Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 May 1970

Vol. 246 No. 9

Confidence in Government: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following Motion:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government.
—(The Taoiseach.)

Before Question Time I had begun to speak about our policy in relation to the North of Ireland and I ask your permission, Sir, to make a short resumé of what I said because I should like that what I have said will hang with what I am about to say. I said the people living in the country now, particularly the young people, are entitled to make their own examination of all the considerations involved in the formulation of a policy and in its acceptance. They are entitled to set the objectives which they would require of any policy to find solutions, and I suggest that the objectives should be the acceptance of all our traditions—not the dominance of one tradition over another but the acceptance of all our traditions working for the different people in our community, different religions, different classes, the different types of professions, workmen, businessmen and so on, having them live together in harmony and peace.

I said earlier that the events of the last week do not change in any way the attitude of the Government on policy in relation to the north as stated by the Taoiseach in Tralee last September; nor do the events of the last week change the facts on which the Taoiseach based his remarks in relation to this in his speech at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis in January.

The first step I would suggest towards a peaceful solution in the north is the complete elimination of the discrimination which had been imposed by deliberate government policy in that part of the country during many years. We have assurances on this, and I think it is reasonable to assume that the British Government will continue to insist on reform, as they have promised in formal documents in the UN and in formal assurances from the Stormont Government. I said that the times demand greater speed and not the slightest faltering. At this time, I think it is reasonable to assume that they will pursue their policy of reform.

At this time it seems to me that that is as far as I can deal with the first step of getting rid of discrimination. The second step, which can only follow the implementation of reforms, is reconciliation among Irish people. From today, all of us should set about defining what Irish people are and whom we mean when we speak about "our people" in the North.

Hear, hear.

We have from time to time to tease out a clear image of Irishmen—Protestants, Presbyterians, Catholics—lapsed and practising— workers, journalists, doctors—all Irishmen. It is a complex subject, this reconciliation among Irish people. It is steeped in history, replete with mistakes, errors, and I think that politicians on all sides of this House and in all parts of this country should remind themselves that mistakes can be made on all sides. It is not possible and, as I said earlier, not desirable, that one sole tradition in Irish history should make an attempt to dominate another. We have seen how such an attempt failed utterly in the north.

Shall we, for our part here, now attempt to translate that failure to the whole of the country, or shall we take the alternative of trying to understand that the only solution to the Irish question is that which recognises the value of all our Irish traditions? Starting from such a recognition we could work to bring them together peacefully. Personally, I have no doubt that the process of reconciliation, following on the creation of conditions conducive to mutual respect of people living in the north will result in the wearing away of irrational fears and will make it possible in due time to bring the people of our country together.

We ourselves have a great deal to do to make our own society acceptable to all our people, and again I think we should reflect on what "all our people" means whenever we mention the term. I said in the UN that it was a grave injustice—I think it was one of the greatest acts of political folly—to divide Ireland 50 years ago. I should like to say now that it would be criminal neglect if we ourselves do not make every effort, take every step, to make our country a fit home for "all our people".

Fears have been expressed to me— I have already informed the House of this and I have said it elsewhere—by groups who came to me from the North of Ireland and by people living here who have relatives there and who have contacts there, that some kind of renewal of oppression is in store for the minority in the north. We have to take these fears into account. We must consider whether these fears are justified, and if they are justified what shall we do. On this subject, responsible men must use every resource of intelligence and information to discover the truth because this type of situation is very easily ignited.

My own conclusion, which, as I have told the House, follows lengthy examination, is that these fears of the minority and for the minority are understandable but exaggerated. Even if they are exaggerated, I have brought to the notice of Ministers in the British Government the fact that people are living in fear in the North of Ireland. I have brought to their notice all the fears that have been related to me by people in the north. I think this is what I was expected to do when visited by groups from the north.

What should we do? Our policy must in the first instance be a preventive one: we should do what we can to see that there shall not be any renewal of terror, any renewal of oppression. It is consistent with this policy that arms should not be made available to elements of the minority in the north. If, however, serious violence should be attempted against the minority by elements of the majority, there are means available now to prevent it from succeeding. Those who would try it will bear a heavy responsibility and pay heavy consequences. These means which I am mentioning, but not describing, are more reliable than anything which can be achieved by yielding to demands for guns. I said we have a preventative and protective role in such contingencies and we shall continue to assert them. I would condemn other methods as subversive to our declared and accepted policy. I would condemn them as dangerous to the life and peace of all our country. I would condemn them as damaging to our position internationally. We are peacemakers; we do not rant and rave against any part of our own country. We do not rant and rave against any group or section of our people. We do not demand anyone's surrender.

It is difficult for us in this part of the country to control our emotions and the strength of our feelings but I am certain that the policy of re-unification with other Irishmen cannot be achieved by attacking those other Irishmen. Thinking men in the British Government must recognise our right to be involved in seeking a solution to what they call the Irish problem even while they claim it to be an internal matter for them. I am convinced that the nations of the world are on the side of justice for individuals and for small nations and for a peaceful means of settling problems. I am convinced that the nations of the world will express themselves in such a manner that our determination to pursue a peaceful policy will not result in Britain allowing the restoration and continuation of the kind of existence suffered by the minority in the north for 50 years: lack of civil rights, deprivation of cultural rights, deprivation of human dignity. If I am wrong, if we here cannot see the community in the North of Ireland finding a formula to live at peace with itself and then to live in peace with us—I think they will, I think they can and I think they must—then every generation of Irishmen will produce men who behave impatiently, generously, heroically, but also ineffectively.

At this critical stage in our history we must use other means and keep on using them. Nobody, no matter what position he holds, has a right to act as if these other means will fail. We must be calm and prudent and we must not allow our hearts to rule our heads. We must never overlook the reality that, if the unity of our country is to be restored, it must be based on a meeting of minds, a meeting of hearts of all classes and creeds of people in this country. Any resort to force, hoping for a short-term result would not only be short-term but short-sighted. Further bloodshed among fellow Irishmen would create new and deeper scars in our people. It can only postpone the day when all our people will live together and work together in peace and harmony with each other.

This is our policy and the vote of confidence is not just in the policy, because the policy is largely agreed on in this House, but it is on whether we can implement it or not. I said at the beginning that Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien sought to give the impression that a combined Opposition could guarantee unity of purpose. This is not the time to undermine anybody and I shall not do it, but Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien can guarantee what he will do for himself; I can talk for myself; but the only guarantee that anyone else can give for a person other than himself is that if he is Taoiseach he will do what Deputy Jack Lynch did as Taoiseach when he found people were said to be acting in a manner which brought suspicion on whether they were supporting that policy or not. It is not possible for anyone to guarantee the actions of other men but we do guarantee that this is our policy. I accept it, the Taoiseach accepts it and, as Taoiseach, he has shown that, if any member of the Government does not accept that policy, he will be removed from office. This is the most that anyone can guarantee.

I had said we will implement it; it is our intention, it is our decision to implement it. We are clear now and I hope the public are clear about what is involved because in recent times we have had to consider the alternative policies available to the Irish people. We have sufficient authority from the people, we have sufficient authority in this House, in votes, to implement our policy. We are aware of the hard decisions which will have to be made and what hard personal breaks will have to be made with friends, but we are going to implement this policy whatever is involved. Our country is at stake and it must come first.

We have reached the time when politicians will have to explain themselves and sometimes when explaining themselves they give the impression that they are not willing to carry the burden of decision. Anything I have said here to explain myself and the Government is for the purpose of giving the young people a clear chance of knowing where we are going and what they are supporting us for. I am not in any way asking the public to take on this burden of decision and the burden of taking all the actions necessary to make this policy survive. This is the Government's burden.

I think we can ask this House for a vote of confidence. I am not doing it on the basis that the Opposition could not form a Government; I am doing it on the basis that the policy we offer is the policy we have enunciated, the present Taoiseach has stated the policy; his predecessor Deputy Seán Lemass stated it and his predecessor Deputy Eamon de Valera stated it. I can offer that policy and each member of the Government can offer it. If they offer a disciplined Government, willing to take the necessary unpalatable decisions, then I think we have shown evidence that we can do that too.

May I be allowed to ask the Minister one question? The Minister said it was an act of folly to divide the country 50 years ago and he continued to preach the policy of peaceful means. In what way would he have contributed to a peaceful solution other than by Partition in 1921? Would he care to explain to the House if he did not accept Partition what would be his alternative?

I said it was an act of folly 50 years ago. I said that coming on the scene now taking all the situation as it is, what would you do? Fifty years ago, Deputy, I would have been in the fight; at least those who belong to me were in it, but now I follow the peaceful way. I am not going to shoot at an Irishman or kill an Irishman or fight him or rant at him to make him friendly with me. It would be madness to go about it that way.

May I ask the Minister——

The Deputy may not intervene in this way. Deputy Harte is just being argumentative.

The Deputy will get an opportunity to make his speech. I am calling on his colleague, Deputy Barry.

Within the rules of order, Sir, may I ask the Minister one question?

No. The Deputy is completely out of order.

It does not make much sense to me.

I personally agree with a lot of what the Minister for External Affairs said and I think I could go so far as to say most people on this side of the House agree with it also.

Hear, hear.

Hear, hear.

When he makes an appeal to all parties to sit around a table and have another look at the matter and perhaps come to a new decision on our approach to northern affairs and to what all Irishmen, north and south want, he can also take it that we in Fine Gael would heartily join him at that table.

Hear, hear.

It is not my intention to delay the House. Indeed, when I first came into this House more years ago than I care to remember I decided that brevity was the soul of wit—a decision to which I have kept—and indeed in this case it should be the soul of discretion. In regard to the present position there are two crises. I will refer first to the economic one. Anyone who met his constituents during the last four or five days knows that since they got over, to some extent, the shock of the events of a week ago, they have been addressing themselves to the state of the economy. We, on this side of the House, cannot re-affirm our confidence in the Government and vote accordingly because the ordinary plain people have lost confidence in the Government on two main issues. When we speak here we are expected to express the views of the ordinary plain people. That is what I propose to do.

In regard to the economic situation is it not true that a Budget was introduced a few weeks ago which, to say the least of it, shocked a number of people? It shocked them because all the indications and all the pointers, as well as the views expressed by economists and others qualified to speak, for months before were to the effect that something should be done in the Budget to check the inflationary tendencies.

What was done? Nothing was done in that Budget to check inflation. Indeed, what was done in it aggravated an already serious financial situation. Even before this day week people were asking questions about the credibility or the seriousness of the Government. When we talk about the ordinary people we should remember that they are much more sophisticated and educated than they were ten to 20 years ago. They have a habit, thank God, of thinking for themselves. Some of them think very deeply and most of them think very intelligently. All those ordinary people, the ordinary working people as well as professional and business people, were suspicious of the Government when nothing was done in the Budget to check those inflationary tendencies. To put it mildly, most thinking people were aghast at the Budget introduced by the Taoiseach for the injured Minister for Finance. That suspicion had been building up for some time and when Government Ministers and the Government party were being charged, both here and outside by Opposition spokesmen, with arrogance, intolerance and a lack of interest, and indeed what appeared to be their lack of knowledge, of the situation as it obtained, we were told by Fianna Fáil Ministers that we did not know what we were talking about, that we were only trying to create a crisis and start rumours of a crisis which did not exist.

The ordinary people have completely lost confidence in the Government. A cement strike has gone on for months and a bank strike has gone on for weeks and is likely to go on for months and there has been no intervention from the Minister for Labour in either of these two important disputes, disputes which directly affect the economy. The people are wondering what is happening in Government circles. Could you blame them? Is it not right to charge the Minister for Labour with inactivity in all this sorry scene?

It is not.

Is it not? Well, we have had no evidence of any serious attempts being made by him to intervene in the cement strike which has gone on for 13 or 14 weeks. Would the Minister not agree with me that if that is correct it is not the right way to approach this vitally important industry?

No, I would not.

The Minister is entitled to his opinion; I will express mine and I believe I am expressing the opinion of a great number of people. Especially am I expressing the opinion of the wives of the people who are out of work in the cement factories as well as of their little children when I say that an attempt should have been made if it was not. We have a Minister for Labour who was elected to do just this kind of thing.

Referring to strikes, is it not true to say that down the country at the moment there is a kind of despondency generally with regard to what is happening in the country. It may well be that Ministers do not realise it or recognise it. It may well be that they are completely out of touch with their constituents. I believe this is the kernel of the whole situation. They just do not know or, if they do know, they do not appear to care about what is happening.

A deficit of £90 million is likely to arise in this financial year on our balance of payments. That is our economic situation. Is it hard to blame the people for having lost confidence in the Government, not just today but ten days ago, when they see no attempt being made to deal with that very dangerous situation in the Budget introduced here within the past month? The trouble is now that, whether it be the financial situation or the political situation, the economic crisis or the political crisis, we find ourselves at this point of time with hotels complaining of cancellations of bookings and of the conducted tours, which were such a feature at this time of the year, nonexistent or disappearing. So much damage has been done to the economy that it will take a great deal of patience and a great deal of what the Minister for External Affairs asked for, a great deal of joint effort—he meant, I think, joint effort by all parties in this House—to put the economy back on some kind of even keel. The principal reason for the present economic crisis is the unwillingness and the inability of the Government to formulate a long-term policy which would have regard to the wellbeing of all sections of our people.

I have dealt briefly with the economic situation. I want to mention now the departure of two Ministers from this Government, both of whom were in their own time Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries and both of whom during their term of office as Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries did not see eye to eye with the farmers whom they were elected and selected to serve. Is it any wonder that the farmers now at this point of time can recall the impossible Ministers with whom they were dealing? Is it any wonder that the President of the National Farmers' Association, by far the biggest association representing the farmers, can say to his members that he was right in his attitude towards those two Ministers? The farmers will never forget being left to sit in Merrior Street in frost and snow because the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would not meet them. His successor in that office refused to mee them for some years. Both Ministers have now left office, leaving the far mers in the sorry and pitiable position in which they find themselves.

I want now to refer briefly to the political crisis. The only word that typifies the reaction of ordinary people towards the events of last week is "shock". I met quite a number over the weekend in my constituency, particularly in the towns of Fermoy and Mitchelstown, some of them supporters of the Government, all asking very simple, straightforward questions. It is not easy for an ordinary Deputy to answer these questions and, before I finish, I am going to put the questions on record and ask the Taoiseach to answer them when he comes to reply on this debate.

In the last 50 years Ministers of State have acted in the main responsibly and the events of the last week have certainly put the country back 50 years. We had four senior Ministers in a Cabinet of 13 or 14 leaving or being pushed out of office. If this happened in some other faraway country we would read about it with interest and, possibly, a little dismay. The action of these men who served, or did not serve, on this Cabinet has brought this nation internationally into disrepute and disgrace. As one Corkman to another, I want to say to the Taoiseach, Deputy John Lynch, that he has himself to blame to a great extent for the dilemma with which he now finds himself faced. Everyone knows that over the past six months one of his ex-Ministers had been parading around the country, making inflammatory speeches about the position in the north. Is it not unfortunately true that we have now had not only one Letterkenny speech but two, the second far more dangerous and inflammatory than the first? I say that the Taoiseach can blame himself to some extent for his dilemma; even the ordinary national school educated people down the country were asking some months ago what he proposed to do with senior members of his Cabinet who were both speaking and acting contrary to national policy. The most serious aspect of all this is the spectacle of the ex-Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, parading with his cavalcade through his own constituency last Sunday night, photographed with all these young men around his car, speaking in such inflammatory terms to them. I believe in the light of all this that we have not yet heard the end of last week's unfortunate political history and I think it would be fair for me to suggest that Deputy Neil Blaney started his campaign in Letterkenny on Sunday night last, and that if he is allowed in the coming months he will be in Sligo, Galway, Tipperary, Waterford, Wexford, Kilkenny and Monaghan and will eventually find his way down to Cork. He will in fact travel all those counties in his own good time. He will be in all of them except in the Six Counties.

He was in the Six Counties on Sunday.

He passed through the Six Counties I believe on Sunday guarded by British armoured cars. Is that something——

I doubt if he looked for them.

They were there with him. What I am suggesting is that we should, if possible, on all sides of the House try to advise Deputy Blaney before it is too late to calm down and take things easy. I think it was Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien who said this morning that the time to talk sense is just now, not perhaps in a month or two months time when this thing blows up. If my appeal is worth anything to the ex-Minister for Agriculture I appeal to him now from this Parliament to think deeply before he starts his new campaign.

In regard to this political crisis I said it was noticeable that the Taoiseach took no action in the case of Deputy Blaney. The ordinary people throughout the country noted that just as we Deputies did. The people are asking questions and on their behalf I want to ask them of the Taoiseach in this House. I am sure these questions will be given to him before he replies here this evening. The first question is: For how long does the Taoiseach know that his Ministers were acting so treacherously and traitorously? The people do not accept that the Taoiseach was informed of it only in the recent past.

The second question is: Is it true that the Taoiseach would not have taken the action he took last week but for the call made on him by the leader of the Opposition, Deputy Cosgrave? The third question is: Are there other Ministers and Fianna Fáil Deputies involved in this sad story? Some people in the country seem to know much more about what is happening in inner circles than do some Deputies, even on the Fianna Fáil side. The fourth question is: What number of Army personnel were involved and to what extent and for how long? This is a question that should be answered not later than tonight by the Taoiseach.

The fifth question is: Was there really any serious attempt to apprehend those involved in the different bank raids throughout the country and, in particular, was there any real attempt made to apprehend the murderer or murderers of the late Garda Fallon? These are serious questions deserving a reply from a serious-minded Taoiseach. The last question is this: will the Attorney General to whom the Taoiseach has referred the information he has got, go fully, impartially and justly into all aspects of this most serious case? I can only say that on the Taoiseach's own admission at Question Time this afternoon the Attorney General was a strong supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party. Can the people then have confidence in the investigation or examination he decides to carry out?

Just over 200 years ago, in 1770, a great Irishman speaking before what was then the best known forum in the world, the British House of Commons, a man who has been lauded by several Ministers here in recent months, Edmund Burke, spoke some highly significant words in connection with the true meaning of a political party. His view, which has been quoted at various times by a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach in our day was:

No men could act with effect who did not act in concert: no men could act in concert who did not act with confidence: no men could act with confidence who were not bound together by common opinion, common affection and common interests.

It is noticeable that what he said was "common opinion, common affection and common interests." Leave out the "common affection" and we ask, as we are entitled to ask of the present Fianna Fáil Party who still all vote together, what have they in the line of common interest? I wish someone in the House had the oratory and intelligence of Edmund Burke and he might then be able to explain to me and the Irish people how this Government can stand the test of time on the criterion of what he knew and thought to be a political party.

In the same speech Edmund Burke said, also referring to a political party, that a party with a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours —joint endeavours, mark you—the national interest. Where do the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party fit into that distinguished gentleman's interpretation of a Government and a party?

I promised I would not delay the House. We on this side of the House cannot vote to reaffirm our confidence in the Government. The people of the country generally have no confidence whatever in the Government. While not saying anything personal against the new Ministers, I believe, and the people believe, that many of them have not the political experience that is needed in this grave time to deal with a political or economic situation. In the opinion of most people the Government are inefficient, ineffectual, incompetent and irresponsible. The political events of the past week have been described here as sad, sordid and sorry. That alliteration, that description, is perfect. I should like to continue the alliteration and add to sad, sordid and sorry, shabby, sour, saucy, shameless, selfish, secret, sickening, sulky, smelly, sneaky, serpent-like seedy, surreptitious, senseless, scathing, spurious and shocking.

And sooty.

Did the Deputy include "scandalous"?

There are many more adjectives that could be added to that list but those were the first that came to my mind. The events of the past week have, in my opinion, given the ultra-Unionists in the north grounds for their eternal suspicions. We on this side of the House realise that, while we are entitled to criticise the Government in make-up and form, we also have a responsibility to the people. It is our considered opinion that we should accept the plea made by the Minister for External Affairs with regard to the many problems he presented before us today. Whether this Government last a month, three months, six months or 12 months, which I think must be the extreme limit, we in the Fine Gael Party will, as we have always done, help to repair the damage which has been done to this State of ours. This will be a matter of pride for us apart from being our duty. Our predecessors in this party built up the State into the position it was in until about two weeks ago.

What are we discussing here today? What were we discussing here yesterday? The motion suggests that Dáil Éireann hereby reaffirms its confidence in the Government. What is the need for the motion? Why did the Taoiseach put it down? We had a lengthy debate here last week and we have this motion before us again today. My intervention centres around my query as to the Taoiseach's reason for putting it down. Fianna Fáil Deputies tell us there is no crisis within their party but it is evident that this crisis is responsible for the motion. The only possible reason the Taoiseach could have for putting down this motion is that he is in doubt about some of his own party.

The composition of this House at the moment is 74 Fianna Fáil Deputies, 51 Fine Gael Deputies, 17 Labour Deputies, one Independent Deputy and the Ceann Comhairle. Due to the unfortunate illness of two Members of the House who happen to be members of the Government party, the voting strength is reduced to 72, 68 and Deputy Sheridan. Does the Taoiseach doubt that all of his party will vote for him? It is quite evident from the discussions here extending over three days or more last week that no member of the Opposition will vote for this motion. No member of the Labour Party will vote for it and no member of the Fine Gael Party will vote for it. Therefore there are 68 votes against the motion and the only people who can defeat this motion are the dissident members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

The Taoiseach may have some information that is not at our disposal and he may feel justified in taking up the time of this House for two days with this motion to find out whether they will vote for him as they did on Saturday. We may be asked why the Labour Party put down a Motion of No Confidence in the Government. It is obvious why we did so. We were satisfied that, having regard to the eruption within the Government party, and having regard to the statements made by former members of the Government, it was opportune for us to put down a Motion of No Confidence in the Government which would give those people who made such strong complaints against the Government— particularly former members who complained about phone-tapping, an organisation known as the minister watching organisation, and Gestapo-like surveillance imposed on them by the head of the Government—an opportunity, if they so desired, to indicate by their votes in the House that they had no confidence in the Government, as they had already suggested in their statements.

The Taoiseach puts this motion on the Order Paper asking his own party to reaffirm their confidence in the Government. The only question at issue is whether or not his own party will reaffirm their confidence in the Government.

The position in Northern Ireland has been mentioned often in this debate. Mention has also been made of the disastrous industrial policy being pursued at present. This policy has resulted in many strikes. There has been much talk about uneasiness at the present inflationary trend in our economy. These issues are all important, but they have nothing whatever to do with the motion before the House. The Minister for External Affairs told us what is happening in the North of Ireland and what should or should not happen there. This is of no use to us. This motion is about a completely internal matter. It has nothing to do with the North of Ireland. It has nothing to do with other questions which have been raised here by Government spokesmen.

This vote of confidence is before us because of the earthquake which shook the Irish people when the Taoiseach made his pronouncements last week. This matter, as has been stated so frequently here, did not arise from any allegations made by Opposition Members; it did not arise from any statement made by outside organisations. This matter is entirely confined to the Fianna Fáil Party. It has resulted in three Ministers being asked to relinquish their portfolios and one Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary resigning out of sympathy with them.

I am trying to recall the description given to this situation by the Minister for Education last night. The Minister for Education, Deputy Faulkner, described it as "a minor incident".

He did not. The Minister for Education said no such thing.

The Minister for Education spoke of "a minor incident".

Mr. J. Lenehan

Only a minor would believe a thing like that.

The Minister for Education used the words "minor incident" and went on to refer to last week, but he did not refer to the situation as "a minor incident".

The Minister should allow Deputy Murphy to make his speech.

It would be helpful, if the Deputy wishes to attribute a statement to a Minister, if he would quote it.

It would be better to have the definition of the Minister for Education of what constitutes a major incident. Irrespective of what interpretation the Minister for Finance puts on this statement, I assume the Official Report will bear out my statement that the Minister for Education referred to this matter as being one of a minor nature. On Friday morning last I said that in any other democratic country, if four members of the Government had to leave office on one stroke of the Prime Minister's pen, it would definitely lead to the resignation of the entire Government or, at least, in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Constitution, lead to the Prime Minister dissolving Parliament and getting a vote of confidence from the country at large.

I am one of the Deputies who has held the view that, once a Government are elected democratically, they should be entitled to the full period of office. I am not a believer in a Government relinquishing office because of upheavals which could be contained and rectified at a later stage. I do not believe a Government should abandon office or that, without great justification, the Taoiseach should go to the Park, and ask for the dissolution of the Dáil. The present Dáil is not yet one year old. Like other Deputies I personally would not like an election. I do not know whether I would survive it or not. Other Deputies would agree with me. An election requires a great deal of energy. There is great expense attached to an election. I am a Member who does not get any funds from any source. The only funds at my disposal for an election are the funds collected at an annual church gate collection. I have not any organisation behind me to provide funds such as those which I understand other people have, particularly on the Government side of the House.

