Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 3 Nov 1970

Vol. 249 No. 3

Confidence in Taoiseach and Government: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in An Taoiseach and the other Members of the Government.
—(The Taoiseach.)

When I started to speak the other day I had time merely to summarise the four main themes of what I have to say. These are that we on this side of the House indict the Taoiseach and one of his Ministers for misleading the House on four occasions. We indict them for the misappropriation of public funds in respect of which, moreover, the House was misled. We are concerned about the collapse of collective responsibility, something which is required by the Constitution, and we are concerned about the evidence of gross incompetence in Government that emerged in the course of this trial. These are the four issues, it seems to me, in the debate and they have an impact on confidence. They have an impact on confidence of the people in Government, an impact on the confidence of the people in the stability of this country and, indeed, at a time of financial crisis an impact on the financial stability of the country because of the reflection they cast on the Government who are concerned with the management of our economic affairs. They have an effect, too, on confidence amongst people, even of goodwill, in Northern Ireland in this part of the country and in its Government. They have an impact on the confidence of people in other countries—the British Government, and indeed, the EEC Governments — in working, negotiating and discussing problems with the Government of this country.

I want in the first instance to come back to this matter of misleading the House. I regret that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has left the House. He was there a second ago and I had hoped he was going to remain because I prefer to attack a man in his presence rather than in his absence and it is my duty—although certainly I have no personal animus against the Minister with whom I have had no contact, either personally or politically—to attack him and to attack him strongly today. I hope that he may come back so that we may deal with the matter across the floor.

First, I have to deal with the Taoiseach. There are two counts on which the Taoiseach has been accused of misleading the House. I shall not dwell on the first because it has been debated at some length in the House. This is in regard to the reply he gave to the Leader of the Opposition in the Dáil on the 5th May in response to a question as to whether there were further dismissals or resignations to come. He replied on that occasion in a manner which was misleading. I am prepared to accept that the Taoiseach on the spur of the moment, and seeking not to disclose his hand too much, used a form of words which was inadvertently misleading, that he was trying to be evasive and, unfortunately, in the literal sense told an untruth. It is a pity that he did not apologise to the House for that and instead attempted to exculpate himself and justify what was at its best a serious error of judgment. I am concerned more particularly, however, with a later case where the Taoiseach misled the House. Again, it may well be, and I am quite prepared to accept it if the Taoiseach says that this is the case, that this was due to incompetence on his part rather than to a desire deliberately to mislead the House. The matter is one of great seriousness because it is a matter with which this House is properly and deeply concerned and that is the control of public expenditure.

The House will recall that on May 9th at column 1336, volume 246 of the Official Report, the Taoiseach in reply to that long debate gave the House some assurances about public moneys. They were limited and restricted assurances, assurances that no money had been used from the Secret Service fund to buy arms and that no money from the Department of Defence had been used for that purpose. He said that there was no question of the Secret Service fund being used and that as well as that it was established for him that all moneys expended by the Department of Defence were expended as voted by this House. Therefore, he did not know where the moneys came from that paid for these goods, if they were paid for.

In the third debate on this subject on May 14th I raised with the Taoiseach the question of whether this money might have come from some other source. It seemed to me that the assurances he had given to the House were too restricted, that money could have come for the purchase of arms from some source other than the Department of Defence Vote or the Secret Service fund. On that occasion I said:

The Taoiseach says he is satisfied that no Secret Service money was used because it is spread around so much.

Again it is a very unconvincing denial when one reads the actual words, and I quote:

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

"It is nice to know"—I added—"that we have the usual sources from which it is usual to finance illegal arms imports." I went on to quote the Taoiseach:

The Secret Service funds amounted to £11,500 and had to be spread over the Departments which draw on these funds. Therefore, there was no question of the Secret Service funds being used.

He did not say he checked to see had they been used for it but he looked at the figure of £11,500 and said with four Department getting £11,500, you would never get £30,000 out of that: there is no need to look any further.

I went on to raise with the Taoiseach specifically the question as to whether money had come from other sources. I asked him if he had checked the most obvious place, the Department of Finance. That is where one of the Ministers concerned was involved. It seemed improbable—if the Minister for Defence is innocent, as we are told —that the money had come from the Department of Defence. The most likely place is the Department of Finance. He does not tell us whether he has checked there. There is no denial in respect of there; this is no indication that the Taoiseach had checked.

In replying to that debate, the Taoiseach endeavoured to give some kind of answer to each of the questions I put him. Let me read to the House the answer he gave on this question to the House as reported at column 1757 of the Official Report. He said:

I want to add that I made specific inquiries as to whether any moneys could have been voted or could have been paid out of Exchequer funds or out of any public funds in respect of a consignment of arms of the size we have been dealing with and I am assured that there was not nor could not have been.

It is difficult to think of a more explicit denial—"...was not nor could not have been"—not merely that there was not but that there was no possibility that such a thing could have happened.

We now know, from the evidence given on oath in court—indeed, evidence not contested by the prosecution—that, in fact, the funds to buy arms did come from a Government Vote—the Northern Ireland Relief Vote. Moreover, of all Votes that this Dáil voted in the course of the last financial year, is there any Vote more obvious, is there any Vote to which one would be inclined to look sooner, to see whether money had been used for this purpose? If any Deputy of this House were Taoiseach, where would he look for this money? Given that the money was used for arms for the north—this is what we we are told— given that the Minister for Finance had been dismissed and was about to be charged with complicity, to what Vote would one look first to see if money had been used from that Vote? The answer, obviously, is, from the Vote under his personal control, which, we have been told in court, was under his personal control, money from which was paid out under his direct authority for the purpose of a northern relief fund.

I am prepared to believe that the Taoiseach, when he told us that in this House on 14th May last, did not know he was telling an untruth. But, quite frankly, a man who fails to check completely and totally such an obvious source of funds for a purpose of this kind and assures this House that the money not only did not come from any Government funds——

Would the Deputy please quote me again—the first three words?

I shall be happy to quote the Taoiseach: "However, I want to add that I made specific inquiries as to whether any moneys could have been voted or could have been paid out of Exchequer funds or out of any public funds in respect of a consignment of arms of the size we have been dealing with and I am assured that there was not nor could not have been."

