I move.
"That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in An Taoiseach and the other Members of the Government."
I want to say at the outset——
Confidence in Taoiseach and Government: Motion.
(Interruptions.)
You are all right, are you?
Which side are you on?
We did not fight publicly on the stairs last night.
Would Members of the House allow the Taoiseach to speak?
Let the hostage speak.
In relation to that observation from Deputy Barry Desmond——
The intellectual of the Labour Party.
——I will deal with that sentiment in due course. These remarks from the Labour Party come very badly from them realising that, without in any way appealing to the rules of order, this motion of confidence, or no confidence as the case may be, is being debated at a time when the rules of order preclude such a debate. So far as the remarks from the Labour Party which we have just heard are concerned, I had no say whatever, as you know, Sir, as to what motions would be allowed to be debated here today, but it was my prerogative as Leader of the Government Party to put down a positive motion in the face of motions of no confidence tabled by the Opposition. It would be a poor leader and a man capable of poor tactics who would allow the Opposition to take the initiative. I did no more than exercise my prerogative in putting down a positive and substantive motion. I believe I was right in doing that. What effect that had on motions tabled by the Opposition was not a matter for me.
As far as I am concerned this motion seeks a vote of confidence in the Government and it is specifically worded to include the Taoiseach and every Member of the Government. I know that no matter in what circumstances or in what language my motion is couched, it will not limit in any way the offerings of the Opposition or the attempt that they will make to take advantage of the present situation.
I know too, Sir, that a motion of this nature enables the House to engage in a wide ranging debate and I am long enough in politics to realise that the members of the Opposition will take full advantage of that too and will use every device to score points, every device to try to undermine the Government, every device in order to get across to the public many aspects of this situation that are untenable. I know that on this occasion too there will be a tendency on the part of the Opposition to debate the wrong motion, there will be a tendency to discuss the merits of the previous Government rather than the merits of this Government. I do not propose, Sir, to completely ignore the events of the past few months but I must emphasise that it is not my intention to engage in an extensive and what would be a futile discussion of historical events. My primary purpose is to demonstrate that this Government are willing and able to push ahead with the heavy programme of legislation that is now before them. The Government have Ministers with the necessary will and commitment and ability to do this. They have a comprehensive, consistent and unified set of policies to guide them and they have too the support of the party sufficient to carry this policy and these policies through.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The important point of relevance in the ministerial changes that brought about the constitution of the present Government is not the rectitude or otherwise of individual activities or actions nor is it a question of whether there were or were not differences in policies; it is the right, under the Constitution, always has been, and I hope, always will be, of a Taoiseach to change the Government in any way he chooses, if necessary by dismissing Ministers. This is a power which, as far as I know, has not been used in this country already whereas such ministerial changes are common and indeed very common in many other countries. Because of the novelty of my action it was not surprising that there should have been considerable discussion and reaction to it.
Did the Taoiseach say the "novelty" of his action?
Yes.
Some novelty.
Do you want a dictionary?
I am intrigued.
Obviously the Deputies have not listened to what has been said and pick on a word in order to make another cheap jibe which is typical of the Labour Party, of those so-called intellectuals, smart alecks sitting in the front bench or in the back bench.
Intellectual pups.
Everyone would need to watch everything the Taoiseach says because everything he says has a double meaning. The days of "Honest Jack" are over.
I can assure you during the course of this debate the snide and smart aleck remarks coming from those benches will be answered in full.
The Taoiseach seems to have a terrible inferiority complex.
I have no inferiority complex but I have a detestation of this smug superiority complex that is evident on those benches.
My God!
Mr. J. Lenehan
They would remind one of the Last Supper, would they not?
I referred to the fact that there was novelty in the action I took and, therefore, that it was not surprising that there should have been considerable discussion on it and reaction to it. Once the initial surprise had worn off it was recognised and accepted that it was perfectly legitimate for a Taoiseach to act in this way. Indeed the Ministers who left the Government, in one way or another, have openly acknowledged this.
I want to say too, Sir, that there is no reason why changes of this kind should now or at any other time result in a general election. The electorate return Deputies to this House. The Deputies in turn elect the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach appoints Ministers. So long as the Taoiseach has that power to appoint and select and change Ministers he is entitled to do so at any time for any reason that seems proper to him and so long as the Taoiseach has a majority in the House then I think it is appropriate that if, for one reason or another, personal suitability or otherwise, he exercises this power, if he feels it is in the interests of the country, if he feels it is in the interests of the policies that he wants to pursue, there is no reason at any time to accept that the choices he has made originally or indeed the changes that he might have made in the meantime must remain immutable. In the light of experience and as circumstances alter there are occasions on which a Taoiseach not only may wish but would feel it incumbent on him to make ministerial changes. I feel these are valid remarks that apply essentially to any Taoiseach in any Dáil. I make them because there is a danger that they may be overlooked and they may be overlooked because of the particular circumstances under which I made changes.
No doubt the Opposition will want to open up old sores. They will want to exploit the situation. I shall not give them a precedent now for doing so. If they want to do so let them do so in the course of the debate and to the extent that they want to do that and will do it then I will answer them when it comes to my time to close the debate.
So much for past events. As I said earlier my prime concern is with the future and that is the purpose of any Government, the purpose of any Taoiseach. The Government are determined to continue relentlessly with their programme of implementing Fianna Fáil policy. The first and major policy of the Fianna Fáil Party since its very inception is to secure the reunification of this country by peaceful means. It was recognised from the very outset that this process, that this policy, that this purpose would be a long one, requiring great patience and determination. Man can change boundaries, he can draw up laws, change constitutions overnight, but man cannot do the same with attitudes, with ideologies and beliefs. The whole of recorded history shows that the task of reuniting divided families, of prompting tolerance for conflicting beliefs, and of creating an environment in which different attitudes and cultures may flourish in a climate of mutual respect and understanding is one which yields results only very slowly. I am satisfied that we have been making progress in this direction along the right road. I am confident that we will make further progress in the months and years immediately ahead. Such progress will continue to be made until our objective of a united Ireland in which all our countrymen may live in peace and harmony has been achieved.
The essential complement to political freedom is the attainment of an economy strong enough to provide the means for material well-being, social advancement and cultural development for all our people. Again I am satisfied that the policies which my Government have been pursuing are the most effective to secure these results. The most immediate task facing my Government at the present time is that of dealing with the economic difficulties which confront us and which were outlined in detail yesterday by the Minister for Finance. I do not want in any way to minimise those problems. They are not only substantial, they are potentially dangerous. At the same time it is important, because of these dangers and of their impact on our well-being, to place them in perspective. Many countries have had to face a similar inflationary problem. Our position is somewhat more dangerous than some of those at any rate. For one thing we are a small country and therefore it is more difficult for us to combat inflation, or to insulate ourselves against inflationary pressures, than countries whose economies are stronger than ours. We are more dependent on foreign trade than the larger countries and therefore we cannot for that reason alone insulate ourselves against the harmful effects of inflation.
Secondly, there has been a tendency in the past year or a little more for our rate of inflation, our inflationary graph, to be slightly higher than that of countries with which we have to compete. Therefore, it was essential for us now to face up to those problems. I am confident that my Government have the correct policies to meet those problems and to overcome them. If we did not face up to them now, and if we did what the Opposition and indeed some newspaper commentators suggest we ought to do, dissolve the Dáil, then we would be accused of not facing up to our problems and we would be guilty of the same kind of conduct as characterised the two previous Coalition Governments.
I know it is never popular for a Government to have to act against inflation but once we have satisfied ourselves that the course of action we have chosen is necessary for the well-being of the nation we will not flinch against the prospect of disfavour. The good of the country, the good of the community, will always be placed ahead of party political interest, as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, and will always be place ahead of electoral popularity. Let there be no mistake about this.
(Interruptions.)
That is why we are here.
Order.
There is a volume of opinion abroad that now would be a propitious time for Fianna Fáil to go to the country.
Why does the Taoiseach not try this?
The reason why we do not try it is that there are serious and urgent economic problems to be faced and problems which we will not run away from. Immediately we have the Supplementary Budget, and after this Motion of Confidence is out of the way, we propose to proceed with the legislation on prices and incomes. We know too that that it is essential not but we recognise that it is essential not only to have it done but to have it done as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
You created those problems yourself.
The Deputy is no problem.
You have two more problem children in the back there.
A third area of importance which this Government have to consider at the present time is that of our application for membership of the European Economic Community. As the House is aware negotiations have already begun. Indeed, substantive negotiations have begun and will be continuing apace in the months ahead. The attitude and policy of the Fianna Fáil Government to our entry to the European Economic Community is well-known, understood and is unequivocal. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Opposition parties. It can be said of us that we intend to proceed with our policy towards application and towards entry to the European Economic Community as already outlined and defined. We hope to negotiate for entry to that Community on terms in accordance with our policy and which will be satisfactory to the interests of our people.
I do not think I need enumerate at this stage the many other areas of implementation of policy with which this Government will be concerned. I have said sufficient to indicate that the Government will continue to implement Fianna Fáil policies. I have also said sufficient to indicate that there is no credible alternative to this Government.
There sure is.
If I had the slightest doubt about the correctness of continuing in Government—and I want to assure the House that I have no such doubt—it would be quickly dispelled if I or anybody else contemplated the alternative. I fail to see how the Opposition parties could seriously suggest for one moment that they are in a position to provide an alternative Government. On the two immediate issues to which I have referred, the economic situation and entry to the EEC, the Fine Gael and Labour Parties have totally conflicting policies and views. Fine Gael have been suggesting, if we are to accept all their speeches, that the Government should have introduced an incomes policy at an earlier date while on the prices front they regard our existing controls as being if anything too severe in their operation. In contrast, the Labour Party advocate a prices freeze but they do not want any curbs on pay increases. I must say I regard the Labour Party's proposals in this respect as completely unsound and indeed irresponsible in present conditions. I for one would have no confidence in the Leader of a party which advocate policies of the kind put forward by Deputy Corish in the past couple of days. It was interesting of course to watch the Labour Party, the great socialist party, last night walking into the Lobby behind their masters, Fine Gael, in opposition to a company profits tax.
(Interruptions.)
Do not be dishonest.
Nice left wing party.
I saw, as we all saw, the hurried and agonising consultations which were going on in those benches last night before that vote was taken.
Nice left wing party, lobby socialists.
Do not be telling lies.
We noted too the absentees from those hurried and agonising consultations and we noted too the failure of the ultra-socialists in getting equally ultra-socialists to follow them into their anti-socialist lobby.
You are very hard up for a speech and an alibi.
I am not very hard up. I will speak as I want.
Order.
It is a very hard thing to talk about.
Talk about some of the problems that we are here to discuss.
Many shades of thinking.
Let us come to the other issue I referred to, our application for entry into the EEC.
A red herring.
It is not a red herring. Deputy O'Donovan, whether he wants an election or not—I think it is very doubtful——
We are not going into the EEC.
The Deputy is away out on the right.
——and if as a result of that election he found himself once again Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, or in some other office, would he support——
A Cheann Comhairle——
Deputy O'Donovan will please resume his seat.
On a point of fact. I was never Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach is in possession.
I was never Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach should withdraw the remark.
The Deputy will get ample opportunity to make his contribution.
I am not going to make any speech. I want to correct the Taoiseach.
That is not in order.
I will pay due acknowledgment to my error in terminology.
It is an error of fact.
Deputy O'Donovan was Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, but unfortunately in that capacity he gave such bad advice to the then Taoiseach that it was conducive to bringing down that Government. Is that fair enough?
No, that is not fair. That is not the way the Taoiseach talked to the Seanad on one occasion.
In the absence of a speech it is not bad.
In whatever capacity he would find himself in an alternative administration he would still face the prospect of negotiations for entry into the EEC. Deputy O'Donovan is unreservedly opposed to entry as are many of his colleagues; others of his colleagues say: "Unless and until we get terms suitable for our purpose we will not enter."
While Fianna Fáil will go in under any conditions.
We do not intend to go in under any conditions. I should like to see the Labour Party reconcile between themselves what their attitude is.
(Interruptions.)
Surely the purpose of a no confidence motion as tabled by both parties opposite is to seek to overthrow the Government and in doing that to place themselves in Government. I am entitled therefore to examine what the alternatives are. I have no doubt about the unity of purpose of this Government——
(Interruptions.)
None whatever, and, above all, about the unity of purpose in regard to the matters of importance immediately facing us. I certainly could have no confidence in a Leader of a Government, this alternative that is suggested to us, who alleges he could reconcile the conflicts that exist between them into a coherent and consistent policy.
Can the Taoiseach do it?
You carry on with your vote of no confidence and we shall see what the outcome will be.
There are at least three men behind the Taoiseach——
The Deputy will get an opportunity of speaking.
I am still on the theme of the contrast between Opposition parties that hope to form a Government and the Fianna Fáil Government. Since there was so much talk about prevarication I am entitled to talk about the prevarication of the Leader of the Labour Party as to whether he would join in a coalition. We shall be interested to see whether Deputy Corish will implement an undertaking that if Labour goes into coalition he will be sitting in the back benches. Let us hear Deputy Corish's comment on that.
The contrast between the Opposition parties and Fianna Fáil could not be clearer. In our case there are no fundamental differences on any of our major policies; differences in emphasis, yes; clashes of temperament or of personalities, yes; occasional disagreements as to the best or most appropriate means by which to achieve some of our objectives, yes. All of these are no more than an indication that there is an active interest and involvement by members of our party in our party affairs. Such differences or disputes as arise from time to time can very easily be magnified out of proportion to their importance, but they should not obscure the fact that on all major policy questions there is agreement amongst the members of Fianna Fáil. That is why I am confident that my Government can continue to provide the sound and sane Government which the country wishes to see and that this House will give it the necessary mandate to continue with this work.