Mr. J. Lenehan

The Deputy is wrong there. I have no funds either. I did not get one penny.

Some of the Deputy's colleagues have funds.

I assume the Minister is well looked after by the Taca people we saw in here around the House last week. I wish to make my personal position clear. I would not welcome an election. I would not like the prospect of moving around a constituency which is more than 100 miles in length and getting a renewal of confidence from the people. But the inconvenience to me or to any other Deputy is only a small side issue. It is something which should be brushed aside. I believe the Irish people would brush aside the inconvenience of individual Deputies at election time. I find that the people want an election. They feel that this upheaval, with its statements and counterstatements, should be referred to themselves for a decision and not to this House where the party pattern is clearcut—unless perhaps at 10.30 tonight there is some further unheaval.

Why should anyone stand up here and say to a Government which are not one year in office that they should dissolve the Dáil and seek a fresh mandate? My personal view is that what happened last week is something that never happened since the establishment of the State. It is something that no one of us could have visualised a week ago. It is something unprecedented. I shudder to think what would have happened if there was an inter-Party Government composed of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. What would the Fianna Fáil Members do?

I feel that, as well as having a vote of no confidence, we would possibly forcibly be ejected from our seats and sent to the country. Smaller matters gave rise here, during the time of the inter-Party Government, to contributions to debates lasting more than five hours; vexatious contributions; filibusterings, because the then Opposition opposed some piece of legislation being put through by the then Government. I am trying to visualise what would happen if an inter-Party Taoiseach were seated where Deputy Colley, Minister for Finance, is now sitting. Suppose this kind of position arose, what would an inter-Party Taoiseach do?

Mr. J. Lenehan

He would run away.

I agree with the Deputy. I think he would run away. I will have no argument about it. But the present Taoiseach will not run——

Mr. J. Lenehan

It is not because he has lumbago or anything.

Deputy Murphy must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

After making an explanation to the House, I would expect that an inter-Party Taoiseach would go to the country. If I were a supporter of his, or a Member of the House supporting him, I should expect him to run away. I should expect him to make a statement informing the House of the way in which he had been deceived by members of his Cabinet, giving much more information and the nature and extent of the deceit than was given to us here by the Taoiseach in the two or three contributions he has made here in relation to this crisis. Surely he would run away if one of these four Ministers were to get on his feet and say "You are a liar"? Is that not a fair summary —I put it now to the Minister for Finance—of what one of the former Ministers said to the Taoiseach?

Mr. J. Lenehan

Not at all.

One of the ex-Ministers said there was no truth in or foundation for the allegations made. What is the position if that former Minister's statement is correct? Consider the Minister who, due to his unfortunate illness, is not able to be with us in the House and had to issue a statement from his hospital bed denying these charges. If he is correct then, heavens above, the Taoiseach has a great deal to answer for.

Now, in this fight amongst members of the Government, we, as representatives of the people, have not got sufficient information to enable us to draw valid conclusions. We have got information sufficient to enable us to draw certain conclusions. We have got information sufficient to indicate that there is a burst-up—may be that is not such an appropriate term— within the Cabinet; that they do not trust each other; that one of them thinks the other fellow is spying on him; that another thinks his telephone is being tapped; that another thinks the Taoiseach is, if I can recollect that term again, subjecting his colleagues to Gestapo-like surveillance.

Surely, if an inter-Party Taoiseach were sitting on the Government benches and that kind of position confronted him, I will agree with the content of the interjection by Deputy J. Lenehan as to what that Taoiseach would do. I am sure that, subsequent to making a statement—possibly in the House or to the Press—he would run, as run he should, to give the people an opportunity of determining the question. I do not want to repeat what has been said here by previous speakers but this is a very vital question. Those of us who have the honour to be elected to this House cannot shelve our responsibility. We must address ourselves to this question. We must offer a contribution to this debate. The people whom we represent expect us to do so.

Has the Taoiseach given us the information he should have given us? I am making that statement in the belief that the Taoiseach is entitled to withhold certain information from the Members of this House. I am assuming he knows far more than he has told this House. I am also making the case that he should give us more information than he actually gave us. I think he stopped too soon in the three statements he made to this House. He did not give us enough information about what was happening, for how long it was happening, and so on.

In his reply here on Saturday night last, the Taoiseach did not make quite clear what answers he had to his former colleagues according to whom, if they are to be believed, it is evident, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the Taoiseach knew about what was happening within his Cabinet long before Monday, 20th April, 1970. I fear the Taoiseach did not give us sufficient information. I am sure many Government supporters throughout the country are of that same opinion, namely, that they have not been given sufficient information as to the nature and extent of the revolt against the Taoiseach by his Cabinet.

Collective responsibility is accepted in this country. There is no need to cover ground which already has well been covered by previous speakers— that the Taoiseach, by virtue of his exalted position as head of the Government, has the right, subject to the approval of Dáil Eireann, of nominating Ministers and that, with that right, goes a great deal of responsibility. He must be sure of his ground. If he has been let down—particularly by a number of his Ministers—he must take some of the blame. He must also, whether he likes it or not, move out of his Government seat and go to the President to seek a dissolution of this Parliament.

I mentioned earlier in my statement here that the speech by the Minister for External Affairs would be admirable if it were made within a relevant discussion. Such statements have no bearing on the motion before the House. The Taoiseach came here yesterday afternoon and glossed over the reasons for this debate. In fact, he did not mention them at all. There is no use giving the House the history of events relating to the Fianna Fáil Party during the past 50 years. What is relevant at this time is the history of events which led up to the crisis in the Government last week. To my mind, that is the only relevant question.

With regard to the Taoiseach's entitlement to dismiss members of the Government whom he believes to be unsuitable for office, I recollect stating here on Friday that I am a firm believer in that principle—a principle that has been adhered to since the establishment of the State. It is the Taoiseach's privilege to remove from office any member of the Government but it would be taking the matter a little too far to say that they can be removed or dismissed without some public statement being made. Perhaps, if only one Minister was involved, the position would be different. Statements have been made by Government speakers to the effect that as soon as the Taoiseach had reason for suspicion in relation to any of his Ministers, the Constitution more or less lays down that he dismiss them or, at any rate, gives him the right to remove them from office.

It would appear that in order to do this it is not necessary for the Taoiseach to have the type of evidence that could be substantiated in court. Apparently, the Taoiseach was satisfied or, at least, his suspicion was sufficiently strong to warrant his action in relation to his Ministers but what is perturbing the people at this time is the special position of the newly-appointed Minister for Agriculture. I am not saying Deputy Gibbons is guilty but I am saying that there is suspicion about his activities. I say this because of the statement made by Captain Kelly to the effect that the Minister was guilty of telling lies. Either the Minister or Captain Kelly is telling lies. The accusation was left unanswered. If Deputy Gibbons had nothing to do with the conspiracy the implication is that Captain Kelly is an untruthful person. I do not know if he is but his statement in relation to the Minister was not made within the confines of this House. It was made and publicised not only in Ireland but in England.

If the Minister for Agriculture is of the opinion that Captain Kelly's statement is not true surely he has the necessary machinery to deal with the allegation. He can go to the courts and have his name cleared.

I doubt very much if those words are actionable.

I shall not take the Minister for Finance up on that.

Perhaps not actionable in the case of a Fianna Fáil Minister.

In the case of anybody.

The Minister for Finance, because of his legal training, may be in a better position than I to judge this question but it is difficult to convince the man-in-the-street that they are not actionable. I am sure the Minister will not object if I read the statement which is reported at column 970 of the Official Report of the 8th/ 9th May, 1970 and I quote:

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.

That statement clearly implicates Deputy Gibbons, the Minister for Agriculture.

That is a very selective quotation.

We will quote it in full if the Minister so wishes.

Let us not waste the time of the House.

It is already on the record five times and has not been denied.

Until recently Captain Kelly had an important post as an Army officer in our intelligence service. Are we to assume that since the 20th April this man has changed from being a responsible person who was trusted by the Minister for Defence and by the Taoiseach, to one who is unreliable, untruthful and who is a despicable character? This man who called on the Taoiseach——

It was said that the Taoiseach called him in the course of his investigations.

If we consider the views of the Government it would appear that they were most unfair as far as this man is concerned. Supposing—and I am not saying this except as an illustration—he is an unreliable person and that his actions were questionable and that he was misleading his superiors in the past. Then, in my opinion, the Minister for Defence is an unsuitable man to retain in the Government, if his intelligence agent, who had his personal ear, was as unreliable as he is now made out to be. I wonder if I am taking up too much time on this question. I must try to sum it up.

The Taoiseach told us—I will not go searching in volumes to get the exact quotations because I dislike that kind of work, but I will give a fair summary of what I recollect he told us—he had the utmost confidence in Deputy Gibbons. If Deputy Gibbons deserves that confidence, he is entitled to it. Not only was Deputy Gibbons not requested to relinquish his office, but he has been promoted to the office of Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, which in this State is indeed an important office. We must get more information from the Taoiseach tonight. He must put his cards on the table and tell us that this man, Mr. Kelly, is what he is, in a straightforward way. There is no use hedging behind vague sentences or vague statements. He must tell us some more about Mr. Kelly.

We have privilege in this House and it would indeed be unfair for any one of us to abuse that privilege. I say this as a Deputy coming from the most southerly end of this country. Captain Kelly had a career. He claims he discharged the duties of that office honourably and efficiently, that he acted completely on the instructions of his superiors, mainly the Minister for Defence. He is a married man with young children and I believe this House owes him some obligation. I never heard of him until a week ago when this question was raised, but I have no hesitation in saying that it is most unfair to abuse and slander this man unless that slander and abuse are justified.

My personal view, having listened to this discussion for hours, and it is only a personal view, is that the abuse and slanderous statements made about Mr. Kelly are not justified. He may have been engaged in work that was not within or should not be within his prescribed duties, but I understand his case to be that he was engaged on that work at the behest of the Minister and that there was full agreement between him and his Minister. We know the Minister's word is law and it was quite easy for him. One would assume that Mr. Kelly felt that this was Government policy but by virtue of the special position he held as intelligence officer he had no alternative but to carry out his work and not disclose it to any others.

How did all this come to be disclosed? Seemingly because a consignment of arms from an unknown destination was interrupted before it got into the hands of those to whom it was consigned. I think that is what happened. I mentioned here on Friday that it was of vital importance to Irish people to ascertain the country of origin. I suggested Czechoslovakia as the country. I made it quite clear that I based that on accounts and statements by Press correspondents and by continental correspondents who were interviewed on our television network. The Taoiseach here on Saturday night said the arms did not come from Czechoslovakia but that he thought they came from Frankfurt. He is not sure; he only thinks it. Let us examine the geographical layout.

If you, Sir, have a consignment of arms in Frankfurt to transport to Dublin through London Airport, surely you do not move the consignment to Vienna and then from Vienna to London or Dublin Airport? Surely, to say the least of it, that would be a roundabout way? It is evident from the information made public since this discussion started that arms are not for sale in Vienna, nor in any place in close proximity to it. I listened to one expert who addressed himself to this question on BBC television. He said that the two countries likely to sell arms were two Communist states— Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. Then Vienna comes into the picture as a clearance base.

It may be said that this is all conjecture, but I am not the Taoiseach and I have not got the information that he should have. Surely he made inquiries as to where the arms originated? It is not good enough to tell the House at 10 o'clock on Saturday night last that he thought they came from Frankfurt. I do not accept that. I am quite sure the Taoiseach has much more information about this consignment of arms than he has given to the House. It may be asked then why I or any other Member should be so perturbed about the place of origin, as to whether the arms came from Hamburg, from Prague or from Sofia. The place of origin is very important; and I stressed this as forcibly as I possibly could on Friday last, because if the statements that the arms were transported from a State under Russian domination are true, this is a far bigger question than it would otherwise seem to be.

We know that countries like Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria are only mere puppets of the Soviet Union. I said last Friday, and I repeat it now, that the Taoiseach should give us some information about this matter. Bad and all as the situation is I would be delighted to hear that the arms came from Germany or Austria or at least some country this side of the Iron Curtain.

As I stated earlier, events in Northern Ireland, the economic situation, the industrial strife which exists at the present time have nothing to do with the motion before the House. It is not as a result of industrial strife, the inflationary trends of the present day or any other incompetent activity of the Government that the Taoiseach has to introduce this motion and superimpose it on the Labour Party motion of no confidence and ask the Dáil to reaffirm their confidence in the Government. I do not accept that statements such as that made by the Minister for External Affairs are entirely relevant to this discussion. We must get from this discussion an account of the difficulties within the Government Party.

A Government are naturally the highest organisation in the land. It is they who lead us in the development of our economy. They formulate policies and promote legislation that we must abide by. All our activities centre around the Government of the day. They have power to direct us. They say what is good for us. They say what taxes we have to pay and what laws we have to abide by. That is only right. In a democratic State when a Government are elected democratically they are entitled to do this. They are to a great extent entitled to order our lives and say what is good or is not good for us but we in turn have the right to get from a Government, which bursts open, as this one did last week, some information as to why this corruption came about.

I do not want to repeat statements to substantiate my case but we have not got this information from the leader of the Government. I know we must allow for the fact that he is not obliged to tell us all but at least he must tell us enough to satisfy us that his actions were justifiable, that no harm has been done in the past and that no other activities which were not in conformity with their office were engaged in by the sacked Ministers. The Taoiseach has also to give us that information in order to satisfy the Irish people that his charges are soundly based.

The defence is a plea of not guilty. Up to this time from the evidence available and the statements made here by the Taoiseach or any other Government speaker a jury would not find those sacked Ministers guilty. Surely the Taoiseach did not create this major upheaval without some grounds for it. That is what the ordinary man in the street thinks. The Taoiseach must have some hidden information or some good reason for doing what he did. Mind you, the poor former Ministers are condemned by public opinion. They are condemned through the idea which exists in the country that the Taoiseach would not have acted as he did unless he had sound information at his disposal.

I do not wish to delay the House much longer. I said here last Friday, and I can repeat it today with all sincerity, that I dislike having to contribute to a discussion such as this. We are all Irishmen and possibly it can be said that all of us have the ideals of Ireland at heart. We try to improve the standards of our people and try to advance our country in every way possible. We are a relatively small country. I feel sure that the most distasteful job for those of us who get elected to this House is to have, in accordance with our obligations to our constituents, to take part in a discussion such as this and reflect on the activities of the man who is honoured as head of our Government. I would have avoided joining in this discussion if I thought it were possible for me to do so but I believe this crisis which is still with us is so grave that we must contribute. This is evidenced by the fact that such a great number of Deputies spoke last week.

We must ask for a change of leadership and consultation with the people. I made my position clear about this earlier in the discussion. Within a fortnight we find that four Ministers, Deputies Blaney, Boland, Haughey and Moran have gone. You could question some of these men but others of them were as arrogant as one would find within the shores of this country. Some of them resented being asked questions in this House. They knew too much. They were so full of power and authority that they treated Opposition members with great contempt. Now the position has changed and it has so changed that instead of asking the Dáil to reaffirm its confidence in the Government the motion should request that the Irish people reaffirm their confidence in the Government. The answer to such a request is so obvious that I need not spell it out.

First, I should like to deal with a point arising from Deputy Murphy's speech. He referred to Captain Kelly and said he was concerned that an injustice would not be done to this man and I certainly agree with him. I dislike very much a situation in which somebody who is not in a position to defend himself in this House should be referred to here. Although this has become inevitable in the course of the debate, I would remind the House that this man's name was not introduced from the Government side. The incident illustrates clearly the danger of mentioning people who are not in a position to defend themselves here.

Deputy Murphy referred to a question asked by Deputy Corish at the conclusion of the debate last week and he repeated it himself. Summed up it could be, who is telling the truth? Is it Captain Kelly or is it Deputy Gibbons?

The Minister might tell us.

I want Deputies in the Labour Party to pay particular attention to what I am about to say. The assumption underlying what was said by Deputy Corish was that Captain Kelly had admitted publicly in a statement that he had engaged in illegal activities. To my knowledge Captain Kelly said no such thing. What he said was that all his activities were known to the Minister for Defence. There is a great difference between those two things and a grave injustice is being done to Captain Kelly by those who have been making that point. Where people outside this House are concerned, a great deal more attention should be given to precision if one is purporting to suggest what they have said. A good deal more latitude is, by custom, allowed in this House because we each have an opportunity of coming back here to put the record right where we consider it worthwhile.

It is difficult to deal with this motion without reference to the marathon debate in which this House indulged last week. Clearly, there is a close connection and I think it is reasonable for me to comment on what happened in that debate and on my own reaction and that of a large section of the public. There were from Opposition benches in that debate some responsible, careful and statesmanlike speeches. However there were many others—and they far outnumbered the ones to which I have referred—which I could only consider irresponsible. It is not the speeches of individual Deputies to which I refer because this is not the issue before us today. What I wish to refer to are the tactics adopted by the Opposition parties in that debate and, in particular, by Fine Gael. When one saw a deliberate filibuster, when one saw Deputies who seldom spoke in this House handing on from one to another the dog-eared scripts, one could be forgiven for doubting the genuine character of the claim of Fine Gael to be concerned only with the public interest. It seems to me perfectly legitimate political tactics for any party in a situation as we have had to make political capital out of that situation. I do not, and could not, object to it but what I object to and wish to expose in this regard is the hypocrisy of claiming to be activated only by the public interest when, in fact, one is engaging in a sordid filibuster, endeavouring to stir up an air of crisis in the country solely for party political advantage.

On a point or order. Does the Minister want Deputies who are elected to the Opposition to remain neutral and silent? Does he deny them the right——

That is not a point of order.

Not only is it not a point of order, but I think many people outside this House know that for almost all the Deputies in Fine Gael to contribute to a debate is somewhat unusual but that for some Deputies in Fine Gael to contribute is unique.

I did not participate in any filibuster——

Every effort was made to get all the Deputies to do so. We all saw the dog-eared scripts being passed along and we listened to the same points being made.

We had to hold back some of our Deputies from making a contribution.

Acting Chairman

Order. The Minister should be allowed to continue his speech.

My point is this: the tactics adopted in last week's debate are a relevant factor to this debate now to the extent that we are asking this House to consider whether the House has confidence in the Government. If the House has not got confidence in the Government it is reasonable to assume that it is saying the people should choose another Government and that other Government can only come from the opposite side. In case anybody has any hopes, I might add the Government will not come from that side of the House.

Say it again, louder.

For the purpose of discussion it is relevant to consider the alleged alternative Government available and the tactics adopted last week by elements in that possible alternative Government are very relevant. I want to assure Deputies on the other side of the House that while the people had made it clear to them not so long ago that they were not prepared to consider them as an alternative Government, the tactics adopted last week made absolutely certain that the people will not in any circumstances accept a party that can act so irresponsibly.

Put it to the test.

We are coming to that.

What about a coalition with the three Musketeers?

Acting Chairman

Order.

We have heard cries in this House during the past week for a general election and we have even heard them here now. All of us in the confines of the House know how the hearts of many Deputies opposite would stop if the Taoiseach said there would be an election. It is a legitimate political tactic but, since it has been put forward by some people with an apparent air of sincerity, perhaps one should deal with it. In the present circumstances—and I am referring to the problems that have been, and are, facing this country irrespective of the happenings of last week—there are very serious and difficult problems facing us, including the commencement of negotiations for entry into the EEC and the spectre of inflation which is hanging over the economy. Less than 12 months ago people were asked what they wanted and they gave a very clear decision. However one interprets that decision nobody can deny that it was a decision for political stability——

As they thought.

This is what the public voted for and it is what they will get. If it is suggested that they could get political stability by having another election what is going to happen is that the Government will be re-elected with an overall majority. That being so, why have an election when we already have that situation? If that is not the case then we will not have political stability, because if anybody wants to try to convince the country that we could have political stability in any form of alliance between Fine Gael and the Labour Party, he can forget it. They have not yet convinced the people of that, they have tried many times and have failed. If they need to have their memories jogged might I just remind Deputies very briefly of the statements that have been made with increasing frequency by Deputy Noel Browne laying down his conditions for co-operation between his party and the Fine Gael Party, conditions which even the Fine Gael Party could not accept, and I shall give that credit to the Fine Gael Party. If one is thinking of a united Government with a united party behind it, may I remind the Labour Party of Deputy Stephen Coughlan and of a few little incidents which I could go into but do not intend to—it is not my object—merely to emphasise the point that if one believes that what the people want and need at this moment is political stability there is only one place they can get it and that is from Fianna Fáil.

Did Fianna Fáil offer stability between 1951 and 1954 when they were supported by Deputy Noel Browne?

I am saying that in the present situation the people have given their decision. They want stability and they will get it. Anybody who suggests there should be a general election at this time has the onus of demonstrating the likelihood that there would be political stability after it, in real terms, arising from the re-election of the Government with an over-all majority. What is the point in having an election if you have it anyway? If you are not going to have it——

Why not give it a chance?

Anyone who is suggesting a general election in all seriousness is misguided but if he is not in all seriousness he is guilty of grave irresponsibility. If any Deputy doubts what I am saying let him go out to any part of the country and ask the first 20 people he meets what do they think, and I guarantee to him that if he takes them at random the answer he will get in vernacular slang is this: this country needs a general election like it needs a hole in the head.

You will get that, too, from some of the boys.

If Deputies do not believe what I am saying they can try it. However, I know that if they found the opposite they would keep their mouths shut, because the last thing they want is a general election. Do the Labour Party not know that if there was a general election now they would be irrelevant, they would be wiped out?

Because you would start fighting the Civil War all over again.

Some people might be tempted to do it and they might be over there.

The Minister would be one of them.

I have never done any such thing and Deputy Desmond knows it. Has Deputy Desmond ever heard me make any such reference? I pride myself on the fact that I have never done it and I suggest to Deputy Desmond he might have the decency to withdraw it or prove it.

In fairness, the Minister has not.

I thank the Deputy.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Would Deputies allow the Minister to continue his speech?

Reference has been made to the Minister for Agriculture. I do not want to go into this in detail, but I want to say I was listening to Deputy Garret FitzGerald winding up for the Fine Gael Party in the debate on Saturday last and I paid particular attention to what he was saying in this regard. It seems to me, although he had not got concrete information on which to work, he was showing very accurate insight into what in fact was happening. He withdrew this subsequently—when I say "subsequently" I mean over the weekend—on what I think was a misinterpretation by him of something the Taoiseach said. As I understood him he said: "I have taken one view of that situation but am now forced to change it because the Taoiseach has said he has had to investigate these allegations. Why would he have to investigate them if in fact he believed in the innocence of the Minister?"

That is not what I said.

I am prepared to——

What I said was, why would he have to have the Minister investigated if the Minister, Deputy Gibbons, had all along been working for him as agent against Deputies Blaney and Haughey?

I want to draw the Deputy's attention—I have not checked the records so I am not sure if this is in it—to the manner in which the Taoiseach spoke about this on the conclusion of the debate. The Deputy will find that on two occasions the Taoiseach referred to it and said he had investigated all of the information he had got and was perfectly satisfied that the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Gibbons, was in no way implicated in this matter. He went on to say that subsequent to the commencement of the marathon debate further allegations had been made and that he had investigated them and was absolutely satisfied that there was no basis for these allegations. He repeated that in that same form——

No. May I quote: "I am satisfied." The word "absolutely" and the other adverb the Minister applied to this were not used by the Taoiseach. "I am satisfied"—that is as far as he went.

The Taoiseach is satisfied or he is not satisfied. The Deputy has misinterpreted what he said. Maybe he was doing it deliberately, but I am saying that Deputy FitzGerald seems to me to have had a very clear insight into what was happening and that maybe somebody got at him and said that this was bad political tactics.

I hope not.

That is quite incorrect. He said he was satisfied the Minister for Agriculture was not involved in the importation of arms. That is entirely different from the other issues involved.

The Taoiseach referred to this on more than one occasion.

This is the principal occasion.