These are the three words I have been looking for—"I am assured".

Collective responsibility.

I have said I am prepared to accept the Taoiseach told the truth as he knew it. He claims the defence of incompetence. On that defence, this House has no confidence in him.

The Deputy calls it an untruth.

I did not. I specifically said I was not accusing the Taoiseach of an untruth. I specifically said I was prepared to accept from him the alibi he has given of incompetence. He has given it now. I accept it. That is why this Government should go: that, in a matter as serious as this, a Taoiseach who is prepared to accept an assurance, and not even to look into it in any detail whatever, about this particular fund, is a man who should not be in charge of our affairs.

Let us consider the position here. The Taoiseach knows that this Minister is involved. He has sacked him for it and he is about to have him arrested for it. Let us get to the facts of this and let us quote the evidence of the former Private Secretary to the Minister for Finance in the report on the trial of 24th September, 1970—Irish Times, first page, last two columns. We read, referring to Mr. Fagan:

He was aware that the Government had made funds available for relief works in Northern Ireland in the summer of 1969 but he did not agree this money was to be used, according to the Government's submission, by the Defence Forces. In practice, this money was available for administration by the Intelligence Division of the Defence Forces.

——available for that——

He agreed that Captain Kelly was primarily and officially connected with the distribution of this money by the Intelligence Division.

We move on to the next page—first column:

A minute of the Government decision to establish a contingency fund had come in the normal course to his office. It was as a result of that minute that the accounts in the Clones and Baggot Street banks were set up.

He went on—I shall come back to this again: I shall come back to the question of the actual misappropriation of funds. I shall come back to deal with the fact that certain Ministers, other than the Minister for Defence, sought the money. This House has not been told who these Ministers were. Then, on 8th October this matter is raised again in the second trial. When the jury was recalled, Mr. D'Arcy resumed his cross-examination of Mr. Fagan and asked:

Were you aware that, in August, 1969, the Government made a sum available for the aid of distress in Northern Ireland?—I was.

Was part of that fund administered by the Intelligence Department of the Defence Forces?—Not administered as such; on requisition to me, the Private Secretary to the Minister for Finance; from Captain Kelly or from Colonel Heffron, and with the approval of the Minister for Finance, sums of money were paid from this fund.

It is perfectly clear that the Government decided at a meeting on a date unspecified that this money—voted by the Dáil on 18th March retrospectively in respect of a relief fund, announced many months earlier — that this money should be under the control of the Minister for Finance; should be issued under his authority and with his approval. That was the Government decision. The Taoiseach knew all about that. He was responsible for it. There he was; having dismissed this Minister and being about to charge this Minister with a criminal offence in connection with this matter, what action did he take before assuring the Dáil on this matter, not only that he was assured that the money did not come from public funds, but could not have come from any Government funds? He does not have to do much: he merely has to ask the relevant official what happened that money. Had he asked, he would have been told—we are told by the Irish Red Cross—I shall come back to this later in another context—that a written instruction was issued by the Department of Finance to the Irish Red Cross to pay this money into a fund to be administered by three names which, if the Taoiseach had inquired, he would have discovered were people who did not exist but apparently were false names for people in Northern Ireland. One does not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that.

No man who either fails to inquire that far, or who, having inquired that far and found that this money had passed out of the hands and control of the Department of Finance and into the control of people in Northern Ireland operating under false names, could legitimately give such an assurance to this House as that which he gave. I am prepared to accept that the Taoiseach had not pursued the matter that far. I am prepared to accept that when he said he had this assurance he got it from somebody; that he had not bothered to look any further; that he was content to accept assurances—even as late as 14th May—on this matter that no Taoiseach in command of his Government and concerned that this House should know the truth, could possibly have accepted. That is my charge. I think the Taoiseach should answer it.

May I once again deprecate the practice that has grown up in this House that the Taoiseach, in opening a debate of this kind, talks platitudes or tries to make some funny remarks about the Opposition, but totally fails to deal with the matter to hand; a practice in which he does not deal with the matter but waits for the debate and for the last word when he cannot be contradicted and when—if he is challenged—he says in an offended way, in effect: "I must not be interrupted. I did not interrupt you"—which is not always true. That practice is one which this House should ask to be ended.

In coming in to debate a motion of this kind, the Taoiseach should have come to us, as he promised in May he would come to us and tell us the whole truth. He has told us nothing. If he intends to tell us the whole truth— maybe he does—he apparently intends to do it at the end of the debate and, if any of us want to clarify a point or check a point then, he will tell us: "I did not interrupt you. Do not you interrupt me."

May I say that if the Taoiseach needs more time to reply and to give us the truth even at this late stage we will not insist on limiting him to three-quarters of an hour. He can talk all night so long as at last he tells us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

(Interruptions.)

I will come back to this matter later. I am dealing at the moment with the question of the misleading of this House by the Taoiseach twice—he may say inadvertently on both occasions. On the first occasion one can accept a slip of the tongue, although one cannot accept a failure to apologise if it was a slip of the tongue. On the second occasion there was no excuse. It was a failure on his part to do his duty. He had no right to give an assurance to this House until he had checked the matter personally and, in giving that assurance which was falsified by events, he has shown himself, as he has shown himself in other respects also, to be a man who should not be leading the Government of this country.

I want to pass now to the other cases of this House being misled, misled by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Once again I regret his departure. If there are any of his friends in the House who can persuade him to come in again I wish they would do so. I should like to talk to him to his face.

None of his friends are present.

I am sure the Minister is listening to the Deputy.

I thought the Deputy was going to say he had no friends. I am concerned here with two cases in which the House was misled. The first of these relates to the training of civilians at Dunree Fort. The form which the misleading took in this instance was a deliberate half truth—a deliberate half truth, however, of a kind deliberately designed to mislead the House. It is one thing for somebody in the heat of debate inadverently to say something that may mislead on a matter of minor importance. One might forgive that especially if, which we never get from those benches, there is an apology afterwards. It is a different matter to deliberately and in a planned manner mislead the House as was done on this occasion.