This is the second confidence motion we have had in the space of six months. I think anyone who has listened to the special pleading of the Taoiseach here this morning could not but have full sympathy for the predicament in which the Government find themselves. However, sympathy in this situation is no substitute for a realistic and genuine concern for the problems which affect the country. Stripped of all the references which the Taoiseach has made to the economic situation, the speech we listened to this morning was as irrelevant as the Budget that was introduced yesterday in dealing with the problems which confront the country. There are only two things that unite every section of the Fianna Fáil Party, two things on which they are entirely agreed. One is to avoid allowing the public to express a decision on their actions.
That is what you said before the last election.
The second is that no matter how they differ on policy or personalities, no matter how they differ as to whether one is more republican or less republican, they are determined, even if it involves cutting one another's throats and cutting the country's throat, to remain near the loot, to keep their paws in the people's pockets. Every Minister who was a member of this Government last May or March or whenever the action was taken—for the first time in the history of this State public money was spent without Dáil authority and no public account has been rendered yet as to how the money was spent—every Minister who was then a member of the Government has had his hand in the people's pockets and his paw on the public purse. We shall be told today no doubt that the gardaí are investigating the matter to see if there was any criminal activity. One expects from Ministers a higher standard than one associates with common criminals. One does not expect public money to be spent without authority. Some indication has already been given that this matter was investigated. According to the Taoiseach, the investigation was inhibited by the bank strike. Like so much else associated with Fianna Fáil at present that is only portion of the truth. An investigation was conducted during the course of the recent trial and certain accounts were examined and it is time that the House was given the facts. It is time that either the Public Accounts Committee or a Select Committee of the Dáil was appointed to investigate this matter because I do not accept, and the public will not be convinced, that an investigation by Fianna Fáil or Fianna Fáil appointees will ensure that justice is done and be seen to be done.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I want a committee established to investigate the matter, a committee that will not be open to undue influence by the tacateers or their friends, a committee that will not be used to subvert justice and influence improperly the administration and expenditure of public money. I asked last May if this was only the tip of the iceberg. Now the people know what was underneath and they have seen only some of it because every day brings more revelations.
The Taoiseach came in here this morning claiming that he represented a united party. There is a leading article in today's Irish Press referring to the fact that measures had been approved yesterday by 75 to 67 and that this represented the unity of purpose and action to deal with the economic situation. The only unity represented in that was the unity displayed in the determination of every Fianna Fáil Deputy to avoid going before the public.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
They are afraid to face the consequences of an election. I assert here and now that whether the time is long or short, whether it can be postponed for a week or a few months, retributive justice is on the track of Fianna Fáil and will exact its penalty when the people get the chance of voicing their opinions in the ballot box.
"This Government is united." Last week two former Ministers called on the Taoiseach to resign. The public memory—even the Fianna Fáil memory —is not so short that they forget those calls from Deputy Blaney and from Deputy Boland, who is in external association with the party. Mark you, there is something slightly attractive about the rugged crudeness of the approach of Deputies Boland and Blaney to this problem. It is more attractive than that of some of the Ministers, who are clinging like limpets to place and power to ensure that they have their fingers near the loop. The most notable claim and one frequently advanced by the Taoiseach and by the Government in recent weeks and months is that they have a coherent, united policy on reunification. One of the most tragic aspects of the intrigues that have characterised this Government in recent months is the effect they have had on the prospect of the reunification of the country in which every politician expresses his belief. It is accepted that his commitment is to see this accomplished. It has been traditionally the policy of this party that reunification can only be achieved through peaceful means and mutual trust between Irishmen, irrespective of creed or political beliefs. But what trust can be placed in the present Government? What faith can be expressed in their unity on this purpose?
Deputy Haughey who, up to some months ago, was regarded as a senior Minister and, I suppose, as the grey eminence of the Fianna Fáil Party, said in reference to the Taoiseach's speech at the United Nations: "I do not think it represents Fianna Fáil policy as I understand it." Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney expressed somewhat similar views, perhaps a little more vigorously. One said it was "contemptible"; Deputy Boland said it was "totally inept and would be laughable if it were not so tragic." Deputy Haughey described it as "sad, tragic and contemptible." It left him "flummoxed". Deputy Blaney said that it would be better if the Taoiseach resigned.
In those circumstances is it any wonder that the present Prime Minister in the Six Counties, however temporary his position may be, attempted to lecture politicians in this part of the country? It was a chance to avoid dealing with the failure of the Unionist administration there for 50 years to give justice to every section of the community. We can throw that criticism back in his teeth because this party, throughout its history, ensured that every section of the community irrespective of creed, class or political beliefs, would be equal before the law and that their rights would be protected.
1925.
That cannot be said in the Six Counties. Not even Fianna Fáil take the Minister for Transport and Power seriously—the great promiser. The fact is that under the administration and maintenance of the rule of law here every section knew that their rights would be protected irrespective of their political or religious views and that justice would be guaranteed for them.
But a chink has appeared in that situation as a result of recent events. While the Government have been hypocritically talking about peace some members of it have been engaged in this immature attempt to embroil one section of our people in conflict with another. We want to ensure peace and that is why we believe the time has come to consult the people in this matter. There has, of course, been a great deal of verbal play by different Fianna Fáil Deputies on the word "republic". Some are more republican than others and if one combines the words "republican" and "socialist" and switches them around, one in front and the other behind, then they are beings from another planet with whom ordinary mortals like us are not fit to associate. This, of course, is a complete sham.
Another doctrine preached by Fianna Fáil was that an oath was an empty formula. Acceptance of that doctrine was very obvious in recent weeks.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Acceptance of that doctrine was very obvious in recent weeks and when the Taoiseach said here last night that he witnessed agonising reassessments he did not tell us of the four-hour confrontation in the Fianna Fáil Party rooms the other night when members, not of the Opposition, not of other parties, but of the Fianna Fáil Party, used a particular word about at least one member of the Fianna Fáil Party and the initial letter of that word was "b". That word was not used by enemies of Fianna Fáil. That word was used by people in the same party who assessed what they considered was the attitude that had been adopted. Then we have the despicable display in which this Government, the Taoiseach and every member of it, commit themselves, not merely in previous speeches but in the Resolution that is down, to trying to get verbal unity and a passage with 75 or 74, or whatever number of Deputies there are, through the Division Lobby.
But that was what the Fianna Fáil Deputies said about each other. They had interpreted the facts. They had seen the situation and that was their assessment of each other. They now are prepared apparently to heal old sores. They now are prepared to swallow their own words, to swallow the speeches that were made, because the facade of unity presented at Dublin Airport must be preserved. I suppose most people are familiar with the photograph of the guilty men——
If this amuses Deputy L'Estrange that is all right.
It seems to amuse the Minister too.
Some of the veterans were bringing up the rear at the airport and they were all shepherded in front of the tacateers. They were in the rear. They were making sure they were all present. But there were some notable omissions. One of the things the Irish Press said—again this overworked word—was that the presence of such stalwarts as Mr. Frank Aiken, Mr. Michael Hilliard, Mr. Paddy Smith and Mr. Seán MacEntee was a strong indication of where the support of the old republicans of Fianna Fáil lies.
If only Fine Gael had them.
There were a couple of notable omissions. Mr. Gerald Boland was missing. Mr. Seán Lemass was missing. Why were they not there? Which side are they on?
Are we talking about the present Government or are we talking about a former Government?
We are talking about low standards in high places.
We are talking about the alleged unity of the Fianna Fáil Party and where the sympathy of the veterans lay. It is time that this sham was exposed for what it is. It is time this display by the seagreen incorruptibles was exposed. The fact is that in this Government there are low standards in high places. Deputy Colley, the Minister for Finance, knows this because he was the first person who used the expression. He said the young people were cynical because of low standards in high places. He knows the Fianna Fáil Government.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
He did not say that and the Deputy knows he did not say it.
And then he makes a pitiable attempt to deny it afterwards.
It has been pointed out before that he did not say that.
That was a most pitiable attempt to misinterpret the situation.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Where is the £100,000 now?
I want to get from this Government an indication of what action will be taken to investigate publicly the misappropriation of public funds. What action will be taken against a member of the Government who deceived the Dáil? I should preface my remarks on this by saying that my personal relations as a Deputy over the years with the Minister concerned, either as a Deputy or a Minister, have always been the most cordial. But this is the people's parliament and we must on behalf of the people express our concern at the position that has arisen. On 8th May the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries said in the Dáil at column 839 of the Official Report, when it was suggested that he had known of participation in an attempt to bring in arms: "I wish emphatically to deny any such knowledge." On 9th October, according to the Press reports of the evidence given in the court, he said that on several occasions in March and April Captain Kelly had told him in some detail about attempts to bring in arms in which he was involved.
That is not true.
Nobody knows what is true.
The last time the Minister said that he had to admit that he was telling lies so he had better keep quiet now.
And that is not true either.
Do the public believe that? I know that the public believe that Ministers have misled the Dáil, have refused to say how the money was spent and have deceived the people's parliament. That is the fact.
Not alone is it not the fact, it is slander.
Deputy Boland had the decency to resign. The public purse has been filched. We want to hear the truth. I want to see if Deputy Blaney, Deputy Boland and Deputy Haughey will vote to support the continuance in office of Deputy Gibbons as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Deputy Jack Lynch as Taoiseach. I want to see where principle will stand.
The Deputy is a fine one to talk about truth. You slanderer.
An effort is being made to deny the people the opportunity——
Judas Iscariot.
We know that so long as the Fianna Fáil Party can put the 30 pieces of silver in their pockets they will stay where they are. This is the measure of public confidence. Let us get the truth. I am not to be diverted by the interruptions of the Minister for Transport and Power who, in this business, has been on every side.
On this side.
On every side. We know that. That is the purpose of being on every side—to keep in the lead. We want a Select Committee or the Committee of Public Accounts to examine this situation. We want to ensure that the situation is examined impartially and fairly, that those who are charged with discharging public duty do so openly and above board. Yesterday the Minister for Finance, without specifying a single item, said that £7 million would be saved. Obviously, someone in the Department of Finance said this figure will give us £15 million or £16 million in a full year, we will get it in this Estimate and it will suffice. In the context of those figures the sum of £100,000 is a relatively small sum: it is ten times what Fianna Fáil boasted about last year when they paid £10,000 to help the emigrants in Britain. It may be a small sum to the tacateers and it may be a small sum to the men who realise that no matter what price they pay it will be cheap to keep the Government in office so that they can continue to manipulate the machinery of government in their interests. That is the situation that has developed in this country under Fianna Fáil.
Parliament itself has become suspect. What a Minister says today cannot be accepted; what the Taoiseach says today cannot be accepted because it may be completely false or only a half truth. In connection with the investigation regarding the sum of £100,000, we want to end this situation of intrigue by substituting integrity. I do not seek office——
May I ask the Deputy to have the decency to allow me to correct him?
Deputy Cosgrave did not interrupt the Taoiseach.
I did not misrepresent him——
Let the Taoiseach take his medicine or resign.
What the Taoiseach said was that the bank strike had inhibited the investigation——
That is true.
Is it not a fact that an investigation of some accounts was undertaken during the bank strike? Of course, it is a fact.
I have said that an investigation was being conducted——
It was conducted before the trial concluded.
Yes.
We are dragging it out of the Taoiseach now.
We have never tried to conceal it.
Fianna Fáil kept silent until I dragged it out of them. You are not dealing with the Fianna Fáil Party now. I know that the bank accounts were investigated. Why was the House not told this fact?
Because everybody knew it.
Deputies
Sit down. Chair.
(Interruptions.)
This is a serious debate and interruptions from Members are not adding to the debate. The Chair appeals to Members on all sides of the House to cease interrupting and to allow Members who are in possession to speak. Every Member will get an opportunity to speak. When interruptions occur there is always the danger that something will be said which should not be said and which is unparliamentary.
On a point of order, Sir, is it in order for me to point out that Deputy Cosgrave has suggested that we tried to conceal something that was obvious to anybody who heard the evidence?
Deputies
Sit down.
(Interruptions.)
That is not a point of order.
It is the truth and Deputies opposite do not like to hear it.
Again, I appeal to Deputies to allow Deputy Cosgrave to proceed.
It is Government Deputies who will not allow him to continue.
I have appealed to members on all sides of the House to please cease interrupting.
I wish to restate what I was saying prior to the silly interruptions. So far as we are concerned, I wish to make it clear that we pledge ourselves in government to restore the integrity of this State, to restore the constitutional provisions of collective Cabinet responsibility and to examine fearlessly and completely the entire system of Government patronage. We promise to restore to the Oireachtas its role as a democratic assembly responsible for the sanctioning and control of Government expenditure. We shall work for the restoration of the unity of the country in the traditional manner we have expounded and that has now been accepted — admittedly with some reluctance — by a majority of Fianna Fáil.
So far as we are concerned, we do not seek office at any price. Our principles, our party and our policies are not for sale. We cannot be influenced by tacateers or by other evilly disposed men; our hands are not out to get the loot. It is a matter for the people to decide whom they want to have in Government. We have always accepted and will continue to accept the decision of the people, because they are the final arbiters. We want to have what we believe are the highest standards which the majority of the people of this country, irrespective of their political affiliations, believe in and revere. We want to see those standards maintained, whether the people concerned are Ministers, Deputies, or in public office.