I am telling the Deputy he did. I was listening to him. It is quite clear the Opposition tactics arising out of this are: first, to attack the credibility of the Taoiseach; secondly, that they thought they saw some weakness in relation to Deputy Gibbons so they attacked there, and ad nauseam speakers from the Fine Gael Party in that marathon debate, in an effort to attack the credibility of the Taoiseach, kept referring to the exchange which took place in this House at Question Time when Deputy Cosgrave asked if there would be any more resignations. One after the other the Fine Gael speakers tried to make out that this was evidence that the Taoiseach had not told the truth. Putting that point at its very best, I suggest it was a poor debating point, but if one examines the whole exchange what comes through is this, that the Taoiseach was saying to Deputy Cosgrave: “I do not know what you have in mind but if you will tell me what you have in mind then I shall answer your question.” But Deputy Cosgrave did not say what he had in mind.

If people would like to speculate about that exchange there is an interesting point they might examine: has it occurred to Deputies opposite that the situation at that time appears to have been this, that Deputy Cosgrave had received an anonymous document making certain allegations and that he did not know whether they were true or not, and that though the Taoiseach invited him to say what he had in mind, he refused to do it, instead of which some hours afterwards he went to the Taoiseach and showed him the document and the Taoiseach confirmed to him that there was some substance in some of the allegations?

Supposing for a moment that the Taoiseach had not known about this, what would Deputy Cosgrave have done then? I guarantee he would not have come back into the House and exploded the whole situation. What he was doing was taking a very prudent precaution against making a complete fool of himself in public by trying to verify if the information were true.

What would Deputy Cosgrave have done if the Taoiseach had known nothing about it? If Deputy Cosgrave was to explode this in public, why did he not do it? The Taoiseach invited him to do it and he did not. What did he achieve in the national interest by going to the Taoiseach, having the announcement made and then coming in and saying: "I saved the country?" What did he do in the national interest?

What did the Irish Press say he achieved?

I am not concerned with the Irish Press.

Deputy Cosgrave was a responsible man.

In which way?

To the country.

What did he do in the national interest?

The people know very well.

They know that Deputy Cosgrave took the prudent precaution of checking to see if the allegations were correct. Consider what would have happened if he had made the allegations and they were not true.

There is nothing unusual about that.

Deputy Cosgrave said he could not divulge the names.

I know what was on it.

It was anonymous.

Then he misled the Taoiseach. I can hear Deputy Harte. I know he would like this to be a hypothetical situation, and the Opposition have tried to present it in a certain light. I will tell Deputy Harte and anybody else that we will show to the public what really happened.

And the more you think, the more you realise what should have happened.

I must ask Deputies to allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

I will turn from that aspect, which was preliminary to what I wanted to say—not quite marginal, but preliminary. I want to turn to what in some people's eyes might be the kernel of this debate. The suggestions which are being made in the debate and the suggestions which are being made outside and which have been made for a long time past, not directly connected with the incidents with which we are concerned, seem to me to be such that they require examination, particularly by people who claim to be republican.

I believe republicanism came to the Irish people largely through Wolfe Tone, and it went through from generation to generation and flowered in 1916. What stands out in that republicanism is that it was concerned to unite all sections of our people. Tone lived among people of differing religions who were on many occasions demonstrating bigotry and intolerance. The men of Easter Week saw around them many instances of sectarianism, bigotry and intolerance, but, despite that, they put forward as one of their basic tenets a different principle. Tone said that his hope was to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter in the common name of Irishmen. The same idea was put in somewhat different words by Pearse in reading the Proclamation outside the GPO when he spoke about cherishing all the children of the nation equally.

They were noble principles of noble men who died for their beliefs, and it is against that yardstick that we must measure all policies and all actions claiming to be inspired by republicanism. Do such policies and such actions tend to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter in the common name of Irishmen? If they do not, then they are not republicanism, whatever else they are.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Many claim the cloak of republicanism today, but the test is very simple. In my view, it is intolerable that men should try to cover with the cloak of republicanism their base aims, which in many cases amount to little more than sectarianism and the imposition of an arid and unpleasant workers' socialist republic. I, for one, would not belong to a party who did not have republicanism at their core, and precisely because Fianna Fáil had republicanism at their core I joined it, and precisely because Fianna Fáil still have republicanism at their core I intend to remain in Fianna Fáil.

The traditional policy of Fianna Fáil has been based on the republicanism handed down from generation to generation since Wolfe Tone. That policy has been spelled out by every leader of Fianna Fáil, and never more clearly or more fully than by the present Taoiseach at the last Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis.

That policy, let no one misunderstand it, is based on the republican principles on which Fianna Fáil were founded, enunciated by Éamon de Valera, Seán Lemass and Jack Lynch, and that policy has the overwhelming support of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fianna Fáil organisation. This is, in my view, the first test of republicanism, but there are other aspects of it, too.

Tone was concerned with the men of no property, the small men, and implied in all he did and all he said and all he wrote was the necessity for a social conscience, for a concern for the small man; and as that policy was developed over the generations and spelled out for us in 1916, it became clear that republicanism also included a real concern with our own language and our own culture.

These are further tests which may be applied. I would remind some of the people who are today claiming to be republican that when Tone talked about the men of no property he was not trying to take away the property from those who had it, he was trying to give property to the men of no property. This has always been the concern of Fianna Fáil and this is another test of its republicanism. It can be argued that the further aim of Tone and of all who succeeded him was, to use Tone's own words, "To break the connection with England". The policies which claim to be republican must also be measured against this yardstick. I am not aware that any of the bodies using the name republicanism today even claim that their policies would break the connection with England.

Fianna Fáil recognises that there are two basic problems if we are to reunite this country. The first problem concerns the reunification of the Irish people, and I do not have to dwell on that because it has been spelled out time after time that that can only be solved by peaceful methods—by definition it cannot be solved by violence—and the second problem, which is a separate problem and must be recognised as such, consists, to use Tone's words, of breaking the connection with England.

We have not and we will not accept the right of Westminster to legislate for any part of this country but this kind of situation has existed and still exists in many parts of the world and in order to make life liveable at all it is necessary to bow to a superior force and live with the situation. The fact that one has to live with the situation does not mean that one concedes the right of that situation. Our Constitution makes it clear that we do not accept the right of Westminster to legislate for any corner of this country but the situation which exists in this country in relation to partition is one which was created by Britain and is one which will never be remedied, even assuming the best will in the world both north and south, without a political decision in Westminster. I want to stress that the relationship between the various segments of the people living in this country on the one hand and the situation of Ireland vis-à-vis Britain on the other hand are two distinct and different problems.

We have ruled out the use of force as a solution to the problem of our country. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying we have ruled out physical force but there are other kinds of force, at least that word could be used for it, there are different forms of persuasion and pressure. It is legitimate for us to exercise any form of persuasion or pressure on the British Government in order to get them to face up to their responsibilities. It is not enough for the British Government to say that they are introducing reforms. These reforms are welcome, I do not want to be misunderstood about that, but that is not going to solve the problem which exists. It is time it was recognised that the expedience of partition, for whatever reason it was adopted has not worked. There are some who say that the expedience of partition was adopted on the principle of divide and rule; there are others, more charitable, who would say that it was adopted simply as an ad hoc measure to meet the problem that then existed. For whatever reason it was adopted, it has not worked and the sooner this is accepted and recognised and the sooner there is a chance of finding a solution that will work, the better.

It has been suggested that the events of the last week or so have been damaging to our interests in the North of Ireland. I understand this argument but I do not think it is true because the thing that emerges most clearly from all of this is that the commitment of the Taoiseach, the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party to a policy of the non-use of force is so strong that it has risked an enormous amount; it has placed the national importance of that policy before party considerations and it was prepared, if necessary, to dissolve itself rather than give way on that principle.

This is the message which is coming through loud and clear and as far as our Protestant fellow-countrymen in the north are concerned when they reflect on the situation—their initial reaction of course must be one of distress and concern—this is going to be a great reassurance to them. I appeal to the people in the north of our country, and particularly to the moderate and younger Unionists, to consider the situation and remember that the ideological basis on which partition was established was the simple but terrifying myth that Catholics and Protestants could not live and prosper together in one island. This has been demonstrated to be wrong not only in other countries but in the North of Ireland itself. Apart from the fact that republicanism was founded in the north, apart from the fact that Catholic and Dissenter fought side by side in 1798, subsequent to that, when all the rigours and consequences of '98 had set in, there was still the most marked co-operation and tolerance in Belfast between Catholic and Dissenter at a time when this kind of tolerance was not all that common in Europe.

Indeed, the fact that the first Roman Catholic church in Belfast was largely built on the subscriptions of Protestants is a significant historical fact that should not be forgotten. As far as these people about whom I am talking are concerned they must look at the situation as they find it now and as it is likely to be in the future and when they do they will see for themselves that the Six Counties are not viable economically, politically, culturally or socially. It just has not worked out.

If I were a young man about to get married, or with a young family, I would have the gravest concern for the future and for my family. I would not want my children to grow up in a community which has been so poisoned with hatred and sectarianism. I would feel it was my duty to do anything I could to change that picture and it can be changed. The log dam has moved and it only requires people of goodwill and guts—and that is very important— to stand up and be counted. If they do I am certain they will find a very good ready response from many of those whom they have regarded as their enemies. They will certainly find a very ready response from the Government in Dublin.

The Taoiseach has made it clear that we have no doctrinaire approach or solution to this whole problem. Our aims are clear. We have never made any secret of what our aims are. We are prepared to discuss and consider almost any approach to this problem. We are not making pre-conditions. What we are saying is that the present situation is intolerable for the people living in the Six Countries. It is in their interests that it should be changed but they must know by now that no permanent or worthwhile change can ever take place unless it is one agreed to and supported by this Government, by whatever Government it may be in Dublin. It is in the interests of all of us and it is in the interests of the British that this should be achieved. I believe that most people in the north, most Unionists, who have given any thought to this matter know now— whether they are prepared to admit it or not—that in 1970 or 1969 they cut a very sorry figure in the eyes of the British, and that provided the British Government, any British Government, whichever might be in office, could find an honourable way out of the morass they would take it.

That being so, I would urge that they will think about it and realise that they have roots in this country, that any roots they thought they had in Britain are being cut. This is their homeland; they are our people and as I said, we are prepared to consider virtually any approach to a solution of this problem. The responsibilities in this matter lie very heavily on those who think in terms of trying to improve the situation rather than trying to cash in on the situation. Those who think in terms of trying to improve the situation are, I am quite certain, the vast majority of the people north and south and the vast majority in Britain. Given this vast majority why can we not do something about it? I suggest to you that the reason we cannot is that small groups of very vociferous people stand in the way and that what is required is the moral courage to stand up to these people, wherever they exist. If those who have this desire to achieve, or to go a step on the road to achieving a solution, will have that moral courage we will be a step on that road in a matter of months, but it does require moral courage and a recognition that failure to show that moral courage now may well result in a fierce and terrible catastrophe for the people of this country.

I have spoken in this debate partly to mention some of the points that are troubling all of us in relation to the situation in the north but also to re-affirm the traditional republican Fianna Fáil policy. This is the one for which I joined Fianna Fáil; it is the one that keeps me in Fianna Fáil; it is the one enunciated by every Fianna Fáil leader and it is the one to which all of us subscribe. It is the one that this Government are going to enforce. It involves, as I have indicated, a great deal more than merely our approach to the political problem in the North of Ireland—it involves our whole social concept, the whole way we approach the poorer and weaker sections of our community. I want to tell this House and the country that this Government which, as the Taoiseach said, are rejuvenated, are going to be seen to be the most dynamic Government this country has ever had.

(Interruptions.)

——the brilliant and dynamic men who went last week.

He did not say any such thing. You wait and see——

(Interruptions.)

We have great reserves in this party. I can tell the House that my personal conviction is that this Government are going to be seen to be the best Government this country has ever had. I have no doubt about that.

You told us that last June.

A Deputy

And was it not true?

They are gone now.

It is of course necessary for us to demonstrate that; it is not sufficient for me to say it. I believe it is going to be demonstrated and very quickly.

In a general election.

I want to remind Deputies opposite——

(Interruptions.)

They are kept in by the five.

Deputies opposite may have a sneaking hope that maybe they are going to put us out—I do not believe that many of them really believe that—but for any who might— just listen to this——

(Interruptions.)

Let me ask you to cast your minds back to the time when Eamon de Valera retired from active politics. Think of it. Remember what was said. Remember what you believed: Fianna Fáil has had it.

Not at all.

Indeed you all thought it had had it. Indeed you did and you found you were wrong. Let me remind you that when Seán Lemass retired you thought Fianna Fáil had had it.

Eamon de Valera would have got rid of Deputies Blaney and Boland long ago.

Let me remind you that, when we lost the referendum, you thought Fianna Fáil had had it. Well it had not and it has not had it this time.

While not entirely endorsing the concluding remarks of the Minister, as you can imagine, there was much in his speech which was worth listening to—all in fact except the beginning and the end. I thought that some of his opening remarks were unworthy of him. I do not think speakers on the other side of the House should at this moment of time introduce into the debate the word "sordid" and try to apply it to the Opposition. They should be sensitive enough to avoid this and leave it out of their vocabulary for a few weeks to come in any event.

I do not think his references to the actions of the leader of this party in this affair were in any way worthy of the Minister, a man for whom we have normally a very great respect. If, in fact, Deputy Cosgrave had adopted the tactic which the Minister suggested as an alternative, had come into this House, attacked the Taoiseach and thrown down the gauntlet on that occasion, can we imagine the strictures that Deputy Colley, the Minister for Finance, would have cast upon a man so lacking in patriotism that, in a matter affecting the security of this country, he would come in and try to trap the Taoiseach in this way regardless of the consequences for the country? We could easily imagine what Deputy Colley, Minister for Finance, would have said and, indeed, if such a thing had happened—it would be unthinkable that a leader of this party would do such a thing—but if that had happened we would have had to agree with Deputy Colley.

The fact is Deputy Cosgrave acted in a responsible manner and it ill becomes a Minister of a Government which benefited from that act, which had the opportunity of dealing with it before throwing it across the floor of this House, to criticise in any way Deputy Cosgrave's action.

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy, but would he explain to me what was achieved in the national interest by Deputy Cosgrave failing to take the action that I described?

In matters affecting the security of the State it would be totally improper for the leader of the Opposition to publicise matters of that kind without having first spoken to the leader of the Government, who might put before him various considerations he might wish to take into account as regards how he would handle the matter. We do not know, we still do not know, enough about this affair to know what its implications are, but it could well have been the case that, when Deputy Cosgrave went to see the Taoiseach, the Taoiseach might have said to him: "I am acting in this way for these reasons: if you explode the matter at this moment we may fail to catch people whom otherwise we would catch and I ask you therefore to hold your hand for the time being. I will tell you what I am doing and why."

In those circumstances Deputy Cosgrave would, of course, have held his hand. For him to have done otherwise than to give the Taoiseach an opportunity to say if there was any such consideration that properly could prevent this matter being brought to light at that time would have been totally improper and the Minister for Finance knows that as well as I do.

In other parts of his speech there was much one could agree with, much that was interesting and valuable. It is, indeed, a measure of the situation that faces us, and has faced us since last summer, that in a number of debates in this House we have had from both sides of the House contributions of a very high standard, a very high order, when people have been brought by the gravity of the situation really to speak their minds, to set on one side at least for part of their speeches in any event, considerations of party politics and to give us something of their own philosophy. We have heard today within a few short hours from the benches opposite two statements of philosophy, somewhat divergent, as I could point out, in character, but both worthy of consideration in themselves, both coming from people for whom we have respect on this side of the House. I refer to the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Finance.

In listening to the Minister for Finance and his statement of the republicanism which attracted him to Fianna Fáil I was reflecting on what he was saying. I made a note of the points he made. I found them of great interest because his definition of republicanism is really widely divergent from that of his recent colleague, Deputy Blaney. His definition of republicanism comes down to two things. He stated it, first of all, in terms of the doctrine of Tone and this he summarised under two headings: Tone and Fianna Fáil republicanism, as they express it, stand for the small man, first of all; secondly, that all Irishmen be treated equally. These are the two doctrines of republicanism to which he attaches importance.

Is there anyone in this House who does not endorse these doctrines? What is there so specific to the party opposite that nationally proclaims it the repository of republicanism, which belongs only to Fianna Fáil, so that a man entering politics who believes these things has no alternative but to join that party? Is there any party in this House or any person in this House who does not adhere to these views? None. But the interesting thing is that at that point Deputy Colley, Minister for Finance, went further: he said that something, and I can give the exact words, was added subsequently to the doctrines of Tone and he spoke of the belief in our own language and our culture as something additional to the doctrines of Tone.

Here, of course, is the difficulty for the Fianna Fáil Party because they are ambivalent on this. There is a deep ambivalence. It demonstrated itself not only in the two speeches of the Ministers, on the one hand, and Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland on the other, where the contrast is not over this vital issue, which divides us, or a few of us, from the rest of us now, but it showed itself in quite a fascinating way as between the speeches of the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Finance.

Clearly, the Minister for Finance did not hear the Minister for External Affairs. He had not the privilege the rest of us had. There is between them a divergence of view, which is fundamental, and it is on this very issue, because the Minister for Finance not only cherishes our culture and our language, as indeed we all do—in that neither he nor Fianna Fáil are unique —but he cherishes them in a particular way and elevates them to a particular role which is, in fact, divisive, though he would not accept that it is divisive. He rejects from his particular form of republicanism—this is why he uses the word republicanism and the Minister for External Affairs does not lay the same stress on it—certain things and he adds to his form of republicanism the doctrines of Tone, which are all-embracing, which treat everybody equally, Protestant and Catholic and Dissenter alike, whatever language they speak or religion they practise, whatever part of the country they live in, all are treated equally.

The Minister for Finance differs because he added something. He is a revisionist in terms of modern Marxism. He added an extra dimension to Tone's doctrines; you must be dedicated to a particular culture and a particular language. This is, in fact, the traditional doctrine of Fianna Fáil and it is the expression of that doctrine throughout 50 years which has, more than anything else, helped to continue the division of this country because there will never be peace and unity in this country until the viewpoint put forward by the Minister for External Affairs, so ably and so nobly, in his concluding remarks is accepted, as it is by this party, as it is by the Labour Party, by the Fianna Fáil Party as their policy.

There is in the Fianna Fáil Party today not merely a division between the Blaneyites and the Bolandites and the rest; there is a more fundamental division between people who adhere to these old doctrines of Fianna Fáil, this peculiarly narrow form of neo-Tonite republicanism, in which you have to dedicate yourself to one language and one tradition and elevate these over the others, and everybody else is a second-class citizen, a doctrine which is, of course, totally rejected not alone by the million or so of the majority in Northern Ireland but, indeed, by many other hundreds of thousands of people in the north and in this part of the country also. So long as that view is put forward, so long as that particular brand of republicanism is put forward by the benches opposite, even by men of the quality and calibre and thoughtfulness and sincerity of the Minister for Finance, so long will this country remain divided.

I was deeply impressed today to hear from the Minister for External Affairs a statement of a broader view, a viewpoint which has been expressed here from these benches for a long time past, a view point which found its greatest expression through our party in the Presidential campaign of 1966 in which Deputy Tom O'Higgins campaigned on the idea of a pluralist society, a society in which all traditions would be given an equal share, an equal part, would be treated equally—in fact the true, full doctrine of Tone as enunciated almost two centuries ago which has become lost in the mists and quagmires of the latter day doctrine of Fianna Fáil.

The fact that the Minister for External Affairs propounded those views from those benches gives us hope. I have always known that in Fianna Fáil there exist people of broad view who are pluralist in outlook, who do not accept this narrow doctrine enunciated in the early days of the party and carried forward to today. I had the experience once, as I said in the House before, before entering politics of addressing a Fianna Fáil gathering on the subject of the language and Northern Ireland. The last remark I addressed to that gathering, looking across to Jim Ryan who was sitting in front of me there, before I left, was that I was not disappointed with the reaction. One-third of those present had in one way or another shown that they shared the pluralist vision that I had and did not accept the narrow, old-fashioned so-called republican outlook of Fianna Fáil. I remarked as I left, and my last sentence to them was: "I am not too disappointed; I had not expected to convert Fianna Fáil to true anti-partitionism in less than 20 years." I joined Fine Gael shortly afterwards.

There are, therefore, on the other benches different views, ably expressed by men of sincerity. It is not surprising that this should be so but is it not interesting that the place where these divergencies find expression is not within the divided ranks of the so-called coalition parties but in the ranks of Fianna Fáil? In these parties we have a clear view. There are, as I said the other day, no dissenting voices in these parties on this issue of introducing more violence in the situation in the north. On these benches there are not, I think, dissenting voices on this issue of the vision of a pluralist society as outlined by Tone. We are agreed on these essential principles. There are, as has been said from the opposite benches, many things on which we disagree but they are not the fundamentals; on these we agree. On the opposite benches one can see not two, but three schools of thought. There is the small group of bitter men at last fortunately expelled from that Government. Even if it now lacks in experience and perhaps in ability and brilliance according to the Taoiseach something of what it had previously, and has been, in the words of the Tánaiste "purged", it will no doubt benefit from that. We see this small group of men with their violent views, a particularly vicious form of republicanism, although to use that word about their activities is to demean it.

There are then in the rest of the Fianna Fáil benches among the men of goodwill who want a peaceful solution these two views which divide them deeply, these two policies in regard to partition one of which says: "We stand firmly in our Gaelic republic and these people must be made to join us somehow—peacefully, of course; let us do it by constraining the British to push them out or let us just hope that it will happen some day that they will all wake up Irish speakers in the morning." That viewpoint was ably expressed by the Minister for Finance.

The other viewpoint is that we must be prepared to create a real society of Tone, a society in which there will be genuinely equal treatment for everybody, where no group and no tradition, no language and no religion will feel in any respect diminished or at a disadvantage or in any respect second-class citizens, where no man will be denied the right to serve in the public service of his country because he lacks facility in one of its official languages, where everyone will be treated equally, the vision expressed in our Presidential campaign four years ago and expressed from the opposite benches today by the Minister for External Affairs.

But which is the real coalition? Is it to be found over here where we agree on all these essentials or over there where you have this deep division between one group of men who are out to destroy this country and amongst the rest a very deep division in their philosophy and vision as republicans? The real uneasy coalition is on the far side of the House. Perhaps it is obscured from many of themselves by the extraordinary character of the Fianna Fáil Party which has been written about by political scientists as being closely akin, in its organisation and structure and in its devotion to the idea of the party, to the communist party, not, for a moment, I emphasise in its doctrines which are indeed conservative but in the extraordinary dedication to the party which takes precedence over the State.

This devotion to the unity of the party which came out so strikingly even in the most critical moments of this difficult occasion, expressed by the Tánaiste among others on radio at 11 p.m. after the conclusion of the marathon debate and also by the Minister for Transport and Power. This pride in the unity of the party which will overcome any crisis as the most important thing, I think obscures their vision. I think many people opposite are genuinely unaware of the fact that they are in a party which is deeply divided on the most essential question of all, the basic philosophy of life, what kind of society we would like to see here and how we should tackle the unification of our country. They are the divided ones, not we. When they talk about coalition, if they would think of the reality rather than the form they would realise where the real coalition lies.

Mr. de Valera expressed pluralist views in regard to the north as far back as 1936.

I am not denying that this view has found some expression in the Fianna Fáil Party but no one except Mr. de Valera, with due respect to him, has throughout this entire period done more to elevate this concept of a Gaelic, republican State as something that must be accepted or rejected and cannot be a matter of compromise. I am afraid that his vision is different from mine and I could never share his. Whatever lip service may have been paid to the idea of a pluralist society it has been within the context of this Gaelic idea expressed in terms which are not acceptable to many of our people in the north.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but Mr. de Valera made perfectly clear compromises on the question of the language by saying that the Northern Ireland Government with all its Ministries that were not related to all-Ireland affairs could be left indefinitely so long as they wished provided there was no longer any discrimination. That, of course, would include education and health and agriculture. He said that in 1936 and he knew there would have to be compromises once he admitted the possibility of that federal form of government with an all-Ireland parliament to manage defence, to manage tariffs and common affairs. The Deputy is really exaggerating.

(Cavan): The Tánaiste made a very short speech of about 15 minutes. He apparently wants to make another now.

I find Dr. FitzGerald very interesting. I am arguing and I really should not argue across the House.

I welcome the intervention which is very interesting but let us analyse what is said. It told us that in a unique gesture of tolerance Mr. de Valera was willing to agree that the people of Northern Ireland could keep a local parliament in which they could have their own way of running things. To get a job in Stormont it would not be necessary to speak Irish—a great concession—but what about the federal civil service? What about the federal government, the federal parliament? Were they also to be changed and transmitted into a pluralist system?

