy Molloy and from the Taoiseach, are we going to have the same policy and the same problems as we had when Deputy Boland was Minister? What will the attitude be to the housing situation? There are many questions left unanswered and a cloud of mystery has surrounded the debate for the past few days.

It is extraordinary to go back over the past eight or nine years to study the policies adopted by Fianna Fáil towards agriculture. We are asked to approve of the appointment of Deputy James Gibbons as Minister for Agriculture. My immediate assessment is that whoever will be appointed could not be any worse than Deputy Blaney. In view of the many problems confronting the agricultural community at the present time, we need a clearcut statement from the new Minister for Agriculture as to what the policy will be in relation to our entry to the Common Market. In relation to the appointment of Deputy James Gibbons as Minister for Agriculture the Taoiseach tonight in his reply will have to state clearly Deputy Gibbons's position in relation to the accusations made against him in the past few days. The dignity and honour of the House are at stake because of the attitude of the Taoiseach and of some of his Ministers over the past few weeks.

Having been back in my constituency in Mid-Cork since we heard about these three Ministers I can say that there are so many conflicting reports and rumours in this House and outside it that the Taoiseach must state clearly tonight what is his position in relation to the new Cabinet. Are we going to have further resignations? It is strongly rumoured around this House tonight that as soon as the approval is given and the House adjourns the new Minister for Agriculture will hand in his resignation as a result of the conflict between himself and Captain Kelly over the past few days.

The Ministers in question did in fact make a determined effort to undermine the security of the State. As far as the Minister for Defence, the proposed Minister for Agriculture, Deputy James Gibbons, is concerned, we are informed by the Taoiseach that an effort was made to import arms illegally into this country under the guise of being for the Department of Defence. This is something that in relation to the Minister for Defence must be answered. The questions that are asked by the people outside this House must be answered. It is asked, if they were illegally imported under the guise of being for the Department of Defence, was the Minister for Defence aware of this? If he was aware of this, there is no place for him in any new Government. If he was not aware of it, he is not capable of holding a Ministry in a new Government because he was not on top of his job.

These are the questions that must be answered by the Taoiseach here to-night. The country is shocked and stunned into silence by the news of illegal importation of arms and a threat to the security and the livelihood of our people in the Twenty-Six Counties and in the six north eastern counties.

I have been in this House since 1965. The strangest thing that has occurred in that time here was Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland speaking from the back benches of the Fianna Fáil side of the House, pledging their support and loyalty to the Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, to the Fianna Fáil policy in relation to the reunification of the country and, at the same time in their respective constituencies, organising protest marches and meetings and cavalcades of cars in order to protest against the Taoiseach's action in dismissing them. Surely there is no consistency in this?

We were told here in recent months how united the Fianna Fáil Government were, how united the Fianna Fáil Party were. We heard about collective responsibility. Surely all the statements made by the Taoiseach in this House in the past few days are only fairy tales, not accepted by any reasonably-minded person either inside or outside the House?

I regard as a very important aspect of this matter the first resignation which we were asked to approve of here, the resignation of the former Minister for Justice, Micheál Ó Móráin. If the former Minister is ill or in poor health I sincerely wish him a full recovery as soon as possible but the whole question of his resignation is suspect. I listened to the new Minister for Justice being interviewed on the day the critical meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party was held on the issue as to whether they would support the Taoiseach or support those who were aspiring to leadership. Deputy O'Malley, the new Minister for Justice, was asked if he expected a full attendance of Fianna Fáil Deputies at this meeting and the answer was, "Yes, certainly, we will have a full attendance apart from the Minister for Lands who is abroad and may not get to the meeting in time". When asked if he was expecting that Deputy Michael Moran would attend the meeting, the answer was: "Certainly, yes."

Now, on the following day the Taoiseach came in here at ten o'clock at night and he said he wanted to make it quite clear that, as far as the ex-Minister for Justice was concerned, he had handed in his resignation on health grounds. Then we had Deputy Kevin Boland coming in here yesterday and saying that the ex-Minister for Justice was asked to hand in his resignation.

These are the conflicts that must be resolved. These are the points that must be clarified by the Taoiseach. These are the points that are causing confusion, concern and anxiety. Whether the Taoiseach himself is or is not involved, I appeal to him to come clean and make the truth known. There are too many conflicting rumours. There are too many conflicting statements from the Taoiseach and from those who have pledged loyalty to him within the past few days, Deputy Boland, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Brennan.

Last week, on the Budget debate here, we were told by Deputies on the opposite benches about the collective responsibility within the Fianna Fáil Cabinet. Reading last Wednesday morning about the Taoiseach sacking two of his most important Ministers, the first thing one asked oneself was how near were we to an even much more serious situation than we are in at present? What I am mainly concerned about is the attitude of people who are inclined to revolt against authority. There is a growing tendency here amongst certain sections of our community to revolt against authority and that is one of the reasons why I think it is so necessary for the Taoiseach to make clear to this House, and through this House, to the people the true position as far as the ex-Minister for Justice is concerned.

I know it to be true that the whole question of the administration of justice is suspect at the moment. That has been mentioned here time and again on this side of the House. It has been raised by way of Parliamentary question and by way of debate. Even though the Fianna Fáil Party are heading towards the rocks now, justice must be administered. In my opinion the Taoiseach has no choice but to dissolve this Dáil and go to the country. I was amazed on Thursday morning last at the obvious rallying of the clan in the corridors of Leinster House, the Taca men who came from as far away as Cork to lend moral support to the Taoiseach when the whole future of the Fianna Fáil Party was in jeopardy.

The Deputy should have heard what they said about Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland.

One must give them credit. This morning one finds one of the Taca kings in this city engaged in writing to cumainn and to supporters all over the country asking are they for or against Jack Lynch. Everyone in this House knows perfectly well to whom I am referring. Only yesterday morning I had a discussion with a strong Fianna Fáil supporter in my own constituency, an active worker in the last general election, and when he asked for my opinion my answer was: "We have been telling you this for years" and his reply was: "We are disgraced". That is the view of the decent element of the Fianna Fáil supporters throughout the country. Fianna Fáil got a mandate from the people to govern in the last general election and they were never so strong as they are in this Dáil and, if ever there was an example of power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely, this is a classic example of it.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

We told the people not in the last general election, but in the election before that, and the election before that again, that the Fianna Fáil Party had such a lust for power and were so anxious to remain in office at all costs that they were highly dangerous. I would advise the Taoiseach now not to underestimate the organising ability of Deputy Neil T. Blaney, Deputy Kevin Boland and Deputy Charles Haughey. If he remains as head of the Government his life as leader of this Government will be made impossible. We have so many anarchists, so many subversive organisations that it is even frightening to think about them. If there was trouble in the six north eastern counties, which is quite possible, think for a moment of the people who are now lined up in Donegal and in Dublin in the constituencies of Deputy Kevin Boland and Deputy Charles Haughey. These people are doing untold damage to the civil rights movement in the north because of their attitude in regard to the reunification of this country. There is only one man who is pleased with this. He is delighted with Deputy Kevin Boland, Deputy Neil Blaney and Deputy Charles Haughey. He is the Rev. Ian Paisley.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

This strengthens his position and makes impossible the position of the minority. The attitude adopted by the ex-Ministers was reckless and irresponsible. I appeal to the Taoiseach to make a clear statement tonight, to answer the questions that are unanswered, resolve the doubts in people's minds about the resignation of Deputy Michael Moran, about the allegations made by Captain Kelly against Deputy Gibbons, Minister for Defence, because these are the things which are causing anxiety.

I do not intend to delay the House by speaking at length on this motion. I listened to various speeches made from opposite benches and I was sorry to hear some of the Fianna Fáil speakers go back to the bitterness of the Civil War 50 years ago. In this day and age we should forget that bitterness. The country does not want that wound reopened. I listened with interest to Deputy Blaney and he went back to an incident that happened to him when he was four years of age. That was over 50 years ago. It is time we forgot what happened 50 years ago and time for us to live in the present.

Listening to Deputy Blaney what struck me was that the speech he made should not have been made in this House but at the Fianna Fáil Party meeting. The Taoiseach in Volume 246, column 642 of the Official Report said:

On 22nd April, the day I decided to interview the former Ministers, I received news of the accident to Deputy Haughey and, as a result, I was unable to interview him.

He went on to state:

However, I ultimately got the doctor's permission and I decided to interview Deputy Haughey in hospital on Wednesday, 29th April. Having made that decision and before I went to the hospital, I then summoned Deputy Blaney to my room and interviewed him, upon which I went to the hospital and interviewed Deputy Haughey.

The Taoiseach should tell us why he waited from 22nd April to 29th April. I can understand him waiting in the case of Deputy Haughey but there is no excuse for the delay in seeing Deputy Blaney. If we move on to the 5th May, the Taoiseach was then asked by Deputy Cosgrave:

Are there going to be other Ministerial resignations?

and the Taoiseach replied:

I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.

Deputy Cosgrave then went on to say:

Is this the tip of the iceberg?

Later that evening at 8 o'clock Deputy Cosgrave interviewed the Taoiseach and put certain information which he had before the Taoiseach and it was only then that the Taoiseach moved. At 10 o'clock that night three Ministers had resigned. It is perfectly obvious that if Deputy Cosgrave had not placed the information before the Taoiseach the Taoiseach was prepared to sit on this affair and let it ride the storm if that were possible. I do not think that is possible now. The people and the country want a new Government that they can stand behind. The Fianna Fáil Party are now split down the middle and have lost the confidence of the people. I call on the Taoiseach to dissolve this Dáil and go to the country——

——this evening. Fianna Fáil think time is on their side. That is not so. The country is aware of what has happened and wants to be rid of the Fianna Fáil Government.

We regret that it was necessary for us to have such a prolonged debate. We regret that the Government's decision to rush this debate through before the week-end made it necessary for us to be here for more than 24 hours. The Taoiseach originally said that he was willing to have a debate next Tuesday. We were prepared to start it yesterday and adjourn until Tuesday.

With a certain lack of logic Fianna Fáil insisted that the debate must be finished by the week-end even though originally they were quite happy to wait until Tuesday. Therefore, we had no alternative but to have the debate in this form. We were not going to be prevented from speaking our minds. Every member of the part wanted to say what he thinks of the situation and make his contribution in this crisis.

A long debate has been necessary because of the total inadequacy of the information given to us by the Taoiseach and the misleading character of that information. It was necessary also because of his trivialisation of the whole matter ending up with his remark at the end of his speech that again the country had a Government in which they could have confidence. These words rang very hollow in this House. They certainly made it necessary for us to make clear to the country that there could be no confidence in such a Government.

Let there be no criticism of this party from the Government benches because we performed our duty on this occasion. If anybody has any criticism let him think what would have happened had the boot conceivably been on the other foot and had there been in this party in Government any member capable of betraying the State. That is unthinkable. If we had faced this kind of situation and crisis what would the response have been from the other side of the House? Can anyone think it would have been the responsible response such as came from these benches? Can anyone think that in those circumstances no voice would have been raised from the other side of the House in favour of the kind of policy that would bring this country to ruin and to civil war in the months ahead? What kind of debate would there have been here if the leader of the Opposition, instead of going to the head of the Government with his information, had chosen to come into this House and catch him unawares and launch the discussion in that irresponsible way? Is that not what Fianna Fáil would have done in those circumstances? Is it not more likely that they would have adopted that tactic? We acted responsibly.

Hear, hear.

It was incredible to hear from the Government side of the House Members like Deputy Blaney attacking the Opposition for having provoked the crisis. All that we did in this whole affair was when the information came to our notice to go to the head of the Government. Could we have done less? Should we have sat back and remained silent and done nothing? Should we not have warned him of the situation of which to some extent he might have been unaware, although from our information, it seems that he had been aware of it for some time previously and had done nothing about it?

The only action we could take responsibly was to go to him with that information, tell him we had it and that he must act in the interests of the State. We have been accused by Deputy Blaney of trying to provoke a Constitutional crisis. There is a crisis but it has not been provoked by us. It has been provoked by members of the Government and by the Taoiseach's handling of the crisis. Blaney and Haughey themselves broke the law of the Constitution——

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey.