The House will recall that when Deputy Richie Ryan was speaking from this side of the House he referred to training which was given in at least one Army camp to civilians in the use of arms. The Minister, in a phrase which is becoming a little repetitive from him, said: "That is not true"; but he was not content with that denial, which might have been elicited from him on the spur of the moment. He wanted to go on record misleading the House. He wanted to make sure that there would be no question of the House having any inkling of the truth. He wanted to nail the truth. We talk of nailing a lie but the Minister wished to nail the truth. He said that in the course of a Radio Éireann interview Mr. Patrick Kennedy, M.P., suggested that any participation by Captain James Kelly—I quote from column 839 of the Official Report of 8th May—in an attempt to smuggle arms "could only have been made with my knowledge and consent. I wish emphatically to deny any such knowledge or consent." Note: "knowledge or consent" not "knowledge and consent". "There was neither knowledge nor consent."

I am sorry. I picked the wrong paragraph. I should be dealing with Dunree Fort. I will come back to that one. My apologies for having confused the House but, when Ministers tell so many untruths to the House, one tends to get confused between them.

To come back to the relevant untruth at this stage. As reported at column 841 of the Official Report of 8th May, 1970, the Minister said:

There was some reference to the training of civilians in Donegal. I want to point out the position of the Defence Forces in this regard. The Defence forces train only members of their own ranks, whether they be FCA or Army or Naval personnel. That is the extent of their training. This story first got currency in the Protestant Telegraph. It is time that stories of this kind ceased.

It is a sad stage when we have to go to the Protestant Telegraph for the truth about what is happening in this part of Ireland. I do not think many of us thought we would be reduced to that by any member of the Government, but that is what we have been reduced to by the Minister. No doubt the Minister will tell us when he speaks—and the sooner the better; I wish he had spoken before I did so that I could deal with him more effectively — that of course these people were enlisted in the Defence Forces for the week and presumably “delisted” again at the end of the week, but let us be quite clear. That statement was deliberately designed to mislead the House. The accusation made related to civilians from Northern Ireland being brought in and trained. They were brought in; they were trained. Technically they were enlisted and on that technicality Deputy Gibbons rests. May he rest in peace, but it will not be forgotten for a long time to come that a Minister of this House misled the House in this manner.

Let me come to the second case which I inadvertently launched myself into in the confusion between the various misleading statements by Deputy Gibbons. I am concerned here with the importation of arms. I come back now to the quotation I was making. Referring to a statement made by Mr. Patrick Kennedy, M.P., in the course of a radio interview, Deputy Gibbons said that Mr. Kennedy suggested that any participation by Captain James Kelly in an attempt to smuggle arms "could only have been made with my knowledge and consent. I wish emphatically to deny any such knowledge and consent". Not "knowledge and consent"—"knowledge or consent". He went on to say that he discharged his duty to the full extent of his knowledge of the situation and that he had formed the opinion—and this is one of the more humorous passages—in recent times "that Captain Kelly was becoming unsuitable for the type of work that he was employed on." He was failing to get the arms in? He went on:

I want to say that certain suspicions were forming in my mind.

Here was this energetic, able Minister, closely watching the Intelligence Service and nothing very acutely that something odd was going on. The fact that this detective process consisted of Captain Kelly coming to him and pouring out his mind about arms importation and not being pulled up or in any way reprimanded does not emerge, but we are to honour the detective work by Deputy Gibbons in finding this out by actually listening to Captain Kelly telling him—and so suspicions formed in his mind. There is an able and energetic Minister for you.

In this House last Thursday Deputy Cosgrave referred to this matter. He referred to what had been said at the trial. He said "On 9th October, according to Press reports of the evidence given in the court he (Deputy Gibbons) 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." Deputy Gibbons then said the famous words: "That is not true."

That is true.

I am not clear as to whether Deputy Gibbons is making a distinction even more subtle than the previous one, but this will no doubt emerge when he comes to speak.

I am pointing out that what Deputy Cosgrave said was incorrect.

I will go through Deputy Gibbons's evidence at the trial.

Good. Let me start the process. Let me get in first. Let us be told which of the statements by Deputy Gibbons at the trial was not true and was perjured, or in what way he suggests he can reconcile the statements at the trial with lack of knowledge. He can make a spurious case about consent. He tells us he never actually said to Captain Kelly: "Go ahead", but he did nothing to stop him; but on knowledge I do not see how he can challenge us.

Let me take these one by one. The Minister was asked:

Now, was anything said as to the form of service or assistance he (Captain Kelly) wished to give to the people about whom he spoke?— Well, at the first meeting, I can't be certain that any specific mention of the importation of arms was made. I rather tend towards the belief it was at the second meeting that the specific mention was made.

Then a further question:

And you think that that was at the second meeting?—I cannot be certain of it but I tend towards that belief myself.

It may indeed have been mentioned at the first meeting earlier in March. The report goes on:

Mr. Gibbons said that the second meeting he had with Captain Kelly would have been in the last days of March or possibly early April, and Captain Kelly told him there had been an attempt to import illegal weapons through the port of Dublin.

I pass on now to the next passage:

Mr. Gibbons went on: I asked him what happened then.

This was down at the Port of Dublin; this is the operation of which Deputy Gibbons had no knowledge; all this conversation is completely imaginary, but given on oath of course.

Did you or did they—

the Army personnel who were collecting legitimate arms there—

disappear into the shadows?—I recall using that particular expression, and I think he shrugged in an affirmative kind of way. I said to him: "I suppose that's the end of that lot anyway" or words to that effect, and he indicated in words that I don't exactly recall that it was not, and that further efforts would be made to import this particular batch, and he mentioned a port on the Adriatic as a possible port of transmission.

These were all matters of which he had no knowledge at all in March or April! The report goes on:

Mr. Gibbons said he asked Captain Kelly if that port might possibly be Trieste, because it was the only port in the Adriatic he could think of offhand, and he thought Captain Kelly answered yes, rather vaguely. Mr. Gibbons said he felt he should mention that when Captain Kelly mentioned the failure of the goods to come in from Belgium, Captain Kelly had not mentioned the port in Belgium, and it was only when he (Mr. Gibbons) suggested Antwerp that Capt. Kelly said that that was the port. So far as he recalled Captain Kelly had not identified any of the persons identified with him in this enterprise.