We are not interested in getting into office for personal or party advantage. We deplore the attempt by the present Government to cling to power when they are completely bereft of real unity of purpose in implementing economic, political and social policies. We are prepared in a constructive and reasonable manner to discuss issues of policy in respect of public, social or political matters but the fundamental need at the moment is to allow the people to decide and to allow the people who sent us here to express an opinion, because I am absolutely convinced that the public confidence has been not merely shaken but shattered at the events of the last six months.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The public confidence has been shattered. I disagree with many attitudes adopted by some of the former Ministers and even the former Ministers of this administration. Some of them are still in the House. Some of them have left. They were certainly knights in shining armour compared with those who have come after them.
That would be no trouble.
If there are any Government Ministers left — and in the last analysis we should all, tacateers included, remember that we cannot bring the loot beyond the grave — who have any shred of self-respect left, let them say to the Taoiseach "We have had enough. It is time for the people to express their judgment and let us all as servants of the Irish nation abide by their decision."
The members of his own party must agree that in his contribution on this important debate this morning the Taoiseach certainly did himself less than justice. I would regard his speech as the great gloss-over or should I say it was an attempt to gloss over? The Taoiseach must be more conscious than anybody else at the present time that the conflict is within the Fianna Fáil Party itself. It appears to me that the Taoiseach is not with it if he does not recognise the crisis that there undoubtedly is in Irish politics at the present time. It was an ordinary sort of speech and one in which the Taoiseach invited interruption so that he could, by his reply, try to get his own party off the hook.
The Taoiseach says that the Government are willing and able to push ahead. I will not deal extensively with that because I referred to it yesterday when speaking on the Budget. If the Budget introduced here yesterday or the Budget introduced in the early part of the year are evidence that the Government are going to push ahead the advance will be very slow indeed. The Taoiseach forgets that there were public denunciations of his speech at the United Nations. This is something with which he will not deal in any detail. There is severe disagreement within his party from those who said in no uncertain terms that they wanted, if not a change of government, a change of Taoiseach. Apart from what I would have to say to the Taoiseach, may I say to those who called for his resignation and believe there should be a new Taoiseach that, when these votes come to be taken, they should put their money where their mouth is? That will be the crucial test for these. Perhaps they, like other members of the Fianna Fáil Party, are more concerned to ensure that there will be a Fianna Fáil Government than they are about the economy or about the policy of the Government towards the North of Ireland.
The Taoiseach has the right to change his Ministers. We have seen this in this House over the last 50 years. The Taoiseach says he has the right to change Ministers and this has been the practice here, and all over the world, for quite a long time. Surely the Taoiseach should at that stage have referred to the circumstances in which he had to change his Ministers. Surely he should have referred back, even briefly, to the events of April and May of this year when he dismissed two Cabinet Ministers, when one is alleged to have resigned, and when a Parliamentary Secretary resigned in sympathy with the Minister for Local Government who himself had resigned. Surely at that stage the Taoiseach should have told us why it was necessary to change and if it was just an ordinary shuffle or reshuffle within the Cabinet. Remember the phrase the Taoiseach used on those occasions was "shadow of suspicion". If there was a "shadow of suspicion" on certain of these Ministers the Taoiseach and his colleagues now sitting in the Cabinet must take responsibility for any shadow which was on them at that particular time or is on them. I am surprised that the Taoiseach mentioned this morning the changes made on that particular occasion and went on to say that the initial surprise had worn off after a short time and the changes had been accepted, whether by the Fianna Fáil Party or by the country he did not specify. I do not think we can sweep the events and the action and the words of the Taoiseach under the carpet just like that, or believe that the people of this country have accepted that it was an ordinary shuffle or reshuffle of Cabinet Ministers or that, at that particular time, there was no need for a general election.
The Taoiseach says that the opposition will want to open up old sores. So far as I am concerned what happened ten, 15, five or three years ago is irrelevant to the discussion which we now have on this vote of confidence or no confidence in the Taoiseach and in his Ministers. The events cannot be brushed off just like that. I do not think I should outline the attitude of the Labour Party towards the North of Ireland with reference to the Taoiseach's speech at the United Nations or the comments on it. The only comment I would make is that there appeared to be an element of complacency in the Taoiseach's speech and in the comments he made yesterday when questioned about the discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Heath.
The Taoiseach said we had economic difficulties. We have, and they are very substantial. The Taoiseach talked about legislation to be introduced. The Taoiseach must be under no illusion as to the feelings of the trade unions on what we regard as repressive legislation. It is late in the day for the Taoiseach to be meeting the Irish Congress of Trade Unions today or tomorrow. I do not know whether or not the boats of the Ministers for Finance have been burned or whether the measures he outlined are to be passed by a majority in this House. It is shabby treatment of the trade union movement to say that there was no proper consulation either with the Taoiseach, the Ministers for Labour or the Ministers for Finance.
The Taoiseach says he has no intention of dissolving the Dáil. One finds it difficult to follow his train of thought or his line of argument arising out of the Press conference he gave in the early hours of yesterday morning. I trust that he regards this motion as a challenge to those within his party who appear to disagree with him. He cannot ignore and they cannot ignore what was said at the conclusion of the arms trial. I think it was Deputy Blaney who suggested that the Taoiseach should do the honourable thing. I am not suggesting that the honourable thing for the Taoiseach to do in this case is to commit suicide or even political suicide but the obvious message from Deputies Blaney, Ó Moráin and Haughey was that he should go.
We do not knows and we shall never know what deals have been made in the meantime. Not even the news media can say what has happened but three or four people alleged to have been anti-Lynch have now changed their minds. I must confess that I am extremely suspicious in this succession race within Fianna Fáil. It could be that a deal has been made, for example, with regard to the next presidential nominee from Fianna Fáil.
I deny that emphatically here and now. It has never been discussed.
I do not know what are the Taoiseach's political ambitions for the future and neither am I concerned as to what they are but I do not think he should be lost to politics. I would prefer to see him over here.
I would like to see him lost to politics.
In any case, these public statements were made by ex-Ministers and supporters of these men and there has been no reference what soever to them.
Let us be explicit about this. Is the Deputy talking about presidential deals?
I shall be explicit if the Taoiseach so wishes. I accept his denial as to his having any presidential ambitions.
That is fair enough.
However, there was another Taoiseach in the Fianna Fáil Party who denied that he wished to become President and we know what happened. The Taoiseach has ignored four very important things as far as his position as Taoiseach is concerned and as far as his position as head of the Government is concerned. We are entitled to query these matters and to go further and say that he has broken one of the essential principles, one of the essential conventions, of government and that is the principle of collective responsibility within the Cabinet. This is a principle on which our democracy is based. This Government are the first to break that principle. In the power game there seems to be a cynical disregard by Fianna Fáil for a principle that has been accepted by every Government, Fianna Fáil or otherwise, for more than 50 years.
Needless to remark, I called for the resignation of the Government on 9th May last and for the declaration of a general election. At that time I referred to Article 28, 4.2º of the Constitution which enshrines this principle of collective responsibility. The Taoiseach in refusing to dissolve parliament destroyed the basis on which government can be carried and it now appears that as far as that particular principle is concerned anything goes.
The Taoiseach alleged on that particular occasion that two Ministers had acted without Government approval or knowledge. In such circumstances should not the Taoiseach have resigned and asked the people to decide on the issues that were important then and are so important still? I believe this principle to be a guarantee against the adventurism of individual Ministers. We have seen the adventurism of individual Ministers during the past three or four months. If these men are guilty or if a shadow of suspicion lies on them, the Taoiseach and the Goveernment must take responsibility for them and if, as alleged, they erred and erred badly, the Taoiseach had no option but to resign.
The principle is that they cannot act alone but the Taoiseach alleges that they did act alone. Therefore, the Taoiseach will go down in history as the first to break this constitutional principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. I wonder if he appreciates the importance of what he has done in respect of that principle? We call for his resignation now. We believe that he should have resigned in May last. I wonder what any other Government would have done in similar circumstances. I do not believe they would have clung to office in the face of a national scandal and a national disgrace.
The second principle as far as parliamentary democracy is concerned is the right of the Dáil to control expenditure of moneys voted by them for specified purposes. In recent days the Taoiseach has alleged the misappropriation of £100,000 voted for the relief of northern distress. The allegation is so strong that the Taoiseach has announced he has called in the Garda Síochána to carry out an investigation. I do not believe that it is the function of the Garda Síochána to carry out this investigation. The Dáil voted the money and the Dáil is the place where this money should be accounted for. Those who spent it, whether in this way or that way, are responsible solely to Dáil Éireann but Dáil Éireann has been by-passed by the Taoiseach. Again, he has ignored and belittled this House in failing to set up machinery within the Dáil itself.
Therefore, the Taoiseach is creating yet another precedent which will indent the principles of democracy that we know to have been practised for quite a long time as far as government is concerned. It is a precedent which, if enlarged, would make a mockery of parliament and if we are to have this sort of precedent for similar cases or for larger amounts of money the value of parliament and the power of the people will be very much weakened and left entirely in the hands of a few men, scrupulous, unscrupulous or otherwise. We must remember that it is the people who vote in the public representatives and the Government must derive their authority from the people. Only Dáil Éireann can raise and spend money, and if it is alleged that money was misappropriated it should be the right of the Dáil to investigate that allegation of misappropriation.
I believe that in this instance the misappropriation or the alleged misappropriation of £100,000, and the inaction of the Taoiseach on this matter, is sufficient to call for his resignation. Our parliamentary system is based on the principle that Ministers should tell the truth to the House in debate and at Question Time. There is certainly a prima facie case that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries misled the House in the matter of the arms trial. Under oath during the trial, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries gave an account apparently different from the account he gave to the Dáil, and the Taoiseach, instead of taking every step to establish the truth or to allay justifiable suspicion, has, in fact, gone to the extreme of shielding and protecting——
I will deal with that in due course.
I am glad to hear the Minister say that now, in the light of what has happened: I am glad to hear that he will intervene in this debate, when he gets the opportunity, to put the record straight, because I think Deputy Gibbons must admit that through there may be no conflict in his mind there is conflict in the minds of the public and there certainly is conflict in the minds of those people who were charged with conspiracy in the arms trial.
I will be answerable for what I said.
What the Deputy does is his own business.
It is my responsibility.
I will be very pleased if the Minister will put the records straight, if he will dissolve the conflict——
If the Deputy will listen to me——
The Minister will have his chance. On 9th May last he purported to put the records straight. In reference to that debate last May, may I say without malice to Deputy Gibbons that there still is a shadow of suspicion on him?
Lastly I want to indict, to criticise, the Taoiseach in respect of the blatant disregard of his Government to take Dáil Éireann into their confidence on matters of national importance. I wish to criticise him for the manner in which the affairs of State are administered. I do not think the Taoiseach has taken the House into his confidence today, and certainly he did not take the House into his confidence during the debate here last May in reference to allegations about his Ministers.
From the arms trial — I suppose we talk about it now — it appears from the evidence that there was a plan decided at the highest level to involve us in an act of war against another State. I do not wish to argue the merits or demerits of that because I do not believe it is an acute issue here now. What is at issue is that decisions such as that should be taken behind the backs of the elected representative in this House. If there is a proposal from the Government to take such action, it is only Dáil Éireann that should give the final approval for any such action. As far as we can gather, certain instructions were given to the Army and moneys were expended on military preparations without the knowledge or the approval of the House.
That is not correct.
The Minister can make his speech and can deny it.
The Deputy ought not to say things, have them put on record and then wait for somebody else to contradict him.
If the Taoiseach wants to——
If the Deputy will give way for a moment, the Government never intended to do anything that would in any way conflict with their legal and constitutional responsibilities in respect of what the Deputy is saying.
It is difficult to say which decisions were made by the Government because as far as the arms trail is concerned there was evidence that when they wanted to get the Taoiseach he was not available.
You went a certain distance——
Certain Ministers took decisions in the name of the Government. That is the issue that arises.
The Taoiseach did not question this in his speech this morning as he should have.
I will account for my stewardship.
In any case, it was well known — it has become known since the arms trial — that there would be motions of no confidence in the Taoiseach, the Government and Deputy Gibbons, but the Taoiseach did not say a word about those things this morning. Maybe, as a result of what has been said here, he will expand on those matters.
He will not.
Perhaps Deputy Gibbons will. At any rate, I hope the Taoiseach will not engage in a winding up speech such as he did on 28th July. After all, he regards himself as being a political paragon.
The Taoiseach this morning——
Deputy O'Leary should hold his tongue.
He tried to smear the Labour Party for their policy——
I never smeared the Labour Party.
He is an arch hypocrite.
The Taoiseach said he had not read the Labour policy programme.
I said I had read it in detail as published in the Irish Times. As I have said, Deputy O'Leary should be careful of his words.
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries should be careful of his words.
I will account for my words all right.
You will have some accounting to do.
I hope the Minister will convince his colleagues at the back.
The Deputy will have a job convincing his colleagues.
I accuse the Taoiseach of withholding vital information from this House and also of making decisions which in the final analysis should have been made by the public representatives, Members of this House. What were we told by the Taoiseach this morning? It was typical of the actions and decisions taken by him in other areas. The Taoiseach must needs clear up the various Departments run by the various Ministers.
Look to your own house.
I know the Minister is a bit nettled. He has had a rough time. He will be listened to and all I ask is that he will listen to us.
It is very difficult.
The truth is being told now. That is the difference.
The difference between what and what?
The viper's tongue he is developing comes well from Deputy O'Leary.
The Chair said this morning that interruptions are disorderly and that the debate cannot be proceeded with on that basis. The Chair warns Members that they will not be permitted to continue in this fashion.
Is it not very unusual for the Taoiseach and a senior Minister continually to interrupt an Opposition speaker?