They are still Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey. I apologise to the Chair but not to the other side of the House. These Deputies broke the law of the Constitution when they refused to hand in their seals of office and insisted on hanging on to power to the last moment. The nearest we have got to a constitutional crisis has been their refusal to obey the Constitution. This is a debate on an issue of confidence in reality if not yet in form.

It should have been clear that we on this side of the House have for some time past had no confidence in this Government. That is not just a cliché. An Opposition is forced to say from time to time that it has no confidence in the Government. Sometimes it is just a debating tactic. The simple fact is that the performance of some Ministers —and I say "some Ministers" deliberately because the conduct of many Ministers has been above reproach— for some time past has been such that no Opposition could have confidence in such a Government.

No Opposition could have confidence in a Taoiseach who continued such men in office. God knows we warned the Taoiseach often enough. We pointed out how some of these men were disgracing the country. We all remember a few short months ago the debate on the former Minister for Justice. We came in here and presented the information at our disposal. We showed the kind of letter he was prepared to write on official notepaper urging people to act illegally. The Taoiseach defended and condoned his action.

We protested again and again against the repudiation of Government policy by Deputy Neil Blaney, then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. We urged on the Taoiseach to get rid of this man who was undermining his position, who was untrustworthy, and who constantly repudiated the Taoiseach's own policy. We urged on the Taoiseach to assert himself as the leader of this Government so that we could have confidence in his leadership of the Government. He did nothing. If he is now in a mess—and he is in a mess—it is his own fault. He did not act when he had ample warning.

It very often happens that a Taoiseach can be caught out because some Minister unexpectedly lets him down without warning. One could understand such a thing happening. One could have sympathy with a Taoiseach or Prime Minister caught in that position. One cannot easily have sympathy with a Prime Minister who continues to maintain in office people who have disgraced themselves by their behaviour and who continually repudiate his authority and challenge it. A Prime Minister who in those circumstances refuses to act must, I am afraid, deserve what he gets and, may I say, he is certain to get it in time if he lets the issue continue.

We have been saying this for months. We have no confidence in the observation of the principle of collective responsibility. This principle has been thrown to the winds by this Government. It is a vital principle of a Parliamentary democracy, a vital principle of the system of Cabinet Government, and something which has not existed here for some time past. This crisis may do one good thing. It may—and I cannot say more than that—lead to the re-establishment of this principle. There is reason to hope, but I can say no more than hope, that the new Government formed here will once again operate on the basis of collective responsibility. There is reason to hope that the Taoiseach, having so belatedly established his authority, will maintain that authority for whatever remaining period he is in office.

The Opposition has been mindful of its responsibilities. Not one voice has been raised on this side of the House in private or in public in favour of the kind of aggressive policy advocated openly by Members on the other side of the House who, until two or three days ago, were members of the Government. Our concern in this debate, and our concern in the statements we have made outside the House, has been to reassure opinion in the north. I myself took part in several programmes on northern television, for one of which I went to Belfast, in order to get this point across. It seemed to me from the newspaper reports I read that in Northern Ireland and in Britain some kind of delusion seemed to exist that this country was faced with a choice between Lynch and Blaney. That is not the choice, or certainly not the only choice.

The Taoiseach and Deputy Blaney.

The Taoiseach and Deputy Blaney. There exists in this House—and I shall come back to this point again because it is vital that this be stressed in this country, in Northern Ireland and in Britain and to the world in general—a vast majority in favour of moderate policies, a vast majority of men who want this country to live in peace. They are on our benches. They comprise every Deputy in this party, every Deputy in the Labour Party and a very large number, I hope the vast majority, on the other side of the House. We—and I presume to speak for all these people—will ensure that no man will destroy the peace of our country no matter how he plots and, by God, the plotting has started already. He will not get away with it.

It is arguable, and was arguable up to yesterday morning, that the national interest might have required us to pull our punches in order to maintain the credibility of the Government. I considered this seriously. I discussed it with several of my colleagues but any doubts I had on this score ended when Deputy Boland rose to speak in this House. As the Government party spoke one by one to destroy their own credibility, it became clear that there was no good in our trying to prop them up. Any idea which I had, and I think other Deputies on our side of the House had in the national interest, that perhaps it would be better not to press for an election at this time went out the window. We could see as they got up to speak one by one a situation emerging. If we do not now clarify that situation, if we do not now at this moment establish before the world the existence in this country of a vast majority in favour of moderate policies, we could drift into a situation and a crisis in which an election could be forced upon us in very different conditions. An election in August or September, if there is trouble in the north, could be very dangerous for the peace in this country.

Accordingly, I have, quite frankly, changed my mind on this matter. I changed my mind within the past 34 hours since this debate started. I no longer feel as I felt, and as I said on television in Northern Ireland, it would be unwise to have an election now. I feel that not to have one now would leave us in a situation where at any moment these men would be able, choosing their time, to pull down the Government and to force us into an election on their terms against us—and by "us" I mean not just these two parties but the majority of the party opposite—and that would be the most dangerous thing that could happen to this country.

I urge on the Taoiseach to consider this. I do not expect him to get up and reveal his mind on it tonight. He must say what he has to say to preserve the forms but, in his own mind, he must be pondering this because, although he has acted imprudently, although he has misled this House, I am afraid, although he has acted improperly, he is a man I know who has at heart, as most Deputies on the other side of the House and most members of the Government have, the interests of this country. He will have to ponder now what he will do. What is important now is not the fate of any one party. It is the fate of this country.

It was, perhaps, natural that the first instinct on the other side of the House should be: "How can we save Fianna Fáil?", an instinct which one would expect to be upper most particularly in the minds of a party who have always tended to think in terms of party more strongly, more immediately, than, perhaps, other political parties here or elsewhere.

When they have had time to settle down and think, and when the implications in the speeches by Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland have sunk in, when the activities—and I shall come back to this—of Deputy Blaney's PRO yesterday have sunk in, when the threat of the bonfires on the road to Letterkenny sinks in, then I think the Taoiseach will have to reconsider his position. He will have to consider what he risks by remaining in office at the mercy of these dangerous men, bent on ousting him and bent on bringing this country to disaster. I hope that we can rely on his judgment to do the right thing for this country. I believe we can. Time will tell.

There are some lessons we can learn from this affair, two in particular. I believe they are ones that will be learned and remembered by Governments in this country for a long time to come. The first is that a Government must never tolerate low standards. If you let standards slip little by little, small things that may seem individually unimportant, you will eventually founder. The innocent who do not rapidly check the guilty eventually get involved in their guilt.

The second conclusion is that the leader of a Government must, above all, act decisively. He must not dither. He must not give conspirators time once, twice, three times when they ask for it. He must grasp the nettle the first time the issue comes before him.

I think that future Governments here for many years and decades to come and all parties will not fail to remember those two lessons learned in this crisis.

The issue before us is confidence in the Government in substance if not in form. The actual subject of the debate is slightly different. I fear that the question of the nomination of three new Ministers-designate was rather overshadowed during the 34 hours of this debate but that is their fate to be appointed in such a situation.

We must be able to trust the leader of the Government. Trust is essential in politics. The Parliamentary system demands trust between Government and Opposition. There will be battles to be fought—tough and difficult at times—but there must be some trust subsisting between the leaders of the different parties. Only in that way will the system work. If that breaks down, the country is in trouble. I am sorry that this trust has been badly, perhaps irretrievably, shaken.

I have always personally had respect for the Taoiseach. I regret he has found himself in a position which he has not been able to handle as it should be handled and that our confidence in him has therefore been disturbed. Normally, there is a measure of confidence on the part of the Opposition in the leader of the Government—not support for his policies but confidence that he will not mislead Parliament and confidence that he will exercise his judgment decisively in the interests of the country.

By reason of the difficulty in reconciling the truth of the statements made on the opposite side of the House, we now have too many doubts raised. Let us try to reconstruct the story. I apologise in advance if my reconstruction is incorrect. I honestly tried to put together what seems the most probable explanation of a totally improbable course of events. If I am wrong in any point—I am bound to go wrong on some point—perhaps the Taoiseach will correct me. I apologise in advance if I mislead the House in any way. It is not easy to put together, out of this incredible collection of statements from so many different sources, conflicting to such a high degree, anything resembling a consistent account.

The Deputy admits that what he is about to say is speculation?

I admit that what I am about to say is impossible to substantiate in every detail. When we are faced with assertions that are in complete and total contradiction of one another between Ministers and ex-Ministers opposite, how can we reconcile them? We can only do our best to establish, with the aid of any bit of evidence, who is the most credible and which is the most likely part of the story to be true. It appears from various papers that a section of the IRA have been trying to import arms into this country since last October. The story goes on—several accounts—that much of the money was raised from Irish contractors in Britain largely on the basis of telling them that one of the leaders of the group was in close contact with someone high up in Dublin.

Interpol and the various police forces and intelligence services in different countries got on to this situation. We cannot be sure but perhaps all of these consignments were stopped. We have in this country an efficient force; it may well be that all the consignments were stopped. We hope so, for the sake of future peace here and in Northern Ireland. Where repeated attempts to import what appeared to be, on the whole, fairly small consignments of arms are frustrated, the people concerned tried to find a way round the difficulty. Particularly where several were closely involved—and even in two cases related to members of the Government —it appeared that the way round they sought was some mechanism by which they could get the vigilance of our security forces relaxed and set aside so as to get these arms in unknown to them or without being able to stop them.

According to the Taoiseach's account, approaches were made to Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney. One account, circumstantial in character and containing certain elements in it which concord well with other evidence suggesting the account may be, in larger measure, true—I am sure there is some unreliable evidence in it —indicates that, since last October, there has been contact between leaders of this particular IRA group, one among several, and Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney who were Ministers in this Government.

These contacts came to the knowledge of the Taoiseach last year. He challenged the two Ministers on these contacts but did not take the matter any further, having warned them, even though he got evidence of further contacts after they had been given the warning.

However long the Taoiseach has known about them and done nothing about them, we hope to hear the full truth tonight. They did, it appears, approach these Ministers some time in the not very distant past, a matter of weeks ago, on the basis that, if they could get clearance for one consignment to come by air, by getting in a large consignment on this occasion they could get over the frustrations of smaller consignments. Reports suggest five or six tons of small arms worth about £80,000. In the absence of a full statement by the Taoiseach, we can only reply on circumstantial reports; they have not been denied.

The plan, apparently, was that Deputy Haughey, Minister for Finance, would secure that the Customs check would not take place; that an official of the Department of Finance, acting under his instructions, attempted to secure this by telephoning the Customs authorities at Dublin Airport. The plot was somewhat clumsy. It assumed our security services were lacking in vigilance or that their efforts would be frustrated through treachery at some other point. The plot required these arms to come in here in the guise of equipment for our Defence Forces and an officer would collect them. The officer chosen had nothing to do with ordnance supplies and his presence at the airport on such a mission would immediately be suspect, anyway, even if he had not already been under suspicion.

I shall come back to the suspicion and to the extraordinary confusion that seemed to exist between the different security services in this State. Special Branch had already been alerted. They got on, not once, but twice, to the Department of Justice seeking authority to over-rule this instruction from the Department of Finance. These approaches stopped at the desk of the Minister. The question of the culpability of that Minister is something on which we cannot easily judge. The Taoiseach has told us he was not concerned in this affair: this we cannot accept.

It may be that, faced with this problem, faced with a situation in which he was being asked to intervene in a plot by some of his colleagues, he could not face a decision; he opted out; he went away. It was not, I am afraid, the first time. Once again, the Taoiseach must have known of that Minister's frequent absences from his office and of his failure to carry out his duties properly. One cause of this was the fact that he was carrying on his practice as a solicitor. The Taoiseach stood over that, too. It is a disgraceful episode and one of which he should be ashamed. He opted out and our security services were totally frustrated. They required a Ministerial decision from their Minister to over-rule the decision of the other Minister. They could not, themselves, control the customs and excise directly.