That is a fair amount of detail and yet what did Deputy Cosgrave say in this matter? Let me quote Deputy Cosgrave again—he said that:

On several occasions in March and April Captain Kelly had told him

—Deputy Gibbons—

in some detail of an attempt to bring in arms in which he was involved.

How much detail does there have to be? Is the name of the ship necessary? The fact that arms were being brought in and the names of the ports were discussed—that is not knowledge, however.

Several occasions.

Let us move on to consider how much knowledge there is here. I shall quote from the newspaper of October 10th reporting on the trial of October 9th.

You would agree with me that as of the moment of your conversation at the end of March, you had never expressed to Captain Kelly any disapproval of what he told you he was going to do or what he told you he had tried to do on the 25th March?

Mr. Gibbons: Yes.

No criticism.

Does that mean your position at this time was you did not mind if arms came in as long as an Army officer was not involved in bringing them in?

Mr. Gibbons: No. That is not the case.

If that was not the position why didn't you, in the last days of March, when told by a serving Army officer that he had just failed to bring in one load of arms and that he was now going to get them in by some other route—why didn't you tell him not to?

Mr. Gibbons: Because I felt that if Captain Kelly went out of the Army with any sense of grievance of being let down, especially after having made that declaration to me, that he might be tempted to make use of the great deal of secret information to which he had access...

This goes on for pages. The amount of knowledge Deputy Gibbons had is so long-winded that I cannot detain the House with it but there is another little bit of the cross-examination which I think is worth referring to. Deputy Gibbons in the course of his cross-examination had admitted to that very delicate thing: "vestigial knowledge"—a form of knowledge this House has not hitherto been acquainted with, but that is the kind of knowledge he admitted to. The cross-examining counsel were not satisfied with "vestigial knowledge". Mr. Sorahan then asked:

You had vestigial knowledge, is that right?

Mr. Gibbons: Yes.

Mr. Sorahan: But you had knowledge simpliciter, is that not right?

Mr. Gibbons: Yes.

Is there any more specific admission of knowledge that one can make than that? After an attempt to say there was vestigial knowledge, knowledge of the ports of Trieste and Antwerp, merely vestigial knowledge, nothing definite, nothing that would make anybody think of guns actually being attempted to be imported, after that, he admitted to knowledge simpliciter. Is there any word in the Latin language, or the British language, that could be more complete or total? No. The question was phrased in the most complete way and to that question Deputy Gibbons replied: “Yes”. Yet in this House, when Deputy Cosgrave 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, Deputy Gibbons said: “That is not true”.

That is right.

As an ordinary member of this Parliament, as an ordinary Irishman, as an ordinary man in the street——

Not ordinary, surely?

——I cannot begin to reconcile those statements. The only interpretation I can put on that—and it does not appear to be what Deputy Gibbons wishes put on it—is that he is saying he perjured himself in court.

There can be no more time for this. We cannot go on with a Government which plays games with matters like this, a man who gets up in court and swears that he had knowledge simpliciter— no qualification, knowledge simpliciter of the matter, and comes into this House and says: “That is not true.” How can we have confidence in such a man? We are not dealing here with half-truths or evasions. We are dealing here with blank lies, lies of a kind this House has never before heard, lies of a kind I hope this House will never have to hear again.

At least Deputy Kevin Boland was honest about it and it is to his credit. We may disagree with him but he was honest.

I shall come to the one honest man later on.

Why did Deputy FitzGerald not make those statements where he was not covered by the privilege of the House?

I have been making frequent statements on the subject not covered by the privilege of the House and I hope the Deputy takes time to read them in the papers two or three times a week.

Having dealt with this matter of misleading the House—four examples, two by the Taoiseach, possibly a third one but the second certainly culpable, two by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the first of which can be regarded as an evasion but one which was designed to mislead the House, the second of which is a blank lie—I come now to the question of the misappropriation of funds. First of all, I comment merely that it is interesting that the prosecution did not raise this matter. One would have thought that in a trial on a conspiracy to import arms, the fact that one of the people charged had money under his authority which he had released by written instruction apparently through a certain channel to a fund under the charge of people who were from the area for which the arms were being imported, one would have thought that such a fact would be thought relevant to proving conspiracy. Yet, interestingly enough, the prosecution did not rely on this or refer to it. It was Captain Kelly's counsel who in cross-examination brought out this question of misappropriation of funds.

I have already quoted what Mr. Fagan said on the subject, his instructions to pay the fund into an account in Clones and then payments made into the account in Baggot Street. I have already asked how the Taoiseach could have failed to check this. There are other questions. How could the money be spent in this way? People who have longer experience than I have of this House have found themselves amazed that Government money could be dealt with in this way. Let us trace the transactions.

A Supplementary Estimate was introduced. The Minister concerned makes no statement on it. It is however entitled: "Northern Relief Fund". There are other items in it but that particular matter is not referred to. The money is voted by the Dáil in the innocent belief that it would be used for the relief of distress in Northern Ireland—the rehousing of people, the provision of clothing for people, the provision of assistance to individuals who had lost their homes in these troubles. What happens? The Minister arranges that this money be transferred to a group of people in whose names the account is opened except that they are false names—a rather peculiar feature—through the Irish Red Cross. There are a number of questions raised here. What authority had the Minister for Finance to give instructions to the Irish Red Cross to pass funds to accounts outside their control and his control which are held in false names? Indeed what authority had he, even if they were in the true names of the people? None, it seems to me. I feel that the whole question of the management of the Irish Red Cross has been called into question. The whole idea of the Red Cross is that they should be above suspicion, that they should concentrate on giving aid to people in distress, that they must never be associated, even in the most vestigial way, with the importation of or any handling of or dealings in arms. Yet in this country the Minister who was subsequently charged with this offence instructs in writing the Red Cross to transfer money into a fund from which money was used for arms. The role of the Red Cross and the management of the Red Cross in this whole matter must come under review. I presume the International Red Cross are looking into it and we will expect to see some shake-up in the Irish Red Cross or else its disaffiliation in the near future. I do not know that there is any alternative after this disgraceful performance by the Government.