These details have not been worked out.

After 34 years no details have been worked out. It is about time we sat down to work them out. That is not a concession—that they could keep their own provincial parliament but that they be second-class citizens in the federal government of this State is something we will not accept and they will not accept. That is the issue that must be faced and it is on that issue that there is a divergence of view in this House which found its expression and has found it in the last three hours in this House in the speeches of two able Ministers both expressing with great sincerity their own viewpoints.

May I say with regret that their speeches compared very favourably with that of the Taoiseach? I do not mean that I regret their speeches were better but I regret that his speech was such a poor introduction to the debate. Some people think this was calculated on his part but could he really have believed that by producing a pathetic piece of potted history, the pot having been smashed and the plant visibly wilting, he was going to attract this House into a ridiculous debate about the merits of the Coalition Government in 1951 or what Mr. de Valera said in 1922 or something like that? I cannot believe the Taoiseach seriously thought that kind of introduction would prove to be successful as a red herring that would divert us from the trail, that we would fail to do our duty in this debate by probing further this affair which has yet to be explained in many of its aspects. It was a poor speech on his part and a poor introduction to the debate. I shall say no more about it because the Taoiseach has certainly gone through a very difficult time. He must be tired and if he showed his tiredness there we should not, perhaps, press the matter any further.

But we must probe this whole matter further not just because it is a political matter or because it is our job to damage the Government in some way because, indeed, in all we have to do here and all we have been doing we have had to think seriously about the implications of our action for the country. We have had to act responsibly. I say that there are many things we could have said in this debate which we have not said—certainly there are many things I could have said and have not said, although they would have damaged Fianna Fáil, because I feel they would have damaged the country too. I have tried to confine myself to saying things which need to be said and which can be said without damage to the security of this country, or damage to the position of our compatriots, Protestant and Catholic, in Northern Ireland.

In tackling this whole business we have to probe further. This is evidently the wish of the people. Every person we meet asks us: "Can you get at the truth? Is it going to be dropped now? Are you going to find out what it was all about? What really is the position? Are you going to press for more information? Are you going to be left in ignorance?" The heading to the leading article in the Irish Times last Saturday was: “Come Clean”. In the text of its leading article on Monday it said:

Mr. Lynch, in fact, told the nation practically nothing in his speech in the Dáil on Saturday night. It will be to the eternal shame of the Opposition, of the newspapers, and of public opinion in general if every detail of this whole affair is not smoked out, whether it be by Tribunal or by Select Committee. And if we spend over £100,000 on an inquiry into a television programme and allow the Fianna Fáil Government to slide out of this sub-Eric Ambler thriller, we deserve the sort of Government we may next get.

Indeed, similar views were expressed by other papers. The Irish Independent on the same day remarked:

In any event, history will surely ask for more than Mr. Lynch's personal statement when the full facts of the country's greatest crisis since 1922 are being sought.

I do not think we should wait for history to be written because we are faced with a Government with a personnel and with people in respect of whom questions still have to be asked. The Government will run this country for some short time to come and it is our job to make sure that that Government do not contain people against whom any shadow of suspicion can be cast, to use the Taoiseach's own words.

The Taoiseach has stated in explanation on not having the matter pressed further at this point that there may be security reasons for not giving more information, or that there may be legal reasons because legal proceedings may ensue. There is, of course, some truth in this but most of the questions I have to ask are ones in respect of which neither of these reasons exists as reasons for not giving answers. There are gaps to be filled that can be filled without prejudice either to security or to any legal proceedings that may have to be taken.

Looking at the Taoiseach's speeches on this matter, and he has made three now, each one telling us a little more than the last, there is one thing they have in common. None of them goes back further than the 17th April. One starts at 20th April, one does not start very clearly on any date, but it certainly speaks of nothing before that date. The last one starts on the 17th April. All we have secured so far in this debate is to push him back three days. I wish to push him back at least six months.

Hear, hear.

Slightly longer.

"At least" I said. The Taoiseach has been on notice from many sources for a long time past that three Ministers in his Government have been actively engaging in activities prejudicial to the State.

Hear, hear.

This information has come to him in various ways. It has come to him from Opposition speeches in this House on several occasions. Deputy L'Estrange has contributed on this matter and should have been listened to long ago. Deputy L'Estrange has a very acute eye for matters of this kind. It was Deputy L'Estrange may I say, who drew to my attention—and I paid no attention to him; I ignored him —that significant phrase of Deputy Blaney's on the day when he had, as we now know, been summoned before the Taoiseach and told he would have to resign: the earthquake phrase. Deputy L'Estrange showed it to me upstairs in one of the rooms and I said: "Gerry, you are just imagining things." I was wrong. I will listen to him more carefully in future. It is right to give credit where credit is due and I am quite prepared to admit that I completely missed its significance.

We also have the United Irishman, not the most reliable source of information be it said on many matters, but, nevertheless, if I were the head of a government and it was brought to my attention—and I presume matters of this kind are drawn to the attention of the Taoiseach; that he is not so far above them that he must never be told about them—that a newspaper of any kind was making the assertion:

Messrs. Blaney, Haughey and Boland are seeking to buy their way into control of Civil Rights policy in the North.....

Spearhead of the Blaney-Haughey-Boland conspiracy to subvert the Civil Rights movement is the Aidan Corrigan group in Dungannon and Seamus Brady, a journalist up to recently attached to the Dublin Government's propaganda corps.

The finance for the take-over job involves large injections of Fianna Fáil money channelled from Messrs. Blaney, Haughey and Boland through Brady, former P.R.O. of TACA, who has been given a huge sum of money per week by his masters to induce Civil Rights people and others to follow the Fianna Fáil Government's line and go along with it.......

If I as Taoiseach read or heard of things of this kind being said I would inquire into them. I would not let that matter pass without making some inquiries if I did not know about it already. Indeed, on that point the article went on—and this was the November issue of the United Irishman:

It is hard to believe that Mr. Jack Lynch is unaware of this cynical double-dealing by his Ministers.

These Fianna Fáil politicians are doing their best to disrupt Civil Rights and anti-Unionist forces in the North whose successes have been politically highly embarrassing to them.

Other questions arise. Is this plan an official Government or an official Fianna Fáil plan? How much of this work has been financed directly by Government money? How many people do Fianna Fáil want to elect on the Executive of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association at next January's annual meeting.

There are many other interesting bits too, including the photographs of the Ministers. Boland: "He knows." Haughey: "He knows." Blaney: "He knows". Lynch: "Can he not know?"

Does the Deputy take the United Irishman seriously?

I did not take it seriously but it is a pity that the Taoiseach did not. I must say I am not a regular subscriber to it and I was unaware of some of these allegations at the time, although they did come to my attention in the intervening months.

After all the Northern Ireland Government regard it as illegal.

(Cavan): Deputy Oliver Flanagan ascertained some months ago that various Government Departments spend very considerable amounts of money in purchasing these papers. Presumably somebody reads them.

There are interesting things in these papers, quite apart from the visual aids in the form of the cartoon which shows a rather ancient looking plane called "Voice of the North" with black smoke coming out of it headed "Fianna Fáil Civil Rights Takeover Bid", a helicopter diving into it, "Rescue Service Blaney, Haughey and Boland" and a fine clean aircraft whizzing through entitled "United Irishman" of course, and two parachutes, one for "Seamus Brady F.F. Taca and All That" and another for "Hugh Kennedy" described as "Hugh Kennedy, the Fianna Fáil plant in the Belfast Citizens Defence Committee." It is stated:

Hugh Kennedy forgot that not everybody in the North was party to the Fianna Fáil plot to infiltrate the Civil Rights movement. On Saturday, November 1, he visited Mr. Dennis Cassin, a Republican Club member and a prominent Civil Rights activist at his house at 3 Druid Villas, Armagh.

In answer to questions from Mr. Cassin, Mr. Kennedy admitted that Fianna Fáil money was backing the "Voice of the North" and agreed that Mr. Seamus Brady had been the drive behind the "Voice". When pressed further as to whether the paper was financially viable or not he admitted that the paper was "still being tanked up" by Fianna Fáil. Mr. Kennedy has failed to deny this conversation to date.

I could go on much longer but I will not. Quite apart from that and assuming that the Taoiseach does not read it and that nobody ever reported to him of it, we now have a very interesting story in This Week. Of course, I do not know how much of the story was furnished by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries as he now is, whether he confined his intervention to furnishing the bits about himself and how he had tipped the Taoiseach off, or whether we can rely for other information in this upon his authority. We do not know just how much of it came from him.

Deputy Colley may be a confidant of that newspaper.

Anything is possible with Fianna Fáil at present. The article in This Week reads:

It now seems that the Taoiseach was told some time in August/September last year that Mr. Blaney was in close contact with the Northern Command of the IRA. As a Donegal man, who had known these convinced Republicans since childhood and who numbered many of them among his close friends, it was not unnatural that he should be in touch with them at such a critical juncture....

Behind the scenes, significant moves were developing, however. The next Intelligence report that reached Mr. Lynch was more alarming. It indicated that men who were known to be members of the IRA Army Council in Dublin had been in consultation with both Neil Blaney and Charles Haughey in the city— not once, but several times and that they had met the two Ministers separately and together.

Jack Lynch's reaction was prompt and decisive.

One would know the origins of this paper and the sympathies of the editor. It went on:

He called both Ministers to his office, put the facts as he knew them to the pair, and asked for an explanation.

They laughed the allegations off, refusing to take them seriously. But Lynch's attitude was anything but light: he remained quite concerned and, apparently, warned Blaney and Haughey that if they had any form of dialogue with the IRA Army Council they should break off such contacts immediately and permanently.

May we have the name of the editor on the records of the House?

Joseph O'Malley.

It is a good name.

A propitious title.

This paper goes on to tell us: "The next development coming up to the end of last year"— and this happened in 1969 when all this information was given to the Taoiseach; I have not reached 1970 yet—"must have been a bombshell to the Taoiseach. He was consulted privately by James Gibbons, the quiet, unflappable, Kilkenny-born Minister for Defence". The Deputies know where that quotation came from. It reminds me of a conference I was at last year where handouts were given by various speakers and they were sent in drafts to the typing pool to have them typed. The one which caused the greatest entertainment was from a man who sent in one saying: "Young, handsome, charming Mr. So-and-So said". One can imagine the comments of the stenographers.

We must come back now to the "quiet, unflappable, Kilkenny-born Minister for Defence" who had some 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"—and he passed this information on to the Taoiseach. We are in a bit of difficulty because there is a conflict of evidence between Deputy Gibbons's hasty statement issued this week to get himself off the hook and the Taoiseach's statement. The Taoiseach has unfortunately told us he got no such report. I think one can reconcile these inconsistencies.

My experience is that, if one looks long enough and hard enough at the statement of any Member on the other side of the House and compares the statement carefully, word for word, with the skill of a detective and the knowledge of a lawyer—we have lawyers, and we are doing our best as amateur detectives—if one tackles it like that one can eventually reconcile these little contradictions. All politicians have a distinct disinclination to lie, even those on the other side of the House. Therefore, they evade. If one looks at the statements very carefully when they evade, and if one can look at the text very carefully, one can find the nature of the evasion.

I was looking at what the Taoiseach said on this subject. It appears to be difficult to reconcile his statement with Deputy Gibbons's statement. At column 1339 he said:

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.

It is not easy to reconcile these two statements. I do not believe people on the opposite side lie. They try to make statements which are true if you read them every carefully. There are difficulties in reconciling this statement. One suggestion put to me for reconciliation is that Deputy Gibbons did not perhaps inform the Taoiseach at one of these meetings to which the Taoiseach refers. I am sure the Taoiseach is not saying anything which is untrue, even if we just pass over what was happening in the House last week.

Deputy Gibbons would scarcely have said this week that he had let the Taoiseach know about this unless there was some truth in it. That certainly would have damned him with the Taoiseach if he had not only attempted to exonerate himself but had done so by lying and saying he had tipped off the Taoiseach. What may have happened is that Deputy Gibbons may have communicated with the Taoiseach through an intermediary on this particular point, and may have covered himself by letting the Taoiseach know, through an intermediary, about the activities of these Ministers but not actually have spoken to the Taoiseach direct. The two statements can be reconciled on that presumption. There may be some other reconciliation. I am not prepared to accept that either person is not telling the truth. There must be come reconciliation. This is a possible reconciliation. People with more fertile imaginations than mine could perhaps find another solution to the problem.

The Taoiseach must come clean on this whole point. We have been told by the Taoiseach at Question Time that he was going to give more information tonight. This is our third debate.

(Cavan): It looks like a sign of things to come when he is getting envelopes ready.

I wonder why the Taoiseach did not tell us earlier what apparently he is going to tell us tonight. He assured us at Question Time that various questions being put would be answered tonight. It is not very satisfactory that the Taoiseach should retain some key pieces of information until his closing speech in the third debate about which he cannot be questioned, hoping there will not be a fourth debate—and he may be optimistic on that. If the Taoiseach received only one indirect warning, or none, from Deputy Gibbons as Minister for Defence, then quite evidently in view of the statements made and the information available to us suspicion must attach to the new Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

Despite the attempt by the Minister for Finance to obscure the issue, Captain Kelly has made it clear that everything he did was known to the Minister for Defence and he has stated that he was only slightly involved in the gunrunning plot but that he was involved to some degree. If everything he did was known to the Minister for Defence and if, in fact, the Taoiseach says that at no stage did the Minister for Defence report to him then, unless one makes the charitable assumption that the Minister for Defence did report to him indirectly, Deputy Gibbons is on the spot. The only claim the former Minister for Defence made on his own behalf in this article was that he tipped off the Taoiseach last year on this subject, warned him there was some queer business going on and that Deputies Haughey and Blaney were still involved with the IRA.

Even Deputy Gibbons does not claim he tipped off the Taoiseach about the arms plot. There was no such claim. The Taoiseach says Deputy Gibbons never reported at any stage on any Minister. It is difficult to reconcile all these statements and to take them, so far as one can, at their face value in trying to ensure we are not interpreting them wrongly. Captain Kelly's truthfulness has not been impugned by the Taoiseach. Deputy Colley went some distance to try to say Captain Kelly was truthful and that his statements and those of the former Minister for Defence could be reconciled. Clearly, Deputy Colley believes in the truthfulness of Captain Kelly, as do most people who have seen him on television on this subject. If Captain Kelly is telling the truth, then Deputy Gibbons would know of everything he was doing. He was involved slightly in the arms plot. Therefore, Deputy Gibbons knew about that.

The Taoiseach told us Deputy Gibbons never reported to him on any other Minister and Deputy Gibbons has not attempted to suggest he reported to the Taoiseach on the arms plot. That is more than just a shadow of suspicion. That is something which has to be explained. The onus of proof has clearly been shifted by these disclosures and by the statements made by the people concerned, on to the shoulders of Deputy Gibbons and, through him, on to the shoulders of the Taoiseach. This House will not accept that in these circumstances, when more than a shadow of suspicion rests on the shoulders of Deputy Gibbons—perhaps unfairly—and when the onus of proof now rests on him to explain away these peculiar circumstances, he should remain a Minister, remain in one of the most senior posts in the Government, without further full and adequate explanation.

There is another aspect of Deputy Gibbons's involvement which requires explanation. It is now well established that Deputy Blaney had for some time past been interfering in Army affairs. He had been providing the Army gratuitously—and they did not like it —with evidence coming from his own so-called intelligence service in Northern Ireland, urging on them the acceptance of these intelligence reports and saying that they should act on them. This direct intervention in the affairs of the Army by a Minister of another Department is unprecedented. It is something which was either known to the Minister for Defence or was not know to him. If it was not known to him the state of this country is far worse than we had suspected. I do not believe it was not known to him. I am not prepared to believe that such well-established activities, which are such common knowledge in the Army, as those engaged in by Deputy Blaney in providing this kind of information and being in contact with the Army over its affairs, could have been carried on without the knowledge of the Minister for Defence. Did the then Minister for Defence inform the Taoiseach about this? Did the Taoiseach know about this? Was the Taoiseach aware that the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was intervening in Army affairs? If he was so aware, when did he find out? If he was not aware, did Deputy Gibbons not tell him? I think there are questions here to be answered.

We are not talking of simply one isolated act by Deputy Blaney. We are not talking just of peripheral involvement in any one particular transaction. We are talking of Deputy Blaney, over a prolonged period of time, engaged in contacts with the IRA—as is evidenced by this information, much of which appears to have come from Deputy James Gibbons himself. We see him here in his role in contact with the Army, involved directly in its intelligence services, intervening there and then, as the tip of the iceberg comes out on top, involved in this arms plot. Over this period, either the Taoiseach knew what was going on, and did not act, or he did not know— in which case, quite clearly, the Minister for Defence, Deputy James Gibbons, was not telling him. I think all of this needs fully to be exposed.

We have also the statements of not one but two witnesses from one of the civil defence committees in Belfast in respect of the replies given by Deputy James Gibbons, then Minister for Defence, to this group when they came to visit him. In a statement by one of these two men of the same name— Mr. Kelly—Deputy James Gibbons's final reassurance was that, if the worst came to the worst, there was no need to fear. There was reference also to a statement that Deputy James Gibbons had talked about the call-up of the FCA in an emergency for this purpose.

We have another statement of a similar character from the other Mr. Kelly who said that the Minister for Defence agreed that the Irish Army was not in a position to act last year when violence broke out in August because it was not prepared. Deputy James Gibbons regretted this lack of preparation and told him that, if the situation in the north deteriorated, help would readily be available. Indeed, that second Mr. Kelly also refers to a discussion with Deputy Haughey, the ex-Minister for Finance, and makes a point—to which I shall return—with regard to Deputy Haughey's statement that he was not involved in the illegal importation of arms. I think the word "illegal" is important—a point to which I shall return later.

Is the Deputy accepting that without reservation?

I am just giving the House some evidence. We have evidence from a wide range of sources. Perhaps it is all a plot against poor Deputy Blaney, an innocent man, against whom everybody turns and against whom—independently, all over the country—people suddenly start plotting and producing statements on things he never did. Perhaps. I doubt it. It does not sound in character with Deputy Blaney, apart from anything else.

The crucial questions in all this are: How much did the Taoiseach know? How much did the Taoiseach condone? How long did he know it? The line being sold by Deputy Blaney outside this House, as Deputies will be very well aware, is that the Taoiseach was also involved to some degree and that, unless proceedings are dropped, he might tell all. I do not think the Taoiseach can tolerate this kind of blackmail. He must clear his position by a firm, circumstantial, unequivocal denial. All we have had so far are equivocal denials.

Not one denial by any of the people concerned has failed to be equivocal. In every sentence, I see parsed and analysed language. Every adjective has to be looked at and compared with other adjectives to see if there is a difference in nuance. The time has gone for that. The Government cannot stand as a credible Government on a series of evasions over adjectives. If the Taoiseach does not, when concluding this debate tonight, circumstantially, unequivocably, firmly and totally deny the insinuations against him, then Deputy Blaney, in the weeks ahead, will damn him with innuendo.

One curious feature of this case which has not been explained so far is Captain Kelly's refusal to talk to the Taoiseach when they found themselves alone together. I have thought a lot about this. I have tried to think myself into the position of Captain Kelly, on suddenly finding himself in the Bridewell, being interviewed by Special Branch, when he thought he had been carrying out work as intelligence officer for the Irish Government. It was a curious position for him to find himself in. He asked, quite properly—it is what they always do in detective stories —to see his Minister before talking to Special Branch: it would not be proper for him to tell Special Branch what Army Intelligence were doing and that he had his Minister's approval for doing it.

His Minister arrives and makes some rather curious statements. He says he is a decent man, and so forth. The Minister does not tell Special Branch that everything done by Captain Kelly was done under his authority. Captain Kelly begins to feel the ground shaking under him a little. He very properly decides to ask to see the Taoiseach. He begins to wonder—at that stage, I should begin to wonder—if, in fact, his activities, under the authority of the Minister for Defence, were actually authorised at all. Was it, perhaps, the case either that they were authorised but that everybody—the Taoiseach, the Minister and all others—ditched him or, alternatively, that they were not authorised or known to the Taoiseach? Therefore, he asked to see the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach asked the superintendent to leave but asked if he could bring in the Secretary of the Department. Captain Kelly said "No"; he would talk to the Taoiseach on his own —knowing that, if he is to get the thing straightened out, it had better be on a man to man basis, with nobody else present. The Taoiseach says in effect: "Right, let us discuss it". There is a pause and the Taoiseach says nothing. He does not hold out his hand and say: "Congratulations, Captain Kelly. You have done a good job for us. Of course, nobody can ever know the work you have done. It has to be just between us. There are certain difficulties now that have to be straightened out. I know we can rely on you—the Official Secrets Act and so on—to keep silence. Eventually you will get a posthumous medal or something." No such words were spoken. The Taoiseach just sits there looking at him and waiting for him to start.

Captain Kelly suddenly realises that one or other of his two suspicions is correct. Either the Taoiseach and the Minister knew—and they were going to ditch him—or, alternatively, the Taoiseach did not know and he was now being asked by the Taoiseach, without realising what this involves him in, to tell the truth about the Minister for Defence, which the Taoiseach might not know. What I would do in these circumstances would be to remain silent and to go and see my solicitor. I do not know whether Captain Kelly did the latter but certainly—and properly and rightly—he did the former. What else could he do in this situation?

Unfortunately for the Minister for Defence, he overdid it. Feeding the story to This Week was one thing. Attempting to exonerate himself might have been acceptable. He made the disastrous blunder of attacking in this House Captain Kelly's credibility. He did not mean to do so. If he had said nothing about that, nobody would have questioned—nobody showed any sign of doing so—what he thought of Captain Kelly. If he had said nothing about it, I doubt if anybody would have pressed him as regards what he thought of Captain Kelly but he had to overdo the exoneration business and he ditched Captain Kelly with a few well-chosen words. Captain Kelly reacted as any human being would react at that stage, particularly in view of the impact it had on his family. That, I think, was the undoing of Deputy James Gibbons, then Minister for Defence, and will prove, before this affair is finished, the undoing of the Government.

The Taoiseach must see, at this stage, what an appalling situation he has created by his failure to act earlier. He could have got rid of these Ministers on other grounds. Deputy Blaney went to enormous trouble to give him grounds for getting rid of him by making speeches regularly, any one of which would justify dismissal. The Taoiseach did not act although the Taoiseach must have known a good deal about Deputy Blaney. We cannot say how much he knew because the Taoiseach's story starts on 17th April.

Until the Taoiseach comes into this House, as I hope he will do tonight, and tells us the story from last August, and tells us what information he got from his Ministers, we shall not know the full story and we shall not be in a position to judge it. All we can say is that he had ample grounds for dismissal even on the public record of Deputy Blaney's speeches; even on the public record of Deputy Moran's performance: his failure to attend his office; his unwillingness to do his job; his involvement in unsavoury incidents such as that letter which was produced in this House; his continuation in his practice—all of these gave ample grounds to get rid of him. But the Taoiseach did nothing about it. He could have got rid of these Ministers and indeed others also. He did not do so. He stands indicated for that now.

It is no good trying to put across the story of decisive government. We see the heading in This Week, “Prompt and Decisive Action”: that is when he called them in and gave them a talking to—and let them go away again to plot. The Taoiseach will not succeed in presenting himself to the Irish people as prompt and decisive. There has not been in the history of this State any Prime Minister, Taoiseach or President of the Executive Council—of any party— who has acted with so little promptitude, so little decisiveness, or who has got his Government and his country into such a mess as I am afraid this Taoiseach has done. I appeal to him now not to make the same mistake again. He acted unwisely in not disposing of these Ministers at an early stage. Had he done so, all this would have been avoided. He should now establish clearly and firmly, not just in his own mind but to this House and to the country, whether the new Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy James Gibbons, is truly beyond suspicion. This can be shown only by a full account which reconciles all these discrepancies. The Taoiseach should not continue to maintain that Minister in the Government under far more than a shadow of suspicion unless he is prepared to clear him in this House.

Of course, judging from what was said at Question Time today, the Minister is probably under investigation. The Taoiseach has told us that every aspect of the matter is being investigated. He was asked by whom and he replied the Attorney General. When he was pressed again he said it was not the Attorney General. On being pressed further he said it was the Attorney General and, finally, he said it was by the police. One takes it that the fourth answer was the correct one. Obviously, the Taoiseach is very unsure of his ground.