Under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, it is the law of this State that each Minister controls his own Department and that only he can give decisions in respect of it. How did he get round it? One account has it that the secretary of the Department of Justice, faced with this appalling situation, found it necessary to go to the President for advice as to what to do. In any event, whether through that channel, whether through such advice or whether on his own initiative he appears to have gone to the Taoiseach. But there were wheels within wheels. It appears from Deputy Boland's statement, though it is difficult to follow this precisely because he spoke loosely, that, for some time past— there is a conflict here as to what he said because several accounts, including that of several members of the Press, have it that he said for "several" or "seven" months past: people could not hear—Ministers have been under surveillance. If this is true, how do we reconcile it with the Taoiseach's statement? How do we reconcile the evidence that he knew last year of the contact between Deputies Haughey and Blaney and members of the IRA Army Council? According to the Taoiseach's statement, the first he knew of the affair was on 20th April. Are we to believe that Ministers were under surveillance without the authority of the head of the Government, or are we to take it that Deputy Boland has misled the House or that he has developed paranoia about being watched? We must know the truth. It would be disturbing if the security services were keeping Ministers under surveillance without the authority of the Taoiseach, and the fact that such suggestion has been made indicates the utter demoralisation to which this Government have brought us. Think of what would be in the minds of the secret service officers of any country if they found out that the Minister under whom they were serving could not be trusted.

There was a further complication in all this. It now appears that Deputy Gibbons, as Minister for Defence, was employing an intelligence agent, Captain Kelly, in Northern Ireland and that he was also in some way involved in this plot. At any rate, Captain Kelly was the man sent to the airport to endeavour to clear the arms cargo, but Deputy Gibbons has made a statement saying there is no truth whatsoever in this. Captain Kelly is inhibited by the Official Secrets Act from giving details and has confined himself to remarking that the Minister is a scoundrel, that what he has said is a tissue of lies.

Surely this entire incredible affair requires some investigation? Could it be that the Minister for Defence, as soon as he got wind of this plot, went to the Taoiseach while pretending to collaborate in some way with his colleagues in the Departments of Agriculture and Finance while, at the same time, informing on them to the Taoi-search? If so, that would explain the justification for the retention of Deputy Gibbons in the Government. However, we do not know the full story. How can we know whether Deputy Gibbons was acting as a single agent, a double agent or a treble agent and, if so, whom was he referring to whom? If the Taoiseach considers that, in spite of the disclosures of his involvement, he is justified in retaining this man in the Government it may well be that he may be able to tell us that the loyal Minister for Defence was, in fact, watching and informing on his colleagues for some time past and that for his loyalty he is now retained—although it seems a rather curious reward for him to have been removed from the Department in which he was doing such excellent work. I trust we will have an explanation from the Taoiseach. That explanation is given some similitude by the remarkable campaign being organised by Deputy Blaney against Deputy Gibbons.

I wish to say a word now about this character, Mr. Séamus Brady, who managed yesterday to give three Press conferences under different guises. He is Deputy Blaney's PRO and the purpose of these conferences was to blacken Deputy Gibbons's name and to bring down the Government during this debate. Could this be Deputy Blaney's first move in his game—"game" hardly being the word—to bring down the Government? Let us consider now these curious Press conferences organised by this curious individual, Mr. Séamus Brady. First of all, in today's Irish Press, Brady who is described as “the Derry-born journalist” in an interview defends Captain Kelly, and no doubt properly. He goes on to make a number of interesting disclosures including the disclosure that the Fianna Fáil publication, Voice of the North, which has been doing such harm in Northern Ireland was, for a short period, financed by the Department of External Affairs.

By the Government Information Bureau.

Yes, I thank the Deputy. At any rate, this individual was not content to give a Press conference on his own. When journalists arrived at Captain Kelly's house, the ubiquitous Brady was there. As reported in today's Irish Press:

At his home last night, Captain Kelly, who was accompanied by his legal advisers, Mr. Christopher Anthony Gore-Grimes and by Mr. Séamus Brady said....

and the report continues with the captain's full statement in which he describes Deputy Gibbons as a scoundrel and says that what the Minister said was a tissue of lies. Those words are not in the statement printed here because the papers could not publish that part of it until it was on the records of the House, but in a statement given to the papers and to the BBC relating to a press conference given under the auspices of Mr. Séamus Brady it is clear that the purpose was to blacken the name of Deputy Gibbons and to endeavour to make it clear that he was involved in anything that went on.

Brady is featured again and I quote:

"A deputation of people from Northern Ireland which met the then Minister for Defence, Mr. Gibbons, about a month ago was given to understand that the Army was being prepared for any eventuality that might arise in the Six Counties" it was claimed in Dublin last night. The speakers were introduced by Mr. Séamus Brady.

Mr. Brady described the conference as a spontaneous gathering. He is a very spontaneous individual who managed to give Press conferences all over Dublin yesterday. We are not in the High Court trying this case but it is clear that Deputy Blaney is out to get Deputy Gibbons. It is also clear that Mr. Séamus Brady is Deputy Blaney's PRO. It is evident that Deputy Blaney's attitude is that, if he is going out of the Government, Deputy Gibbons is going too. We may ask why. The most probable explanation is that Deputy Gibbons was not, as Deputies Blaney and Haughey thought, working for them but that all the time he was informing on them to the Taoiseach. Deputy Blaney will not forgive that particular betrayal.

Where is Deputy Gibbons?

There is more to it than that. Apart from the interventions of Deputies Blaney and Boland it is difficult to conceive anything more harmful to the Government during this debate than these three Press conferences which throw a bomb into a debate that has shaken the Government to their foundations.

When this debate started the general view of the people in the House and in the country was that the Taoiseach had survived the crisis remarkably well, that he was in firm command of his party, that all was well under his leadership and that the man must be preserved and not shaken. However, 34 hours later this is not so, partly because of the incredible interventions of Deputies Blaney and Boland in this House but also because of the activities of the ubiquitous Mr. Séamus Brady, Deputy Blaney's PRO.

Deputy Blaney works fast. He is a man of remarkable ability—ability which is not always well used and which is being used intensively and consistently to bring down the Government. He is the man on whom the Taoiseach depends for support.

How could the Taoiseach, how could the Government go through the humiliation of remaining in power at the hands of a man who is doing all he can to tear them down, a man who has betrayed them in this way and who, while coming into this House and presenting himself as loyal and telling the Fianna Fáil Party he was loyal and telling this House of his loyalty to the Taoiseach, was doing his best to stab him in the back and who is now about to go back on a trimphal entry to Donegal planned by his great colleague and friend Senator McGlinchey? Let me read from tonight's Evening Herald.

Sacked Minister for Agriculture Mr. N. Blaney, goes home to a hero's welcome in Donegal tonight— bands, bonfires, torchlight procession—and will even be escorted in triumphant style through parts of the Six Counties.

The "home coming" has been planned by his Donegal supporters who have pledged him their full backing, come what may.

Ominous words for the Taoiseach.

Mr. Blaney's election agent, Senator Bernard McGlinchey said:

"We plan to have three bands and begin our 100 mile motorcade from Monaghan to his constituency passing through Aughnacloy, Omagh, Newtownstewart, Strabane and Lifford, where he will be carried shoulder high across the Border."

As yet no fixed time has been made for the Monaghan welcome.

Just as well. The debate went on a little longer than Deputy Blaney had counted on. I understand his heroes welcome has been postponed until tomorrow.

Has the Deputy finished reading?

This hero is a man who is out to take over the party opposite not for any good purposes but to destroy this country. Most Deputies opposite know this. There are not many naive people in the Fianna Fáil Party nor in the Fianna Fáil Government. They know what faces them. They know what this man is up to and they know what the country faces at his hands. I hope, I pray that the Taoiseach will handle this situation well and will cope with this man. He handled him briskly the other day but he is still there and, by God, is he fighting back?

These friendly people in Fianna Fáil who are wielding their knives so delicately behind this facade of unity and loyalty include our friend, Deputy Gibbons. I am prepared to accept, until there is evidence to the contrary anyway, that he was loyal to the Taoiseach and merely being a double agent, not a treble agent, but I do not think he was very nice to his subordinate Captain Kelly. He came into this House yesterday to ditch Kelly, his agent, the fall guy, the man who did what he was told, thinking it was for the good of his country, the subordinate, the Army officer whom he suborned. Perhaps I should not say he suborned but somebody suborned. In fact, it was apparently the Minister for Defence who was using him although Captain Kelly did not know apparently that all the time Deputy Gibbons was really working for the Taoiseach, at least as far as we can make out. Nice friendly people these Fianna Fáil Ministers, are they not, not just those who have gone but one at least who remains?

In all this there are many questions left unanswered and many details that I may have got slightly twisted. I have done my best to get a straight picture but one cannot get a straight picture of a crooked situation. I will now ask a number of questions and I would urge on the Taoiseach to answer them. I do not think this country will tolerate unanswered questions at this time and I would like, when I ask these questions, to see somebody opposite writing them down as a sign they will be answered. If they do not write them down we know what to expect from the Taoiseach's reply. Have they pen and paper? First of all, as reported in the Irish Times of 7th May:

Mr. Lynch assured the House that Mr. Ó Móráin's appointment was terminated on health grounds and he was not involved in these matters.

We had in conflict to that Deputy Boland's statements in the Irish Independent that morning, on radio, television, in this House repeatedly—I wrote them down myself—that he was convinced, he was certain that Deputy Ó Móráin was sacked. We had the curious fact that Deputy Haughey, who is ill, was able to issue a statement while Deputy Ó Móráin who is a lot less ill will not issue any statement. There is no statement from him concerning the truth of what was said. What do we get from Deputy Ó Móráin, who is not all that ill? We get “No comment” when he was asked about the truth of Deputy Boland's statements. We need clarification of this. We need some kind of assurance that Deputy Boland is wrong, that he is not telling the truth, some assurance that the Minister for Justice did resign voluntarily and that it had nothing to do with this. It seems to me that it has something to do with it.

It may well be, as the Taoiseach's statement is, perhaps, intended to convey, that he was not guilty, that he was not actually involved in the plot but that he merely lacked the courage to foil it and ran away. It may well be that this was because of ill health. The Taoiseach, I think, said that not only was he ill and would be ill for some months but that he had been ill for some time or if he did not say that at least that was stated in the papers. It may well be that Deputy Ó Móráin faced an intolerable burden and he was not up to the job because of illness. If this is the case this was known to the Taoiseach. Frankly, I never thought Deputy Ó Móráin was a suitable Minister for Justice from the day he was appointed but at least at some stage he was hale and hearty. It appears that he was left in the job when he was so ill that not alone would he not be present for much of the time but that when he was present he was not prepared to do his job. It is the Taoiseach's job to see that his Ministers are competent. If he failed to do so it is the Taoiseach's responsibility and he is answerable to this House for it. We want the full story on Deputy Ó Móráin's resignation.

My second point: the Taoiseach waited nine days to approach Deputy Blaney because of Deputy Haughey's illness? Why? I can conceive of a good reason for this—he has two potential plotters and might want to pick them off separately so that one could not get in touch with the other. Is this the reason? Let us be told if that is how he stood.

Thirdly, the Taoiseach said:

I told them both I had information on the basis of which information I felt it was my duty to request their resignations as members of the Government. Each of them denied he instigated in any way the attempted importation of arms. They asked me for time to consider their position. I agreed to do so.

Certain questions arise here. This is a most interesting denial. We all, as politicians, know the art of the denial of what was not said, the art of saying that one did not do something which is not, in fact, the crime one committed.