My remarks have been drawn from me by Deputy O'Leary's interruptions of his own leader.
My point was that the Taoiseach made a totally unsatisfactory speech this morning when he opened this debate.
The Chair is warning Members on all sides of the House that the Chair will have to insist on order in the House, and if Members will not obey the ruling of the Chair the Chair will have to ask them to leave the House.
There have been various comments from the Taoiseach and members of the Fianna Fáil Party over recent days. I suppose that is not peculiar to political parties, but the point is that two Ministers were dismissed from the Government; they were tried and both were found innocent; yet the Taoiseach persists in saying that there were attempts to import arms even though these men were exonerated on a charge of conspiracy. The Taoiseach must expand on that. I know that Deputy Gibbons, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, is a clever and intelligent man but he must have got a reaction from ordinary people down the country. What did the Taoiseach mean? Was this an attempt by the Taoiseach to discredit the courts? Was this an insistence again that he did not believe Deputy Haughey, Captain Kelly and John Kelly were innocent but guilty of doing something that was tantamount to a criminal act? The Taoiseach had the opportunity this morning to explain this but, as I said, he glossed over it completely in about five or six sentences. As far as he was concerned the events of April and May last year were brushed under the carpet.
I do not know whether these men regard this as a vendetta against them by the Taoiseach or whether it is a sordid and sinister plot for him to get rid of his rivals. These are things to which he should have referred this morning and which he should have explained. On two occasions I asked that Standing Order No. 67 be invoked to clear up the allegations made by the Taoiseach in May of this year. I asked that a Select Committee of the Dáil be established to ascertain the truth. I asked yesterday, in respect of the alleged misappropriation of the £100,000, that a similar committee be established under Standing Order No.67 and again this was refused. It appears to me that somebody is trying to conceal something and in present circumstances I can only conclude that it is the Taoiseach. He did promise us in May that he would give us all the facts. The facts which came to light at the trial were not, it appears, all the facts. Again let me say that the Taoiseach insists that while the court gave its verdict of "not guilty" he suggests that some of his Ministers were engaged in some criminal act. Does he really wish that the truth be known at all?
I believe that, apart from talking about the Budgets and the taxation measures that the Government have introduced, apart from the non-activity in housing, apart, from the increase in unemployment and the balance of payments problem which the Government have got us into, they do not deserve the confidence of the House and they do not deserve the confidence of the people on the four principles to which I referred and which I believe they violated — that of collective Cabinet responsibility, the authority of the Dáil with regard to the raising and expenditure of taxpayers money, the integrity of Ministers and the right of the Dáil to information. I hold the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, entirely responsible for contravening these principles and in all circumstances he should do what Deputy Boland suggested he should do, the honourable thing, to dissolve this Parliament and give the people an opportunity of giving their decision on the activities of this Government particularly in the last five or six months.
In this closing remarks Deputy Corish put the two fundamental issues on which, in my view, and in the view of the people, the Taoiseach and Government stand very strong. On the question of collective Cabinet responsibility the Taoiseach has taken decisions, unpopular decisions within the Fianna Fáil organisation, and he has taken them in regard to his Government and the Government have acted collectively in regard to that matter. I may say that the Fianna Fáil Party have accepted this and have shown their acceptance of the Taoiseach acting as leader of the party and as Taoiseach in the manner of voting here last night. It was a manner of voting, I may say, which was an example to everybody in the House and outside it of appropriate responsibility.
Deputy Corish mentioned integrity. Again, the whole manner in which the Taoiseach handled this problem displayed integrity of an outstanding kind. It was an example of complete integrity that, when disciplinary action had to be taken by the Taoiseach, however unpopular, it was appropriately taken in the property manner. I can assure the House that, as far as the Government are concerned, they will continue to exercise collective Cabinet responsibility, will continue under a Taoiseach who has displayed outstanding integrity and remain to carry out the job entrusted to Fianna Fáil and the Government by the people last June twelve months. We do not intend to be harried into any wrong action. The Government do not intend in any way to be deflected from their purpose and the purpose of Government is to govern. One thing which Fianna Fáil have shown over the past six months is their capacity to act in a disciplined way, to act collectively, to act with integrity and above all else to govern. We will continue to govern.
The main reason we were entrusted with the responsibility of governing last June twelve months was the recongnition by the people of the disarray in which the opposing political parties found themselves during the last general election. That disarray continues and the situation today is precisely the same as the situation that strongly influenced the people's minds last June. The situation today is still the same. You have forces opposed to Fianna Fáil and opposed to the Government and who themselves have no united front, who have no united purpose and have no common policy. It is idle and futile for Deputy Cosgrave to come in — admittedly he gave an injection of good cheer to his own troops — and pretend that in any way Fine Gael represent an alternative Government when he knows, and every member of the Fine Gael Party knows and the people know, that Fine Gael cannot be the alternative Government on their own but may, by some mischance which we do not propose to give them, be in a position to beguile a divided and rudderless Labour Party for a certain short period of time to form an alternative Government with them. These are the political facts today. They were the same political facts in June twelve months and the same facts of political life down through the years.
Fianna Fáil are now engaged in a very serious task in Government to rectify an inflationary situation, not of the Government's doing, in which prices and incomes are chasing each other in a spiral, a position which must be rectified in a positive manner. The Minister for Finance has spoken at length on the various measures proposed by the Government in this respect. In order to carry these measures through, in order to deal with the inflationary situation that besets the economy, it is essential to have a disciplined Government in charge of affairs. We cannot have a minority Fine Gael-cum-broken-up-Labour coalition to deal with this situation. I should like the people to speculate on how Deputy Corish, Deputy Tully, Deputy O'Connell, Deputy keating — any of the Deputies in the Labour party — would support Deputy Cosgrave dealing with the prices and incomes difficulty. To what extent would they support a policy which — leaving aside political parties — must involve limitation in regard to incomes if we are to put the economic situation right in this country? How reliable would such a projection of government be in the event of facing up to various battalions that support the Labour Party? These are matters far more fundamental, far more crucial, than the recent arms conspiracy trail or the recent personality disagreements within the Fianna Fáil Party. What is far more crucial is government of this country, how to cope with problems, and, in particular, how to deal with the problem of incomes chasing prices and prices chasing incomes.
Sweep them under the carpet.
We are not sweeping problems under the carpet. This is demonstrated by the Minister for Finance in his Financial Resolutions and in the proposed prices and incomes legislation. If we allowed a 13th round to escalate on the basis of the sorts of demands that have been submitted, we could not longer deem ourselves a Government. Again, I invite the people to think how any alternative conglomeration in government would deal with that situation.
Give them a chance and they will tell you.
It is very valid to speculate on the reactions of Deputy Corish, Deputy Tully, Deputy Keating, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, and all the rest of them — Deputy Coughlan on the far right. It is very valid to speculate on how these varied shades of pink would support a prices and incomes policy which would have to be enforced by——
One of your Ministers last night accused one of your supporters in the Dáil of making a "bags" of the Fianna Fáil Party. That is what he thought and we all agree.
If a general election were held at this point of time the result would be the very same as it was last year.
Give the jury a chance — the people, not the one in the Four Courts.
We have a mandate from the people to continue in government.
You have abused it.
Disagreements on personality matters within our organisation will not deter us or deflect us from the fundamental task of tackling the inflation problem. In giving unanimous approval to the Government's proposals last night, Fianna Fáil indicated the sort of stuff that spells out responsibility.
Put that in the Oxford Dictionary for posterity.
That is the type of action that can be expected from a party which is disciplined, responsible, concerned with carrying out the task of government.
If it were not so tragic, this could be very funny.
In the event of a general election now, the result would be the same as it was the last time because we cannot make this ultra-conservative Fine Gael Party and these varying shades of pink that comprise the Labour Party credible to the public as an alternative Government.
What do they think of Fianna Fáil at present?
I should like to see a credible alternative Government sitting on the Opposition benches. It would be good for democracy in Ireland to have a credible alternative Government. It is just not there. It is not "on".
You have not a Government now. Where is the collective responsibility? Suppose that was in the United States of America. Suppose——
The Chair has already warned Members on all sides of the House what action the Chair will take regarding interruptions.
This morning, Deputy Cosgrave gave us an example of artificial stimulation and attempted rejuvenation of his own party. Deputy Cosgrave sees a situation where, though long discredited, he may now have an opportunity to regulate the troops behind him to ensure that those particular cohorts — Deputy FitzGerald, Deputy Fitzpatrick, and so on — who were in disarray will fall into line and help him to realise their futile ambition of putting Fianna Fáil on the run. Fianna Fáil is not on the run. Fine Gael have not got Fianna Fáil on the run. Last night, this responsible, disciplined, Fianna Fáil Government and Party showed the Irish nation that the support within the party is sound in a situation where we are protecting jobs and investment and development in this country.
Deputies
Protecting your own jobs.
We are concerned to ensure that an inflationary situation does not develop in Ireland to the detriment of the interests of the nation itself and of our people. We are concerned to ensure that inflation will not achieve a degeneration of our economy such as was accomplished in 1956——
By you.
——when a conservative Fine Gael Minister for Finance allied to a conservative Labour Minister for Industry and Commerce, under a conservative Fine Gael Taoiseach, brought the country to its knees. We will not have that. We shall take appropriate action to ensure that the jobs of our people are protected, that employment and investment are maintained, that development continues to take place and that we shall maintain the growth of investment needed to ensure the expansion of employment we so ardently desire in this country.
Despite the conspirators.
Inflation can bring about a reduction in the number of jobs. Inflation can erode economic development. We must fight against any situation in which prices and incomes in this country will result in our pricing ourselves out of the world markets into which we have fought ourselves over the past ten years. Our exports can be maintained and expanded only if we face up to the danger of incomes chasing prices and prices chasing incomes. That is what government is all about. This is far more fundamental, far more pertinent and of far greater interest to the people of Ireland than any of the idle nonsense we had here this morning from Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Corish about personalities within Fianna Fáil. The performances of these two leaders of the respective Opposition Parties represented a very poor substitute for a positive alternative policy.
Who started it?
It may be all right for Deputy Cosgrave to keep his Deputies happy, to keep them smiling, to keep the troops in good order and send them home in good cheer. It may be all right for Deputy Corish to rally his socialist republican Marxist troops into some form of reasonable order, allied to the capitalist wings that exist also in the Labour Party. Again, it is a great excuse for him to rally his troops but that is all this serves. That is all the personality difficulties within our organisation serve at the present time. They serve as a handy excuse for Deputy Corish and Deputy Cosgrave to rally their particular troops, send them home in good cheer, and generally divert the people from the real issues involved.
Who is doing this?
The real issue involved is the sort of issue which was involved last night when 75 people walked into the Division Lobby and supported the Minister for Finance in the measures which he has introduced, and they will support the Minister for Finance next week and the weeks afterwards right through the whole passage through the House of the Prices and Incomes Bill.
Will 75 vote for the Taoiseach?
They will. They are like sheep.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to make that type of comment when he speaks on this motion.
I did not say someone was making a "bags" of the Fianna Fáil Party. Those are not my words.
Bargaining.
Deputies will have an opportunity——
That is the obvious answer—bargaining.
Will Deputies allow the Minister to make his statement? Deputies will be allowed to make their own statements.
Just let us take the Labour Party on the unanimity score.
Do not take Fianna Fáil anyway.
This is the party on whom Fine Gael, if they are to be credible alternative government, will have to rely for support in the hypothetical situation of Fine Gael being in government saddled with the Labour Party for support either in the form of lobby fodder or in the form of involvement in the Government. We will go through the Labour Party.
Go through your own party.
Is not yours a coalition?
Of gun-runners, hawks and doves.
We will decide on an analysis of the Labour Party ranging from Deputy Tully and Deputy Corish——
The motion is on confidence in the Government not in the Labour Party.
Is not this out of order?
Of course it is.
——to Deputy Michael Pat Murphy. We have them ranging from Deputy Michael Pat Murphy on the extreme right, representing the rural capitalist wing of the Labour Party——
What do you represent?
What about the millionaires in the Fianna Fáil Party?
——through Deputy James Tully and Deputy Corish who can reasonably be described as conservatives. Then we move out to Deputy Dr. O'Connell who is a little bit more to the left, and then we reach out to the far left wing extremes of Deputy Justin Keating, Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien and Deputy Dr. Browne. Then we have Deputy Desmond who occasionally shows aspirations for leadership and who occasionally throws olive branches in the direction of the Fine Gael Party. This is the conglomeration with which the people are presented as being the type of party that will prop up an alternative coalition administration.
What about the Fianna Fáil coalition?
What will prop you up?
Nothing.
The Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party demonstrated last night precisely how effective it is and why it has been entrusted by the people with government of the country on so many occasions in the past.
We have heard the words "perjurers" and "liars" and other words that could not be used in parliament.
If Deputy L'Estrange cannot restrain himself I will have to ask him to leave the House. Deputies will get every opportunity of making their own contributions. This type of debate is not in order.
This motion is a positive motion of support for the Taoiseach and for every Member of the Government. It is a comprehensive composite motion in which we as the Government are facing up to and taking up the challenges put down by the Opposition parties in the form of their three separate motions. This positive motion will have the support of the Fianna Fáil Party. It will be carried in this House and will demonstrate amply to the people that the majority of this House is in support of the people's decision last June 12 months, the people's decision to put a creditable government in charge, to exercise government in a responsible and disciplined manner.
Where is the £100,000?