I was anxious to ask a supplementary but, a Cheann Comhairle, you were becoming impatient at that stage with supplementaries and I was not allowed to put a further question. However, I am now asking the Taoiseach whether this investigation will cover everybody involved or is it the case that the police have been told by the Taoiseach that he is satisfied with this man, that he has thrown his mantle of protection around him and that he is outside this investigation? Is that the case or is it the case that the newly-appointed Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is under investigation? This is one of the questions to which I want a reply. One way or the other, I fear the answer will be extremely embarrassing. Are the activities of the former Minister for Defence not being investigated despite what has been said? This we cannot accept. If so, is it the position that a prominent member of the Government is being investigated by the police? There seems to be a dilemma out of which the Taoiseach cannot easily get. Either case is true and either would leave the Government in a discreditable position.

Even after the shadow of suspicion had descended on the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Gibbons, the Taoiseach made the mistake of saying to Mr. Tom McCaughran of RTE that there will be no more resignations—a foolish statement to make in an affair of this kind and, perhaps, a foolish statement to make at any time. The Taoiseach said the same thing in slightly different words to Deputy Cosgrave in the House last week.

The tragedy is that we will not have a reply.

This is a reply for which we could press and I intend doing so. The previous speaker for the Labour Party raised the question of Deputy Gibbons taking libel action. That question evoked a most interesting remark from a non-practising solicitor. Of course, as soon as he became a member of the Government the Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, unlike other Government members, had the integrity to terminate his legal practice. In fact, he sold it. However, the Minister for Finance said that the statements made by Captain Kelly were possibly not actionable. On hearing that, I consulted with a colleague in the lobby, Senator Alexis FitzGerald, who had just come in but who had not heard the remark. He, too, is a solicitor and his face fell when I related the Minister's remark to him. He looked shaken because he could not conceive how a solicitor could make such a statement. Admittedly, the statement was made by Deputy Colley as a Minister and not a solicitor but he was not displaying much professional knowledge when he made that statement.

It does not require much knowledge of the law to know that to describe what a person says as "a tissue of lies" and to call that person an "unmitigated scoundrel" is libellous if, of course, it is untrue. I would be interested to hear of any court anywhere that has ever given a verdict on contrary lines when such phraseology has been used. The Minister for Finance knows that perfectly well but he is doing a cover-up job. He knows the position is that the failure of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to take an action is damnable. He cannot take such action because the risk is too great. He knows what the outcome would be. He knows, too, who would be called to the witness box and they would include the Taoiseach.

This Government have got themselves into a mess which is insoluble unless they come clean, unless there is a full investigation, unless the documents are laid before the public and unless the Taoiseach tonight can give a convincing explanation of the Gibbons affair. Of course, it would require some ingenuity to produce a convincing explanation to this affair that is not damaging to the Government.

There are some other inconsistencies and gaps because evasion and inconsistency are not confined to the Gibbons affair. The Taoiseach chooses his words with great care but there are always four or five words at the end of his sentence which qualify the sentence out of existence. I quote from column 1329 of the Official Report for the 8th/9th May:

There was no question of delay or no complaints about delays from Garda Headquarters in respect of this query.

That is the initial query about the arms shipment. He did not say that the Garda did not have to complain about delay in action being taken later on other aspects. He did not say if they did not have to complain about not being allowed to take action in regard to ministerial involvement. I do not know how one can reconcile the image of "honest Jack" when every one of the Taoiseach's sentences ends in words which take away the meaning of the sentence. It may be said that evasion is legitimate in relation to politics. Perhaps it is, but is it all right for one to get oneself into the position in which one's entire existence consists of evasion in order to mislead the public? That is scarcely an activity which warrants the placing of the word "honest" before the name of the person concerned. I am not saying that it is necessarily wrong but I cannot reconcile the use of the word in relation to the unfortunate Taoiseach who finds himself, through the machinations of his Ministers, in the position of having to attempt to get out of this with the minimum damage to the Fianna Fáil Party.

We are entitled to know when ministerial involvement was first suspected. We are entitled to know what length of time elapsed between the first suspicion and the Taoiseach being informed. Was the Taoiseach informed of the suspicion on the Monday or was it only on the Tuesday, as his statement now seems to imply? Did these reports refer to the then Minister for Defence? There is reason to believe that he was included in the suspicions of the Garda. How much earlier had the Taoiseach been told of the Ministers' involvement with the IRA?

There is another aspect of this matter into which we must inquire. We have been told that there is an official in the Department of Finance who authorised the delivery of arms. Apparently, this whole plot would have been brought off were it not for the fact that the plotters overlooked a technicality which lays down that authorisation is required for the carrying of arms in the case of certain types of planes. The Taoiseach seems to be suggesting that this plot would have succeeded but for the plotters using the wrong type of plane. I find it difficult to accept that. However, an official in the Department of Finance authorised the entry of arms. Is that official still in his post? Has he been questioned or, like Captain Kelly, has he been arrested? Is he the other man? I think not. If he has not been arrested or questioned, why not? Did he act on the written or verbal authority of his Minister? If he had not such authority the Minister would not have been dealt with in the way he has been. There are questions that have not been raised before but I hope we will have the answers to them tonight.

With regard to the first ministerial interviews the Taoiseach did not answer me last time when I queried the use of the word "instigate". I do not think anybody has accused the two ex-Ministers of instigating the importation of arms. They became involved in the plot because the IRA, these mysterious people, had difficulty in getting arms shipments into the country and they thought that if they could get authorisation from the Ministers everything would be all right. I asked the Taoiseach if, when he queried the Ministers—I presume he was referring to the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries since he said the ex-Minister for Finance was not able to talk of details of this kind —and when they denied that they instigated the plot if he asked them if they had been involved in it? What was the purpose of the word "instigated" being used here? In fact in his last speech he uses different phraseology. He says that the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries denied any part in the transaction. This is a slightly different statement. In regard to the former Minister for Finance he merely refers to his denial, without going into the details of it. So there is a conflict here as to what exactly happened at this interview. Also in the first speech he said:

They asked me for time to consider their positions.

In his last speech he said that the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries asked for some time to consider his position. In regard to the former Minister for Finance he simply said that he could not pursue the inquiries with him. I am afraid his first account of these interviews was a very loose one and I do not think he gave us the full picture. Certainly the references to the former Minister for Finance denying that he instigated it and asking for time to consider his position were not the picture of a man who was virtually incapable of speech, who was in such a bad condition the Taoiseach had to leave after four minutes. The Taoiseach should not have, in his first statement, given a completely false impression of the position with regard to the former Minister for Finance as he did—perhaps inadvertently but I think unfortunately.

Why did the former Ministers or Minister ask for time on this occasion? When a man is faced with an accusation he either says: "I am innocent. It is a lie" or he admits guilt, even if by silence. For a man to ask for time is a very curious reaction. It certainly is not a statement of innocence. If one is innocent one is innocent and that is that. One does not ask for time. Asking for time suggests a desire to find some way to get out of it lightly, a desire to undermine the authority of the person who is accusing one, a desire to fake the evidence. There are various possible explanations but certainly they are not signs of innocence on the part of the people concerned.

Let us come on to the "Gestapo" allegation of Deputy Boland. Again let us watch the wording of the Taoiseach's denial—very carefully chosen words. He said that he did not at any time have Ministers' homes watched. He did not say that they were not watched; he said that he did not have their homes watched. He then said there was no warrant issued for telephone tapping of Ministers and Dáil Members. He did not, however, say that the Ministers' homes were not watched; he did not say that their offices and movements were not watched; he did not say that he did not have their offices and movements watched and, as regards to the tapping of telephones, he said that no warrant was issued. He implied in that statement that because no warrant was issued the phones were not tapped. Later on, however, at column 1332 he said:

...there was no attempt whatever——

he assured his friend, Deputy Kevin Boland, sitting over there

——at imposing Gestapo methods on any member of the Government.

A good statement except that "Gestapo methods" is a bit vague as this could reasonably mean that no member of the Government was tortured, which nobody had suspected. A very carefully chosen phrase—"Gestapo methods"—it did not commit him to anything, but even that statement is qualified. They might have been tortured apparently but "certainly none that I directed". They might have been tortured but he did not direct that they should be tortured. Then beyond that: "and none so far as I could ascertain". I was watching Deputy Boland and he did not seem to be terribly satisfied with an assurance that there was no attempt at imposing Gestapo methods, none that the Taoiseach directed and none as far as he could ascertain. If I were Deputy Boland I would, in those circumstances, have done what he did, shaken my head, which is precisely what he did faced with that assertion.

Another curious thing about the report of the debate is that we all recall the Taoiseach—because we were all here when the Taoiseach spoke— trying to remember the name of the Act under which Captain Kelly and somebody else were arrested and detained for 24 hours and then another 24 hours. He could not remember the actual Act. Indeed he went on to say that in fact he was sorry, he really ought to have looked it up before he came in.

Part of the image, you know.

That is all very well but let me read the Official Report, as perhaps corrected by the Taoiseach's secretary, because it reads most curiously—the correction was rather incomplete. I do not think that one should fiddle around with the Official Report unless one is going to do it very thoroughly—

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——

That is what is here. I am reading the debate.

——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.

Wait until you hear this one:

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.

If you are going to fake a statement by putting in the name of the Act you should at least delete the bit where he says he did not remember the section. I do not think the Official Report should be treated in that way, even by the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach says he is satisfied that no Secret Service money was used because it is spread around so much— column 1336. Again it is a very unconvincing denial when one reads the exact words. I quote:

I had the usual sources from which one might expect these things could be paid for, checked.

It is nice to know that we have usual sources from which it is usual to finance illegal arms imports.

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.

He does not say that he checked to see had they been used for it but he looked at the figure of £11,500 and he said: "Four Departments getting £11,500. You would never get £30,000 out of that. There is no need to look any further". In fact, of course, the allegation which I have heard is not that the Ministers financed £30,000 or £80,000, the allegation I have heard is that they financed it to the tune of £2,500, a sum which could easily be found out of this £11,500 spread around, if the Taoiseach had looked. I suggest he looks again. I do not know whether they did get such money from that source. I do not even know if the allegation is true but I will not accept an assurance that simply because the sum is only £11,500 none of it was pinched. No auditor could accept that kind of approach to checking up on a fraud. He then says that no money was missing from the Department of Defence. Did he check the most obvious place—the Department of Finance? That is where one of the Ministers concerned is involved. It seems improbable, if the Minister for Defence is as innocent as we are told, that the money would come from the Department of Defence. The likely place is the Department of Finance and he does not tell us whether he has checked there. There is no denial in respect of there, no indication that he checked it.

In trying to reconcile the Taoiseach's speeches one is up against one difficulty—that in his second speech he managed to stop on the 2nd of May. He changed the subject. It was done so neatly that I did not even notice it. It was only when I re-read the debate I realised that he had not, in fact, gone over the ground the second time more fully from the 2nd of May onwards. There are questions which have been asked and which have not been answered. He has been asked when did he see the former Ministers a second time. There is a curious unwillingness to disclose this. In the first statement which contained all kinds of dates that date was omitted. In the second statement when he came up to the point where that date was relevant, and he had been asked to give it, he changed the subject and talked about something else. He never went over that ground again. It is time for him to tell us. It is a matter of some interest to know when he asked them a second time to resign forthwith. He used the word "forthwith". They asked for time, time until Wednesday morning. When did they ask for that time? How much extra time were they looking for the second time and for what purpose? Again I would like to know what reasons they gave. We are entitled to know how much additional been in contact with an illegal organi-time they were looking for on that occasion. That, we have not been told because the date of that meeting has been withheld from us. What he said in the first speech was—and we have nothing in the second speech to check with——

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....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.

I remarked in the previous debate that it is very curious they both said the same thing. They both looked for time to the same date. What for? What were they planning?

They rang up their fellow Dáil Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party and then they rang the Taoiseach and the game was up.

There may be more than that to it.

This was part of the plan for a coup d'état.

This was part of it. In this House last Wednesday Deputy Blaney was telling his friends and, indeed, the newspapers not to worry, that he had been asked to resign several times, that it had been announced in the papers but it would not necessarily happen, that he might not have to hand over the seals of office. Why not? One explanation is they thought they would overturn the Government on that day and that he would be Taoiseach. This is a public statement in the newspapers by Deputy Blaney but it is not the only possible explanation because there are some indications he was saying something more than this. He was saying that when he went to the President the President might not enforce the resignation. He seemed to be confident, like Deputy Haughey also, that, in fact, not alone might they overturn the Taoiseach within the Fianna Fáil Party constitutionally but that they might even secure the consent of the President to an unconstitutional act, a coup d'état, effectively that the President would refuse to operate the Constitution. All I can say is that shows a remarkable lack of confidence in the willingness of the President of this country to carry out his duties, a lack of confidence which I am perfectly certain is not justified. It is a particularly disreputable element in the situation that they should have apparently thought in those terms and spoke in those terms to their friends.

Now let us come to the Ministers' denials. If the Taoiseach uses words with care, if there are evasions and half-truths in the Taoiseach's remarks, imagine what we will find in Deputy Blaney's and Deputy Haughey's remarks. Deputy Blaney in the House said: "I have run no guns. I have procured no guns, I have paid for no guns, I have provided no money to buy guns." Great stuff coming from over there. It sounded very well. Let us pause and analyse it. First, he said something else: "I want also to deal with the much more sinister, far more subtle and blackguardly rumour that I have or had anything to do with subversive organisations in so far as this country is concerned." He went on to deny hotly a link with Saor Éire, a link which nobody mentioned in this connection.

Let us look at this very carefully. He did not even say in respect of himself that he denied being involved in subversive organisations in this country. He went on to make that denial about his brothers: "I know of no connection of theirs with any illegal organisation in this country". Now we can put the story together. His brother— there is only one brother suggested being connected with it—is apparently involved in an illegal organisation in Northern Ireland. This is what one must assume from this. I take it that Deputy Blaney is adhering to the truth about the customary evasions and half truths. His brother is involved in an illegal organisation in Northern Ireland. Deputy Blaney has, in fact, sation in this country but in respect of its activities in Northern Ireland. That is the statement he made.

I should like to invert all those statements. Whatever is not denied is what, in fact, happened. This one can be sure about. This is the mechanism in which all these people operate, the Taoiseach and everybody else. All those statements are carefully phrased and one can easily find out what happened by seeing what they did not deny. If a man was not involved at all he would state he was not involved at all. If, as is true apparently of his brother, he was never involved in an illegal organisation in this country he would say that but that is not what he said. He said he was not involved in subversive organisations in so far as this country is concerned. I do not know what organisations they are—Saor Éire is, in fact, the one he refers to—which are involved in direct attacks on institutions in this country. He went to to deny specifically involvement in Saor Éire. I will accept that unequivocally.

It is clear then what Deputy Blaney is saying is that he is not involved with Saor Éire but he was involved in this country with an illegal organisation in respect of their activities outside this country. There is no other denial, and no denial from Deputy Blaney of facilitating the importation of guns or of involvement with illegal organisations in so far as Northern Ireland is concerned.

Let us look at Deputy Haughey's statement. It is a curious one in many ways. I find one part particularly strange, the part which said: "So far 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." That is a curious statement for an accused man to make. There is a statement of innocence of a qualified character later. He does not start off with the statement: "I am innocent." He says: "I have not seen the evidence so I do not know how much can be proved against it." I do not think the solicitor who drafted that was doing anything very wise.

He then goes on to make the usual customary denial we get from those people, but read the words carefully. He said: "In the meantime I now categorically state that at no time have I taken part in any illegal importation or attempted importation of arms into this country." It is a moot point as to what is illegal and what is not. Deputy O'Higgins, in concluding the debate for this party, will have something to say about this. There may be a legitimate divergence of views. The Minister for Finance may well have thought that once he gave his fiat for arms to be imported hey presto it became legal. I do not think he is right for reasons Deputy O'Higgins will go into. He may well have thought that when he made the statement. He did not deny he was involved in the importation of arms to send to the north; he did not deny he was involved in this importation of arms. He denied the activity was illegal. That is an interesting legal point but I do not think it is what we are concerned about here. We are concerned about the facts, not the legality at this point of time.

I note Mr. John Kelly of the Citizens' Defence Committee in Belfast made the same point—I quoted this earlier in my speech—about the word "illegal" being important. We are dealing here with tricky people. When even Honest Jack permits evasions, imagine what the others are capable of. That is why we have to parse every word and line. Incidentally, the Minister for Finance also stressed the use of the word "illegal" in his speech. That is very significant.

Let us very briefly sum up the main points that emerged from those non-denials. The Taoiseach has not denied being informed about Deputies Haughey and Blaney before the 17th April. He avoided talking to them before the 17th April. Deputy Blaney has not denied involvement with subversive organisations in so far as the north is concerned or with the facilitation of arms shipments. Deputy Haughey has not denied being involved in arms shipments that have in his view been legalised by his intervention. There is one other denial we have not had. Perhaps, I have missed it because one cannot be in the House all the time. In one of those journals, perhaps in This Week, it is said that the Minister for Transport and Power was approached by the plotters at some stage but said he would not get involved. That is very good and very wise of him. Who did he tell? If a man is asked to take part in a plot of this kind against the security of the State his duty is to go immediately to the security authorities, or in the case of a Minister, to his Taoiseach, to tell him about it.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach in reply to say if he inquired as to whether Deputy Lenihan was, in fact, approached and if the Minister for Transport and Power was approached did he tell anybody or did he say to his pals: "I will not get involved in a thing like that but I will not tell on you"? What kind of standards are we getting from our Ministers? We want an answer to that question from the Minister for Transport and Power or on his behalf, if he is not able to speak, from the Taoiseach. We must be told the whole truth. I make the point here that on this we want an assurance from the Taoiseach tonight that either those people must be prosecuted or if they are not prosecuted this House and the country are entitled to publication of the full evidence, such as it is, for the country to make their own judgment. The evidence should be published in a White Paper subject only to the suppression of the sources of data or to any particular reference in a document which might disclose its source. Such exclusions should be certified by the security authorities as necessary.

That is what we require and that is what the country requires. If we are going to be told when the debate is over and the Government feel it safe to do so that there is not enough evidence to justify a prosecution and it will all be swept under the carpet this neither we nor the country will accept. The Government's credit can never be re-established if that is done.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach about other arms attempts. In one of his denials, again the careful choice of words—I have not got the exact text in front of me—he said this was the only attempted arms shipment of which information had come to him and in which Ministers were accused of being involved or were involved in. This is a very interesting denial because he did not deny there were other armed shipments but that there were not other ones he knew about of Ministers being involved in, which is a very limited denial. Apparently, there have been other arms shipments. I seemed to hear it said today that there had been no other seizures. What is the evidence in this regard? There are very many reports and rumours. Many of them I am sure are true because this situation breeds rumours. We have had reports of a ship at the docks, including one report which reached me this morning of a more circumstantial character, which named all the people concerned and the destination of the arms. I got in touch with the appropriate authorities immediately and handed this information to them.

One dismisses the usual anonymous letters which contain vague accusations that Deputy Collins was doing this and Deputy Lenihan was doing that, which means nothing whatever. But when you get a letter that makes specific accusations about a particular person you must pass this on and in this case I did so immediately. There was also a rumour that a B737 was chartered for 14th April and this was cancelled. Is there any truth in this allegation? I have been told by a man who was in this House on Friday night that subsequently, during the course of our debate, he was present at a place on the coast and saw a cargo being landed which he identified as an arms cargo that was carried across the Border. I was told this in good faith and I reported the matter to the security authorities. It was a most circumstantial account and I cannot say whether it was true, but it is a matter now for the security authorities to investigate.

There are many rumours currently being voiced; some of them, as in the two cases brought to my notice, are extremely circumstantial, but we need some assurance from the Taoiseach about how effective a check is being kept. Having driven across the Border with Deputy Cruise-O'Brien we did not get the feeling that had we wished to import arms anybody on either side would do much about it——

On the next occasion they will give a good look on both sides.

I certainly hope that we are showing more concern than would appear at first sight. We must ask for whom are these arms being imported? There have been many denials about this matter but there is a statement in today's papers from the official IRA—who are almost respectable in this affair—that the Provisionals have been responsible for provocations in the north and that the arms were for them. Not being on the IRA mailing list I have not got the full text of their statement, but from what I read in this morning's Irish Times, if the official IRA are correct in their statement as reported, it is difficult to conceive of a more irresponsible action than that of Deputies Blaney and Haughey. Apart from giving guns to Saor Éire to murder our policemen, I cannot see what worse action those Deputies could have taken than providing arms for those people.

To give arms to any group, no matter how responsible, is dangerous. We know that the people who appear to be in charge of an organisation are not, in fact, in many cases really in charge. If we think back to 1916, people who thought they were in charge of the Volunteers, I refer to Eoin MacNeill in particular, were unaware of who was really in charge and what they were planning. Nobody can give arms to an organisation and think he knows what will be done with them.

Another mysterious matter on which we require some further enlightenment is the question of Mr. Seamus Brady and the Voice of the North. We have had denials about this but Mr. Brady claims to have been on the staff of the Government Information Bureau or on the staff of some Government body for some time. This claim is supported by the United Irishman, which perhaps is not the best authority, but in view of the fact that they and Mr. Brady are not on the best of terms they might be telling the truth on this occasion. Has Mr. Brady ever been paid out of State funds and, if so, for what services? We have not had a straight answer to this question.

Those are the questions that must be answered. It has been worthwhile going through the so-called denials from the people concerned and the so-called explanation from the Taoiseach which was so carefully worded as to mislead on virtually every point. It is time we got a full, frank statement from him and until we get this statement there cannot be much confidence in this Government.

The other side of the House have tried to get out of the situation by counterattack. They have hit out wildly in various directions. We have had the Minister for Finance attacking Deputy Cosgrave, which was disreputable and did not get very far; we have had the line about the Labour Party not being keen on the EEC, and there was some rather weak talk about coalitions, but it lacked the fire and enthusiasm that formerly was displayed in these exchanges. Now that the Government are such a divided coalition themselves they do not use the term "coalition" with such zest as formerly.

The Minister for External Affairs, in trying to suggest that the Opposition might be divided, did so by a most curious argument, which appeared to me to be self-defeating. He said that nobody in this matter can speak for anybody else. The implication was that if the Opposition parties said "We are not divided on this issue; there are no dissenting voices in the Opposition" this did not mean anything. This argument can be operated on both sides of the House. I notice, incidentally, that the Minister for External Affairs did extend his confidence and his knowledge of human nature in one respect: he said "We on this side of the House —myself, the Taoiseach and others— are agreed on our policy". Apparently the Minister knows what goes on in the Taoiseach's mind but we on this side of the House do not know anything about the thoughts of our colleagues. The Minister confined his remarks to himself and the Taoiseach; I thought he might have had the generosity to include the Tánaiste, although perhaps he would be wise to go no further than that at this stage.

The choice before the country at the moment is betwen a divided and discredited coalition of opposites on one side and, on the other side, an Opposition united on Northern Ireland policy which is the only matter of supreme importance at the present time. There are other points on which we disagree and also ones on which we agree. From Labour and Fine Gael benches in the last few years there have been a number of statements on the issue of patronage which were unanimous and united and in marked contrast to the attitude of the other side of the House on the subject, but I shall not develop this any further. While we are united on the crucial issue of peace and war the other side are deeply divided on that issue and even on their basic philosophy as to what kind of country they want to create, whether a Gaelic Republic or a pluralist State; the Government's talk about division on this side of the House rings singularly hollow. The days when that kind of insult can be thrown across the House with any kind of conviction have gone forever.

On the other side of the House there are two kinds of people: hawks and doves. I shall tell the House something about those two birds. The encyclopedia defines hawks as "birds of prey —either eagles or vultures. They build nests of sticks for themselves well up in the trees"—a phrase we have heard once or twice from a Deputy who is absent from the House. "They pursue their prey by swiftly following its efforts to escape. The departing hawks foul their nests"—in this case only the people can disinfect them.

Doves are defined as "gentle, plump birds with feathers that are easily pulled out. They strut about with a characteristic bobbing of their heads." Oddly enough, in this House the head-bobber is a hawk; it is Deputy Boland who nods from time to time when things are said that do not suit the Taoiseach. The encyclopedia tells us that the surviving dove accepts a new mate slowly and they continually look for figs and berries.

Is the Deputy a hawk or a dove?

This hawk/dove syndrome operates only on the other side of the House. It does not arise here as we are all birds of a feather. The Government should not continue in office with such hawks in the trees. There are members of Fianna Fáil who will not applaud the Taoiseach but who will applaud his enemies. One of the gentlemen concerned defended his action in the restaurant and said that at least he was honest. I suppose at this stage it is something for a Fianna Fáil Deputy to be honest.