These men apparently denied to the Taoiseach that they had instigated this. I was not aware that anybody suggested they did instigate it. They were asked by this illegal organisation to facilitate the passage of arms. The IRA were the instigators: they were the facilitators. When these men denied they instigated this, did the Taoiseach accept this at face value. Did he simply say: "Oh good. I am glad you did not instigate it" or did he say "Right, you did not instigate it, but were you involved?" What is the significance of this curious phrase and why is he so careful in using it in this House? Why does he not tell us that they denied being involved if they did deny it? Why is the denial he reports to us confined to instigation because if, of course they simply said to him: "We did not instigate it" he must have known instantly that they were guilty, if that is all they were prepared to deny. No Deputy in this House with experience of Question Time can be so naive as not to perceive that point instantly.

We have a curious point that each of them asked him for time to consider their position. It is interesting that they both reacted in the same way. It is interesting to wonder what they wanted the time for to consider their position. If a man is innocent he does not ask for time to consider his position. If he is innocent he says he is innocent and, by God, he wants it accepted there and then. A man who asks for time to consider his position is a man with a guilty secret. That is the second reason why the Taoiseach must have known, even if the evidence he had was not conclusive, that he was dealing with guilty men.

Why did he give those guilty men time? It is not the first time he gave them time. As the story unfolds they were given time more than once. Why did he give them time? He had already decided, according to himself, that it was his duty to request their resignation. He had certain evidence. He had now the evidence of their refusal to deny the matter fully, if we can judge correctly by the Taoiseach's words, and the very request for time which showed them guilty. He tells us that if the slightest suspicion attaches to Ministers they must go. Here was much more than the slightest suspicion. Here was strong circumstantial evidence of guilt on the part of the reaction of the men themselves and yet he gave them time. This was a matter involving national security. The requests for resignation should have been immediately enforced. We are entitled to an explanation as to why they were not.

He then goes on to say he authorised the continuation of investigations following which he decided to approach the two Ministers again. He repeated his request that they tender their resignations, a very patient man. He tenders request and request and request until it is too late for him and too late for the Government. He did so on the basis that he was convinced that not even the slightest suspicion should attach to any member of the Government in a matter of this nature. Again his approach to each of those Ministers was separate yet according to his statement each gave the same answer. Each asked for time, more time. After having told the Ministers he expected their resignations forthwith, each of them told him that he would not give his resignation until the 6th May. Why?

First of all, what reason did they give to him for both choosing this same day? What was the significance of this date? Why did they both choose this date? What are they planning by this date? I do not understand why the Taoiseach gave them time. It should have been obvious to him as an experienced politician that time could be needed for two purposes only in those circumstances, One was to falsify the evidence if this were possible and the second was to bring down the man who was accusing them. In neither case was giving them time desirable in the national interest or, indeed, in the interest of the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Party. Yet he gave them time until the 6th May according to his own account. During this entire period those Ministers, those guilty men had continued access to all the information available to them as Ministers. Why did he permit this?

There is another point, upon which we would like to inquire. There is a note of omission in this part of his account. He does not tell us the date of this second request. When they asked for time to the 6th May what date in May was this? How many more days were involved? We are entitled to know this date. It is curious he does not mention this date when the other dates are mentioned. Could it be something to do with wishing to fuzz the issue? What ultimately precipitated his action was, in fact, Deputy Cosgrave's move. Let us know this date.

It is to be noted, in fact, that neither of them ever resigned and their explanations given for this are surely the most unconvincing reasons ever given by Ministers, whether for resigning or not resigning. The next question I should like to ask is at what time on 29th April did the Taoiseach request Deputy Blaney's resignation? Could it have been during the morning or afternoon? We all remember this guilty man at six o'clock that evening, this guilty man, this disloyal Minister, came into the House and proceeded to proclaim his loyalty to his Taoiseach in nauseating, exhibitionist terms. Was this because he had just been approached by his Taoiseach with this accusation? Was he trying to cover himself? Was he using the House for that purpose? Was this massive attack on the Fine Gael Party designed as a blind to cover up his position, to strengthen his flank while he proceeded to mobilise his forces against the Taoiseach? Will the Taoiseach please tell us when on the 29th April he requested Deputy Blaney's resignation?

Did either of those Ministers—I think we know the answer in the case of one because he was ill—attend Cabinet meetings subsequent to the Taoiseach forming the suspicion which led to their resignations and subsequent, particularly, to his first request for their resignations? On my reckoning there were after 29th April two Cabinet meetings. I do not think Deputy Haughey attended them. He could not because he was ill. Did Deputy Blaney attend them? Is it the position that a man who already, because of the suspicions attaching to him, has been asked for his resignation, was allowed to attend meetings of the Cabinet. Is this the position? Let us be told the truth about that.

From Deputy Cosgrave's statement it appears that the information about the matters referred to was first presented to the Department of Justice through the commissioner of the Garda Síochána whose advice was sought but no directive given. From Deputy Cosgrave's statement again the commissioner of the Garda formed the view that the situation was not being handled with sufficient seriousness and a further request for a directive from the Minister was then made. It was at this stage that the matter was notified to the Taoiseach apparently. This means that the Department of Justice had this information before 20th April. Indeed, they must have had it because the attempt to import the arms was on the previous Thursday or Friday and according to one report again on the intervening Sunday.

The House should be informed as to when the Department of Justice received this information and we should be told precisely why the Minister did not give the directive. Is it correct that he dodged this issue, that his state of health led to him refusing to face it, leaving his office with this file on his desk? Has any examination been made of the conduct of those Ministers since the request was made for them to resign? What inquiries have been made about their performance? I do not want to press this point unduly but we have had introduced into this House a very curious Budget. Has that Budget been examined from this point of view? Has the Vote for the Department of Defence been examined? That Vote was not very generous in a year in which the Department of Defence were looking for, and were entitled to, a considerable increase in funds to enable it to become effective. When it was shown to be ineffective last year, when the lack of supplies and the state and the condition of its equipment made it inadequately mobile and when, as a result, requests were made for substantial increases in the allotment to that Department, nothing was done about it. The figures for the Estimate for the Department of Defence in the Budget do not disclose any net increase. In fact, under headings like stores there is a reduction. While the Minister was facilitating the import of arms for an illegal organisation, he was deciding, as Minister for Finance, not to provide the arms and stores required by the legal army of the nation.

I would ask the Taoiseach to re-examine the Vote for the Department of Defence. It is my understanding that, in fact, the Department of Defence considered the Minister for Finance as being well disposed towards them despite the fact that he did not give much to them in the Budget but they were preparing to submit requests for further consideration and were hopeful of getting from him, perhaps, by way of Supplementary Estimate, additional funds. If this request is furnished I hope it will be examined carefully in the light of the fact that the refusal came from a man who is now known to have been more concerned with providing arms for an illegal body than for the Army of the State.

Why was a Minister suspected of criminal and corrupt activity of the worst kind allowed to take away papers from his Department without surveillance? Almost the only activity of Deputy Haughey since then has been to collect his papers and many of us saw him doing so with the white car of his friend outside Government Buildings. What check was made on those papers before he took them away? Were they checked to see what he was taking away? Was his house or Deputy Blaney's house searched as those of other conspirators in less high places would and should be searched? Anybody else suspected of crimes of this kind would immediately have their houses searched. Was this action taken or have they been left immune from the process of the law?

Again, I should like to ask the Taoiseach if the Minister for Defence was aware of Deputy Blaney's interference with the Army? Was he aware of the constant and persistent flow of intelligence reports he kept forcing on the Army from his own private intelligence service, trying to force the Army to change their policy? If the Minister for Defence was aware of this intervention by Deputy Blaney direct in the affairs of the Army did he refer this to the Taoiseach? Since when was this reported? If it was not reported, why? Did Deputy Gibbons know about this? There are other aspects of this matter which have been referred to which I need not go into here. They have already been reported in the press. There were some months ago reports of the Army or FCA being involved in training activities in Donegal with which Deputy Blaney was also associated. Have those been investigated? Where do we stand in regard to this? Just how far did he go in interfering with the Army? How much was known of this? How much was accepted of this? Was he allowed to do it while being watched? For how long was he watched?

Deputy Boland let slip a significant remark. In attempting to challenge the veracity of the accusations levelled against his colleagues he asked "Where are the arms?" knowing full well that this consignment of arms had not come into the country and were, therefore, not available as evidence. He asked "Is there anything available as proof in this case except documents?" Deputy Boland admitted that there were documents although he seemed to think they were not conclusive proof of the complicity of the ex-Ministers. What are these documents and to what extent do they prove the complicity of the ex-Ministers concerned? Were they clever enough to ensure that any documents were signed by subordinates, that there was nothing in writing from them, that they gave verbal orders? Was there a civil servant so foolish as to accept a verbal order from a Minister for an act of potential illegality and put himself in the position of then giving directions without having written instructions? What were those documents Deputy Boland mentioned so significantly, although, perhaps, he did not intend to let that particular bit of knowledge slip out?

What about the surveillance of Ministers? How long has this been going on and who has been under surveillance? Is it even conceivable that the Minister for Justice himself was under surveillance? How can a Government survive in these conditions? I have a little sympathy with Deputy Boland, and I am not given to having sympathy for him, to find that he apparently was under surveillance. It must in fairness be said that he seems to have been an innocent party and no breath of suspicion is attached to him in this affair. He is a man with whom I have often crossed swords and with whose views I have little sympathy but we must be fair to him. When he resigned he did so honourably because he resented the treatment meted out to his colleagues and he resented the fact that apparently he was under surveillance.

How long has this business gone on? Has the surveillance of Ministers by the Special Branch been at all times under the direction of the Taoiseach and when did the Taoiseach first put Ministers under surveillance? All these facts we need to know. It seems from what has come to light that the Taoiseach knew a great deal for a considerable time beforehand. We have had the significant phrase used by Deputy Boland about "several or seven months" of which there are several records by different people who took it down. We have the fact that Captain Kelly's activities have gone on for quite a considerable time. We are to imply from Deputy Gibbons' retention and promotion that he must have kept the Taoiseach informed about matters since the end of last year. All these things point to the Taoiseach knowing about this matter much earlier than he led this House to believe. Of course, the evidence put before him may not have been sufficient. We should be told how early was he told that Ministers of State were under suspicion. When was he first told they were in touch with the IRA? Was he told this fact last year? Did he issue them a warning as we are told now was the case and, after that warning, what further information did he get about their activities? This House is entitled to know the answers to these questions and, if we leave this place tonight without getting those answers, the country will really have cause for lack of confidence in the Government and in the State.

I shall be interested to see whether Deputies Blaney and Boland will vote for the Taoiseach in this House tonight and thereby ditch Captain Kelly. Deputy Blaney has been anxious that he should put his case forward and has lent him his PRO for that purpose. Before I go any further, I should like to say that I consider the Taoiseach has a special duty to people involved who were not Ministers, particularly Captain Kelly. There is some evidence to suggest that throughout this entire business Captain Kelly believed he was acting properly. He may have acted injudiciously. He may be in the rather curious position of thinking he was acting for a Minister who had no authority to do the things he was doing when, in fact, the Minister had such authority from the Taoiseach to do these things with a view to misleading other Ministers he was having watched. All this is possible but we would like to know just exactly what was Captain Kelly's position. If he acted throughout under the authority of the Minister, although, perhaps, he ought to have known the Minister's requests were improper, we should be told this. This House owes a special duty to Captain Kelly to clear his position. If his position is clear, he, this House and the country should be told that this is so.

We come then to the Taoiseach's famous statement which has been repeated frequently in the last 35 hours, "I do not know what you are referring to". When the Taoiseach was asked that question by Deputy Cosgrave he could have evaded it—politicians are used to evasions. He could have tossed off some phrase in which the evasion would not have been noticeable at the time. However, he chose to say, "I do not know what you are referring to". We have to face the fact—it is a miserable fact to face and I have difficulty in facing the Taoiseach when saying it —that that statement was not true. The question put to the Taoiseach by Deputy Cosgrave was whether further resignations were coming. He has told this House that he requested the resignations about ten days earlier. The two statements are irreconcilable. Either he never requested the resignations and made up the story—this I refuse to believe as the evidence is too circumstantial—or he had requested the resignations and he told this House a lie. Another man in another Parliament told a lie in a much more disreputable matter and he left public life. I should like to hear the Taoiseach explain the statements and I hope he can give a convincing explanation.