How could the money have been spent in this way? What terms of reference were given to the Minister for Finance? As far as we were concerned it was the Northern Relief Fund. The money was put under his personal control. He was apparently empowered to issue it to people. On what terms? By what criteria? What was laid down? Where is the Government minute on this matter? Can we be told what was the basis on which this fund was to be handled? What instructions were there from the Government to the Minister for Finance? Were there any? Are we dealing here with another case of the muddle and incompetence which surrounds this whole affair? Then the Minister delegated this function to a civil servant, Mr. Fagan, and left it to him, according to his nonchalant statement in the matter, to decide what money should be issued from this fund into the hands of this group of false names in front of whom Captain Kelly was operating. What criteria did the Minister give to Mr. Fagan when he issued these funds? Is this the normal procedure by which the Government handles funds? I had always under stood and everything I ever heard about the method of handling Government accounts and my experience, limited though it be, on the Committee of Public Accounts had suggested to me that, when money is to be issued from any Government account, it is tightly controlled, it is necessary that the purpose be specific, that it be clear to whom the money is being given, that the people concerned should be an incorporated body or people on whom specific responsibility can rest, necessary that the purposes for which the money is issued should be known and specified, necessary that there should be a process of inspection to make sure the money is used in that way. Yet in this case the Minister simply says to his secretary: "Transfer the money into this fund whenever Captain Kelly asks for it". Is this the way moneys are normally handled and if not normally, how did this abnormality arise? What authority was there for acting in this abnormal way?

There is another question that arises on this fund, and indeed it is shrouded in obscurity, because the whole account given of it is unclear, but certain things are clear. Mr. Fagan, in giving evidence, said there had been requests from several Ministers for money from this fund. He then went on to say that those Ministers did not include the Minister for Defence. I am not perfectly clear in my own mind as to whether he meant that several Ministers had indented to the Minister for Finance on the £100,000 held in Finance or whether they had got money from the fund in the three false names operated by Captain Kelly, to which a large part of the £100,000 was transferred. The evidence to me is obscure on this point but obscure or not, the probability, from the fact that Mr. Fagan is giving evidence on the point, seems to me that the money was secured directly from the Department of Finance. The question which arises, and for which no answer has been provided since by the Taoiseach or anybody else, is what Ministers got money from this fund and for what purpose?

When this House votes money for northern relief it does not vote it so that Ministers can indent on it for sums they require for other purposes. Or, are there perhaps other Ministers who are busying themselves with northern relief? What form did the relief take? What Ministers got what money from this fund? For what purpose? What check has been made to discover what they did with it? Why have we not been told this? We have been told that because of the bank strike it is impossible to complete the investigation. Indeed, had Deputy Cosgrave not probed the matter further we would not even have known that the investigation was well advanced, that in fact some of the cheques drawn on the mysterious account in the names of three false people, are already known and the names on them are known. We would not have got that had Deputy Cosgrave not probed the other day, because once again the Government endeavoured to mislead us by talking about the bank strike and implying that no information was available yet. If, as I think from Mr. Fagan's evidence, money was drawn, not only by many mysterious people, from the fund in Baggot Street and the fund in Clones, but by Ministers other than the Minister for Defence, as he then was, from the fund held in the Department of Finance, why have we not been told what Ministers got the money and what for?

The Taoiseach, although not apparently a very vigorous investigator, judging by the assurance he gave the House on 14th May, must by this time surely have got round to asking Mr. Fagan: "Who asked for the money? Who got it? How much?" He might even have got as far as asking the Ministers what they did with it. He does not tell this House about that. Why not? Why has this House to wait until the bank account in Baggot Street is investigated to be told what happened the money that was not transferred to Baggot Street? I would like to know that. I hope somebody over there is making notes and that the Taoiseach, who failed to answer those questions in advance of the debate as was his duty, would answer them at the end in reply to this debate. As I have said he can have as much time as he wants for the purpose so far as this side of the House is concerned.

The question has been raised with the Taoiseach as to whether he would transfer investigation into this matter to the Public Accounts Committee. Mention has been made of a Select Committee but it seems to me that it would be inappropriate to appoint a different committee because the Public Accounts Committee will be investigating this matter in due course. It is the function of the Public Accounts Committee to investigate the audited accounts when they are received. Therefore, it will be doing this job when the audited accounts for the year come in. It would seem to me inappropriate to set up a special committee to do the job now because the Public Accounts Committee will be doing it in due course. What we on this side of the House propose is that the Public Accounts Committee should now be given the job of doing what it will have to do in due course anyway, that in view of public concern in this matter the Public Accounts Committee should forthwith be given charge of this investigation.

We are told that the Taoiseach will have to wait and see what the Garda investigation shows and then he will decide what to do with the results of that investigation, then he will decide how much to disclose to this House and how to carry the matter further. May I say to the Taoiseach that is not the way the control of public expenditure is carried on under the Constitution of this country? It is a matter for this House to control expenditure. This House is entitled to the information. This House has a committee whose job it is to inspect how money is spent. We are asking, and it is not too much, that instead of putting off this investigation, instead of postponing it, until after an election perhaps, that the Public Accounts Committee should be given the job at this stage. It is they who should be supervising the investigation by the gardaí, not the Taoiseach, not the Minister for Justice, not, please God, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. At this point in time the Public Accounts Committee should be given authority to look into this matter now, to be in touch with the gardaí and to get the full information direct. It should not have to depend on the polluted channels of information from the other side of the House. It should not have to depend on people who are capable of, at best, half truths, at worst, of lies. It should be put in charge of this investigation now and should get the full information. This House should through the Public Accounts Committee be informed as to what has happened the money we voted here last March.

There are a number of matters in connection with this which require investigation. It is not perhaps necessary for me to go into them in detail now. There are those puzzling references to assumed names, including Captain Kelly's reference to approaching an unnamed woman for authority to use a false name for her. This is a very interesting concept which I have never heard before. I know of people using false names but how you use a false name for somebody else I do not know. If I go in to open an account in a bank and I open it in the name of Joe Murphy how is anybody to know that Joe Murphy is a false name for, say, James Doyle? A false name is a false name is a false name as a famous writer once might have said. It is not a false name for somebody else in a case like this. The other person does not come into it. How do you go to a woman and say: "May I open an account in the name of Mrs. Murphy?" when the woman's name is Mrs. Doyle? How does a Mrs. Doyle come into the picture? The account is in the name of Mrs. Murphy. Mrs. Doyle does not draw on it. No, it is Captain Kelly who draws on it, not the imaginary Mrs. Doyle. What function has the woman who gives authority for a false name to be used for her for an account on which Captain Kelly draws?