There are some bright points to which I should like to refer, as I always like to conclude a speech on an optimistic note. This is not the debate on economic policy. We have that on the Budget. However, I think it is worth saying it is very fortunate that the Minister for Finance has been changed. I do not say this particularly as a reflection on Deputy Haughey, although I believe his recent policies have been pretty well disastrous for the country, but because, as well as that, had he remained he would have felt the obligation to justify them. The trouble about pursuing the kind of policy he has pursued of inflating the economy, letting things rip and not taking any action to deal with it is that he constantly has to justify it. When we come to this autumn or indeed well before that now, if action is required to deal with our economic difficulties he would have felt obliged to stand over his Budget by not taking action until it was too late. We have a new Minister for Finance who may be more free of these inhibitions and I have more confidence that our economic difficulties will be tackled when we have a Minister who will be free from the burden of past policies and indeed who might even, shall we say, take a certain malicious pleasure in reversing them.

That is an unworthy remark.

I withdraw it. It would be unfair but——

Do not descend to scurrility. It is beneath the Deputy.

I accept the Deputy's correction and I withdraw the remark. As regards the economy, things have not been made easier. There are two ways in which trouble may come more rapidly than it might have come. One is the effect on the tourist industry, which is unpredictable at this stage. The other is perhaps more important, the inflow and the outflow of capital. The preservation of our external reserves depends more than ever on capital flow. Last year the inflow of capital brought us in £66 million, that is, 40 per cent more than any previous year in our history. But for that our reserves would have fallen sharply. Now already this year there is reason to believe that this inflow will diminish. For one thing, the Central Bank has determined that the inflow of capital to the non-associated banks should be cut by something like 60 per cent; and there were signs that already money was flowing out of the country.

In those circumstances to create a situation in which lack of confidence in the Government and lack of confidence in the preservation of peace could follow from the events of last week is to aggravate this danger. One must remember that this year the Government are committed to borrow abroad on a more extensive scale than any Irish Government have ever borrowed. The Government are committed to finding £75 million from three sources: the Budget—none; in fact there will be a deficit, and even on the Minister's statement there is no surplus; borrowing from the banks— the Central Bank is limited to £50 million; and foreign borrowing. On their own statement the Government must borrow £25 million this year. If, as I suspect, there is a deficit of £5 million to £10 million, they may have to borrow £30 million to £35 million abroad, in addition to what Aer Lingus has borrowed.

That would be difficult enough in any circumstances. In a country faced with a raging inflation and where the confidence in the Government has been shaken by these events, and where there are no doubts as to whether peace will be maintained, it will be even more difficult to borrow that money. It could well be that the combination of outflow of capital, of difficulty in borrowing the money the Government are scheduled to borrow, and of the effect on our tourist receipts, will aggravate the economic situation and make it necessary for the Government to act sooner than would have been the case. This will be Deputy Colley's problem. However, we have a Minister who is not committed to the policy of the previous Minister and who might therefore be prepared to change policy more readily. This could be very important to this country in the months ahead.

There are also several other good things. We have a firm assurance from the Taoiseach that only this House can commit the country to an act of war and that for our Army to cross the Border would be an act of war. This is a most important assurance. When I queried the Taoiseach on this today he suggested that it was not necessary; it is in the Constitution. I am glad to hear it. I was not convinced it was as clear as that until the Taoiseach said it. I should like to have it consolidated, to have it quite clear and binding that there will be no question of our Army crossing the Border into what is claimed by some, and indeed by our Constitution, as part of the national territory without the authority of this House.

We have also got from the Minister for External Affairs, despite what has been said by one Deputy over there, the first clear-cut statement of the acceptance of a pluralist society. This provides common ground for the Members of this House. We have an Opposition united in defence of the Constitution and united for peace, and the country knows that if the Government is overthrown or if the Government resigns or if there is an election or if anything happens to get rid of this Government, the people need not worry; there is another Government there, a Government that will maintain peace in this country and that the people can rely on to maintain peace more than they can rely on this ramshackle coalition on the other side of the House.

To get away from criticism of the Government, I should like to get all parties to come together on this point. I think it is clear from the debate that there is a great measure of agreement in this House. It is a measure of agreement which we have yet failed to communicate to Northern Ireland and even to Britain. Although this has been asserted frequently enough, I do not think that we have yet got this across. It is a great pity that the Taoiseach last summer or last autumn refused to have an all-party committee on Northern Ireland affairs. I can see now why he could not do so. On such a committee the hawks in the Government would have demanded representation. He may now be in an easier position to arrange for such a committee. I appeal to him to do anything in his power to work for a tripartite policy on the question of the north, a policy which will be seen to be a united national policy.

When I queried the Taoiseach today at Question Time on the possibility of publishing a joint statement of policies, he dismissed this by saying: "You have your policy. Labour have theirs. The people know what they are." This is nonsense. The people of Northern Ireland, the ordinary Protestant living in Sandy Row or out in the countryside does not know what the policies of the parties are here. They may not even know the names of the parties here. If there was a document we could produce and circulate widely in which it was clearly stated that the policies of these three parties are the same, that we were determined that violence would not be used to end Partition, that the Border would not be crossed by our Army, and that Partition should only end with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, if this could be asserted in one document, whether it be a publication with three separate sections saying the same thing or one section in which we jointly say it, this could profoundly affect the position.

This reassurance is needed. It can be given. Let no party division or concern for party advantage hold us back from this at this stage. All parties in the House could join together in this exercise. The Minister for External Affairs has spoken in these terms of doing what he can to help the situation, of men of good will coming together. In this we can come together without prejudice to our differences, without prejudice to the criticisms we make of the Government or the criticisms that the Government make of us. Let us do this for the sake of the country.

Acting Chairman

Before calling on the Parliamentary Secretary I should like to announce it has been agreed by the Whips that the Labour Party spokesman will be called at eight o'clock. The Parliamentary Secretary.

I wish to speak but I would have no objection to giving way to Deputy de Valera who has been here all day. It is a bit thick for the Parliamentary Secretary to sit in here for a few minutes and then be called. This is a new thing in this House. He has no more right than anybody else.

How can he be called?

I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension. I could get in but I could not deal with the matter in ten minutes. The arrangement has been made, so carry on.

With whom has the arrangement been made?

I appreciate the Deputy's point but it is quite all right.

Deputy de Valera did not offer. I am calling on the Parliamentary Secretary.

Why should he be called on? Is it because he is a Parliamentary Secretary?

I did not offer.

I have been here since 1 o'clock today.

Más mian leis an Teachta——

Go raibh maith agat.

Ba maith liom rud amháin a rá. Bhí mé anseo inné agus bhí cúpla focal i nGaeilge le rá agam. Bhí mé anseo inniu ar feadh na maidne go léir.

Bhí mise anseo ar feadh an lae ach ní raibh an Teachta thall anseo níos luaithe ná 7.30 p.m. Because, perhaps, many Deputies have been far more long-winded than they might have been——

I accept the rebuke.

——those of us who believe in the principle that brevity is the soul of wit have been prevented from offering. I must be very brief. The one thing I am surprised at is that by some peculiar double thinking, Fianna Fáil are trying to allege that the crisis—there is no doubt it is a crisis—has been caused by the Labour and Fine Gael Parties. Let me spell it out for them: the crisis has been caused because the Taoiseach has alleged that two of his Ministers have been guilty of treason. You cannot get away from that—that he has alleged that. Now, if the evidence which he claimed to have had and as a result of which he asked for the resignations of three Ministers—one first and two afterwards—is so flimsy that the Minister for External Affairs saw fit to come in here today and say "Maybe, if, but", then the Taoiseach is guilty of a very serious charge which can be thrown at him by any Member of this House, and the Taoiseach should resign and allow his party to elect a new leader.

But if, as he claims, there is additional evidence which was not very important but which he said was additional, he had proof enough to ask Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey to resign, but they did not resign. If that is so, I cannot see why anybody in Fianna Fáil can say that we and Fine Gael are responsible for what has happened. The responsibility lies with the Taoiseach because, first of all, he did not watch his job of seeing to it that this sort of thing was not carried on. I was under the impression—I still have a soft spot for Jack Lynch, though we must forget about the individual here —a man in the Taoiseach's position who allows things like this to happen could not be left in control of a country. It is as simple as that.

Secondly, the suggestion has been made that Deputies Blaney, Boland, Haughey and Moran can now be trusted to carry on the affairs of the nation, to support the Government in office, knowing, as somebody said here today, that at the first opportunity, if it suits them, if it is true they are disloyal as Ministers, they will pull the rug from under the Government and take over.

Is that the type of Government we want or that the country is entitled to have? I wish to say a few words about Deputy Gibbons. I should like to spend a few minutes discussing the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The other evening I posed the question if it was true that arms had been landed in Dublin port and had been taken by an Army lorry to some place in the country. Deputy Gibbons said it was the most preposterous thing that was ever heard. Does the Taoiseach think it is preposterous that arms were landed at Dublin port? Is it not true that they were landed? I am glad the Minister for Education is sitting there. Is he aware that arms were landed at Drogheda, that during a week-end rifles, admittedly without bolts, were in the hold of a ship in Drogheda without any protection whatever? If that is so, is it not true that arms have been landed without any control by anybody?

The Taoiseach today was annoyed when I asked him if he had got back the £80,000, subsequently reduced to £30,000, given to somebody unknown to have arms brought into this country. If the money was taken out and the arms were not delivered, surely he must know where the money came from, who took it out of the country, and he should be able to get the money back. If he does not, he knows nothing. Rip Van Winkle and that is the only name I can think of.

The matter about Captain Kelly is a great mystery. I happen to come from an area where Captain Kelly's family have been for years and I am saddened that he and his family should have been put in the position in which they now are. He was an intelligence officer in the Army. He knew that if he got into trouble outside the country it was his responsibility and that he could not go to the Government. But what nobody knew was that the people who had put him in his trouble had not the guts to say to the detectives: "He is on national service; release him, he has done nothing wrong." What kind of release did he get? He had to resign. Was it because they knew that too much would come out in the open or is it the policy of this country to send officers of its Army into the Six Counties to spy? Is it to spy on the IRA or the Ulster Volunteers, or whom?

I suggest the Taoiseach has an awful lot of questions to answer tonight. I hope he is prepared to do so. The last night he was an awfully tired man—we were all tired. Tonight he has no such excuse. He should be prepared to say what is right and what is wrong. As far as Deputy Gibbons and Captain Kelly are concerned, it was unpardonable that Deputy Gibbons should have come in here and said he had suspicions about the way Captain Kelly was carrying out his duties. He should have said either here or somewhere else publicly that Captain Kelly was on special duty and that because of that no further information could be given. But he allowed the impression to go out that there was a criminal charge somewhere in the background. Captain Kelly had not the protection of this House but he made a statement publicly which can be challenged by Deputy Gibbons. It was to the effect that what Deputy Gibbons had said was a tissue of lies. If that is so, Deputy Gibbons should be man enough to give the full story. We do not want him to give away any secrets, but in fairness to everybody concerned, particularly to Captain Kelly and his family, Captain Kelly's name should be cleared before this goes any further.

I am afraid my time has run out. I would have liked another quarter of an hour to deal with other matters. I am sure, however, that Deputy O'Leary will do so. The idea of Fianna Fáil speakers has been that they can start back at Wolfe Tone, come right down to a couple of days before this row started and then stop. They are the type of patriots who are gracing this House.

This crisis arose because of the Government's failure to realise some months ago that certain powerful Ministers disagreed with the Government's northern policy. The myth that such a disagreement did not exist exploded when the Taoiseach announced his intention to seek the resignation of Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney. The Taoiseach said he was satisfied that they did not subscribe fully to Government policy in relation to the present situation in the Six Counties as stated by him in January last. Deputy Boland resigned from the Cabinet in sympathy with the other two Ministers and he shattered the unity myth, if it needed shattering, when he said:

I fully agree with the policy in regard to the Six Counties as announced by the Taoiseach at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, but I see a difference between the manner in which this matter has been handled and the policy announcement at the Ard-Fheis.

It was unique for Fianna Fáil to accept that there was disagreement in the party on policy matters. It has been a matter of pride to the Fianna Fáil Party since its foundation that, although it had disagreement on other matters, never had they disagreement on policy matters. In fact, one of the worst accusations made about the Labour Party in recent years is about the disagreement which undoubtedly exists within our party on policy matters. Long may our disagreement on policy matters exist; long may our honesty to admit that we are a party where disagreement is welcomed, and long may our agreement and our wholehearted enthusiasm for such political debate continue. That is, after all, what politics should be about.

One might ask at this stage what Fianna Fáil policy on the north is. In January, 1969, at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, when the party was preparing for the forthcoming election in the 26 Counties, the Taoiseach had a script of some 33 pages of which he devoted one page to the Government's northern policy. He spoke of his desire to see Ireland living in peace. In his opening remarks the Taoiseach said:

What we must beware of is the type of change now sought to be enforced upon us, change that is based on ideologies which are anathema to the Irish people, that are incompatible with our Christian heritage and inconsistent with the dignity and freedom of the individual for which Irish men and women fought so hard a mere 50 years ago.

The Taoiseach devoted just one page to the Government's policy on the north, a policy which has subsequently resulted in his losing several Cabinet Ministers and which has kept this House in constant, serious session for the last two weeks.

After the events in Derry the Taoiseach went on television and said, "We will not stand idly by". The Labour Party considered his statement was in need of considerable amplification and we asked for a Dáil debate at that particular period. That request was refused. We did not stand idly by at this time. We went north and discussed the events with the people there. Subsequently, we went to London to try to ensure that the British Government, which had its forces in the area, would take responsibility for stemming the troubles which undoubtedly existed there.

I think the institutional root of the present troubles in the Cabinet can be traced to the setting up of the news service after the events last August when the Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Dr. Hillery, was dispatched to the United Nations. The Taoiseach stated that this news service was composed of persons seconded or on loan from State or semi-State bodies, but if that is the case I fail to understand how Mr. Seamus Brady became involved in that particular outfit since he belonged to neither body. The Taoiseach, however, subsequently corrected the discrepancies made in that first statement. From now on, however, every statement made by the Taoiseach on this matter must be treated with the utmost care.

Then followed the Tralee speech and the Taoiseach felt the need to put forward his particular line of peace and persuasion. He referred to the possibility of a solution to the question which would have the north still tied financially to Britain but which would allow us to have some form of federal arrangement in such an economic union. I think the Ministers who have since been sacked formed a junta after the Taoiseach's Tralee speech.

Deputy Blaney's Letterkenny speech came next and he said that in certain unspecified circumstances the use of force could not be ruled out. On the 9th December, 1969, the Government Information Bureau published the Taoiseach's views on Deputy Blaney's remarks. The Taoiseach said:

This policy has been endorsed again and again by the Fianna Fáil Party. While Mr. Blaney's feelings on the Partition issue are very deeply felt and he occasionally finds it difficult not to give public expression to them, he knows and endorses Government policy on this issue as he did in his speech at Letterkenny last night. This policy is the only realistic policy to pursue for the peace and progress of the country and its ultimate reunification.

The question we must ask is: what, in fact, has been going on in this Cabinet since about August 1969? We had the Taoiseach openly committed to the ways of peace and we had several members of the Cabinet openly expressing contrary views. When called upon to explain this contradiction in Government policy the Taoiseach said that the contradiction did not exist. That has been the pattern of events up to the blow-up of last week, up to the complete exposure that this, in fact, was what was going on. The Taoiseach rests his case on the point that the whole infernal machinery was only set in motion on April the 20th and up to that point he had not been aware of the complicity of any Ministers of his Cabinet. Up to that point he pleaded his total innocence of the chain of events which had been apparent to some of us in this House for some time, just going on the basis of the disagreement of several of his colleagues. I recall the 16th of December in this House when Deputy Corish tabled questions in relation to Deputy Blaney's Letterkenny speech. At column 1404 of the Official Report for the 16th December, 1969, Deputy Corish said:

I accept what the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, said, but he is there as leader of the Government, talking for the Government and it appears to me and the members of my party, because we are so concerned about this, that there is real conflict within the Cabinet and, for the sake of the people in the six Counties and the people in the 26 Counties, this should be cleared up.

Mr. M. O'Leary: It must be resolved.

The Taoiseach: May I say, to help Deputy Corish——

to help us, mark you

——there is no conflict in the Cabinet with the situation and with the policy, as I have announced.

He went on to deal with further charges that there was conflict within the Cabinet and said:

I can assure you that you people are not going to divide the Government anyway.

The Taoiseach was cheered by all the people on the back row there, by Deputy Blaney and all the rest of the members of this united party. I asked the Taoiseach whether any member of the Government was specially designated with responsibility for dealing with Northern Ireland affairs and he replied:

The Taoiseach normally deals with matters relating to Northern Ireland.

I then asked:

Would the Taoiseach agree in the wake of recent events...that it will be he alone who will speak on the national question?

And the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland, made a very significant remark:

Do not talk nonsense.

Then the Taoiseach asked me:

Is the Deputy serious?

In other words, was I serious in saying that only the Taoiseach who was talking about the necessity for reconciliation and peace should speak authoritatively on this issue and that all others who appeared to me, in my simplicity, to be at variance with such a view should be silent. Then I went on to say:

There undoubtedly exists, as far as we can see, conflict in the Cabinet on this question. The Taoiseach has one view, Deputies Blaney and Boland have another. The question is which view is to prevail?

The Taoiseach: My view is the Government's view and that is the view which will prevail.

That was the situation we saw within the Cabinet. This was the situation which was strenuously denied by members of the Government. They said the Opposition were attempting to create this situation. We already have, without any further comment from the Opposition, the statement of the Taoiseach that he dismissed members of his Cabinet because they disagreed with his policies and we had, in a subsequent statement, Deputy Boland saying that he did not agree with the Government's handling of the northern question. Although he agreed with the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis statement on policy he did not agree with their handling of the situation since the Ard-Fheis.

I do not subscribe to the theory that the Taoiseach has clean hands. I say that quite deliberately. I find it incredible for many reasons. We know that the security forces—the Secret Service, or whatever you like to call them, and I know the Taoiseach has his own super section of the Secret Service, his own people reporting to him direct—at the disposal of the State maintain liaison with the British Secret Service. We know that a full seven months ago the British Secret Service were aware of arms importation to this country. We can conclude, therefore, that our Secret Service were aware of such importation of arms. We are further aware that the Sinn Féin paper The United Irishman published a pretty accurate account of the involvement of certain Ministers before Christmas last and we know that that paper and the activities of its followers are not unknown to members of our security forces. In fact we understand that that seems to be the main occupation of the Special Branch, the pursuing, harrying and questioning of members of the Sinn Féin movement. We can take it, therefore, that the security forces here would have read that issue of the paper. The Taoiseach said that he was not aware of the contents of that issue.

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

I was saying that it is incredible to think that if the British Secret Service were aware of arms importation to this country——

One Deputy who came into the House to make a quorum went out immediately there was a quorum. This is intolerable.

I am not worried if they all walk out.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Order.

Let us be straight about the thing.

There are only five Opposition members in the House.

It is Government business. You insisted on having a Government motion before the House.

Acting Chairman

Order.

It seems incredible that our own Secret Service would not also know about the arms importation.

We know from an answer to a question today that our own security forces are answerable to two Ministers, according to the Taoiseach—the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Defence. The former Minister for Justice no longer holds Ministrial rank; the former Minister for Defence still holds it and so we can say that they were aware of arms being imported for some considerable time before 20th April of this year. Certainly the Minister for Defence was aware of it and so was the Minister for Justice since both were in touch with our Secret Service. According to the Guardian disclosures in Britain related to at least seven months back. One of the ex-Ministers, Deputy Blaney, said: “I have done whatever little I could do”. They denied that they instigated any importation of arms, but it is a fair conclusion that their participation was not just a once only operation, despite what the Taoiseach says. Judging by their statements their activities take on a certain pattern stretching back much further than 20th April and we can, therefore, I think, say that these Ministers have been involved in a consistent policy at variance with the policy of the Taoiseach and the beginning of that change of policy lies in the murky affairs of the northern news service set up in the wake of the events of last August. It would be very interesting to discover exactly to whom that news service was finally answerable. The Taoiseach says that Deputy Colley's involvement was purely at his request. If I recall a later statement correctly, that news service came temporarily under the control of the Ministers who have now gone. Is that correct?

Deputy George Colley did take the press conference initially because I was not available, but the direction to the news service was through the Government Information Bureau, which was my responsibility.

(Interruptions.)

I asked the Taoiseach a question and the Taoiseach has answered it. I am making the point that the intervention of this Government directly in northern affairs dates from the setting up of the news service last August in the wake of the events during August. It is fair to say, I think, that Captain Kelly was not on his own in his work in Northern Ireland; others have said that other Army officers were involved. Now the Minister for Defence at that time could not have been unaware of these activities. We have no guarantee that their participation in this arms importation was unique. We have no evidence to suggest that there may not have been successful importations prior to this. We just do not know. Because arms importations have been going on for some time the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, must have been so aware, and because of their security contacts the Ministers for Justice and Defence, these two members of the Cabinet, were aware of the implication of certain of their colleagues in the Cabinet in these arms importations. The Taoiseach, throughout all this flurry, surrounded by distrust and suspicion he would have us believe, went blissfully on his innocent way. He knew nothing. It is very interesting to recall that the editor of the Irish Press a month ago, certainly before the events related by the Taoiseach and the rumour of the participation of certain of his Cabinet Ministers in these affairs, sent a book, a very interesting book, to various people in the country for review. I will read just one quotation. The book was issued long before the Taoiseach tumbled to the true facts of the subversive activities in his Cabinet:

The Government also appealed to the United Nations, where Irish Foreign Minister Dr. Patrick Hillery did surprisingly well in his effort to get support for the Irish position. Privately, however, some of his colleagues in the Cabinet apparently began taking more unconventional initiatives. At least some of the arms which now began to find their way to the North did so as a result of a cabinet member's action and negotiations were set in train through the brother of one Minister which at one stage led to rumours of £50,000 being paid to the I.R.A. But this referred to the total cost of an arms shipment on the international market and, I am told, only approximately £2,300 was paid to the I.R.A. for arms purchased to assist the Northern Catholics. Catholics could also receive training in the Donegal area and at some of the military centres set up in the South for refugees. Reports that six Irish army officers were sent across the Border to co-ordinate Citizens' Defence Committees, again with Republican co-operation, circulated in Dublin and a columnist writing in Hibernia said bluntly that the ultimate boss of Northern Command was a member of the Fianna Fáil cabinet.

Acting Chairman

Would the Deputy give the date?

May 15th. It is, I think, pretty incredible from that that in this small capital city of ours the one man, the Taoiseach would have us believe, who went about innocent of the train of events and innocent of the complicity of certain members of his own Cabinet in the progress of those events, was the Taoiseach himself, the head of the Government. He knew nothing about these things. Suddenly, on 20th April, he gets a message from Deputy Cosgrave and his suspicions, which have been growing for some time, finally force him to tell these members of his Cabinet that they must leave it. I find that frankly incredible. I do not blame Deputy Gibbons, now Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, in this. He may have been acting as a good Minister for Defence for, throughout all this, we have had civil servants puzzled about the attitude of their superiors. We have civil servants in the Department of Justice unaware of what exactly the Minister for Justice thought of this particular matter. We have a similar puzzlement on the part of certain civil servants in the Department of Finance. I think Deputy Gibbons may be pardoned a certain puzzlement about what exactly was the policy of the Taoiseach in this whole plot. We have the Taoiseach's own word that the Minister for Defence, Deputy Gibbons, reported to the Taoiseach quite frequently. What he was doing had the approval of the Taoiseach and he must have been aware of the activities of his own army in the north. He must have been aware, through his own Secret Service, of the trend of events and the complicity of colleagues. The Taoiseach says that he at all times satisfactorily reported to him. It is incredible that the Taoiseach did not know anything until 20th April. I think the Taoiseach is either not telling the truth or he is incompetent. We can only come to either of these two conclusions. I cannot accept——

(Interruptions.)

There is the choice. You either have an incompetent Taoiseach or you have a liar.

May the word "liar" be used in this House? Deputy O'Leary has just used it.

I said these are the two conclusions. Take your choice. Which do you want? I leave it to the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to decide.