However, we must face the fact that the clear implication of this untruth and certain other significant occurrences at the same time—and I refer in particular to the attempt to rush through Deputy O'Malley's appointment as Minister for Justice—clearly suggests that it was intended to deal with this whole matter by brushing it under the carpet. I do not suggest that the Taoiseach necessarily intended to leave these men in office. He had got rid of one Minister who had failed to live up to his responsibilities by getting him to resign on the grounds of health. He was, perhaps, about to announce urbi et orbi that Deputy Haughey was resigning on grounds of health. That would have been accepted by people as reasonable not only in view of Deputy Haughey's recent unfortunate accident —the nature of the accident is obscure to the point of causing further confusion—but in view of the Deputy's health in the last couple of years.

I do not know what the Taoiseach might have had up his sleeve as regards an excuse for Deputy Blaney's resignation but it seems to me that when he made the statement, "I do not know what you are referring to", when he was trying to rush through Deputy O'Malley's nomination, he could not have intended at that time to announce the resignation of two further Ministers and announce the reasons. It looks as if he intended to announce the resignation of Deputy Haughey shortly afterwards on grounds of health and intended to tell this House that he did not know at the time he made the statement that Deputy Haughey had been so ill, and thereby justify his statement. However, it puzzles me what he intended to do about Deputy Blaney. If he was planning to sweep the matter under the carpet in this way, he could not have got away with a forced resignation by Deputy Blaney immediately after that and still stand by his original statement. I begin to wonder whether he did intend to insist on Deputy Blaney's resignation then or whether it was to be delayed for some time so that some verisimilitude could be given to his statement, "I do not know what you are referring to".

I think the Taoiseach will understand in view of all that has happened, of what he has said and the sequence of events, that we simply cannot take what he said at face value. It is literally impossible for both his statements to this House to be true. We must try to reconcile them as best we can and the most charitable explanation I can put on it until I hear the Taoiseach's explanation, which he has withheld from this House until now, is that he did intend to get rid of these men one by one, while misleading the House with his statement, and that he intended to do this without announcing the reasons. He might justify that to himself on grounds of raison d'état, that the security of the State demanded that public confidence should not be disturbed, that Deputies Haughey and Blaney would not be released in the country in the condition in which they have been released, in a way that would enable them to bring down the Government and disrupt peace in this country. Perhaps that was his intention. Perhaps in not telling the truth to this House in that statement he was doing something which he knew to be wrong but in which he felt justified for the security of the State. I do not know. Anyway we are owed an explanation. I do not think it can be a satisfactory explanation but, whatever it is, we must have it. The time has come for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Let us consider now these four men: Deputy Blaney seems to me in the light of all that has happened—indeed. I had this impression before that—a sinister, a ruthless, ambitious man. Deputy Boland, is of very different calibre, sincere, loyal to his principles and his friends, deeply misguided and irresponsible. I do not recall in my lifetime in this country a more irresponsible statement than his attack on the security service of this State, and I was ashamed that it came from his father's son. His father did this country great service, a service which cost him dear. It was not easy for a Republican like Gerry Boland to take the actions he did in the past war to save this country and the people who are plotting against it. It was not easy for him or, indeed, for another earlier Government to do these things, but they did it. Deputy Boland's father was well served by the security service of the State and he was loyal to them, too. To hear his son say in this House in the not very distant past that the security service for which his father took responsibility have deliberately failed to catch people in order to justify their continued existence, what can his father have thought of that man today? That was the utmost limit of political irresponsibility. He has shaken confidence in this country to its foundations. Perhaps he did not realise what he was doing. He spoke with some emotion, but I shiver to think that man was for 13 years a Minister of this State, a man who could act in this way within hours of ceasing to be a Minister.

Then we have Deputy Haughey, the inexplicable figure in this, the unexpected figure, the man whose involvement shocked the whole nation. People could understand Deputy Blaney; they were not surprised, but Deputy Haughey was a different matter. There were criticisms of him of many kinds which I need not go into here; it would be unfair to do so. However, he was a man of great ability. He was betrayed, I think, by a curious, casual arrogance of power. I do not understand it. I do not understand how a man who had so much power could still be ambitious for more in such a way as to betray and undermine his own Government. He is the enigma in this. Let us say charitably that his health, which has been bad for several years quite apart from his accident, may have contributed to it. I think it is the best epitaph of his life as Minister that we can give here.

As regards Deputy Gibbons, I shall say no more because we do not know the position until the Taoiseach speaks. I shall merely say that in the evidence before us his performance in what he said in this House about Captain Kelly was at best unworthy of Deputy Gibbons.

Let us now try to stand back from all this to see it from outside. What do we look like to the world outside today? Deputy Creed said a Fianna Fáil man in Cork said to him yesterday: "We are disgraced." I say that that "we" goes far beyond the Fianna Fáil Party. We share in their disgrace. We, too, are tarnished, we of these other parties, we the people of this country. What damage may this have done us in other countries?

Before all the later developments, the time when the Taoiseach seemed to have handled his position well, when he was being acclaimed, how long ago was it? Thirty-five hours ago he was acclaimed as the man who had resolved this crisis successfully, when sighs of relief were being heaved here and elsewhere. Let us read what is being said in reaction outside this country: "The Taoiseach loses prestige in Whitehall. By our diplomatic correspondent." That is the Irish Times of Thursday, 7th May last. That was long before the Kelly-Gibbons emanations.

What authority is that?

I have given the authority I am reading from in accordance with the custom of the House. Deputies may make up their own minds as to whether they attach any importance to the words included here:

The revelations made by the Taoiseach in the Dáil last night must have serious repercussions in London, and may well cause raised eyebrows in Common Market countries on the eve of negotiations for Irish membership...

If, as is suggested in reports from London, pressure was actually brought to bear on Mr. Lynch by the British——

The Taoiseach has denied this but we should like to have this denial re-asserted.

——to act against the Cabinet Ministers reputed to be involved, his prestige would have been reduced still further.

British Parliamentary tradition——

May I say we in this House have inherited that tradition and maintained it——

The phrases "must have", "may well" and "if"—they justify that heading?

Yes. I quote again:

British Parliamentary tradition has always held a Premier responsible for the actions of his Cabinet and in the British context the events of the past 24 hours would almost certainly have spelled——

"Almost certainly"—it is traditional.

——the end of Mr. Lynch's career.

While I have not got it here, did the Taoiseach read the editorial in yesterday's Guardian, that most friendly paper to this country, which says more in sorrow than in anger that the term “Banana Republic” was the one that came to mind in relation to the happenings in this country. From the Daily Express one would have expected the insult and ignored it but from the Guardian it did cut many of us.

Excellent quotes.

If we cannot get to the bottom of this, how can we expect foreigners to sort out which, if any, members of the Government can be relied upon? If we do not know where we stand ourselves, how can we expect people in other countries to know whether there is a Government on which they can rely in this country? They have seen two senior Ministers, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, fired for illegal activities. They have heard that members of this Government have been under surveillance by their own security service. The police could not trust their own Minister, who was either unwilling or afraid to act. They have seen also in the papers today reports of a proclamation of bitterness, hatred and sectarianism from a man who has been negotiating with them in London, Brussels and elsewhere as a responsible Minister. Above all, however, they will see a Government kept in power by the votes of those who disgraced it.

They will see the sinister Séamus Bradys working like beavers to disgrace a ministerial colleague, who on the best interpretation of his actions has been a double agent, working to bring down the Taoiseach to whom they make nauseating claims of loyalty. How can they have respect for such a Government? How can they know where they stand with such a Government? How can Ministers go out from this country to London and Brussels and look at their opposite numbers in the face in those circumstances? How can these countries continue to work with such a Government with any confidence?

As regards the new Government, how much solidarity and trust can be expected even now from them—some of these Ministers, one newly appointed, who loudly applauded Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney but who did not applaud Deputy Lynch at 2.30 on the morning before last? Fianna Fáil has made this country at this moment the laughing stock of the world.

Perhaps Deputy FitzGerald would explain to whom his last remarks referred?

I was referring to Deputy Collins.

On a point of order——

I am not referring to Deputy O'Malley.

I inquired as I was last appointed a member of the Government.

Scarcely a point of order.

I would wish that there would not be any ambiguity on this point. I was not referring to Deputy O'Malley. If anybody thought so, I certainly wish to say that I was not.

The Minister for Justice has got across his point, that it was not he, that it was the other man.

Fianna Fáil have disgraced our democratic traditions. They have brought shame on this country and the guilty men, instead of taking their punishment now they have been caught, have compounded their shame by attacking institutions of the State, as Deputy Boland did particularly.

Fortunately, a sense of loyalty to the State, while atrophied and weakened by the elevation of loyalty to Fianna Fáil, still survives in some members of this Government, including the Taoiseach. May I assert again that both Opposition parties are totally loyal? In these benches there is not one dissentient voice on these issues. No one on this side of the House dissents from the agreed national policy of abjuring the use of force in the north and the national policy which we in this party put forward last September, which the Taoiseach endorsed within hours, which was endorsed by the Labour Party, a policy of re-union by consent, the policy that Partition can and should end only with the consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. That policy put forward by this party last September, the Taoiseach said within hours, not totally truthfully—but politicians have to, perhaps, dress up their remarks at times—has always been the policy of Fianna Fáil, but he endorsed it. Since then he has had to avoid endorsing it further. I have tried again and again in this House to get him to actually use those words and because of his fear of Deputy Blaney and an outburst from Deputy Blaney he has not done so. But basically, I think this Government accept that policy even if up to now they have been inhibited from saying so openly since that first endorsement of it on, I think, 22nd September last. It has the full and total endorsement of everybody sitting on this side, every member of the Labour Party sitting on that side. I see somebody else missing from the Labour Party and I do not know whether he endorses it or not.

He endorses everything.

This plot was scotched and once it was scotched the Fianna Fáil instinct of self-preservation re-asserted itself and operation "cover up" started but it was bungled or undermined by Deputies Blaney and Boland. What do we face in the months ahead? —a vicious power struggle in Fianna Fáil, Deputy Blaney, a ruthless and unscrupulous man, feared by so many members of his party, the Paisley of the Republic, with the Hitler-like ability to stir a mob, determined to oust the Taoiseach, working away at this now through his agents, seeking to bring down the Government while at the same time mouthing sycophantic platitudes, a man of civil war, a man exploiting divisions of the past with a view to deriving vicious benefit from them in the future, a man who could well capture power in Fianna Fáil.

But, one thing is certain, and I want this message to go out from this House to Northern Ireland in particular and to the rest of the world too: this country, the people in Northern Ireland and the people in Britain and other countries should know this, that in no conceivable circumstances will Deputy Neil Blaney ever be Taoiseach in this country. The vast majority of those who vote for Fianna Fáil, the vast majority of Fianna Fáil Deputies, are loyal to this State and only a tiny handful of them are bigoted sectarians. They genuinely believe in a policy of ending Partition peacefully. They will not permit this State to be launched on a venture that would bring this country to death and to ruin.

There is in this House, I assert again, a vast majority in favour of policies of moderation, policies of peace and no matter how Deputy Blaney plots and no matter what he does to the Fianna Fáil Party, no matter how far he goes to get control of it, I believe and I think the world should know that if the time came that he ever managed to get himself into a position of majority, I am sure there are honest and decent men who care for this country on the other side of the House who would join with us on this side of the House in ensuring that peace would prevail. I am certain that would happen.

I am not prepared to believe that people I know in Fianna Fáil, the men of peace and moderation, the men who care for this country and its future, would ever, ever join with Deputy Blaney in the kind of policy which he wants to pursue to bring this country to ruin. Let the world know that there is a majority in this House— how that majority expresses itself remains to be seen, in what combination or what way, if crisis arises, but it will express itself. This country is safe. It is safe from Deputy Blaney, safe by the voice of the majority of the Members of this House, however they come to express themselves, and we cannot foresee the future as to how they would come to express themselves in the months ahead.