These are the facts of political life and Fine Gael, despite the exuberance induced and stimulated by Deputy Cosgrave this morning, and the Labour Party, despite the rather pallid contribution from Deputy Corish, must realise when they get out of the euphoria induced by their own criticism of Fianna Fáil by reason of our personality difficulties, the euphoria induced by themselves in regard to Fianna Fáil, that, quite simply, this just is not on.
This is all waffle.
Neither Fine Gael nor Labour nor any member of those two political parties nor anybody inside or outside this House will split the Fianna Fáil Party.
"It is not split now, it never was, and it never will be".
Bostick will stick anything.
The Fianna Fáil Party and Government, when the chips are down, know what it is about.
It is planks that are down not chips.
Order.
He was at it all morning. He could not stay quiet.
Fianna Fáil know about politics——
And intrigue.
The Fianna Fáil Party has a long and honoured tradition of service in this country.
Service to Fianna Fáil.
The Fianna Fáil Party was formed in 1926 to deal with the situation that arose after the betrayal of this country in 1925.
Your father was a Free State Army Officer at the time.
Do not bring in fathers.
These personalities are out of order. Deputies should not abuse the privilege of the House.
The Fianna Fáil Party was formed in 1926 in a situation where the country had been betrayed by the Boundary Agreement of 1925, where legislation was passed in this House to copperfasten an unfortunate settlement in the Treaty, where republican forces were in disarray following the Civil War. Our organisation was founded in 1926 to unite the reasonable people who thought in a republican way and who thought in a socialist way.
And Taca remembers this.
Now they are millionaires.
That is a lovely brand of socialism.
Within six years that party achieved government in this country in a period when radical solutions needed to be adopted in social and economic spheres, and these radical solutions were adopted during the 1930s and are still being adopted by a Fianna Fáil administration, a Fianna Fáil Party and a Fianna Fáil Government with far more credibility among the ordinary working people than the Labour Party ever had or have at the present point in time.
Try it and see.
This organisation, since achieving government in 1932, continued to govern any time it was returned to govern by the people. It governed in a united and disciplined manner and on all occasions it also governed in accordance with its republican and socialist principles.
Deputy Haughey does not think so.
Along with the social and economic policies of the 1930s which raised our social welfare benefits, introduced new developments in the whole social welfare field, started the industrial investment campaign, along with those highly-advanced social policies which were put into effect by Fianna Fáil in the 1930s, we have had Fianna Fáil's adherence to its basic republican tradition, an adherence that took the form eventually of an independent republican state emerging in this island. Fianna Fáil, furthermore, conscious of its republican background, has always believed in the republican philosophy of Davis and Tone, a republican philosophy that does not aspire towards coercion——
Were they members of Fianna Fáil too?
——but does aspire towards co-operation——
You have disgraced Wolfe Tone.
——a republican philosophy in which Catholic, Protestant and dissenter can play their part. This is a party that will continue on the republican path in the knowledge that within the republican philosophy of life there is place for Catholic, Protestant and dissenter.
I do not like young Sherwin hearing you talk about republicanism.
There is a place for people who at the present time may vote Unionist, there is a place for people who may at the present time vote in any way one likes, but we want to ensure that there is a republican philosophy pervading this country and that within that framework we can achieve a 32-county Ireland, through a framework of co-operation and through a framework that recognises that there are people who do not think our way at the present time——
In Fianna Fáil.
——in the six north eastern counties of our country, people who do not think our way at the present time who, mind you, can make a magnificent contribution towards a 32-county Ireland, people with the discipline and the responsibility and protestant virtues——
Oh my God!
——which we need in our society and the sort of virtues which can make a tremendous contribution towards our society.
Were your government not importing guns to shoot the Protestants?
(Interruptions.)
What Fianna Fáil believe in is just what I have stated.
(Interruptions.)
Will these interruptions please cease? This is Parliament, not the crossroads.
One would not think it was, listening to the Minister.
I am very saddened by Deputy L'Estrange's interjections.
You have collective responsibility and members of your Government tried to import guns.
I am glad to see Deputy Dr. O'Connell agrees with me.
Deputy L'Estrange will get an opportunity of speaking about guns later if he wants to.
We have an Irish Parliament here, we are responsible, elected Members of this Parliament. I would hope that the particular matter which I am discussing at the present moment is not a party issue. It is not a partisan issue. It is far too important. It transcends mere personalities, mere partisanship. That is why I am saddened by Deputy L'Estrange but I am not surprised. We are concerned here about having an Ireland in which there will be a place for Catholic, Protestant and dissenter——
Hear, hear.
——and in which people who at the present time do not support us, people who at the present time support the Unionist Party in elections to a Stormont Administration, can make a contribution.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
I am very glad to see that the Labour Party in the person of Deputy Dr. O'Connell agree with the point of view I expressed in regard to the real meaning of republicanism, what it means as a philosophy embracing green, white and orange, embracing all sections of our community, irrespective of religion or class. This is what republicanism is about. I will say this much for the Labour Party: there are some people in that party who believe in what I am saying. The Fine Gael Party was never in that tradition, never believed in it and still do not believe in it. They continue to be what they always were—a party of opportunism and expediency. That is precisely why Fine Gael are still the minority party in Ireland. They are a minority party because they have always run away from responsibility and chased opportunity and expediency. It is quite evident that it is futile for Fine Gael to pretend that they can be an alternative Government in Ireland today because they cannot be except with the asistance of a divided Labour Party.
On previous occasions the lesson has been spelled out clearly to the people of precisely what this sort of alternative arrangement means. We have seen the situation in 1951 broken up by Deputy Dr. Browne, in 1957 broken up by a combination of the then Deputy McBride and the late Deputy Norton. We have seen Coalition Governments abandon ship. We are not going to abandon ship. Fianna Fáil are not going to abandon ship. Fianna Fáil are going to stay and govern and carry out the mandate entrusted to them by the people. That has been our tradition on every occasion when we were entrusted with government by the people and the alternative situation that presents itself under many guises has been there for the people to survey and examine on two occasions—from 1948 to 1951 and from 1954 to 1957. On those two occasions the people had an excellent, classical example of the futility of that type of government and that is still the type of government that presents itself to the people—a divided, disillusioned type of alternative that is just not credible and just not on and the people see it precisely for that.
If it gives Fine Gael and if it gives the Labour Party temporary enjoyment to stir up their own troops here in the House and to listen to Deputy Corish and Deputy Cosgrave delighting in our very temporary personality problems, if that pleases them, I am delighted because the sort of temporary pleasure that the troops get here in the Labour and Fine Gael benches does not percolate——
You are pretty good value yourself.
——down to where power counts. Power counts with the people and the people recorded their decision last June 12 months and the people will record their decision again when it comes before the people to make their choice on whom they want as government, whom they know and can trust to exercise government in a responsible and disciplined manner.
If there is one message out of the events of the past six months it is that Fianna Fáil have a courageous leader and a courageous government and that when action needed to be taken it was taken irrespective of personalities. That is the sort of example by the elected leader of our party, by the elected leader of the country, that the people really require when they want to see leadership in action. That is what politics is about—it is about leadership; it is about responsibility; it is about carrying on government and it is about getting the support of the people for government and for responsible action. Personalities and the highways and the byways and the side-shows of personality do not arise at all when compared with this fundamental question of governing a community and of being entrusted by the people with the task of governing the community.
The people have shown quite clearly on numerous occasions, and only 18 months ago, why they regard us as a credible government, why they regard Fianna Fáil as the type of party that can be entrusted with government and the people will continue to show, in the expression of their franchise, that they know that neither the Fine Gael Party nor the Labour Party nor any combination of both can be entrusted with that supreme task which politics is about. That is what politics is about—having the support of the people for a broadly-based policy that will ensure that the people will have a government that will act in a responsible way.
The unfortunate personality problems with which we have had to deal over the past few months in the form of the Taoiseach's action and the Government's action and the Parliamentary party's action, all of those problems and the way they were tackled are an example to people who want to learn about democracy, who want to learn about responsibility, who want to learn about discipline. That is how government functions, that is what government is all about, that is what responsible political parties and organisations are all about. So far as we have taught the Fine Gael and Labour Parties a lesson in that respect, an excellent discipline in civics has taken place.
(Cavan): I find it necessary at this stage to remind the House that we are debating what I consider to be one of the most important motions which has come before this House since the foundation of this State. It is a motion which should be discussed not in any acrimonious, political manner but a motion which should be approached in a very critical and logical manner. We are discussing here a motion in the name of the Taoiseach:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in An Taoiseach and other Members of the Government.
In conjunction with that we are taking a motion in the name of the leader of the Fine Gael Party:
That Dáil Éireann has no confidence in the Government.
and a motion in the name of the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Brendan Corish:
That Dáil Éireann has no confidence in An Taoiseach.
Those motions do not concern the merits or the demerits of the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party in the first instance. Those motions do not concern any squabble or dispute in either of the Opposition parties in this House. They are concerned with the ability and the integrity of the present Government. It is the present government, the Taoiseach and his Ministers, who are on trial. They are on trial in this House and in the mass media. They are on trial before the electors of this country.
These motions were not put down lightly. It is right to point out that the principle motion we are now dealing with stands in the Taoiseach's name. Let us throw our minds back, not to the 1920s or the 1930s, but to the last few days and ask ourselves how it is that those motions are being debated now. A trial known as the arms trial ended last week. The Taoiseach was then attending the 25th anniversary of the United Nations and addressing the General Assembly. After the arms trial ended the Taoiseach and certain Ministers of his Government were attacked publicly by responsible members of the Fianna Fáil Party, by people who up to recently were leaders in the Government. The Taoiseach and certain of his Government members were attacked at a Press conference, they were attacked on television, over the radio and through the Press, by people whom the country were led to believe until a short time ago were the brains, the intelligence and the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party.
The Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, who had the honour of addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations, was repudiated by responsible members of his own party in this city. The Minister for Finance, who made an announcement regarding measures to cure the present state of the economy was repudiated in public by the former Minister for Finance and other former Ministers to the extent that he was accused of bringing in those measures without the approval of the Fianna Fáil Party. It was stated by Deputy Haughey that he did not regard those economic or financial measures as necessary. The Taoiseach held a Press conference in New York, 3,000 miles away, putting his side of the case, making the extraordinary statement that, notwithstanding the result of the arms trial, he was satisfied there was an attempt to bring in arms and he was satisfied that his colleagues within Fianna Fáil, who were put on trial, were associated with it. The Taoiseach came back home and on the eve of the assembly of this House a Fianna Fáil party meeting was convened at short notice and assembled at 7 o'clock last Tuesday night. Special provisions were made to keep Leinster House open to a late hour.
That is usual.
(Cavan): Be serious. This matter has not been taken too seriously as far as the Minister's Party is concerned. It is a serious business and I propose to the best of my ability to deal with it in a serious manner. This meeting convened at 7 o'clock last Tuesday night and continued until 12 o'clock. Then there was an emergency Cabinet meeting which went on until after 1 o'clock. A Press conference was then held and the Taoiseach announced that five members of his party had intimated they would not support him in a vote of confidence but that after he cracked the whip a couple of times two of them came to heel. I understand that when the five rebelled he said he had no alternative but to call a general election. As a result of that two came back, not because they believed in Deputy Jack Lynch, not because they believed in the Taoiseach or were prepared to support him, but because they did not want a general election.
I want to make the very important point that during this Press conference when the Taoiseach was asked if he considered a general election was necessary his answer was, according to reports: "I am reserving my decision on that point until after the votes of no confidence which will be discussed at the first available opportunity." Therefore, if we are to accept the Taoiseach as meaning what he said, whether or not there will be a general election in the immediate future, will be decided by the result of those votes of no confidence. In that atmosphere, and in the light of that statement by the Taoiseach, one would expect the Fianna Fáil Party to treat those votes of no confidence as very serious matters.
I regret to say that I was amazed at the performance of the Taoiseach in introducing his vote of confidence here this morning. He did not deal with the issues at stake, he did not deal with the integrity of his own Ministers, he did not deal with how he proposed to restore public confidence in himself or his Ministers, which has been severely rocked. I do not believe I could be accused of extravagant language if I say the Taoiseach buffooned his way through his speech this morning, treated the whole thing as a joke. It was said here during his speech that he was raising red herrings. Maybe the poor man understood that he had a difficult if not impossible task to perform and that if he were to attempt to do it seriously he would fail and fail miserably. His alternative was to make a short, irrelevant speech dealing not with the issues at stake but with red herrings and, I will repeat, to act the buffoon.
It is not a parliamentary expression to describe any Member of the House as acting the buffoon.
(Cavan): If you say so, in deference to your direction I withdraw the word “buffoon”.
It has been used before without having to be withdrawn.
It has been withdrawn on every occasion.
It has been used in this House before the predecessor of the Ceann Comhairle and was not withdrawn.
The word "buffoon" is scarcely a parliamentary expression.
It is not, I agree.
The Deputy said himself he thought it might be extravagant before he used it.
(Cavan): I did not. Anyway I am sure the House will get what I mean. The Taoiseach treated this House less than seriously. The Taoiseach treated this House in a manner unworthy of the occasion, the most serious occasion——
It might not be as serious as the Deputy thinks.
(Cavan): That is the trouble, that the Fianna Fáil Party, and especially the Fianna Fáil Cabinet, do not regard it as serious. They do not regard as serious the fact that two Cabinet Ministers were put on trial for what was nearly high treason, put on trial for illegal importation of arms into this country. They do not regard as serious the fact that the veracity of a Cabinet Minister is at least in grave doubt. They do not regard as serious the fact that there is a controversy going on in the country —I shall put it no stronger than this —as to whether or not a member of the Government swore the truth or did not swear the truth. It is not necessary for the purpose of this vote for me to make any allegations as to whether this Minister did swear the truth or did not swear the truth, but is it not a terrible state of affairs when the people in the pubs and in the clubs and in the farms and every other place they meet are having arguments about this? How could any Government continue with that sort of shadow hanging over their head? That is what the Minister for Justice thinks is not serious—the enormity of it if one stops to think about it.