I think this is the blonde mentioned by Deputy Boland earlier in the year.

The colour of her hair is something I am afraid we have not been told. We have in fact been told nothing about this woman except that she "facilitated" the operation. She could not have facilitated it by allowing a false name to be used for her because this is a meaningless exercise. When the account was not to be drawn on by her she had no function in the matter. How did she facilitate it? What was her role? What function had she? Had she some other connection with this affair? We need to be told more about this. If she facilitated it other than by saying: "Yes, use a false name", which means nothing, she must have had some other function. She must have been involved somewhere, in the Government service, the Irish Red Cross or somewhere. We want to know more about this.

This House cannot accept that the identity of this woman should be kept secret at this point when her facilitation must have consisted of something more than simply saying: "Use a false name for me." The whole question needs a lot more clarification. We have not got much so far. Where now are the Taoiseach's fine promises that this thing would be fully displayed, that we would be told the full truth in due course? There has been a great clamming up since the trial ended. All the loose ends, all the bits of anonymity, all the bits of uncertainty, all the conflicts of evidence given under oath, be it said, by Ministers and former Ministers of the Government, are left in mid-air and clarification we have none.

May I emphasise this point I have just referred to? Evidence was given on oath by, among other people, a Minister of the Government and a former Minister of the Government. The judge had something to say about this.

The second judge.

The second judge, indeed. I am not bothering to refer to the obiter dicta of the first judge which confused the issue somewhat earlier on.

He (Mr. Gibbons) was cross-examined about many of the events that I have referred to here. He recounted deputations he had met and so forth. He was cross-examined about the rifles he sent to Dundalk, about the training given to civilians from the Bogside——

the judge's words, not mine

——who were inducted into the LDF at Fort Dunree in Donegal and there trained by the Irish Army and it was suggested to him that the statement he made in the Dáil was untrue, half true and in fact was a lie. And he said "no, it was not, that technically training was not given to any civilian, that before training was given to people who came from Derry, the nine people or so, were all inducted into the LDF and thereby became technically members of the Defence Forces so that the statement was technically true".

I am quoting the judge:

When pressed on this point he said that this was a statement in Dáil Éireann thereby implying that statements of this kind which are not the literal truth are frequently made in Dáil Éireann.

That is the verdict of a judge on the view expressed by a member of the Government, the view of someone who is still a member of the Government, that it is quite normal, frequent, for Ministers deliberately to mislead the House with half-truths. I quote again:

It is a matter for you to decide whether his conduct in regard to the statements he made in Dáil Éireann about the training of people in the Bogside or the statements he made in Dáil Éireann about his suspicions or that nothing concrete had emerged, are within the category of technically correct statements which are made by politicians in Parliament; or whether they show Mr. Gibbons to be a man given to half-truths and lies and whether as a result you should see him as being discredited as a witness. I express no opinion but leave the matter to you.

He goes on to say more about it, however, in relation to another aspect. In discussing the conflict of evidence between the Minister and the former Minister he says:

As you will see later, Mr. Haughey denies it and he cannot explain how his former colleague could say it is so. It is not like something said in the course of a conversation that could be misrepresented. It seems to me, and you are free to dismiss my opinion, either Mr. Gibbons concocted this and has come to court and perjured himself——

the judge's words, not mine.

——or it happened. If there is another explanation please act on it.

There does not seem to me to be any way of avoiding the total conflict on this issue between Mr. Haughey and Mr. Gibbons. I do not put forward the matter by the suggestion that you should balance a State witness against a defence witness. I do not mean anything I said to be in derogation of the warning I gave you earlier that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the case against each and every accused beyond reasonable doubt.

But let us go back to those words "there does not seem to be any way of avoiding total conflict on this issue between Mr. Haughey and Mr. Gibbons". There is no way. One or other perjured himself in court. Either the present Minister or the former Minister, both leading lights of the Fianna Fáil Party — one who has been stood over by the Taoiseach; the other who aspires to be Taoiseach — perjured himself in court. The judge has made this clear. It is clear to this House; it is clear to the people of Ireland. We are to have confidence in a Government which exists in office and may exist in office tomorrow night by the vote of Deputy Haughey one of the possible perjurers, and which contains Deputy Gibbons, the other possible perjurer.

Do not call me a possible perjurer.

The other possible perjurer, one or other of you——

On a point of order. Deputy FitzGerald has called me a possible perjurer.

I ask you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to ask him to withdraw that remark.

I am quoting from the judge. Will the Minister ask the judge to withdraw it?

There is only one Deputy in this House of whom a judge ever said he was guilty of perjury and he is not on this side of the House.

The Chair would draw the attention of Deputies to the fact that on many occasions it has been ruled as disorderly to state that a Member is telling a deliberate untruth.

On a point of order. May I say that this volume, which is probably the biggest volume ever produced in the Debates of this House, and this debate itself, are laid on by the Opposition Parties evidently for one purpose alone, to discredit this Government and in particular to discredit me, and it comes very ill from a Deputy on the Opposition front bench.

Is this a point of order?

The Minister knows, of course, it is not a point of order.

The Deputy has suggested I am a possible perjurer. I object to this and demand your protection.

The Chair has pointed out it will protect Deputies from any statements made which impute lies to anybody in the House.

A lie is one thing; perjury is another.

I see, so——

Does the Deputy withdraw that?

Does the Deputy know the difference?

Indeed I do. The suggestion is that it is all right to tell a lie——

I shall deal with that in due course. I suggest the Deputy is a slanderer.

The Chair has ruled that allegations of deliberate untruths by Members towards other Members have on many occasions been ruled out as disorderly.

How can we refer to this matter at all?

You can refer to what a judge said.

I can repeat what the judge said. The judge puts it in much better, clearer language than I could. Why should I bother addressing either of these gentlemen directly? The judge has done it for me. He said:

It seems to me, and you are free to dismiss my opinion, either Mr. Gibbons concocted this and has come to court and perjured himself, or it happened. If there is another explanation please act on it.