At this point in time, because questions have been raised in the House which should properly concern us about Northern Ireland, I should like to say to Britain that her responsibilities are great. Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland have said, and it is true in a historical sense, that Britain is responsible for Partition. Indeed she is, through her actions particularly in the 17th century. In both the legal and the moral sense she is responsible for the maintenance of peace in Northern Ireland today. If Britain does her duty as she set out to do belatedly last August, if she keeps the peace fairly in Northern Ireland, if she refuses to be intimidated by Protestant fascists or to be provoked by Catholic fascists— although to use the words "Protestant" and "Catholic" for this purpose is to degrade religion—if that happens, peace will be maintained throughout this island.

Britain must face reality. Britain has been far too complacent about the situation in the north. I do not think that at this moment the British Government or their agents in Northern Ireland are yet certainly aware of how serious the situation can be. I am by no means certain that the forces available are sufficient to meet the kind of crisis that could arise. It is vital that they should be, vital not only for the security of the people of Northern Ireland but vital for the peace of this whole island that at no time should it be possible for anybody to say in the months or in the years ahead that people in Northern Ireland of either religion, minority or majority, are being massacred and cannot be protected.

Britain has a duty never to allow a situation to arise which could create pressures of a kind that could disturb the peace of this part of Ireland as well as the country as a whole. Britain must face that. Britain has a duty to ensure that her forces are adequate for this purpose and to ensure if at any point in time those forces ever proved inadequate she would immediately call in forces from elsewhere, from the United Nations, to protect that situation. She must never have a situation in which the people in Northern Ireland are being killed and left without protection. That would be intolerable. If Britain did that she would have to take a terrible responsibility for any consequences. That needs to be said.

To the minority in the north one can only say, put not your trust in the Blaneys and Bolands. They are using you for their own ends. Do not, I appeal to you, be dragged into a power struggle within the Fianna Fáil Party. We all know that it is impossible and will remain impossible for this country to provide armed protection under any conditions for the people in the Falls Road. To pretend otherwise in order to play politics with the situation would be to encourage people to go to their deaths and their blood would be on our hands.

What we now need to do in this situation is to rebuild the relationship of confidence with Britain that has been shattered by these events, to ensure that if a crisis arises we shall have the moral authority necessary to demand adequate action from Britain or if Britain were ever incapable of taking that action to demand and secure she handed over responsibility to the United Nations.

To all the people of the north can we from this House say that there is something approaching unanimity, except for the small group that supports Deputy Blaney? Can we tell them that the great majority of the people here wish them well, that they want to foster the forces of moderation in Northern Ireland?

I do not think that we can too often repeat the policy that we ennunciated last September and which has the support of the vast majority of this House, that the re-union of this country can and should be achieved only with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. If that is accepted, if that is maintained, if all of us or most of us, the great majority of us, stand firm on that, then, in time, the tension will diminish and the fears will diminish and policies of pressure and force will give way to alternative policies of co-operation of different kinds. That is the only road to the ending of Partition, the end of force. That we can do if we stand firm against the Blaneys and their allies.

To the world we can only say: do not judge us by these men, nor by the fumbling of a Government, unprepared for this crisis, elected at a time of political aberration in our holy past. Ireland remains, all appearances apart, a democratic state with a Parliamentary system which, whatever its defects, can rise to a situation like this. A country, we are, in which the rule of law applies as the prompt action taken by the Taoiseach to deal with these guilty men must demonstrate.

Every State has its own point of weakness; Britain has assimilation problems; in France, Algeria; in Italy, the Mafia; and, in the United States of America, the problem of integration. It is not easy for a man to become fully civilised. There are forces in all of us, in all countries, in all peoples near the surface, easily aroused, which can easily break out. We are not alone in this. We say to the world that we are not the only guilty people—far from it. Our record is better than most. But these forces are all too easily aroused by dangerous men.

We are a young State overshadowed by an immense burden of history which we are struggling to master. Out of a bitter Civil War we created a soundly based Parliamentary system, and it is a source of pride to this party, a proper pride, that less than ten years after that Civil War ended, this party handed over power peacefully to those whom it had defeated. That has not often happened in the history of the world. It was the foundation of peace in this country. Let us forget all the divisions that the Civil War created. That was the crucial test. Out of that we found the peaceful existence of this State.

There was in the early years of Fianna Fáil Government moments of aberration on both sides, but quickly we settled down and before the end of the 1930s this was a Parliamentary democracy of, I think, a model kind until shaken to its foundations by these events. The surprise is not that the forces of unreason and violence exist, because they are in all of us, but rather that we have mastered them so well against the background of that history. Let us tell the world that Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland are atypical. Their Civil War mentality is not shared by the rest of their generation, nor by the next generation, nor, may I say, by the previous generation who have for the most part forgotten and forgiven those events.

Others have made personal references. I do not wish to do so, though I could do so to make a point, but I should like to refer to one Deputy on the other side of the House, to make a contrast, if I may. I should like to contrast the Tánaiste with Deputy Blaney. Deputy Blaney told us his father was under sentence of death. The Tánaiste's father was executed in circumstances which were particularly tragic. The Tánaiste has never in word or deed shown resentment for that. He has throughout forgiven his father's enemies and we honour him for it. If Deputy Blaney were that kind of man this country would have hope of peace.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I have one more thing to say. I want to emphasise again that throughout this affair the Opposition's role has been constructive. It took one action only. Deputy Cosgrave went to the Taoiseach to tell him what he knew. We have, I think, shown that we can act responsibly and we have shown that we are united. We have shown that we can serve the interests of this country in Opposition and, possibly, we have shown too that we can serve the interests of this country in government, as we may well have to do before very long.

It is now about 35 hours since this debate began yesterday morning. Something up to 80 speakers have already taken part. We can, I think, say that it has imposed a great strain on many people and particularly on the staffs of Leinster House. At this stage, and lest I might forget later on, I should like to pay tribute to them all.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The restaurant staff had a particularly heavy task, helping to sustain us during these long hours. I should like to pay tribute to the Editorial Staff who worked so efficiently and almost heroically in the circumstances. I do not think I could go through all the various members of the staff but, on behalf of Deputies, I convey to the staff our thanks and appreciation. I should also like to convey our appreciation to the members of the various news media who covered this important debate so excellently and so well.

Last, but by no means least, I should like to thank the members of my own party for the stamina, forbearance and good humour they have displayed despite many provocations, over the past 35 hours.

This is one of the longest debates, if not the longest debate, in the history of this Parliament. It is not the longest in the history of these islands, as they are called. There was a debate some years ago in 1881, which lasted 41½ hours, a continuous debate. We have as yet nothing to boast about. We have not made a record.

I hope Deputies will forgive me if I do not reply to all the points made in the course of the debate. I know they appreciate that it would not be possible for me to reply to every point. There was much repetition during and I anticipated that there would be these 35 odd hours and 80 speeches a good deal of personal criticism of myself and of my colleagues in Government, criticism of decisions I took or the way in which I took them. I am not minimising the importance of the subject matter of this debate but in many cases, I think Members on the benches opposite used the occasion for purely political party advantage. I think that applies particularly to the overall conduct of the Fine Gael Party. One speaker after another got up, asking me for information. All contrived to keep me from replying until after half-past nine when they knew that what I would say could not appear in the Sunday papers, except, perhaps, in those circulating in the immediate environment of Dublin.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Fine Gael were responsible.

It matters not that the Opposition, and Fine Gael in particular, used this situation for their own political advantage. What matters is that the trust the Irish people placed in me through electoral and constitutional means, when I was elected Taoiseach, has been honoured as far as I am concerned to the best of my ability and to the best of my judgment.

I hope I will be able to answer most of the points raised by Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, at any rate. I dealt with this situation as far as I could and to the extent I could within certain strictures imposed upon me, first, because of the source of the information available to me and, secondly, because of subsequent action that might have to be taken.

I shall start by referring to a 'phone call on 17th April from Aer Lingus Cargo Terminal to the Department of Transport and Power about an approach regarding the bringing in of a consignment of arms from Vienna to Dublin Airport. I think the purpose of that communication was that under the rules of IATA, the International Air Transport Association, arms may not be carried on certain types of planes and they required clearance from the Department of Transport and Power. The official in the Department of Transport and Power who received that telephone call from Aer Lingus immediately communicated with his opposite number in the Department of Justice. That official in the Department of Justice felt it was an unusual request and decided immediately to consult the Minister or secretary, or both. He discovered, however, that they were both in consultation and instead he consulted immediately the chief superintendent in Garda Headquarters. He informed the chief superintendent that the Minister and secretary of the Department were in conference and he did not wish to disturb them but that he would like a report from the chief superintendent in the meantime and as soon as he had an opportunity of speaking to both the Minister and the secretary he would do so.

At this point I think there is a slight mistake in the account given by Deputy FitzGerald. There was no question of a delay or no complaint about delay from Garda Headquarters in respect of this query. The Minister and the secretary having consulted, perhaps together first and then with Garda Headquarters, decided that it would be as well to let this consignment come in and immediately opened up an alert on Dublin Airport. The consignment did not come in and the alert was extended to other parts of the country.

I am talking now about the inquiry on Friday 17th. When I came into the picture on Monday 20th I ensured that this alert would be as effective as it could possibly be made. In the meantime the Garda took statements from officials of Aer Lingus and of Customs and Excise and on Monday 20th I received from the secretary of the Department of Justice, in the absence of his Minister, reports of these statements and investigations. Having perused them I asked for further reports and on the following day, Tuesday, 21st April, I received these further reports. They included a lot of names and dates and I decided to take the reports home and study them. Because of the reference to two members of the Government in some of these reports I decided to interview these members of the Government.

The following day was Wednesday 22nd and the Minister for Finance being one of the members of the Government mentioned I rang him soon after I arrived at my office, because he was on my own floor of Government Buildings. I was told that he was due in but that he had suffered a fall from a horse as a result of which he was slightly injured and was expected later.

I am sorry to interrupt, but could the Taoiseach tell us was the Minister for Justice in the country on that day?

He was in the west of Ireland. We had a Fianna Fáil Party meeting starting at 11 o'clock that day here in Leinster House and I went to the party meeting having left word for the Minister to contact me. At about 12 o'clock I was approached by the secretary of the Department to say that the Minister's injuries were more serious than anticipated and that it might well be that he would not be in a position to introduce his Budget. About 1 o'clock, when the party meeting was over, the secretary and deputy assistant secretary of the Department came and told me that the Minister would definitely be unable to introduce his Budget because he was seriously injured and was then in the Mater Nursing Home. I decided there and then to introduce the Budget. The Financial Resolutions following the Budget were not very complicated and it was not a very difficult task on this occasion.

Having introduced the Budget, I made further inquiries about the condition of the Minister and I was told that he was very seriously ill, that he had a fractured skull, a broken eardrum and an injured clavicle. I forget if it was fractured or dislocated. I decided to await some progress by the Minister and I did not then interview the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I telephoned the doctor of the Minister for Finance on two or three occasions and he told me that, while the Minister could talk on matters that would not be of any serious moment, even if they were not serious, he could not concentrate for more than a few minutes. I did not ultimately get permission from him to go until the following Wednesday, 29th April.

Having got permission from the doctor to go then but to be sure to be brief and not to be too serious—I did tell the doctor that it was a serious matter that I wanted to discuss with the Minister for Finance—I summoned the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries just before I left for the Mater Nursing Home. As I told the House already, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries denied that he had any part in the transaction in connection with which his name was mentioned. After a very short time talking to the Minister for Finance, having heard his denial, I felt it was unfair for me to continue because he was in a very weak state. He was almost unable to articulate and his breathing came heavily. His hand was in a sling; his face was swollen and I decided to leave rather earlier than I had intended; but I had said to both of them, as I indicated, that the information that I had would justify my asking for their resignations. I should have said that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries asked for some time to consider the position. Because of the condition of the Minister for Finance I felt I just could not possibly pursue the inquiries with him. However, I had investigations continued because the information was by no means conclusive—far from it, in fact. As part of these investigations, I had consultations jointly with officers of the Special Branch of the Garda and the Army Intelligence Service, and the Attorney General and the Minister for Defence were also present at these consultations. The Minister for Justice, who would have been the other appropriate Minister, was not present because he had entered hospital some days previously.