As I said, one would expect the Government to treat this seriously but they have not treated it seriously so far. I have dealt with the Taoiseach. Obviously the Minister for Transport and Power came in here without a note, without giving any consideration to what he was going to say. He jumped about from 1925 to 1952 in a most irresponsible speech which had no relevance, good, bad or indifferent, to the issues at stake. That is the way they are dealing with the situation, and that is one of the tragedies of public life in this country at the moment, that the Fianna Fáil Party think they can own the country and have a divine right to rule. That is what has them the way they are and that is what brought about the scandals that have been disturbing the people for the last six months. A very wise old member of the Fianna Fáil Party in my constituency is alleged to have said when the scandal broke loose: "A while on the sideline would do those fellows all the good in the world."
I want to discuss this resolution which, to my mind, concerns the fitness of this Government to continue. I want to discuss that in the light of the state of the country at the present time. We have an economic problem which was discussed here yesterday. I think it is not unreasonable to say that the economy is in a much more unfavourable position than the economies of the other countries in Europe with which we have to deal. I think the Taoiseach said that this morning and that the Minister for Finance said it yesterday. This mess in the economy did not come of its own accord. It is the direct result of Government policy and it can go back—and goodness knows we have gone back far enough this morning— to 1964 when the Taoiseach's predecessor, for purely political reasons, created a round of wage increases at an unprecedentedly high level, and it has gone from bad to worse since.
Deputy O'Higgins, speaking yesterday, reminded us of Deputy Haughey, the then Minister for Finance, coming on television last year and saying that the most severe measures were necessary if the then position of the economy were to be corrected. That was on the 18th March and some short time afterwards Deputy Haughey repented of his hair-shirt speech because he knew there was a general election coming off. I remember discussing some simple Bill here in this House which was making more money available for the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Deputy Haughey availed of that to make the first correction in his previous speech. He said there was nothing wrong with the economy and from there we drifted into the general election with a policy of prosperity, a policy of a sound economy and a national cake of greater dimensions.
The state of the economy at the present time would present a major job for a Government that was attending to their business, would present a major job of work for a Government that was united, which had the confidence of the country and had no internal problems. How can this Government expect the workers to heed their calls for restraint, to heed their calls for moderation? How can the employers have any respect for this Government which has been exposed during the last six months as irresponsible, as a Cabinet of intrigue, as a Cabinet at war with itself. I repeat that it would present a man-sized problem to any Government. The northern crisis is on our doorstep, a situation which needs careful watching, a situation which needs responsible handling. God forbid that it would get out of hand or that things would become worse than they are or as bad as they were some time ago. This Government, supported by the people whom Deputy Lenihan has told us supported it to the tune of 75 votes yesterday, could command no respect from the people of Northern Ireland or from the British Government. We are told that we have the EEC negotiations ahead. How can the negotiators there take seriously the representatives of a Government like this? I suggest that in normal circumstances a government which enjoyed the confidence of the people would still have a very difficult task on hands but here we have a Government whose party meets for five hours and literally breaks up in disorder, whose Taoiseach calls a press conference at which he says he does not know whether there will be a general election or not; he will have to reserve his decision.
How can the country continue to be governed by a Government living in an atmosphere in which nobody knows what will happen next, in which the Taoiseach is continually watching, not the Opposition, but over his shoulder to see how his own party are reacting to him and when they will avail of an opportunity to put him out of office? How can the economy be corrected and a responsible attitude towards Northern Ireland be maintained or EEC negotiations be conducted in an atmosphere where there is a great demand for newspapers, an atmosphere in which everybody is going about with a transistor waiting to hear what is going to happen next? I put it to the House and the country that that is the sort of atmosphere which prevails here at present.
I want to deal with some remarks made by the Taoiseach this morning in introducing his motion. He said there is no reason why changes of this sort— meaning changes of Ministers—should bring about a general election. That might be so in normal circumstances, if the Minister were changed for ill-health or sacked due to incompetence in his job. Here we have two Ministers sacked in default of resigning because the whole Cabinet had got out of hand because the Taoiseach was not minding his business and did not know what was going on, because instead of one Taoiseach, they had 14 Taoisigh, because instead of the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries discharging the duties, which he was appointed to perform, he was being allowed to act as Minister for Defence, as Minister for Finance and as Taoiseach. The Taoiseach is to blame for that, not Deputy Blaney, because the Taoiseach allowed this sort of thing to develop. Ministers were changed.
We know that during the course of the recent trial the Minister for Defence did something that he regarded as dangerous, as unnecessary, something which he regarded as being in conflict with Government policy, to wit, sending 500 rifles from this city to Dundalk. When he was asked why he did it his answer was: "I did it because I was afraid the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Blaney, might do something more irresponsible still." That is how this country is being governed. Did this Minister who believes in Cabinet responsibility think it necessary to inform his Taoiseach of what he considered to be an outrageous demand to which he was compelled to accede in case a more outrageous action would be taken by an irresponsible Minister? How did he deal with that? He deals with it by a telephone call from the county headquarters of Fianna Fáil in Naas and then gets into his car and goes to his farm in Kilkenny and does not tell the Taoiseach a word about it. This is what is irresponsible. This is not—and the Taoiseach well knows it and there is no use in trying to put it across to this House as otherwise—a case of ordinary dismissals of Ministers or a case of an ordinary change of Ministers. This was a position in which the Taoiseach himself should have resigned because he lost control of his Cabinet because he was not carrying out his duties as Taoiseach. That is why I say that the change of Ministers brought about in those circumstances demanded the resignation of the Government and recognition of the right of the people to pass judgment on the Government.
The second point the Taoiseach made was that one of the major objects of Fianna Fáil was to secure the reunification of the country by peaceful means. I want to go on record as saying that in my opinion the disclosures both in this House and in the Four Courts in the past month have postponed by 25 if not by 50 years the reunification of the country. We unbared our souls and our plans to the British Government and to the Unionist Government in Northern Ireland. We provided ammunition for extremists like Paisley, West and Craig. We did irreparable damage. Who is to blame for that? The Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, because he is responsible for everything his Ministers do.
It is pathetic to have the Taoiseach coming here and asking for a vote of confidence on his handling of policy on the north. That is in effect what he did this morning. He asked this House to say: "You have done a good job in regard to the reunification of Ireland and you can carry on the good work." Anybody knows, and the Taoiseach will not deceive anybody, that in fact progress towards reunification has been very substantially retarded.
Storing guns in County Cavan, involving my constituency, which is a constituency of mixed thinking and mixed views: rushing guns to the north: going to make plans to invade the north. That is a cross sample of the sort of disclosures that were made in the Four Courts. Is that not providing ammunition for the extremists in the north? Is that not really giving some justification for those who are not extremists to say that West, perhaps, was right, and Craig was right, and Paisley was right? That is the damage that has been done and the Taoiseach has a cheek to come into this House this morning and ask, on his record in relation to the north, for confidence in himself.
The Taoiseach also asked for a vote of confidence here to enable his Government to correct the economy and to restore the economy to a sound basis. I have told the House that it was action and lack of action, for political and unworthy reasons and because the Government for the last 12 months were not minding their business, and because individual members of that Government were not minding their business, that has led to the present chaotic state of our economy.
Deputy Haughey was in charge of Finance. He should have been advising the Taoiseach and the Government of what was happening. Does not everybody in this House and outside it know that Deputy Haughey had not his mind on his work in the last 12 months, that he was distracted and disturbed by other matters?
The next member of the Government responsible for controlling the economy was the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy George Colley. Deputy George Colley was far too busy keeping an eye on what was going on inside the Cabinet, because the Taoiseach was not doing it, to devote his full time and attention, or any substantial portion of it, to his job as Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Deputy Neil Blaney as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries should as a senior Minister have played a substantial part in protecting the economy. I do not want to be too hard on Deputy Blaney but I do not think I can be accused of exaggeration when I say that Deputy Blaney devoted practically none of his time over the last 12 months to his portfolio as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries; he was too busily engaged in making speeches on republicanism, trying to point out to the country at large that the Taoiseach did not represent his, Deputy Blaney's brand of republicanism and the Taoiseach was busy denying that.
But that was not the end of it. Deputy Blaney was also busying himself as Minister for Defence, as Minister for Finance and even as Taoiseach because he rang up the Minister for Defence; he rang up the gardaí in Naas and got them to stop the Minister for Defence on his way home for the weekend with instructions that he, the Minister for Defence, was to ring Deputy Blaney and, when he rang Deputy Blaney, Deputy Blaney acted as Taoiseach and ordered the Minister for Defence to move guns to the north or adjacent to the north, and the Minister for Defence could not refuse because he was afraid of more extreme action by this man.
That is the sort of Government we have had here during the past 12 months. The Taoiseach should have been co-ordinating the various Ministries, but the Taoiseach was too busy trying to protect himself from attack from within to be able to carry out the serious and responsible duties of Taoiseach.
The present Fianna Fáil Party must, I think, be living in cloud-cuckoo-land, in outer space, or somewhere remote from reality, because they have come in here this morning, both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Transport and Power, and they have repeated that they can continue to provide stable and strong Government. The Minister for Transport and Power said they can provide a united, responsible and disciplined government. Do they expect the people to read this debate? Do they expect the people to take them seriously? Was there ever a less responsible Administration than we have at the present time? Was there ever a less united Administration than we have at the present time? Was there ever a less disciplined Cabinet or less disciplined party in charge of the country than we have at the present time? That is what this debate is about. It is not about what happened in 1925, or 1951, or 1957.
The old bogey has been trotted out here: there is no alternative. We have heard that time and time again from the party opposite. All I can say is, and I say it with whatever sincerity I can command, God help Ireland if there is no alternative to the present government. God help Ireland if there is no alternative to the present Administration, exposed as it has been in the past six months, an Administration which takes five hours to decide whether or not it approves of its Taoiseach. God help Ireland.
There is an alternative and that alternative will come from this side of the House. The Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party are not irresponsible. God knows, we have been responsible, very responsible, both in Government and in Opposition and we will see to it that the people will have an alternative. I invite the Taoiseach to dissolve the Dáil and give the people an opportunity of deciding the issue.
It is necessary to answer certain points made in this debate because this debate is being conducted in a frivolous manner by the Government side of the House. We were told that there was an election held on 18th June, 1969, and that an overwhelming majority was given to the Fianna Fáil Party. I say that the people voted in blinkers then. I say that the people elected Fianna Fáil under the circumstances that then existed in the belief that Fianna Fáil alone in those circumstances, to use the words of the Minister for Transport and Power because they are really priceless, could provide the people with a united, responsible and disciplined government.
I ask the House where is the unity now in the present government? Have they acted responsibly? Where is the discipline? Is it not a fact that the people were deluded? If the Fianna Fáil Party had campaigned in the last general election on the basis that the Taoiseach was a felon-setter, that he was not worth a curse, that he was not fit to speak on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party and that he did not represent Fianna Fáil philosophy, if Fianna Fáil had campaigned in the 1969 election on the basis that Deputy Haughey was not fit to be a member of the Government; that Deputy Ó Móráin was not fit to be a member of the Government and that the Taoiseach could not stand over him, and if they had stated that Deputy Blaney was not fit to be a Minister in a Fianna Fáil Government how many seats would Fianna Fáil have gained. I suggest they would have come back with 25 seats. However, they campaigned on the basis that Deputy Haughey had brains galore, that he was a man of exceptional ability, and that Deputy Blaney and the others were great men. These were the people, not the present Cabinet, who were paraded before the electorate as people on whom the country could depend. The election on 18th June, 1969 proves absolutely nothing now in view of the totally different circumstances existing. The party of reality at that time are gutting each other and are saying that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance do not speak on behalf of the party.
So much for the election of 1969. We know now that since the last election there has not been any cabinet responsibility, that public money to the tune of £100,000 has been spent without the authority of this House. According to the Taoiseach certain Ministers were violating the law and were repudiating the oath or undertaking they had given him when they were appointed. That is public knowledge but a more relevant point is that this Government have come under suspicion on account of Taca and the type of people with whom they associated. Many responsible people, having regard to the disclosures in the arms trial, are asking what must have been going on in the Department of Finance regarding grants and the expenditure of public money. They are wondering what may have been going on in the Department of Industry and Commerce in connection with import and export licences; what may have been going on in the Department of Local Government in the sphere of planning and planning appeals. The confidence of the country is shattered, as Deputy Cosgrave said, and it can only be restored when the people are given a chance to express their views in the ballot box.
One aspect of the arms trial that shocked me was that there does not appear to have been any discipline in certain spheres. A young Army officer is allowed and encouraged to leap-frog his next in command up to the chief-of-staff himself and had access not only to the office of the Minister for Defence but also to the office of the Minister for Finance. Yet, when this young, comparatively inexperienced man assumed responsibility that, in fact, he had not got he was put in the dock. I have the greatest sympathy for Captain Kelly because I think he was encouraged by Ministers to ignore Army authority, to believe he was not bound by that authority and that he was speaking for and on behalf of the Government. We all know that for this he was ultimately put in the dock.