In this whole period in which the Taoiseach announced this policy which dissident members of his Cabinet had no difficulty in accepting while they pursued their own warlike aims, this party asked the Taoiseach repeatedly when he intended to meet Mr. Wilson. One would have thought that a man with a policy of peace, such as the Taoiseach professed to have, would be anxious to meet the man who controlled the armed forces in that part of our country and press the necessity to have ample security forces available and, for example, urge that such an important reform as the introduction of a central housing authority should be pressed through with all speed but, in all this period, there has been a strange reluctance on the part of the Taoiseach to meet Mr. Wilson.

When your people met him he kicked you out.

Do these late events explain that strange reluctance on the part of the Taoiseach to meet Mr. Wilson? It was a meeting one would think was necessary in the circumstances of the gathering crisis and the troubles in the north and the many matters it was necessary to raise with Mr. Wilson if the Taoiseach was concerned about defending the minority in the north. Surely we should have gone to the British Prime Minister to see that proper security was available and, if our policy was one of peace, surely it was in our interests to see that proper safeguards in regard to security were brought into effect by the British Premier. Yet, throughout that period, day after day in answering Questions by members of this party, the Taoiseach said he did not think the time opportune. He did not think the time opportune after August or throughout this period when members of his Cabinet were involved in this arms plot. Naturally, he did not think so; naturally, he was reluctant to meet Mr. Wilson.

I do not know if there will now be a change in the Taoiseach's attitude or whether these dismissals will bring about a situation where he will be free of guilt in meeting Mr. Wilson and can do so as a man sincerely dedicated, with all members of his Cabinet, to the pursuit of peace in the settlement of this question. Admittedly, the British Premier may request elucidation of the views of the Taoiseach's party on their peculiar concept of party unity. He may have his own opinion on that. Think how remarkable it is that this northern situation about which the Fianna Fáil Party are so concerned has gone on from October the 5th, to Burntollet and to the August events without any meeting between the Taoiseach and Mr. Wilson. It is extraordinary that any Taoiseach with any serious regard for that problem could get away with weekly excuses to avoid meeting the British Premier.

Over that period, modest though our size may be, with the influence at our disposal, we have done out utmost to persuade the British Labour Government to take the necessary actions in defence of the minority in that area and in pursuit of the ideal of peaceful settlement of the unity question. Last August, when the Taoiseach did not think it opportune to meet Mr. Wilson, we met Lord Chalfont and our delegation laid before him at that time what we regarded as the important measures required to be taken in the crisis in the north. We suffered the jeers of Members opposite that we had gone north on a cheap publicity mission. We went north on a meaningful and signicant mission as far back as 1966 when we set up the Council of Labour. That was an enterprise that, we think, in the evolution of a united country will have more significance than any of the sabre-rattling or antique drum beating of Deputy Blaney or his like. We attempted to provide a platform that could appeal across traditional boundaries to Catholic and Protestant working people and we believe that in the long run therein lies the only path of sanity.

Although the Cabinet may be discredited and we may doubt what is meant by the unity of Fianna Fáil, it is now more than ever urgent that the Taoiseach should meet the British Prime Minister. No longer should he take refuge in evasive answers. He should see the necessity of meeting Mr. Wilson to discuss the security of the minority in the north, security made more precarious by the utterances of former Ministers who were on his own benches up to last week. That security is further threatened by their irresponsible speeches. He now owes it to the country to go to Mr. Wilson and see what further security can be provided. Remember, if we reject the idea of force being used in that part of the country, it has never been the intention of this party that the minority in the north should be left defenceless. We believe British forces must be deployed adequately to protect their lives and liberty. We believe that is the duty of the British Prime Minister; it is our job to see that he carries it out.

Also, the Taoiseach must expose those in his party who are prepared to arm Catholic against Protestant. He must depart from the attitude that has been his up to now of pretending that this sectarian attitude of members of his party does not exist, this belief of theirs which would deem it to be in the national interest to arm Catholics against Protestants.

I commend to the Taoiseach's attention the statement of the Tánaiste here today because I see another difference in the so-called united front of Fianna Fáil. The Tánaiste has unambiguously stated: "There is no place in Fianna Fáil for those who would seek a solution to this problem by force." I should like to see the Taoiseach coming out emphatically in defence of what the Tánaiste said. Throughout this long debate I have not yet heard this said unambiguously by the Taoiseach. He has much to live down in the matter of evasion on the question of his party's attitude to the north. To question after question he has denied the possibility of split or division in his party and throughout he has said that all are united on his policy. That alibi of his is now in ruins; it no longer holds and since there is no longer need of subterfuge I ask him tonight to come out clearly and say to his party, this great party representing so many Irish people: "There is no room in this party for people who wish to gain unity by force, no room for those who would like to set alight, for party purposes in the south, the whole northern conflict.

Today we asked him to issue a White Paper setting forth all the ideas of all parties in the House in regard to this situation. We have a duty here as elected Members to lead the Irish people in the Republic to a true realisation of what is needed to achive reconciliation. We have much to live down. All of us are to some extent responsible for some of the misconceptions people have in the part of the country under our jurisdiction. Late though it be we must lead public opinion here to a true realisation of how best we can bring about unity and how best we can make this part of the country a platform for the united Ireland of the future.

There is no point in thinking that the previous behaviour of the Taoiseach can continue or that Fianna Fáil can continue to speak with the two voices to which we have constantly referred in this debate, the secret voice promising hope of arms and a solution to the unity question by force and the public voice saying: Peace at all costs. There must be an end to this double talk in Fianna Fáil. They cannot say one thing at cumann level and another at Ard-Fheis level through the Taoiseach We cannot tolerate those who say they subscribe to the Taoiseach's policy and applaud speakers who have done otherwise, or tolerate Members who say that they are not ashamed of what they have done when proud and unashamed they have set in train a course of events which may end in tragedy later this summer.

This may mean a very great about-turn for Fianna Fáil. They have been in the habit of confusing party interests with those of the country but this confusion is too dangerous for the future of the country to be allowed to continue. In the long term I would not think it is even in the interest of the Fianna Fáil Party itself. Meeting Mr. Wilson, therefore, is an essential task for the Taoiseach in the days that lie ahead. Earlier this year when we asked him to meet Mr. Wilson he said he knew the mind of the British Government. I imagine the British Government are in considerable puzzlement about the mind of this Cabinet at this time.

I would suggest that a meeting is called for without delay. I do not think the Taoiseach has any more embarrassment within his Cabinet about what he may say to Mr. Wilson. He may have a certain embarrassment about certain people who remain in his party. In the last few days, officially anyway, he has given evidence, by sending them packing, that he no longer intends his actions to be coloured or circumscribed by the opinions of these people.

The Tánaiste this morning issued unambiguous marching orders to anybody in Fianna Fáil who by word or by deed supported the action of these men. There is no place, he said, in the Fianna Fáil Party for these people.

Only the Tánaiste said that.

Many questions remain unanswered at the end of this debate. How could it be otherwise? It is my conviction that the Taoiseach has not answered all questions. I do not believe that his knowledge of these events commenced on April 20th. I find that incredible. I do not believe it. It may be important for the Taoiseach's own future that he should stick to this particular version of the events. He may believe this is in the best interests of his party, but I do not believe it is. I believe the time has come for the Taoiseach, who has a certain reputation for honesty, to come clean, whatever the cost to his party.

I believe that questions centre around the Minister for Defence. It is a peculiar situation that the Taoiseach's suspicions result in sacking for certain Ministers and promotion for others. If I were a member of the party opposite I would be seeking an answer to that question. Seemingly it is a boast of the members of that party that they never ask questions, that they always obey orders. That sometimes carries penalties, too. In my party we have too many people asking questions and too few taking orders but I think in the long run that is a safer party to be in.

Deputy Cunningham has not stood up to be counted yet.

(Interruptions.)

Order. Deputy O'Leary.

There was for some time a flourishing Letterkenny parliament in their midst.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Cunningham now sees how lucky he was that he did not enter the portals of that parliament but stayed in the outer lounge. The Letterkenny parliament met frequently. I think they have been meeting in the past few days on the back lawn of Leinster House. I have noticed members of the same group meeting there. Obviously it is the only safe place for members of that parliament to meet these days out of earshot of phones and secret service.

(Cavan): Under the monument to Griffith, Collins and C'Higgins.

I do not know whether that has any significance. I am just putting it on record that the members of that parliament, now in certain distress, meet on the back lawn of Leinster House.

The Tánaiste pointed out this morning that there was no alternative to this Government. One of the fears of Fianna Fáil for a long time has been the emergence of that dread spectre which threatens their political future, that is, a coalition. Their actions over the past week or so have brought that prospect appreciably nearer.

This is the end of the debate on the motion of confidence tabled by the Taoiseach.

(Interruptions.)

A Cheann Comhairle, can we have some order from these gentlemen?

These what?

Deputy O'Higgins. Will Deputies please cease interrupting?

It also marks the end of a hectic week in the history of Dáil Eireann. I suppose we can easily say: "That was the week that was". The object of the long debates here was to elicit information, to ascertain where the Government were going and what the true position was. We are now ending the debate on this motion tabled by the Taoiseach. It is not unfair to say that, in moving the motion yesterday, the Taoiseach tried in a ponderous and heavy-handed manner to shift public attention from the events of this past week and from the questions which every person outside the House is anxious to ask. It was an exercise in sleight-of-hand which deceived no one and, in fact, it merely resulted in the Taoiseach bringing himself into contempt.

At this stage people are not interested in the history of the Fianna Fáil Party nor are they concerned with the Taoiseach's obvious attempts to rehabilitate himself with his disillusioned rank and file. What the people are concerned with is a Government in total disarray, lacking confidence in themselves and in their future, and hoping desperately to cling on to office if the people do not think and talk of the things that really matter at this stage in our affairs.

In summing up this debate on behalf of my party I intend to pose again the questions which I believe are on the lips of most people throughout the country. I intend to ask them again and I hope that at the end of this debate some answers will be provided by the Taoiseach and that we will not have this absurd effort to wrap security around him. The Taoiseach told us the other day that it all started with a telephone call from the Aer Lingus Cargo Terminal to an unnamed official in the Department of Transport and Power.

A consignment of arms was coming from Vienna. The problem was the International Air Transport Association rules which required clearance from the Department of Transport and Power in respect of the type of plane used. This was the one snag. Everything else was in order but this had to be cleared. In other words, whoever had bought and was importing this consignment of arms had overlooked just one thing. He was not aware of IATA and he was not aware that clearance had to be obtained from the Department of Transport and Power. Let us have a look at what that means. The only snag was clearance for the type of aircraft being used. The law of this land in relation to the importation of firearms is laid down in the Firearms Act, 1925. Section 17 of that Act provides:

No person shall import into Saorstát Éireann any firearm, ammunition, or prohibited weapon unless such import is authorised by a continuing licence granted under this section and in force at the time, or by an occasional licence granted under this section and relating to the specific firearm, ammunition or prohibited weapon so imported.

That is a clear prohibition. Any attempt or contravention of that prohibition is a criminal offence which can be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. What else does the section provide? It provides that an occasional licence for the importation of firearms or prohibited weapons may be granted by the Minister for Defence. It provides that a continuing licence to import may be granted by the Minister for Justice. In subsection (8) there is provision that this section shall not apply to the importation into the State of any firearms, ammunition or prohibited weapon which is so imported under the direct authority of the Minister for Defence for use by the defence forces or on the authority of the Minister for Justice for use by the police forces of the State.

That seems to me that on the day of this phone call—Friday, 17th April— there was a consignment of arms coming into this country which must have been coming in under a licence or direct authority from the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Justice. The only thing not in order was the IATA clearance. This was an attempt to commit a criminal offence. There was no question of State security involved in disclosing exactly what all the facts were. There is a grave risk of endangering the security of this State now if the Taoiseach does not supply the answers and give the information. Who was the consignee? Who was the person who had bought and was importing this consignment of arms? Under what certificate was the consignment coming in? Was it under a certificate of the Minister for Defence or was this illegal importation of arms coming in here under the direct authority of the Minister for Defence? What role did the Minister for Defence play in this? The documentation must have been there. It must have been cleared. Somebody signed his name. Somebody's name was put to a document in order to fulfil the requirements of section 17 of the Firearms Act. I suggest the Taoiseach knows this well. I suggest the Taoiseach has a responsibility tonight to tell this House and the waiting nation outside who exactly was involved on this particular day in this particular effort.

What happened next? The unnamed official in the Department of Transport and Power telephoned another unnamed official in the Department of Justice. A very strange thing happened then. This was an ordinary routine inquiry. It was an inquiry from the Department of Transport and Power to the Department of Justice. The Department of Transport and Power were checking, but the question had an extraordinary effect. If the Taoiseach's word is to be accepted, the officer concerned went to see initially either his Minister or his secretary. Why should he not see them? He could not see them because they were in conference. Is that a complete obstacle, a stone wall? The Minister was in conference with the secretary. This officer did not wait. He did not telephone. He did something which I suggest he never did before in his life and never will again. He immediately got in touch with the gardaí. Why? He got in touch with the Garda because he was aware on the information given to him and after asking a question or two that a very ugly plot had been discovered. So clear was the plot to him that he did not wait for the Minister's discussion with the secretary to end nor even attempt to interrupt it. He got straight away in touch with the Garda. I suggest he did so because he knew the matter was criminal. He knew it was urgent and he knew if he went to his Minister that nothing would happen because the Minister would not take action or was clearly involved. I suggest there can be no other explanation for the action of that officer. Let us praise him. Let us be thankful we had such an officer in our Civil Service. He broke all Civil Servise rules by acting on his own and by making his own decision. He went straight to the Garda although up above him his own Minister was in conference. I wonder will the Taoiseach tell us why that official took that particular action.

The Taoiseach goes on to say that following this the Minister and the secretary, having consulted perhaps together, decided to let the consignment in. We can imagine that after the Department of Justice official gets in touch with the gardaí they get in touch with the Department of Justice and the Minister and the secretary perhaps consulted together and they decided to let the consignment in. I ask is this true? I ask is this what happened? This was on Friday, 17th April. There is a Government meeting that day to approve of the Budget. Was any attempt made to get in touch with the Taoiseach? One would expect that attempt to be made. Why was it not made? Were people certain where the Taoiseach stood? Why was the Taoiseach not brought into this immediately? Perhaps the Minister for Justice and the Secretary of the Department of Justice consulted together to let the consignment in. The Taoiseach says it did not come in. The Taoiseach says he knew nothing on Friday, or on Saturday, or on Sunday. The Taoiseach says "I came into the picture on Monday". Who brought him into the picture? Who put him in the picture? It certainly was not the Minister for Justice who was not back in town on Monday. He was in the west of Ireland. Can anyone imagine a Minister for Justice who discovers on Friday, either before or after a Government meeting, a plot to bring a consignment of arms into this State, assuming for the moment he was not involved, and yet he goes back to Castlebar to have a quiet weekend? He did not even come up on Monday. I suggest that clearly the Minister for Justice was up to his neck in it the same as others.

That is the only possible explanation. He knew it well. That is why there is no report to the Taoiseach on Friday. That is why he disappeared for the week-end. That is why he was not back on Monday—because he was involved either by action or default, one or the other.

Let us follow the Minister for Justice, Deputy Moran, a little bit more. He certainly came back to town. We know he was at a dinner in the Gresham Hotel on Budget night. When was he consulted by the Taoiseach? When was he interviewed by the Taoiseach? Did the Taoiseach see him at all? If the Taoiseach saw him, can the Taoiseach explain what reason he gave for deserting his post at a moment of crisis if he were innocent—disappearing and not to be found? The Taoiseach has been very anxious to get the country and this Dáil to believe that this Minister's resignation was attributable solely to health. The Taoiseach was very anxious, by the manner in which the Government Information Bureau announcement was framed and phrased on Monday, 4th May, 1970, to make it appear that the Minister for Justice had resigned voluntarily on grounds of health. It was only when Deputy Boland subsequently blew the gaff and said that Deputy Moran had been sacked that the Taoiseach reluctantly admitted in this House that he had been asked to resign.

I ask the Taoiseach now to come clean. There is no doubt that Deputy Moran was asked to resign as Minister for Justice. I suggest that he was asked to resign because it was apparent to the officers in his own Department and to those in close contact at the time that he was involved in this whole performance. But, of course, this, I have no doubt, was going to be swept under the carpet. The face-saving, crack-repairing operation started on 4th May, 1970, with an announcement that the Minister for Justice, Deputy Moran, had voluntarily retired on grounds of health. Therefore, the position, by Tuesday, 5th May, 1970, when the Dáil met, was that one Minister had gone. But there were two others. It is interesting to recall that the other two Ministers were named as a result of statements obtained by the Garda when they went to interview Aer Lingus officials and officials of Customs and Excise on 20th April, 1970. The Taoiseach told us he studied the statements obtained by the Garda after this interview and, as they involved these two Ministers, he decided to see them. But, on Tuesday, 5th May, 1970, none of us knew of these events. None of us knew what had taken place. Only the Taoiseach—if he has disclosed the full facts to us—knew and only Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey.

We have to try to recall what this Dáil was like on that Tuesday afternoon. The facts are that one Minister had been sacked and that two other Ministers had been seen by the Taoiseach and their resignations had been demanded. They had been told clearly, if the Taoiseach is telling us the truth, on 29th April, 1970, that they were going out. So there were to be three disappearances from the Cabinet. If the Taoiseach is being accurate and is telling the full facts to this House, the position is that one Minister had gone and two others were under sentence of dismissal. In those circumstances, how much more curious was the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Cosgrave—Is this just the tip of the iceberg?—What does the Deputy mean?; Any more resignations? What is the Deputy suggesting? This was the Taoiseach who, if he was telling us the truth, had demanded four or five days earlier the resignation of two of his senior Ministers.

Why does the Deputy not quote what the Taoiseach actually said?

I shall make my own speech. We can see evidence in many ways here. On 29th April, 1970, Deputy Blaney was sacked by the Taoiseach according to what the Taoiseach told us. Deputy Blaney happened to speak in the Dáil on 29th April, 1970, on the Budget. Here are a few pearls he dropped. Here is what Deputy Blaney said in this House on the Budget on 29th April, 1970, the day his resignation was demanded, if the Taoiseach is telling the truth:

I suggest that Fine Gael should get wise to themselves and should stop seeking spies that do not exist under the bed. They should stop seeking plots that are not there and they should become fully involved in their own Parliament and as an Opposition assume some sense of responsibility

That is what Deputy Blaney had to say on the day he was sacked, as reported at column 249 of the Official Report of Dáil Éireann of 29th April, 1970. At column 257, Deputy Blaney continued:

We have had this hoary old chestnut from Deputy Donegan, which he has mentioned before, that the Taoiseach should reprimand his Ministers. Fine Gael have this story one day and the next day they say the people in Fianna Fáil have no minds of their own, that they are all yes-men. When it appears that we in Fianna Fáil have minds of our own, the cry goes up from this self-righteous party that the Taoiseach is not doing his job because he is not reprimanding his Ministers, is not silencing them and putting them into the wilderness. Fine Gael want us on some days to be other than yes-men and then if somebody in Fianna Fáil says something with a slightly different intonation—and I repeat "intonation"—Fine Gael promptly say he is speaking out of turn, the Taoiseach must do something about this.

Deputy Blaney continues and is reported at column 280, when concluding his speech, as saying:

We should also keep in mind that this Government will be here bar some strange and extraordinary happening—

—and, he adds reflectively—

—and there could be one that comes to mind—but bar that—

Mr. O'Leary: An earthquake.

Mr. Blaney: No, but the next thing to it.

That was Deputy Blaney, then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, speaking in this House on the day, the Taoiseach tells us, he had demanded his resignation.

I just want to consider one other situation. The Taoiseach said that, coming into the picture on 20th April, 1970, the Garda go to query the Aer Lingus and the Customs and Excise staffs and bring back the statements which he examined and, seeing that they implicate two Ministers, gets some further information, ponders on it on Tuesday and, on Wednesday, 22nd, decides to take action. He goes to the Fianna Fáil Party meeting. Deputy Haughey, the Minister for Finance, is not there. He is told he is late coming in. Later, he is told that the Minister for Finance had a slight accident. Just on 1 o'clock, the Taoiseach is told that Deputy Haughey's accident was more serious than he had at first thought.

Assume that Deputy Haughey, the then Minister for Finance, had had no accident. Assume that he had come in. The Taoiseach had then precisely the same information, and no more, according to what he told us here, as he had on 29th April. Was the Taoiseach going to sack the Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, on Budget day or was he going to let the Minister for Finance deliver his Budget speech and then sack him on Budget night? Does anyone for a moment think that that would have happened? We know it would not. We know that, at 3 o'clock on Budget day, this House was informed that the Minister for Finance, Deputy haughey, was unable to present his Budget because of his accident. But if the Taoiseach's story is to be believed, that Minister would have been sacked that morning because the information implicating him was precisely the same information as was available a week later on the 29th.

I suggest that in relation to the then Minister for Justice resigning voluntarily, in relation to the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, who could not have taken very seriously whatever was said to him on the 29th, and in relation to the then Minister for Finance, who would have delivered his Budget Statement were it not for his accident, there would have been no sacking or any intention to sack but that there was an intention to cover up and hush up.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

That is why, on the 5th May, things began to happen when, and only when, Deputy Cosgrave told the Taoiseach that the story was out.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, has the impertinence to question Deputy Cosgrave's action.

Yes, I have.

It is a shame for the Minister. I wish now to go on to another question and it is this: what now is the position of Deputy J. Gibbons, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries? Is there any finger of suspicion pointing at him? We have not been told who accused Deputy Blaney or Deputy Haughey. We have not been allowed see these statements but we know that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has been accused on television and in the open light of day by Captain James Kelly of the Irish Army, accused and called an unmitigated scoundrel. Yet this man is retained by the Taoiseach in his Government—this Deputy who, if the Irish Press is to be believed, passed this story to This Week, this story which implicates the Taoiseach up to his neck, because it was stated clearly in that statement that from the end of last year, Deputy Gibbons as Minister for Defence, consulted the Taoiseach and informed him of the growing evidence of the implication of two members of the Government in an IRA gun running plot. However, the Taoiseach told us during this debate that the first involvement of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in this affair was on the 29th April which resulted in the arrest of Captain Kelly on 1st May. The Taoiseach said specifically that he never received any report from Deputy J. Gibbons at any earlier stage involving any ministers or members of the Government.

If that is so, what then is the explanation of the story in This Week? Is it a tissue of lies? The Irish Press says it “was passed to this newspaper by a Member of the Government”. The story is certainly diametrically opposed to the account given by the Taoiseach to the Dáil and to the nation. It shows that back in August and throughout November and the early months of this year the leader of the Government was constantly being informed of meetings between the members of the IRA army council and Deputies Blaney and Haughey, either collectively or individually. It shows that the leader of the Government was receiving reports continuously from his Minister for Defence who was obviously keeping him informed of the latest developments. It shows, if it is true, that the leader of the Government went to the Ard-Fheis of his own party conscious that there were members in his own Government who talked peace with war in their hearts.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

It shows the leader of the Government who realises now that he was leading a coalition of hawks and doves. That must be explained here either at the end of this debate or, eventually, to the people.

This whole affair cries out for investigation. Despite two long speeches, the Taoiseach might well have been the subject of Honor Tracy's book Mind You, I've Said Nothing because he has said nothing but there is no fair reason now why the full story should not be told. Who sought to import these arms and to whom were they consigned? Under what apparent legal authorisation were they coming in and who issued such authorisation? What was the result of the inquiries of Aer Lingus and the Department of Transport and Power? Is it true that for the past five or six months, members of the Goverment have been in constant touch with the IRA? Is it true that there has been this kind of plotting going on all the time? The time has come to spell it out. Is it all ended?

I see that one of the newly appointed Parliamentary Secretaries is here. Deputy Cunningham. He comes from Donegal. Is he the man to replace Deputy Blaney? He has views but whose views are these? This is from Deputy Cunningham and I quote from volume 126 of the Official Report, column 1987:

It was stated that all parties are now agreed that it is not advisable to use force. That may be so. That may be a proper attitude at the moment, but if in the next 20, 30 or 50 years it is found that these new methods——

Peaceful methods

——have failed what, then, are we to do? If all these methods fail, will we not then be justified in adopting the same methods as we used to free the part of Ireland that is free?

That was Deputy Cunningham speaking on the subject of the North of Ireland.

What was the date?

1951. Twenty years have almost passed. Have the methods that Deputy Cunningham snecred at succeeded?

Promotion has changed the Deputy's views?