The purpose of that meeting was, first of all, to co-ordinate as well as I could the evidence that was available from both of the special sources and also to receive guidance from the Attorney General as to what steps could be taken in the circumstances in interviewing two persons whose names were mentioned in connection with this importation.

I want to say before I proceed that I did not at any time have Minister's homes watched during this investigation. There is in all States a security system whereby telephones and other communications are intercepted. It applies in this country as well as in other countries. The intercept, as they call it, is put into operation only on the basis of a warrant signed by the Minister for Justice under the Post Office Act, 1908, and it may be issued only where required for security purposes or for the prevention of detection of serious crime, information as to which could be got in no other way.

It is circumscribed by other conditions in that the request for a warrant must come from the commissioner of the Garda Síochána or the deputy commissioner, and the officials of the Department of Justice must advise that they are satisfied the information concerned can be obtained in no other way.

I want to say, Sir, that it has always been the policy to decline to say whether or not a warrant has been issued in a particular case. This policy is necessary for the obvious reason that, if denials become customary, a refusal to deny an allegation in a particular case would be taken as an admission that a warrant existed thereby nullifying the value of the warrant. In the unusual circumstances which have arisen however, I feel that an exception, limited to this occasion only, is justified and I, therefore, now give a categorical assurance that neither in recent times nor, for that matter at any other time, has a warrant been issued either in respect of the telephone or the correspondence of any member of the Government. I can go further and give the same unqualified assurance in respect of each and every Member of the Dáil and Seanad. I say this, Sir, to indicate to my former Cabinet colleague, Deputy Kevin Boland, that there was no attempt whatever at imposing Gestapo methods on any member of the Government, certainly none that I directed and none so far as I could ascertain.

I have referred to the conference I had on 30th April with the Attorney General, the two top security men from the Army and the Garda, and the Minister for Defence. I said that the reason was to co-ordinate some of the information that I already had and to get guidance about what might be done in respect of two individuals whose names were mentioned in the course of the reports I had read.

On the day following that consultation and directly as a result of it Captain Kelly who has been mentioned in the course of this case—and there is another individual whose name has not been mentioned and, because of the sources from which I have my information I feel I cannot disclose it at this stage, and because of other action that may follow—was arrested under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act which could require his detention for a limited period of 24 hours, I think, renewable if necessary without specifically bringing a charge. Its purpose is to give a man a chance of explaining himself if he has an explanation and to let him out within a limited time. I should, perhaps, have made myself familiar with the particular section but I do not think it was necessary for the purpose of my statement.

At all events Captain Kelly was interviewed on Friday morning, 1st May, and some time before 1 o'clock I received a telephone message to say he refused to make any statement in the Bridewell Station but that if he was confronted face to face—I think he said that in his own statement as published and, therefore, I feel free to say it here in the House—with the Minister for Defence he would make a statement. The Minister for Defence went to the office of Chief Superintendent Fleming in Dublin Castle to which place Captain Kelly had been brought in the meantime, having been given lunch.

The Minister told him that he should tell everything he knew and made some reference about his competence as an officer. I believe the Minister felt rather sorry for the plight in which Captain Kelly found himself. However, the Minister then left and, at about 4 o'clock or shortly before it, I had another telephone call to say that Captain Kelly had begun to make a statement but after the usual preliminaries, date of birth, occupation, address, decided to say no more. He said that if he was brought to me— and this is the message I got—he would name names. I readily agreed to see Captain Kelly and perhaps, within 20 minutes or so, he and Chief Superintendent Fleming arrived at my office.

I then asked Captain Kelly was he prepared to talk to me and, if so, would he prefer to talk to me alone or with the Chief Superintendent in the room. In the meantime I had asked the Secretary of my Department whether, if I needed him, he would be able to come in and he said he would. I told Captain Kelly, when Chief Superintendent Fleming left the room, that, if he was going to make a statement to me I was not an investigator nor was the Secretary of the Department, and that I should like to have him present so that what Captain Kelly said could be corroborated. He objected to the Secretary of the Department coming in so I agreed to his telling me what he wanted to say. He refused to tell me anything.

I said to him: "You asked the Minister for Defence to go face to face with you in Dublin Castle and that you would make a statement then, and you refused. You asked permission to come to me and said you would name names and make a statement and again you refuse." He said: "Well, that is the position." I kept him for some minutes talking around the subject but he refused to give me any information whatever, so then I consulted with Chief Superintendent Fleming and I asked if he could leave. Captain Kelly did say that if he was let go free people would come and make statements. I consulted Chief Superintendent Fleming. I told him this and Chief Superintendent Fleming said he had no authority to let him free.

In the meantime, I consulted the Attorney General. He told me the chief superintendent had authority to detain him for some further period and did, in fact, do so. I believe that ultimately Captain Kelly was released the following morning or early afternoon—not yet having made any statement. Some time later—I think on the Friday evening— the other gentleman who was named was brought to the Bridewell, I think, and he made a fairly comprehensive statement. It appeared to corroborate to some extent—I should say to a considerable extent—some of the reports of which I had had sight.

Before I leave this part of what I am going to say I should just like to mention that as a result of my investigation, I was perfectly satisfied there was an attempt to import arms; that the source was Vienna, not Czechoslovakia.

But they were supposed to be transferred from Czechoslovakia.

I think they were transferred from Frankfurt to Vienna. There was no mention whatever of Czechoslovakia in this transaction. I have told the House already that, in relation to the action that I subsequently took, in asking the two Ministers to resign, I felt I would have to take that action not on the basis of legal proof but on whether either or both Ministers was or were touched by the slightest suspicion following my investigations. Then, as I saw it, my duty was clear.

After having got further reports in the meantime, I think I went to the IMI conference in Killarney that weekend; yes, it was on the Saturday, 2nd May. When I came back to my office on Monday, I got some further evidence which was not very conclusive but nevertheless it was evidence. As I said already, because of the security aspect of this matter, I am unable to give the source of this information. I have already indicated Army Intelligence and Special Branch of the Garda. Having already passed copies of the relevant documents to the Attorney General for his perusal, and for whatever action he advises, I am also inhibited from disclosing the content of the statements I have read. I want to say, as well, that Mr. Berry of the Department of Justice and the Garda officer, an Army intelligence officer whom I met, acted most efficiently and conscientiously.

I made specific inquiries as to whether any Exchequer moneys would cover, roughly, a transaction of this size. I am told that the probable cost would be of the order of £30,000, not £80,000. I had the usual sources from which one might expect these things could be paid for, checked. The Secret Service Funds amounted to £11,500 and had to be spread over the Departments which draw on these funds. Therefore, there was no question of the Secret Service funds being used. As well as that, it was established for me that all moneys expended by the Department of Defence were expended as voted by this House. Therefore, I do not know where the moneys came from that paid for these goods, if they were paid for.

I want to say categorically that I have had no contact with any other source and, specifically, that I had no contact with Westminister or with anybody in Westminister. I got no information from Westminister about this transaction. I got no direction from Westminister and no advice from Westminister about any action I took. I want to say that here deliberately and categorically.

One can understand that, during the two weeks while I was receiving and sifting information and interviewing people, these two weeks were not easy ones for me. Much less easy, of course, was the decision I took. I think it is not unreasonable that I thought long and considered much the action I was to take.

Deputy Blaney came into this House in the same year as I did. With Deputy Boland, we received our seals of office on the same day 13 years ago from An tUachtarán. We had grown to political maturity together.

Deputy Haughey became a Minister some few years later. The four of us were close as far as harmony in administration was concerned. Each one of us, in our different Ministries, in our own way, desired to serve the country in the most efficient way we knew. Certainly, it was for me a sad day when our Ministerial paths had to part. All three of them had long family traditions—as we have heard. I think they are entitled to proclaim that service to the country and towards the fight for freedom. Through their families, they have given service and endured considerable suffering. It made the task all the less easy that I realised that my family had not the same traditions of service or of membership of the Fianna Fáil Party and that I was asking these two men to resign and that Deputy Kevin Boland resigned because he objected to my handling of the affair, obviously. This did not case the heartbreak of my decision. I knew the effect it was likely to have on the political future of able and brilliant men.

Deputy Haughey has, in a statement issued yesterday, said he regarded his political future as less important than the future of Fianna Fáil. But his political future was and I hope could yet be particularly bright. I had to put all these considerations aside. I had to put aside any consideration I would have for my own personal position. I did not know what effect it would have on the party. I did not know what view the party would take and I felt it was my duty to do what I did. I should like to come now to the position of Deputy Moran, and later I shall answer as well as I can some of the specific points put to me by Deputy FitzGerald. I felt, for some time before he entered hospital—I think it was on Budget day or the day after it—that the Minister for Justice, Deputy Moran, was far from well. The information I got from his medical adviser was that his immediate treatment would require some three weeks detention in hospital and that he would also require some months subsequent treatment. I obtained permission from his doctor to visit him. I went to the hospital on the morning of the 4th May and I discussed with him his political future. I returned to him on the evening of the same day and he tendered to me his resignation, in his own hand, on health grounds.

I announced the resignation of the Minister to the Dáil the following day. After I had made the announcement Deputy Murphy asked me if the resignation was asked for. I replied that it was tendered. Some point is being made out of this to the effect that I was not truthful but I never said that I did not ask for the resignation.

Deputies

Oh.

I wish to say quite candidly that to my knowledge Deputy Moran was not involved in the importation of arms. I did not wish him in any way to be associated with the action that I felt was imminent in the case of two other Ministers. I was conscious, too, of his physical condition and, frankly, I did suggest to him that he should resign because of that condition and mainly because of the length of time that he was likely to remain under medical treatment.

That brings me to the suggestion about the reply I gave to Deputy Cosgrave after I had announced the resignation of the Minister. Deputy Cosgrave asked:

Can the Taoiseach say if this is the only Ministerial resignation we can expect?

I replied:

I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.

The Deputy says that I passed that off by some kind of remark but I think if it is read within the context of my next exchange with Deputy Cosgrave when I asked if he would like to enlarge on what he had in mind, it will be seen that there was nothing sinister in it. I do not consider that a crime. I knew what I had in mind but I was not going to give information there and then to Deputy Cosgrave. However, if he had given me any indication as to his knowing something I might have said that I had something in mind.

I asked if we could expect further Ministerial resignations.

I have read the question and my reply and I do not think there was anything sinister in that reply——

(Interruptions.)

——if it was read in its full context. However, if the Deputies opposite wish to make capital out of that they are welcome to it.

It does not tally with the earlier story the Taoiseach has given.

I should have said that Deputy Cosgrave came to me that evening. I acted quickly then but I had already made up my mind. I will not comment any more about where Deputy Cosgrave got his information. He showed me a document but I will not even tell the House what that document was like because there has been some comment as to whether the information was on headed paper. I will leave it to Deputy Cosgrave, if he feels like it, to do so. At any rate, he was kind enough to show me a document on which was a cryptic message.

At this point I wish to say a word about Deputy Gibbons, the Minister for Defence. Deputy Gibbons came to me occasionally, sometimes of his own volition, sometimes at my request, and we discussed largely the operation of the military units along the Border. We also discussed his information in so far as activities within the Six Counties were concerned. He came to me on occasions for advice about different matters but on no occasion did he ask my advice or make any report to me about any other Minister. There were many rumours in circulation in August and September last about IRA activities. I do not remember these rumours going on as late as October. I made certain statements at the time. If I had followed up all the rumours that were then in circulation I would not be here today but in some other kind of institution.