Another extraordinary point that emerged from the arms trial was the type of person who seems to be able to get the ear of Ministers. We heard of a man who was charged with attempting to import arms. It transpired during one of the court hearings that this Belgian-born defendant was not welcome or acceptable in the country of his birth and upbringing without a police clearance from his country of residence. He must have been a doubtful character—although it is not necessary for the purpose of this argument to elaborate on this—but we know he would not be admitted into any part of Europe without a police clearance. Yet, this man fraternised with senior Ministers and he had the ear of the Government. We saw this man on television but can one say that he impressed one as a desirable person? I think his performance on television confirmed the attitude of the Belgian Government in treating him as suspect.
In the last six months we have had people—obviously tacateers—rushing in and out of this House practically taking control. These people have too much authority. If they want to wield power in this House and in the country let them stand for election and get elected. They do not want to have power themselves but to control the power. This is what is happening in our country today.
There are many men of money, of influence and of ambition who are not interested in facing the electorate and thereby inviting judgment on themselves. However, they like to fraternise with Ministers and to exercise power in this way. They are not entitled to do this and anyone who wishes to speak with authority and to mould Government policy and influence society must do so in the democratic way. They must go through the ordeal we have all endured: they must address meetings, knock at many doors and walk many miles to meet the people. Only when they are elected to this House are they entitled to use the power of Parliament.
I wish to state in the strongest possible terms—I am not going to mention names—that I object to the development in this country in recent years, which I think came with the introduction of Taca, whereby these doubtful characters, or some of them, have taken control of the Government by exercising their influence over Ministers. They are doing it publicly. They love to be seen on television and to have their photographs taken with Cabinet Ministers so that the public can see that they are really the Government in this country. That is what has been going on. That is why I say that, if there is no alternative to the present Government, well, God help Ireland.
I want to come back to the arms trial. It involved certain Ministers here. The Taoiseach said last May that he could not have in his Cabinet any person over whom hung the slightest suspicion and that that was the reason he got rid of certain Ministers. We have a motion of confidence in the name of the Taoiseach here which reads:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in An Taoiseach and the other Members of the Government.
That includes the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Gibbons. I want to ask the Taoiseach, who is the man who put down that motion, whether he says that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is above suspicion. Does the Taoiseach say that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is without blemish and is worthy of a vote of confidence from this House? The trial ended on a note which at least suggests that the sworn testimony of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was not accepted as truthful by 12 citizens of this city. That is the controversy all over the country. When this trial is discussed the big question will be whether the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was swearing lies. These are distasteful things to have to say and to have to put on the record of this House, but they are true. Yet the Taoiseach has put down this motion of confidence in himself and his Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. It is not in keeping with the speech last May. It is not in keeping with the standards which the Taoiseach says he expects from his Ministers.
I have the greatest sympathy for Captain Jim Kelly and also for John Kelly. I do not think that this doubtful character, Mr. Luykx, could really be convicted on the evidence. How could he be convicted when he was asked by a senior Cabinet Minister to help out an Army officer? How could this Belgian think, unless he thinks this is a country run by gangsters, that what he was asked to do was illegal. He was asked by the third senior Minister in the Cabinet to help out a high-ranking Army officer, and when he does he finds himself clamped in the dock and charged as a criminal. How could he be convicted?
There is again a question about Deputy Haughey. Some witnesses swore one thing and others other things. The question is who was telling the truth and who was swearing lies. One Cabinet Minister and an ex-Cabinet Minister gave evidence. That is the pathetic, disgusting, revolting state of affairs with which we have to deal. If my opinion is worth anything—and I have followed this trial carefully—I believe that in so far as there was any Government policy on anything in the last two years that everybody from the Taoiseach down knew what was going on. Everyone had a licence to do what he liked. Deputy Moran said that it was left to Deputy Gibbons and Deputy Haughey to do whatever they thought was necessary about the north or for the north. In so far as there was any Government policy, I believe that everybody from the Taoiseach down knew what was going on and was prepared to live with it, put up with it and approve of it so long as the public did not know about it and so long as it was not pushed out into the open. When the news got out and when they were exposed then it was a case of every man for himself and the Taoiseach for himself. That is the position as I see it and, I think, as the people in the country see it. That is what the verdict of the jury must mean. The judge ruled that Government policy was not relevant. It is not for me, as a legal man, to criticise judges but that particular ruling was hard to follow. It was hard to accept that Government policy was not relevant. How could poor Mr. Luykx or young Captain Kelly or John Kelly be guilty of an offence if they were carrying out Government policy? That is the question I put and I think it should be answered.
I invite the remaining Government speakers to forget about the red herrings in this debate and to deal with what is at issue here and that is whether the Taoiseach and all his Ministers, including Deputy B. Lenihan and Deputy Gibbons, are worthy of the continued confidence of this House. That is what this debate is about and nothing else. I agree that the people in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery this morning, listening to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Transport and Power, might have been excused if they thought it was about a dispute between the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party and the Government Party, or if it was about something which happened in 1925. It was not about that. It is behaving in an irresponsible way to treat it like that. It is all about whether this Government is capable of giving us strong, united, disciplined Government. Is this a Government of integrity or is it a Government of intrigues? Is the Taoiseach an honest Taoiseach or is he a man who is prepared to live with irregularities within his Cabinet until the irregularities become public and then shoot the men down, put them in jail and then try to come out as an honest man?
I have spoken at length and I do not wish to detain the House further. However, I shall repeat that the election of 18th May, 1969, is irrelevant. It is out of date. It might as well never have been held, and this Government have no mandate from the people to govern because they have been found out since the last general election. They have been exposed.
Therefore, there must be a general election. How in the name of goodness can government continue, how can there be respect for law and order, how can there be respect for the customs laws, for the criminal law, for town planning or any other branch of the law when we have in Government a Cabinet who are known to have disregarded the law whenever it suited them?
On the question of an alternative, I wish to say it is nothing but the height of arrogance on the part of Fianna Fáil, it is nothing but an insult to the intelligence of the electors, it is nothing short of saying that there is no future for the country, to say there is no alternative. There is an alternative; it is on this side of the House.
Are you agreed on fundamentals?
(Cavan): Are you? A good way to answer an Irishman's question is to ask him another. Are the Government Party agreed?
The Deputy said there is an alternative and I want to find out what it is. There are two points, the EEC and prices.
(Cavan): I do not think it would take a 6½ hour meeting to decide whether we are agreed on fundamentals. You had a 6½ hour meeting the other night and, as true as I am standing here, when it was over you did not know whether you agreed or not, and you still do not know. That is the position. Then they talk about coalition and inter-party. It would be a sad state of affairs if there was no alternative. There is an alternative to the present Government and, if there were not, one must be found. People in this country have to decide one thing. As my County Cavan Fianna Fáil friend said: “Are they going to put those fellows on the sideline for a while and hand over the country, lock, stock and barrel to Fianna Fáil, to be run by Fianna Fáil, and get their friends who do not stand for election to shadow Ministers and exercise control over them?”
Listening to the Taoiseach opening the debate this morning one would think the debate was about entirely different matters from those that appeared on the Order Paper. One would get the impression here that the issue is to decide whether Fianna Fáil can get even the support of their own party in order to retain in office Deputy Jack Lynch and the other members of his Government.
I suppose we must be the only democratic Parliament in western Europe where what has happened here in the last six months could happen without a general election. I do not know of any other democratic country that would allow the situation that has been created here to happen—to allow people who must have known—this is where the question of credibility arises —to continue in office. This morning, instead of addressing himself to the matters before the House the Taoiseach stooped—unusual for him—to abuse and to half truths.
Not so unusual.
He made the suggestion that things are what they are not. A typical example was the debate here yesterday on Deputy Colley's new Budget. There were three items in it. Everybody in the House knew that the procedure is that the detailed items of the Budget are voted on and then the debate is adjourned until the following day when a general debate occurs. On this occasion the Whips met and decided that the general debate should be on the third item. In spite of that, the Taoiseach suggested that the debate should be on the wholesale tax and nothing else. The Taoiseach must know that that should not be so, that the general debate should have been on all the items of the Budget. If it was not, Sir, you or the Ceann Comhairle were not doing your job, because we ranged over the entire Budget and we all understood that the debate was not on one particular item.
That is the kind of thing we find Fianna Fáil good at. They attempt to twist situations to suit themselves. They are in a situation now which they will find it extremely difficult to twist themselves out of. We had a confidence, or a no confidence, motion before the House on 14th May last and a number of comments were made during the discussion. I should like to refer to one or two and ask if the Taoiseach proposes to stand over what he said then. At column 1756 of the Official Report for that date, the Taoiseach is reported as follows:
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.
Will the Taoiseach now give the full facts? Will he tell us what he knew about what was not disclosed at the arms trial? Will he say why it was that the charge in the arms trial was of conspiracy, the most difficult charge to prove?
When the Taoiseach said he knew those people were in fact guilty of attempting illegally to import arms, why was it that they were not charged with that offence? Why was he not in the witness box for the purpose of saying it was not a Government decision? Perhaps he will let us have the answers to these questions and then we might be able to judge for ourselves whether the term "Honest Jack", which he has been holding on to for so long, is still applicable to him.
During that debate last May, the Taoiseach referred to something I had said and went on, at column 1757:
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 for 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.
In view of the fact that it is now freely admitted by the Government that the £100,000 voted by the Dáil for another purpose has been spent on those activities—indeed when the query was made as to what exactly happened to them the only thing I cannot understand is how the 11s was missed, perhaps it was to keep the account open— can the Taoiseach now stand up and say that he is as satisfied as he was last May that no money was spend out of the Exchequer for that purpose? I should like to hear the answer to it and I will accept his answer. I am amazed that prominent members of Fianna Fáil, Ministers, Deputies and Senators, continue to say that there is no split in Fianna Fáil but no later than last night I heard one Fianna Fáil Deputy say to another, "You made a bags of the Fianna Fáil Party". I am sure he knew what he was talking about. The word he used was not, in fact, "bags" but that will do.
Cannot the Deputy be accurate?
The actual word used was one that could not be used here. This morning the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was prepared to be very irate in regard to any suggestion to the effect that he did something which he should not have done or said something which he should not have said. I was hoping that he would have been the next speaker so that he might explain a number of matters about which I am puzzled.
I understand that when it was pointed out to him during the arms trial that a statement he was making was not the same as a statement he had made in the House his reply was to the effect that that statement was made in the Dáil under pressure from the Opposition. Are we to take it, then, that if the Minister is asked a question in the Dáil which is likely to indicate a weakness in the Government, he considers it all right to tell a lie? Either the statement made here or the one made to the courts was a lie and I have enough respect for the man to believe he would not swear a lie and that, therefore, the original statement must have been untrue. If, in future, the norm is to be that if a question will prove embarrassing to the Government, it will be all right for the Minister concerned to tell a lie, we should know it so that we would then know what to expect. We have suspected for some time that this is so but this is the first time that a Minister has stated definitely that he considered it was quite in order to tell a lie.
Another matter in which I am interested and which the Minister might clarify for me is in relation to a telephone call he made to Deputy Blaney. The Minister had said that he was stopped on the road while on his way home as a result of which he had a telephone conversation with Deputy Blaney. This resulted in an order being given to have 500 FCA rifles sent to Dundalk Barracks. What is extraordinary about the Minister's account of the telephone conversation is that it was conducted in a code which he thought nobody would understand— the conversation was conducted in Irish. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Gaeltacht, Deputy Kitt, would be very happy about this suggestion by the Minister.
It is of interest that the Minister did not order any ammunition to be sent with the rifles and it is also of interest that no instructions were given as to what was to happen to them. The Minister has said he agreed to do this so that Deputy Blaney and some of his people might not do something rash. If ordinary rifles had been sent there might have been an effort to get ammunition for them somewhere, but if it is true that 500 FCA rifles were sent, the Minister might as well have sent 500 hurley sticks which would have been just as useful but easier to get.
Dundalk Barracks is quite close to the Border and if a supply of useful arms were sent and no effort made to provide protection for them I would like to point out that the barracks cannot be defended as a barracks and it could be very easy for anybody to get the rifles from there.
It was very unfortunate, indeed, that a statement was made in court by a responsible person with regard to sending arms to a priory in Cavan. I understand that portion of the priory referred to has been in use for a number of years as an Army depot. Why was it not referred to as an Army depot? Why make a bad matter worse? Why give Ian Paisley the opportunity of saying that he knew the Government in Dublin were preparing for invasion of the north, that the Catholic Church were in collusion with them, that arms were being lodged in Church property and that he knew all along this was happening? It has been said that there never was any intention of sending our Army into the north but, yet, the word "incursions" was used by the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Were commando sorties to be carried out across the Border? Would not the object of such exercise be to get many people killed? As the Taoiseach stated on the 14th May, the only effect of supplying arms to the north would be the eventual massacre of those to whom the arms were given.
It is difficult to understand the confused thinking of the Government in this matter. It is incredible that such a thing could have happened. I have no wish to bring personalities into this debate and, in particular, I have no wish to refer to people who are not here. However, I would like someone to tell me how Albert Luykx was given Irish nationality. I would like to know what investigations were made in Belgium before he was granted citizenship. Also, I wish to know if any investigation has been carried out to ascertain if this man who, it has been stated, was responsible for contacting people——
The Deputy will appreciate that he must not make charges against persons who have no opportunity to defend themselves.
I am not making any charges. I am asking what investigations were carried out as to this man's character before he was granted Irish citizenship and if any investigation has since been carried out to find out if he is the type of person who should have the ear of Cabinet Ministers in this country.
We want to know also why he is still wanted by Belgian police.
Perhaps the Taoiseach or the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries will answer these questions in reply to this debate.
The Deputy will appreciate that there are imputations in references.
This is a serious matter and with due deference to the Chair, I shall not allow anybody to cover certain people because it may turn out to be embarrassing. I do not know who or what Mr. Luykx is but I would like to know if anybody knows. Do the Government know?