Are there still men who seek peace with war in their hearts? These are answers that we have not got. The Minister for External Affairs today in a good and worthwhile speech talked of ours being a pluralist society. He talked of the different traditions among the people who occupy this island of ours, people of different historical origins. In the Presidential election of some years ago that was the keynote of my campaign. Those were the type of speeches I made everywhere. It was for that reason that I was criticised by many members of Fianna Fáil. It was for that reason, too, that I was subjected to criticism.

I am glad to hear it said again and said by a member of the Government. I would hope that it indicates a rational sensible attitude to our fellow Irishmen living in all parts of Ireland. I hope it can now be regarded as accepted national policy.

We do not underestimate or make little of the terrible duty of leading a Government at any time but particularly leading a Government at a time of pogrom in the north, nor would we underestimate the terrible decisions that may have to be made nor the strong and legitimate emotions which may easily push a Government into disaster. It is not from any lack of feeling for the people under attack in the north that we criticise Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey and the Government and the Taoiseach that harboured them and that would, if they had been let, have covered them up. We have no confidence in this Government because this is an issue, a difference of view between the leader and others in the party, a difference of view too deadly, too explosive, to be allowed to continue at the very heart of the Government. In the days of trouble, if they come, we want and are entitled to have a Government with one voice—be it right or wrong—with one view, one policy on the north. We cannot have a Government led by a man who is bound to become progressively weaker rather than stronger in his own party as the violence in the north continues.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

That is too dangerous. It is no reflection on the personality of the Taoiseach. It is a fact of the situation. If another progrom breaks out in the north, if violence pushes peace out of the way, if people are endangered and lives are endangered, then as that continues so does the Taoiseach's position, as leader of the Government, become endangered. This makes for national weakness and we certainly could have no confidence, nor could the people, in a continuation of that kind of position.

This is a motion of confidence tabled, in effect, by the Fianna Fáil Party in the Fianna Fáil Party. In that party now we can clearly see the rifts and the dissensions. Two members of the party have come out in the open. I despise their motives. Deputy Blaney is a verbal hero, nothing else. He was not going to get involved in anything that would hurt the smallest portion of his body. As a member of the Fianna Fáil Government for 13 years he did precious little about the North of Ireland——

Deputies

Hear, hear.

——but he wanted to mock himself up into a hero. For what purpose? Because of a cynical power struggle inside the Fianna Fáil Party.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The one name that everyone outside this House heard with a gasp of astonishment was the name of Deputy Charles Haughey as involved in a matter of this kind. He was never known to express the slightest concern for the North of Ireland or for our separated brethren. He was never known to be anything but a very sound and sane and wise man pursuing carefully Government policy. Why was he involved in this bizarre scandal? I suggest his motives were not patriotic but were motives of the most sordid kind. It was again a concern to use the position of the north, the troubles and the difficulties and the tribulations of our people up there, in a cynical exercise to unseat Deputy Lynch as leader of Fianna Fáil.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

These are not patriots; these are dangerous men. These are men who have nearly led this country into serious disaster. As long as they remain in Fianna Fáil their potential for danger is great and the time has come surely when the people of this country should be given an opportunity of passing judgment and electing a new government. Are we going to carry on as if nothing had happened? The extraordinary thing is that all the members of the Government throughout last week were saying: "There is no crisis." Even on the morning that two members of the Government had been sacked and one had resigned the Minister for Lands, leading the chorus said: "There is no crisis." I shudder to think what could be called a crisis by Fianna Fáil. If the fact that at least two, if not more, members of the Government were involved in a serious gun smuggling conspiracy and had to be dismissed from the Government is not a crisis, what is?

They have decided to stick it out. That is bad for Ireland, bad for our future, bad for democracy. I do not know whether they will survive. I believe the position of this Government will get worse instead of getting better. This is a time, domestically and externally, when this country needs a Government that can speak fully on behalf of the people. It is fortunate at this juncture in our affairs, with this serious situation coming out into the open, that the traditions of the two parties on your right, a Cheann Comhairle—the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party—have always been consistent in upholding this State and the rule of law and decent traditions in this country.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Opposition here which has provided a bulwark against the anarchist, against the conspirator. We would welcome an opportunity of going to the country now. We think it would be in the interests of Ireland. I challenge the Leader of Fianna Fáil to be a man and go to the people.

At the outset of this debate and of the one last week and in may concluding speech last week I told the House clearly that I had certain difficulties, certain limitations, with regard to the information that I had at my disposal. Deputy O'Higgins tonight asked me specific questions and so did Deputy Garret FitzGerald. I had a note taken of them earlier on. I want to say that, first of all, I took action on the basis of information given to me which was got through the agency of our Garda authorities. That action, on the face of it, involved, as Deputy O'Higgins has pointed out, a breach of the Firearms Act and, therefore, involved the possibility of criminal action being taken against somebody. When I started to make my inquiries, as I indicated to the House on 20th April, I was in possession of reports and statements made available to me from the Garda authorities. My immediate concern then was the fact that two members of the Government were mentioned in one way or another in these reports. My clear duty as head of the Government was to inquire whether there was any evidence available to me that would require me to cause or ask for their resignation from the Government.

That was my immediate and specific purpose. I think Deputy O'Higgins will agree that, if I disclosed information made available to me in advance of other proceedings, I could well prejudice the case, prejudice the prosecution and frustrate charges being met. Deputy Garret FitzGerald has not the legal training—he has other academic training—of Deputy O'Higgins. I am sure Deputy O'Higgins will not disagree with me in that proposition. It is for that reason, when I came to the House last Saturday night, I told the House I had given all the information it was possible for me to give.

I want to repeat again, in relation to the events of the past week, that my purpose was to satisfy myself whether I should take the action I did in relation to those two Ministers, that any other action that was required was a matter for legal authority, for the Attorney General. I gave the Attorney General the papers, as I have said. I used the words that the Attorney General was investigating the matter since I gave him the papers and some comment was made on that day. I did not intend anything to hinge on the words "investigating" or "investigation". I understand Deputy Garret FitzGerald referred to that today.

The Attorney General has been vigorously pursuing his side of the matter. He has been vigorously pursuing his responsibility in this whole business. He has called for further statements and further statements have been and are being made available to him. On the evidence that has been put before him, and on the evidence that is being put before him, the Attorney General will then make up his mind as to what action should be taken and in respect of what individual.

I want to say I asked two Ministers to resign. In the course of the debate this week and last week two other Ministers were mentioned as being implicated. Deputy Kevin Boland's name was mentioned. Deputy Kevin Boland resigned on his own volition without any implication or involvement whatever in this matter. I want to make that quite clear. I want to make it clear also that I had decided to act before Deputy Cosgrave came to me. I will indicate why I took that decision and why I knew it to be inevitable. In the first place, I told the House already that many names were reported to me as being involved one way or another in this transaction. When I say involved I do not mean to imply any criminal or other type of subversive involvement. Statements were taken from Aer Lingus personnel and from Customs and Excise personnel. There were telephone contacts between Dublin and Vienna Airports. There were phone calls, as I have indicated, between the Cargo Terminal of Aer Lingus and the Department of Transport and Power, between an official of the Department of Transport and Power and the Department of Justice, between that official in the Department of Justice and the headquarters of the Garda Síochána. Does anybody think in these circumstances I could be so naive as to think with so many people involved, with so many people having some knowledge, no matter how slight, of this transaction, that I hoped it would be possible, as has been alleged, to sweep the whole thing under the carpet? I am not so naive. I had no intention and no desire whatever to sweep anything under the carpet.

Let me come back again to the sequence of events. I said to the House the first evidence I had of illegal or unauthorised importation of arms was on Monday, 20th April. It was from that date that I decided there were three courses of action which were open to me. First of all, to get all the information I could on the attempted importation of arms; secondly, to ensure if arms were imported they would be seized and not permitted to be used for any unlawful or unauthorised purpose; and, thirdly, since the names of two Ministers were involved, to investigate as far as I could, to satisfy myself as well as I could, what action I should take against those Ministers. Ultimately the further action I took which I think was the proper one for me to take, was to hand the papers to the proper officer, the law officer of the Government, the Government's law adviser, in whose name prosecutions are taken and who advises in general whether or not prosecutions are taken but in particular in the case of serious matters. I regarded this as a serious matter and it was for that reason, therefore, I gave it to the Attorney General.

I was in no way or at no time a prosecutor in the legal sense. I was not a private investigator. My immediate function, as I want to repeat again, was to satisfy myself about what action I would propose to take in connection with the two Ministers mentioned. I got this information on 20th April. I asked for more information and that was presented to me on 21st April. I told the House already on Wednesday morning, 22nd April, that I asked for the Minister for Finance. I gave the House the reasons why I did not see him. If there is any doubt about that I am sure the secretary, or whoever answered the phone in the Minister's office, can verify I rang that official up early on that Wednesday morning.

I want, having already mentioned Deputy Kevin Boland, to come to the point about Deputy Michael Ó Móráin. During the investigation I made I had no reason to suspect any involvement by Deputy Ó Moráin and I was satisfied he was not involved. As I have indicated to the House, from my own observations I knew he was not in good health for some time before the date of the Budget. Naturally, when I subsequently learned he had gone to hospital as anyone would in the case of a colleague, no matter in what sphere of activity, I made inquiries as to his condition. I made particular inquiries of his doctor and I was told, as I indicated to the House, that the immediate treatment would require some two or three weeks and further treatment would be extended possibly over some months. I knew from the information already at my disposal it would require a Minister for Justice with his full capacity and full faculties to do the job which lay before him.

It was from that point of view I went to the Minister for Justice and also from the point of view that I knew I was about to take certain other action. I discussed, as I said, on that Monday morning, the 4th May, his future in politics. I later went to him and got his resignation in his own handwriting over his own signature. I did that on that day because I wanted to disassociate Deputy Ó Moráin from the action I was subsequently going to take.

At the same time I want to remind the House of the physical condition of Deputy Haughey who had had a serious accident, whose doctor I consulted about the possibility of going to see him, as I already indicated to the House, an eminent doctor and a doctor whose word any person in this country would be only too glad to accept as to the the cause of an accident and as to the condition of one of his patients. I told the House he advised me that Deputy Haughey had suffered a fractured skull and that it would not be possible to interview him immediately in hospital and not until I got permission from the doctor did I go to the hospital. I also told the House that the doctor said if it was a matter of serious moment I should only discuss it for a very short time with Deputy Haughey. I informed the doctor that the matter I wished to discuss was of serious moment.

Again, I would remind the House that I did interview Deputy Haughey in hospital on 29th April. In any circumstances it would have been a painful exercise for me but it was much more painful to interview him in the condition in which I found him. I thought then he was not capable of standing up to any kind of examination or questioning by me and I left Deputy Haughey rather more quickly than otherwise I might have done. Nevertheless, as a result of further investigations and inquiries I had already come to the conclusion to take the action I did take. That was irrespective of the visit of Deputy Cosgrave.

Deputy Cosgrave presented to me a piece of paper. I did not indicate to the House what kind of paper; I said that was a matter for Deputy Cosgrave as there had been some conjecture about whether it had been on headed notepaper. I took action then because if what Deputy Cosgrave had told me was true I thought that exaggerated accounts of what had happened might appear in the newspapers and elsewhere. Subsequently, I came to the House and gave what information I could give. That is the sequence of events up to the time I made the announcement.

In the course of the debate Deputy J. Gibbons was mentioned as being a person who should also come under suspicion. I said that had I any suspicions of him I would not have nominated him last week to be Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Allegations were made in the course of the debate which I had investigated in detail and that did not change my mind.

In regard to a comment made on Deputy Blaney's return home last weekend, I should like to say that I regard the reception he got as being by no means extraordinary. Deputy Blaney is a man whose family had given great service to the country and he himself has given almost a quarter of a century service to his people in Donegal and to his country. After the events of last week it was not unnatural that on his return home his own faithful and warm-hearted people in Donegal should have accorded him a reception. However, that does not in any way diminish what I have done or the reason for my decision.

During the course of the debate questions were asked about many things to which I would find it impossible to reply as I do not know the answers. There were allegations and rumours of all kinds; wild stories from magazines that did not indicate the source of their information and quotations from such journals as the United Irishman. Everybody knows that at the outbreak of violence last August quick decisions had to be made by the Government. I was challenged as to what I meant about “not standing idly by” and I think I can justify the claim that we did not stand idly by. We made certain services available and I gave the reasons last week why we thought that necessary. We made representations to the British Government about the security of the area. We suggested that either they should call in the United Nations to ensure peace or agree to an Anglo-Irish force. We failed in our approach to the United Nations in regard to a peacekeeping force. We had not any great confidence that this could be done as we knew under the United Nations Charter the country to which the UN force would be assigned would have to seek such a force. We also knew that the United Nations would very likely regard, as they were entitled to do, the territory of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.

Even though it was not very acceptable to any of us, we ensured as far as we could that the British forces would maintain peace and protect all people in the north, particularly the minority. We have continued to insist on that protection, realising our own special difficulties.

Members of the Labour Party have asked me several times why I did not go to see Mr. Wilson. When a meeting takes place between two people both parties usually have to consent to such a meeting. Before these troubles started and before our own general election, I did ask for a meeting but I think I indicated to the Labour Party that there were certain problems in Britain, mainly of an industrial nature, which preoccupied Mr. Wilson. Ultimately, when he felt free to see me it was at the time of our own general election.

Soon after that the troubles started in the Bogside and in Belfast. I thought that a meeting with the British Prime Minister would not have been conducive to maintaining peace in Northern Ireland. As I said today, it could then, as now, perhaps have given rise to expectations in one quarter that might not be immediately realised or fears in another quarter that would have been unfounded. I was concerned that those expectations or fears might have given rise to another outbreak of violence. In this delicate situation I had to act with the utmost discretion.

At the outset I stated we were entitled to be consulted about the situation, and especially in regard to any change that might occur in Northern Ireland. I am now using the term "Northern Ireland" to avoid causing any confusion; it is the name by which that part of the country is known. From the beginning I insisted that we were entitled to consultation and I am going to ensure as far as I can that we will be consulted.

Deputy O'Brien spoke today about the participation of Army officers in the Six Counties since the events of August. Our Army, like any other, has its intelligence unit and nobody can deny but that Army officers did operate in the Six Counties area during that period. But I do not think I can be expected, since it is an intelligence matter, to recount here to the House all the activities, any more than I can be expected to recount the methods used by the Garda authorities in carrying out their investigations.

Will activities inside Northern Ireland continue?

That is another matter entirely. I do not think I should be expected to answer questions like that about our situation.

(Interruptions.)

Talk about trust.

Deputy Desmond talks about trust. I am not in any way in breach of my trust. On the contrary, I would be in breach of my trust to the Irish people if I disclosed what concerned the security of this country. I do not want to conceal the facts of this transaction but I want to repeat that I can only disclose these according as I am certain they will not prejudice subsequent action by the Attorney General. I do not know what action the Attorney General will take. I feel he is likely to take some action, but I want to assure the House that if he takes no action that will not be the end of the matter. I am not afraid in any way to give to the country all the information I have about this whole transaction, but this is not the time. I want to assure the Deputies opposite that I am not concerned about my political future either, no matter what the outcome of this is. I am concerned about the security of our country and about the reunification of this country, and, indeed, so are all the other Ministers and every Member sitting here behind me.

I want to talk about the peaceful solution to this problem. I am one of the oldest men in this party; anyway the great majority are younger than I. I came into Fianna Fáil on the basis of Fianna Fáil policy which has never changed since its foundation in relation to the unification of the country, that is, that we would seek it by peaceful means. I assume that every other person who came into the party on that basis as a founder member or who came into the party subsequently, subscribes fully to that policy. I believe this is fundamental policy, and I share the views of the Tánaiste that the course to take is quite clear to anyone who does not believe in that policy. Let there be no equivocation about that.

I was asked some specific question today at Question Time and I stated I would bring in the answer about the disposal of Secret Service funds. I said today that, to my knowledge, Secret Service funds were disposed of between three Departments mainly, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defence and the Department of External Affairs. I was asked whether any other Department had access to these funds. I was not absolutely certain but I made inquiries. I went back six years. I thought that was long enough. The fact is that only these three Departments did have access to those funds with one exception, that is, the year 1965-66 when the Department of Industry and Commerce asked for and received a very small allocation out of these funds, for what purpose I cannot say. As I indicated to the House, the Minister for Finance certifies, on the assurance of the Minister seeking these funds, that they may be paid, and they are disposed of by the appropriate officers either in the Garda, the Army or the Department of External Affairs.

I do not think the House could expect nor could I give any more information about the disposal of Secret Service funds. However, I want to add that I made specific inquiries as to whether any moneys could have been voted or could have been paid out of Exchequer funds or out of any public funds in respect of a consignment of arms of the size we have been dealing with and I am assured that there was not nor could not have been.

Another question I was asked was why, in speaking to an RTE Reporter who met me outside my office—I think it was the afternoon after the leaving of the Government of the two Ministers concerned—I said in answer to a question as to whether I expected more resignations I did not think so. I had not then nor do I have now any reason to expect more resignations from the Government.

The problem is that everybody reads into everything said by me or anybody else at this juncture something ominous, something that bears no relation to the true position. It is possible to do that in any circumstances, but certainly as far as I am concerned I have been telling the truth. I have been telling what I know and what I am free to say in the circumstances about this whole situation.

All this is about the re-unification of our country, the desire we all have for a united Ireland, the desire we all have for all Irishmen to live in peace and harmony together. I am satisfied that only, as I said, by peaceful means can this be brought about. As long as I am Taoiseach or as long as I have any influence in or out of Parliament, I want to say I would not tolerate any other form of activity. The fact that I took this action recently is, I think, indicative of my earnestness in this respect.

If there are people on either side of the Border who feel that force of arms would be a solution, I would ask them to think again as to what the consequences would be. If there are people on either side of the fence in the Six Counties, Unionists or Nationalists, who because of the concentration of their numbers in a particular part of that territory had the strength to attack their neighbours, I would ask them to think long about the consequences for their own families even if they have no care for their own personal safety, to think of the young and the old and of the exposure of these people to gas, to fire or to bullets.

I want to ask them to think too of the inflammatory effects of their actions in relation to other people of their own affiliations, of their own convictions in other parts of that territory, people who live in small minorities and who are in almost complete isolation. I ask them to think of the consequences their inflammatory acts might be responsible for in relation to people of their own kind in these isolated communities.

The time has come for all moderate opinion to speak out—this great silent majority of which we hear so much. The time has come when they should no longer remain silent but let their influence be used to bring home to militants, no matter on whose side they are, the terrible consequences of their provocative actions. Those people of goodwill should give the lead everywhere. They should show example and offer the hand of friendship to all their neighbours, irrespective of class or creed.

There are genuine fears on all sides. There are also genuine motivations for actions, but no matter how much we agree with them we must realise that there are people who have neither genuine fears nor motivations, people who are only too ready to exploit the fears and the difficulties of others. I believe that whatever kind of State these militantly minded people want, whatever kind of country the representative groups in the north want, they certainly do not want a land torn by strife. We in this part of the country have had experience of this: we have had experience of the Civil War, and in this part of the country feelings do not run as deeply or as severely as in the north. We know how bitter the aftermath of civil war can be and how it can touch successive generations.

It may be said that it is easy for me to preach tolerance and moderation from the comparative security and comfort of my position here in Dublin, that it is easy for me to preach tolerance so long as I do not feel insecure myself. To some people, particularly in the north, what I am saying may appear to be a policy of lip-service, of lip service without any realisation of the situation that exists in the North of Ireland or any real desire to help. I said on the last occasion in answering an accusation made by a northern nationalist that we were abandoning them—since then I have heard some people say that I have thrown them to the wolves—how I felt about the unlawful use of firearms. I said that to make firearms available in the circumstances that exist in the Six Counties at present, and having regard to the feelings that now prevail up there, would be throwing the minority to the wolves. If we in any way facilitate the importation of arms to that part of the territory—and I want to say to Deputy O'Brien that I do not condone the importation of arms from any part of the world—we are throwing the minority to the wolves. Deputy O'Brien quoted Deputy Boland today but he did not go far enough. From the same column of the Official Report, column 752 of the report for 8th and 9th May, I should like to refer to Deputy Boland's reference to the illegal importation of arms into this country. He said that as far as he was concerned it was not illegal to import arms into the Six Counties but he went on:

It is our duty to advise against it but it is not our business to interfere.

The words I want to emphasise are "It is our duty to advise against it." I think that indicates clearly——

Does that qualification make Deputy Boland's statement acceptable to the Taoiseach?

I want to give Deputy Boland the charity of full quotation.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I mentioned that I feel that to permit the unlicensed, unlawful importation of arms would be to do real harm to the minority up there because it would be impossible for them to defend themselves in the long run unless they had the defences now available to them—the armed forces that have been sent there by the British Government. I do not want to see Irishmen ever again using guns against fellow Irishmen.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Even though some people who now think they are strong, think they can subdue their neighbours, they will not have the strength to maintain a position they may have secured by unlawful military means. I want to say to them, and indeed to all Irish people in the north, that their lives in the future are as dear to me and to the members of my Government as are the lives of Irish people in any other part of the country.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I am concerned for the well being and security of all the people in the north and I am concerned that the well being of the people in the south as well might not be preserved unless we avoid serious outbreaks of violence in the north during the coming summer. I want to ensure that that well being, that security will be preserved, but that can be done only if all our efforts are directed to creating a climate of understanding of the fears, of the suspicions which have been engendered in the Six Counties.

That understanding can only be promoted by being tolerant even in the face of intolerance and fear itself and in the realisation that all people, no matter what their affiliations, are capable of having the same fears and trusts, the same hatred and love, the same hurt and happiness. Nobody is immune from these feelings, nobody is entitled to exacerbate them for evil and nobody is entitled to play on emotions if the purpose is to gain short-term advantage for a particular cause if it is going to give rise to strife and suffering.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The incessant atmosphere of hate and suspicion which has been bolstered up by militant action and provocative speeches, no matter how sincerely motivated—and I can accept that such actions and such speeches can be sincerely motivated— can only result in misery, destruction and bloodshed which will affect those who perpetrate these actions as well as innocent people. I appeal to those who are in any way militantly minded to pull back from this precipice and instead of pursuing this suicidal course, which can only mean mutual destruction in the end, try to listen to the voices of moderation and tolerance so that mutual trust and understanding will lead them to take the first, even though halting, steps away from that precipice into a future which can bring lasting peace, prosperity and happiness to all parts of this beloved island of ours.

Anything I have said in this respect, and I have been consistent in expounding Fianna Fáil policy, in no way diminishes our desire for the re-unification of this country. We shall pursue our policy of seeking re-unification by peaceful means. We do not believe the unnatural partition of our country can last for ever. Even those responsible for partitioning our country initially did not see it as a long-term solution to what they across the Irish Sea call, "the Irish problem". We want to see all our people united. I want to assure the House no matter how the present difficulties might be sought to be exploited by the parties opposite—it is legitimate politics, I suppose—that every member of this party is committed whole heartedly to pursuing this policy of re-unification by peaceful means.

A Deputy

Hear, hear.

I believe this country can only move forward as a peaceful, progressive, socially-conscious and forward-looking nation able to play a full part not only in a united Europe but in a peaceful and prosperous world, when the people are united in heart, body and soul as one Irish nation.

May I ask the Taoiseach one question?

(Interruptions.)

Are the allegations of Captain Kelly being investigated by the police?

I am not going to tell the Deputy what the police are doing.

If the Taoiseach does not want to answer the question it is all right but I am sure he does. With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, may I ask, if the Attorney General does not take any action in this case does this mean the end of the affair and if so is the taint of suspicion removed from these two Deputies concerned?

A Deputy

The Deputy could not have been listening during the last few days.

If the taint of suspicion is not removed, surely it should be the subject of inquiry by a Select Committee of this House?

In the first place the investigations being carried out by the Garda are a matter for the Garda themselves. It is not for me to direct investigations or direct any course of action by the Garda. It is not for me to indicate to the Attorney General what his job is but I can assure the Deputy that everything which is required to be done is being done. As far as Deputy Corish is concerned I think the remark made by one of my colleagues that he was not listening is apposite. I have said that if the Attorney General does not take action that would not be the end of the affair.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 64.

  • 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.
  • 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, Timothy.
  • 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.
  • 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 M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Fox, Billy.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hogan, O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Connell, John F.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • 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.
  • O'Donovan, John.
  • O'Hara, Thomas.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Reilly, Paddy.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Taylor, Francis.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl, Deputies R. Burke and Cluskey.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 19th May, 1970.
Barr
Roinn