At no time had I any reason to suspect that Deputy Gibbons was engaged in any activity that did not befit his office. Allegations made following the opening of this debate have been thoroughly examined. As a result, I am satisfied that Deputy Gibbons was not involved in the importation of arms. If I were not so satisfied I would not now be asking the House to approve of his nomination as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I wish to say that I regret the departure from the Cabinet of the Minister for Justice. He was a gruff man but he was also a brilliant lawyer and a good Minister. As some newspaper commentator has said about him, he has a tough exterior but he is a tender man at heart. I also regret the resignation of Deputy Paudge Brennan. He, too, was very conscientious in his postion as a junior Minister and I regret that he decided to take the action he did.

All these events which were precipitated by my request for the resignations of two senior Ministers might have had a serious effect on our party. I am glad that the party have solidly stood behind my action. I expected that they would not do otherwise because, as Taoiseach, I was entitled to take this action. It was my prerogative. Not only the party generally but the persons in respect of whom I had to take action have fully endorsed my right to do so.

Whatever about the party, whatever I did, my primary duty was to the country and to the people and I did not shirk it. It was part of that duty to pursue the policy that I have pursued in relation to Partition and especially the current situation in the Six Counties. I need not state it again. I stated it more fully than ever it was stated at the last Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis and I am sure Deputy Dr. FitzGerald will have access to that. Our policy is to seek reunification of the country by peaceful means and to avoid anything, especially in present circumstances, that would induce in any way violence, destruction or bloodshed.

Mention has been made frequently of the sacrifice of the 1916 men. At Arbour Hill earlier this week we commemorated the sacrifice of these men and women who fought in 1916 and who subsequently fought in the War of Independence. There are not very many of them left but the vast majority of those who are still alive say that the use of arms again to try to unite our country is abhorrent to them and would not be conducive to reunification and, indeed, on the contrary would be counter-productive. They do not want to see the unity that we have achieved jeopardised. Certainly I do not either. They want to see peace maintained both here and in the Six Counties and I do too.

Extremists on both sides may well wish that this peace would not be maintained but I believe that the availability of guns in unauthorised hands, no matter in whose hands they are—I know little about guns, in fact I get sick in my stomach when I think of guns in the hands of immature, unauthorised or irresponsible people— but no matter in whose hands they are if they are not authorised, then they are a danger. They may be bona fide held for defensive purposes but these defensive purposes can, in certain circumstances, easily become offensive purposes. I do not know if many of the Deputies opposite are old enough to have seen a film that I saw in my young days called: "They Gave Him a Gun." It was the story of a young soldier who went to war, got used to firing guns for legitimate purposes and continued it for illegitimate purposes when he left the army. I believe, Sir, that it is my duty to ensure, as far as I can, that no guns or arms of any description are sent from this country to the territory of Northern Ireland. I believe that by the children of those who feel guns are necessary—they may be extremists on one side or the other—by their children and their children's children, I would stand condemned if I, in the position I hold, having some authority or some influence in relation to these matters, facilitated or assisted in any way the sending of guns to the Six Counties which might be the cause of bloodshed. I said that they might be held for defensive purposes but that they might easily become offensive. There have been allegations—and let us be quite clear about it—of unlawful importation of arms into the Six Counties not from this part of the country but from abroad. If this is true—and I believe there is some considerable evidence of it, particularly on the Unionist side—then this is highly dangerous but, no matter whose hands these guns get into, I want to say that they can only lead to destruction and bloodshed and only retard whatever unity or whatever fraternity we have been trying to promote in these counties.

I want again to express my disagreement with my colleague, Deputy Boland, when he says that it is a matter for them to get their guns if they want to from some other source but not from here. It certainly is something that we could and should ensure that they will not get them from here but, because of my abhorrence of this violence, I would feel that guns to any unauthorised source from anywhere are a very serious danger.

In answer to another allegation by Deputy FitzGerald that no attempt was made to prevent the Ministers taking their private papers from the office. I said that I was not convicting them of any crime on what amounted to legal proof. There was no attempt to search their houses and I do not think there should have been in the circumstances.

I want to come back again, Sir, to the Northern Ireland situation and I think it is relevant to the matter that we have been discussing here for the last 36 hours. People have been coming down frequently from all parts of the Six Counties ever since and even before 12th August last year. They have come down for many purposes. Some of them have come down asking for ammunition and for guns. They have seen me and other Ministers. They have seen the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Defence. I want to say —since the Minister for Defence will not be intervening again and the Minister for External Affairs has not intervened in this debate—that neither of them gave any indication whatever that our Army was standing at the ready to go into the North of Ireland. I have that categorically from them. I told successive groups that we could not and would not send troops across the Border. I said to do so would be an act of war and only this House, not the Government, is entitled to make an act of war. I told successive groups too— and they came I am sure in genuine fear and in the conviction that they needed guns—that we could not supply any guns either because I felt possession of arms on any side would be dangerous.

One person who had seen me early on—Patrick Kennedy, MP—said he came to see me and he deplored my lack of knowledge of the situation. I feel that was rather unfair comment. He said that all he got from me was a ticket to London to see Mr. Callaghan or Mr. Wilson. I think I did try to arrange some facilities for him to fly out from Dublin Airport. He was particularly disappointed that I could do nothing else but that was perfectly consistent with my policy right through this period and with the policy of my colleagues.

Whether I like it or not—and I do not like it—British troops are in the Six Counties. The British Army have responsibility for keeping the peace there and I agree entirely with Deputy FitzGerald on this. They have the responsibility of protecting the lives and the property of all the people and if, because the Catholic population are in the minority in the Six Counties and feel that they are defenceless in the event of an attack by Unionist extremists armed or otherwise, then the British Army and the other forces of law and order have a special duty to protect them there. I have been assured that those forces are adequate for the purpose. It seemed to us that last year they might not be adequate. Deputy FitzGerald referred to the idea that we should go to the United Nations. The Deputy will see the difficulty we had going there last year. I agree entirely that unless the British—and there is an obligation on them in present circumstances—can guarantee the protection of all the people in the Six Counties, then they will have to do something else as well.

I suggested only if they failed.

Unless they can guarantee the protection of all the people. I do not like this situation any more than anybody else here. I have been pressing for the full and speedy implementation of reform and the provision of civil rights in the Six County area. I believe that the moderate Unionists wish to live in peace and harmony with all their neighbours, that the removal of discrimination at all levels will show to others, the people who do not want to live in peace and harmony, that they, too, can live side by side, that they can work together, play together and I might say even pray together as, thank God, we Christians of all denominations are doing on this side of the Border. This is in pursuit of the Christian ethic. I believe it could extend from one end of the land to the other so that ultimately we could all say that we could live as the one nation we really are.

I want to assure all the people, north and south, especially those who are apprehensive of coming months in the north, that the Government here and the Fianna Fáil Party will do everything they can to avoid an outbreak of further trouble. I want to say to Deputy O'Brien that we are not stricken with a dangerous, infectious sickness nor incubating germs of possible future war. I think I have spoken enough about the Six County situation. Deputy Garret FitzGerald has also referred to it.

The general debate has thrown up many attacks on the Government, on individuals of the Government and on me personally. The members of the Opposition spoke about the dangerous situation in the Six Counties. Some of them said the situation was highly charged so in the light of that situation some of these contributions were irresponsible when at a time, according to their own assessment, one would expect a more reasoned and responsible debate. Their tactics in exaggerating and embellishing the position out of all proportion and in trying to convince the country that there is a major, national crisis is the height of irresponsibility.

Most outlandish rumours were trotted out in the course of the debate. Anything anybody learned about anybody, no matter how unbelievable, was quoted as if it were a fact. It was quoted with a halo of authenticity. We even had a coup d'état coming up in a short time. Of course, inevitably we had references to civil war on several occasions. If there is a tense situation in the north, because of apprehension about the availability of arms, the situation has been well and truly defused by the action taken by me. This reprehensible and irresponsible type of tactic by the Opposition—dangerous in the extreme— suggesting civil war and coups d'état was employed for party political gain.

If the purpose of the debate was to show the country a responsible alternative to the Fianna Fáil Party, then we have nothing to fear. Members of the Fine Gael Party in particular, by their filibustering tactics and their repetitive speeches, succeeded only in bringing ridicule on themselves. Every Deputy from the Fine Gael benches who was in a physical position to stand —I am not making any allegation in this—or read had a script thrust into his or her hands. Speeches were turned out from the type of slot machine which so readily provides Fine Gael policies as they are required. They had the happy advantage, give them their due, of having a well-organised roster. The rest of us had to stay up all night. It was good organisation for once but it was not any great credit to the propounders of the Just Society who had little regard for the people who wanted to end the debate and hear as much as they could.

This long-drawn out debate had, however, one merit. It was a typical example of democracy in action. A matter of national importance was debated without limitation in our open Parliament. The Government and their members, individually and collectively, were subjected to the severest criticism, some of it, perhaps, deserved. This is the democratic way. This is the precious heritage we have. We must safeguard it dearly and never allow any action of ours or even any suspicion of any action to undermine this heritage and this birthright.

The motion before the House is to approve of the three young men I have nominated to be members of the Cabinet. The approval by the Dáil will complete the Cabinet and will enable us to get on with our work. I know it will be a source of great relief to Opposition Deputies when I say there will be no dissolution. This great democratic party will survive the present difficulty. Indeed, it has already done so because it is a great and democratic party and a resilient party—the only party capable of embracing the aspirations of all sections of our people. It is the only party really capable of leading them to the fulfilment of a united, peaceful and prosperous Ireland.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Would the Taoiseach be good enough to clear up a matter to which he referred, but not in full? I refer to Captain Kelly. Captain Kelly admitted that he had some part in the smuggling of arms. He also said that the designate Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Gibbons, had full knowledge of what he was doing. Deputy Gibbons came into this House and denied this. There was a rejoinder from Captain Kelly that Deputy Gibbons was telling lies——

A tissue of lies.

I think he went so far as to call Deputy Gibbons an "unmitigated scoundrel". I should like to know if any further action is to be taken here or if this taint of suspicion is to be attached to the designate Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries —possibly the same type of suspicion that has led to the resignations of the two ex-Ministers sitting behind me?

I explained to the House that I was satisfied before this debate started that Deputy Gibbons carried out his duties in accordance with the full requirements of his office. When these allegations were made during the course of the debate I had him very carefully and thoroughly investigated. As a result of that investigation I am satisfied that Deputy Gibbons——

Who is the liar, Kelly or Gibbons?

As a result of that investigation I have no suspicion.

There appears to be a discrepancy between the Taoiseach's initial statement the other night and his statement tonight. Could he please elucidate this point? Between the 17th and 21st April, acting on what the Taoiseach first described as the "slightest suspicion" and what he described tonight as "by no means conclusive evidence, far from it"— those are the Taoiseach's words—he visited Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney. Did the Taoiseach then on that "slightest suspicion" type evidence ask for their resignations?

First of all, I do not think the Deputy should read any significance into the different phrasing. I think it means much the same thing. I was speaking from notes this evening that were not comprehensive. The following day was Budget day. I think I told the House fairly clearly, both tonight and on the last occasion, that because of the accident that befell Deputy Haughey I could not interview him on that day.

In his statement the Taoiseach said——

Deputies

Sit down.

A Cheann Comhairle, this is——

I am prepared to answer.

We have had no answers.

It appears from the Taoiseach's initial statement that he asked for the resignations on the "slightest suspicion". Does the Taoiseach still stand on that statement? If he does, why did he not sack Deputy Gibbons on the "slightest suspicion" ground also?

It was somebody else, not I, who cast suspicion on Deputy Gibbons. I did not see any statement from Captain Kelly.

Question put.
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 73; Níl, 66.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard C.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Foley, Desmond.
  • Forde, Paddy.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lenehan, Joseph.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Loughnane, William A.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Thomas.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timethy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Des.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Sheridan, Joseph.
  • Sherwin, Seán.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Browne, Noel.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burke, Richard.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Cott, Gerard.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Fox, Billy.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Connell, John F.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Donovan, John.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Reilly, Paddy.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Taylor, Francis.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl: Deputies R. Burke and Cluskey.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 13th May, 1970.
Barr
Roinn