The Government know exactly who he is.
This is not a debate on the Estimate for the Department of Defence.
The Parliamentary Secretary need not display his ignorance of the debate. We know what we are talking about. There are a couple of you over there who shall not have an opportunity of speaking but I shall be delighted to hear what you have to say. The Chair has given a ruling which I accept, but I wish to make two points clear. I am making no charge against Mr. Luykx but if somebody has the ear of a Cabinet Minister or Ministers and if that same person is one who is able to put people in contact with people from whom arms can be purchased on the Continent—this is public knowledge, it appeared in the newspapers— and who in addition to that appears now, as a result of the trial, to have been given as a person who was doing it for the Government, the House is entitled to know what that man's background is. I do not propose to go any further.
And if it is not disclosed we will disclose it, because we know the background.
Just to be clear about the ruling. I take it there is no suggestion that we are precluded in this House from referring to or quoting evidence in the recent trial?
All the Chair is doing is pointing out in regard to personal charges or imputations that the normal procedure in the House under the provisions of the House is that these should not be made in regard to people who have no opportunity of defending themselves in the House.
I want to be clear that whatever that rule may be it will not preclude us from quoting from what was said in evidence at the trial, including the evidence that Mr. Luykx was suspected of neo-Nazi activities.
I do not want to pursue this matter any further. I have made my point. I want answers to my questions and I would be glad if some responsible person could give the answers because the answers will show whether or not then Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Government were consorting with somebody who was or was not entitled to the trust they imposed in him. I think we are entitled to know that. Mark you, it was not their own money they were spending. Somebody was paying for the trips to the Continent, it was not out of their own pockets that the money came. When the trial was over the usual course was taken of one of the defendants addressing the jury and saying "I thank you fellow patriots". Even the patriots apparently have their fares paid when they take trips like this.
Let me make it clear if anybody wants to know what my sentiments are. I do not expect anybody to take it that I am making a comment on the decision of the jury. I believe they could not have given any decision other than the one they gave in view of the evidence tendered, but I have great sympathy with the old chap who was across the street and who, when the cheering and shouting died down after they were carried out, said "You shower of chancers; there is no law in the country". What we are being asked to do here is to find out if the House still has confidence in the Taoiseach and his Government. In one of yesterday's evening papers Deputy Des Foley, a friend of mine, was quoted as saying that he would not vote for Deputy Jack Lynch as Taoiseach. He voted last night, not for the Taoiseach but he voted and according to what we are told here he proposes to vote for him again next week. Deputy Moran, the former Minister for Justice, when he was asked if there was a possibility that the matter would be deferred until the Ard-Fheis said "We cannot wait until the Ard-Fheis; we want a decision now". Deputy Moran who apparently could not wait to get rid of Deputy Lynch voted for him last night and apparently will vote for him next week. Deputy Haughey, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland were all very noisy over the weekend. There must be something infectious about this because when some of these fellows get in front of a microphone and have a chance of being mentioned on the radio or television they say all sorts of queer things. Under no circumstances are they prepared to support Deputy Jack Lynch as Taoiseach any longer. Not alone that but Deputy Haughey was prepared to say that the Supplementary Budget, for which he voted yesterday, was unnecessary; there was no need for it. These men were going to take the rug from under Deputy Lynch's feet; the Taoiseach was going to go, but, again, they calmly walked into the Lobby last night and I am quite sure they will just as calmly walk in next Thursday evening.
I do not rate Deputy Brian Lenihan, the Minister for Transport and Power, as being the most intelligent Minister in the Government or the most intelligent Deputy in the House but he made one very intelligent remark. He said "The name of the game is ‘survival'". That is it. They are voting for Deputy Jack Lynch and the policy of the Government not because they believe in his policy or support him, or support what is supposed to be the official Fianna Fáil policy, but they are supporting him because if they do not there will be a general election and if there is a general election they will not come back here. It is as simple as that. They will not come back here. In order to avoid this we have this situation. We had all the shenanigans for the last few months. When the Dáil was in recess it was a great time for these people to be brave but, of course, when they came up against the reality here in this House some of their bravery evaporated.
One of the things I was watching even before the recess was the antics of the boys who were supposed to be opposed to the Taoiseach. You had three categories. You had the fellows who had been Ministers and who were booted out or who, through their own stupidity—this is the only thing I can say was responsible—moved out. We knew they were stupid but we did not think they were that darned stupid. We had those people who were definitely opposed to the Government and to the Taoiseach. Then we had the fellows who thought they should have been promoted and were not promoted and who were terribly disappointed when long-serving Members like Deputy Liam Cunningham, whom I am glad to see as a Parliamentary Secretary, were promoted. They thought there should have been instant Parliamentary Secretaries as there had been instant Ministers and they felt that since they had got nothing in two or three shuffles they could not be worse off and, therefore, a change of some kind would be very useful and possibly they might get in. Then we had the fellows who thought that if they could rub off some of this so-called republicanism which some of the people who had been in trouble were claiming they owned—nobody else owns it, they are the people who are the republicans, nobody else—they would possibly get a few more votes or it might help them in a further effort to get promotion. These people are bitterly opposed to Deputy Lynch as Taoiseach. The funny part was when it came down to brass tacks and the long debate took place in the Fianna Fáil Party rooms. God knows if you want to have a good laugh you should get some of the fellows in the party who are not as tight lipped as some of their colleagues and who will be prepared to regale you with the antics that went on. You could write a comedy on it. There was the fellow who did not know that Deputy Haughey had decided he was going to vote for the Taoiseach and was standing out. If he had been sober I am quite sure he would have noticed that Deputy Haughey had said he was going to vote for the Taoiseach but as he did not hear that he was standing out as the Robert Emmet. He was not going to vote for the Taoiseach and he was the most surprised man in the world when he sobered up and found that he was nearly on his own. There was another fellow who made a decision that he was definitely going to stand by——
The Deputy is not thinking of a comedy. He is thinking of a fairy tale.
Do not tempt me to give the names of the people concerned because I do not want to embarrass them. They are decent fellows. Most of you are decent if you could make up your minds. The trouble was that these poor fellows were in there and they may have been overawed because they saw such a crowd and everybody prepared to threaten to do everything. But the cold light of day came on them yesterday and even though, perhaps, they had been a little loud mouthed things appeared differently in the sunlight. There is nothing like the sunlight to bring home to some people that what appears to be a wonderful thing the previous night may not look so good. The result was they decided that discretion was the better part of valour. Eventually one by one they crawled back in under the party umbrella. I do not know whether or not they had to wear sackcloth and ashes. Certainly at the meeting yesterday evening it was probably insisted that some of them would certainly have to wear ashes on their foreheads before they would be allowed on to the holy ground to apologise to the Taoiseach and to say that they would be good boys in future.
Do the Fianna Fáil Party not realise what a ridiculous looking bunch they are? Even the father figure himself, Mr. Seán Lemass—he is not here to defend himself but I am sure he will not mind me referring to him—was prepared to say on television the other evening that there was no split in the party. I guarantee that if Seán Lemass were Taoiseach there would be no gun-running, no trial. If the old chap in the Park, the President, were Taoiseach, he would not allow it either. Apparently the position now is that Fianna Fáil is a party which is in such a sad state that one half of them can do things that the other half do not have to be told about—even when they are at Government level.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the Taoiseach knew there was gun-running. Some extraordinary things came out during the debate of 14th May. One such thing is that Deputy Jack Lynch, the Taoiseach, assured the House that, no matter what anybody might think, Deputy Gibbons, the then Minister for Defence, had kept him fully informed of everything that was happening.
Now, when we come to the evidence given at the arms conspiracy trial and the part where Deputy Gibbons said he knew of what was happening and had pleaded with at least one of the people concerned long before it came out— long before it was raised in this House —the interesting point arises whether, when the Taoiseach was answering a question in this House about it, we are to take it that he knew there was an attempt at gun-running as a result of having been told so by Deputy Gibbons. Is this why Deputy Boland— who, I understand, is terribly annoyed because nobody accused him of anything—wanted to know why Deputy Gibbons was not forced to resign? He felt Deputy Gibbons was the one fellow who should be made to get out because he felt he had shocked the two sides. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Gibbons, was very annoyed this morning because of certain things that were said and he said to Deputy Cosgrave—this comes from a responsible Minister of a so-called responsible Government—"I will fix you"——
Just because he was accused of perjury.
——just because Deputy Cosgrave had made certain statements which everybody in the country was making: it was made public in the court. Not until the matter is brought into this House or somewhere else or, as Deputy Corish suggests, until it is brought before a Committee of this House, until all the evidence is available, can we decide whether or not there has been a grave miscarriage of justice; whether all these fellows are still the decent fellows they claim they are or have been or is it a fact that the Government are rotten to the core— which does appear to be the evidence at present? I do not understand how the Taoiseach feels he will get out of it. He says he cannot have a general election because there is no alternative government. If that is the case, is it not the obvious thing for the Taoiseach to go to the Park and then to declare a general election and see for himself whether or not (a) there is an alternative government or (b) if the people of the country want him and his party back again?
This morning, the Taoiseach made another comment when Deputy Corish referred to the fact that, during the last general election, he had been blackguarding the Labour Party and smearing them: he said he never smeared them. I have a personal regard for Deputy Jack Lynch as I have, indeed, for a number of the people involved in this schemozzle. A fellow can be quite a likeable chap and a terrible so-and-so at the back of it: this is human nature. Deputy Jack Lynch cannot deny that he went around the country before the last general election and gave the impression that anybody standing as a Labour Party candidate had a communist card and——
Has the Deputy any quotation or reference?
——that tactic returned to this House a lot of fellows who would not otherwise have been returned. The Taoiseach's trip around the convents is well known. Most of us are professing Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant. I would take a very grave exception to the audacity of the Taoiseach or of Deputy Cunningham or of anybody else going to a convent and giving the impression that I, or any of my colleagues here, cannot be trusted, that we are not Christians.
If he did.
We have already proved it. This has been challenged before. The evidence is there, was there and was proved. It went so far that, in one particular case, a representative of the Taoiseach said at a church gate that, if the Labour Party got into power, it would happen, as had happened in other countries, the parish priest would be put in chains. Did anybody ever hear such nonsense? A Deputy in my constituency——
You said Deputy Jack Lynch. Now you say a representative of Jack Lynch. Two different things.
I accept from Deputy Cunningham that they have a peculiar double-think: that, if the big man at the top keeps his card clean, the fellows down the way can spread the mud—under his cover.
That is not what I said.
A Deputy in my constituency asked if the convents wanted the same situation as obtained in other countries where the nuns were interned. Surely this is something to which no reasonable political party should stoop? Then the Taoiseach comes in here and says that neither he nor Fianna Fáil smeared the Labour Party before the last general election.
I did not intend to follow that line because the Taoiseach made a particular request to this House not to go back but rather to discuss the present Government. I think he was trying to influence the Ceann Comhairle to rule that only the present Government could be discussed so that the fellows who were in the Cabinet earlier in the year should not be mentioned at all. However, that was all fumbled up by the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy B. Lenihan, who started at 1922 and struggled along. He was not the best fellow in the world to cover the period from 1922 to 1932. Then he waxed eloquent when he got on a bit further and talked of what had happened and what was likely to happen.
We have a completely discredited Government. Only yesterday morning we had a situation where the Taoiseach could not claim the support of a majority in this House. By some means —I am not in a position to check how it was done: I have heard a dozen versions of it——
Tell us one.
——of how it was done at the party meeting and the crucial one yesterday evening when the last of the rebels was brought into line. I have had versions of that. However, it seems that the Taoiseach now feels he can get the support of Fianna Fáil in going through the lobby. I shall be very interested to see Deputy Boland going through the lobby. No matter what we say about Deputy Boland I think he is a man who, whether he is right or wrong, if he thinks a thing is right he stands by it. If the other rebels in the Fianna Fáil Party had the same kind of courage, Deputy Jack Lynch would not have the same sort of majority on Thursday next as he had in the division here last night. When some say, in effect: "We will not vote for him. He should resign. He should do the honourable thing," and, in the next breath, say, in effect: "The party pledge demands that I must support the Government", I would ask them whom they think they are codding?
Feeling assured of the support of the majority of the Members of this House, the Taoiseach proposes to carry on. Whether or not he expects that, in the course of the next three months, he will be able to consolidate his position, I do not know. Deputy Moran says they cannot wait for the Ard Fheis to decide the issue. Whether or not the delegates to the Ard Fheis will make the decision the Opposition here have been urging on the Government and will tell the Taoiseach that the honourable thing for him to do is to dissolve the Dáil, to let the people decide and to abide by the decision of the people. I wonder whether the people in the Fianna Fáil benches who have been rebelling against the Government will be prepared to accept a similar decision from the people of this country.
In this debate there are a number of issues at stake. First, there is the fact that the Taoiseach, on two occasions, and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Gibbons, on two occasions, misled the House by various processes of half-truths or lies. There are four instances of this which I shall enumerate in detail as I go along. Secondly, we are concerned with misappropriation of public funds—a sum which seems to range from £89,000 to £99,999 9s, depending on various versions of it. Thirdly, we are concerned with the collapse of collective responsibility and the emergence of a situation where each Minister acts on his own and where there is a hierarchy of Ministers, some so junior that they cannot even speak to the Taoiseach so that when they find out there is a conspiracy against the Government they ask the chief conspirators to speak on their behalf. Fourthly, we are concerned with the incompetence of the Government as shown up in this trial and the extraordinarily inept way in which our affairs are handled.
Debate adjourned.