The Chair does not rule on statements made outside.

That is a false, edited version of what the judge said.

How many paragraphs does the Minister want me to go back?

The Deputy is deliberately editing it——

I am editing nothing.

——in order to further his intentions to slander me. He is a slanderer.

I have read about half a column. How much more does the Minister want me to read?

The Minister knows such statements as he has made are disorderly.

You must realise by now that Deputy FitzGerald's intention and the intention of his colleagues over there is to slander me and to slander my party. I object to that and I claim your protection from it.

Fianna Fáil are running for cover.

They slander themselves.

The Chair will protect the rights of Members on any side of the House. Over the years statements which have imputed deliberate untruths to Members have been ruled out as disorderly. The Chair would hope that the debate could proceed on the basis that such allegations are not made by Members.

I am glad of your protection from being called a slanderer. In view of the suggestion by Deputy Gibbons that I edited the report and because I would be concerned not to be unfair to any Member of the House, including Deputy Gibbons—I have no personal animus at all against him; I do not know him and have had no contact with him; I never heard anything against him in my life until this thing happened — I should like to read the full text. The first part of what I read finished with the following sentence:

It is a matter for you to decide whether his conduct in regard to the statements he made in Dáil Éireann about the training of people in the Bogside or the statement he made in Dáil Éireann about his suspicions or that nothing concrete had emerged are within the category of technically correct statements which are made by politicians in Parliament or whether they show Mr. Gibbons to be a man given to half-truths and lies and whether as a result you should see him as being discredited as a witness. I express no opinion but leave the matter to you.

I then omitted some sentences which I thought were irrelevant but if Deputy Gibbons feels I was in any way unfair to him let me read the full text of the relevant passage from the judge's speech:

It had been put to Mr. Gibbons that it was an invention on his part when he swore that he had a meeting with Mr. Haughey in Mr. Haughey's room in Government buildings, where he asked Mr. Haughey if he could call off the illegal importation and Mr. Haughey said he would call it off for a month and Mr. Gibbons had said "call it off altogether." It was suggested to him, said the judge, in plain unvarnished language that that was an invention. His reply was: "I expressly say that it was incorrect to suggest that I knew about this matter" and he denied that it was an invention. Now I regret to say, gentlemen, that it seems to me — and I think it will seem to you—in regard to the conversation which Mr. Gibbons says took place in Mr. Haughey's office on Friday, April 17th or Monday, April 20th that it either took place or it did not take place. Either Mr. Gibbons, it seems to me, has concocted, invented, as Counsel put it to him, this conversation or it had happened in substance. As you will see later Mr. Haughey denies it and he cannot explain how his former colleague could say it is so. It is not like something said in the course of conversation that could be misinterpreted. It seems to me, and you are free to dismiss my opinion, either Mr. Gibbons concocted this and has come to court and perjured himself or it happened. If there is another explanation please act on it. There does not seem to me to be any way of avoiding the total conflict on this issue between Mr. Haughey and Mr. Gibbons. I do not put forward the matter by the suggestion that you should balance a State witness against a Defence witness. I do not mean anything I say to be in derogation of the warning I gave you earlier that the onus lies on the Prosecution to prove the case against each and every accused beyond reasonable doubt.

I have now read the entire passage. Then the judge goes on to deal with something else.

There is no editing and if Deputy Gibbons thinks the full regarding improves the position as regards himself and Deputy Haughey he is welcome to it. I have not said that he is a perjurer; I have said that one or other of them was said by the judge to be a perjurer. I have my suspicions as to which it is but I am not permitted to disclose them to this House. What is clear is that either the former Minister for Finance, on whose support this Government depends, did not tell the truth in court or the present Minister did not. The electorate can take their choice as to which wing of Fianna Fáil is responsible for this conflict of evidence. I do not think either wing of Fianna Fáil has emerged from this case with sufficient credit to continue to be responsible for the affairs of the country.

The third point I want to deal with is the collapse of collective responsibility under this Government. It is not necessary to go into it at great length —I do not propose to speak at great length today — because it has been so evident and obvious to the country that every vestige of collective responsibility has disappeared during the reign of Deputy Lynch as Taoiseach. We know why, because the Taoiseach in a very telling phrase, when he was concluding the debate on 9th May, explained why he had not felt able to handle the situation more effectively—I am not saying those are his exact words—and why he had not acted quicker against the two people whom he suspected of importing arms illegally. He told the House that he did not have the long Fianna Fáil background that they had. This was news to me because, as someone who knew Deputy Haughey 25 years ago in university, I was quite unaware of his long Fianna Fáil background. The Taoiseach seemed to think it was longer than his own and he felt himself in difficulties in dealing with men with such a background behind them because he did not have the equivalent background.

It was a very revealing phrase. It told us a great deal and it explained a great deal. It explained to me how a man, for whom most people in this country have had great respect, could fail so totally in the management of the affairs of the Government. It is clear that he meant well but when he found himself tackling these people with their long Fianna Fáil traditions — and the longer the tradition the further they have to fall—he felt inadequate for the task.

It was not only at the end of April, when he found out what was going on, that he felt inadequate for the task— he had felt and sounded inadequate during the previous winter when trying to deal with Deputy Blaney who was making his aggressive speeches. The Taoiseach was weakly answering him on radio — I forget the exact turn of phrase he used—but he explained that Deputy Blaney felt strongly about some things and could not be restrained. This is a new concept of collective responsibility; Ministers who feel strongly about something can say what they like about the Government's policy and apparently they can denounce the policy of the Government and the Taoiseach as long as they have strong feelings. That is not what the Constitution says about collective responsibility, but that was the Taoiseach's excuse when the Government line was persistently bucked by Deputy Blaney during last winter. The Taoiseach failed to act. He did not feel he was strong enough to act, he was not in command of his Government and he was not able to deal with Deputy Blaney or Deputy Boland when the latter burst forth with his somewhat more genuine republican utterances during last winter. He had to bide his time, he had to wait until he caught them in flagrante delicto and when he caught them in that state he dithered for a fortnight before acting.

When did they catch me?

If my grammar in any way appeared to include Deputy Boland my grammar was at fault. Deputy Boland and I might have certain differences of opinion in relation to certain political matters but I have no criticism of him in relation to this affair because he was in no way involved.

Honourably discharged.

The Taoiseach might perhaps have been a passable leader of a government of honest men in a period of peace and economic prosperity but as the leader of the kind of "gang" he has had to lead, which he inherited and failed to purge in time——

The Deputy should not use the word "gang" in reference to a government.

It was the term used by the Minister for External Affairs in relation to his own party.

I apologise. I was quoting deliberately from the Minister for External Affairs and I am sorry to use his unparliamentary expression about his own party. I do not blame him and I apologise on his behalf.

It could be described as "airport slang".

The Taoiseach was not capable of dealing with the particular kind of people he inherited in that Government. He was not capable of dealing with the kind of situation which arose in the North of Ireland. He was panicked into foolish statements which gave rise to false hopes amongst decent people under great pressure at that time in the North of Ireland. He failed to cope with his Ministers, he failed to cope with the economic crisis. During the last crisis he came into this House and asked the question: "What went wrong?" One can sympathise with such a man. One feels he is a little more honest than other Ministers for Finance who have tried to cover things up. But one cannot feel he is a man adequate for the kind of situation this country faces. One cannot feel he can lead a Government containing such, to use his own words, "able and dedicated men" as Deputies Haughey, Blaney and others—perhaps he included Deputy Boland in that. He is not the man to lead such a Government even in times of peace and he is certainly not the man to lead a Government facing an economic crisis. It is his bad luck that he found himself in that position and we are entitled to be sorry for him.

I would, however, suggest through this House to the people that one should not choose one's Taoiseachs in times of great stress and emergency because one is sorry for them. That is not sufficient. There is a danger that the warm-hearted people of this country may fall into the trap of choosing their leaders on this basis. There is a time for warm-heartedness and a time for a sense of realism, but when a man shows himself through no fault of his own, not lacking in goodwill or in the will to do the job, but through reasons of personality and through reasons of his ability related to the particular crisis he faces, unable to cope, and exposing the country to obliquy, to contempt and to ridicule abroad, and when as a result one reads in a consistently and persistently friendly newspaper like The Guardian words like, “Banana republic” about this country, the man who lets affairs get into such chaos should realise, and above all the country should realise, that he should not continue to lead the Government, and that the party which has disgraced the country, the Taoiseach and other decent men in it should not continue until it has purged itself — I hope the word “purge” is not out of order. I am quoting from another Fianna Fáil Minister and it is rather difficult to quote a Fianna Fáil Minister speaking about his colleagues today without being unparliamentary—of these men and their supporters. Until then it is not entitled to come to the country with clean hands and to look for the right to continue governing the country either with or without an election.

There are other instances of a lack of collective responsibility. There was the remarkable instance of Deputy Blaney announcing to the public what he was looking for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the then Minister for Finance acted with prompt response and showed a greater regard for collective responsibility on that occasion than he did on other occasions. That was a totally improper performance. A Minister was bidding for personal popularity at the expense of the collective will of the Government. This was the case of a Minister acting deliberately and directly against the Constitution of the State for personal popularity but nothing was done about that and he was sacked for something else shortly afterwards. We have had other cases of the Taoiseach standing over behaviour inappropriate to a Government abiding by this principle of collective responsibility.

A practice seems to be growing up where Ministers take publicly a different line from the Government; in fact some Opposition Members may even agree with the particular line they take—that is irrelevant—but that is no way to run a country. The principle of collective responsibility is one that is vital. We have learned the hard way how vital it is. I had not myself fully appreciated the depth or the importance of this until this whole thing occurred. I had always understood that it was important, but I am not sure I ever understood why it was important. I am not sure I ever understood fully the difference between a presidential system and a collective government system in a parliamentary democracy until this whole thing occurred.

Certainly we can now see that in a country with parliamentary democracy, which is not a presidential system, it is vital that the Government act collectively and together, vital that the Government should take clear-cut decisions, clearly written down and communicated and abided by and inspected to make sure they are abided by. Otherwise there is chaos, the kind of chaos we have suffered from in the last six months.

One would have thought that the Taoiseach, after these bitter experiences —and they must have been bitter for him—would have learned his lesson. One would have thought that at this stage he would have realised that unless he puts himself in a position where he can say that there is no member of his Government under shadow of suspicion, he cannot present himself to the Irish people as an appropriate leader. He has not done so. He has maintained in his Government Deputy Gibbons over whom there hangs certainly a shadow of suspicion.

Suspicion of what?

I am now coming to that.

A Deputy

Can the Deputy do that without being out of order?

I can because I am not referring to the other matter now. On that question of suspicion of perjury there is a problem between a Minister and an ex-Minister: I am not going back to that. I am quite prepared to believe that Deputy Gibbons may be the innocent party; I am not suggesting that he is the guilty party there but there is another matter: his performance of his duties as Minister in this whole affair was such as to make it impossible in any democratic system for such a man to continue as Minister. This is the problem with which I am concerned at this time. There was the other question which he and Deputy Haughey can fight out between them. It would make an interesting debate if they would debate it together, but I am concerned at the moment with the way he carried out his duties. He was given the full detailed knowledge of this affair by Captain Kelly——

What does the

He was told of the plan to import arms. He was told the port they were coming from——

That is not true.

He was told the next port they were to come from. He was not told the name of the ship apparently, if that is the detail that was missing.

That is not true and the Deputy has not a scrap of evidence to show that it is true.

Captain Kelly says he told you.

I have read out to this House every word I could find that the Minister said on this subject. Every word of the Minister in court convicts him. The Minister said Captain Kelly told him of his visit to the port of Dublin—he went down on March 25th. The Army was there at the same time. You asked did the Army disappear into the shadows or did he. You found out what port the goods came from. You found out what port he was trying to bring them from next, Trieste.

Yes, and it was wrong.

It was wrong?

Captain Kelly never went to the port of Dublin?

That was the first one.

I see. Let us be clear about this. Deputy Gibbons suggests that arms were not attempted to be imported to Dublin port on March 25th and that all the people who gave evidence to that effect, customs officials and so on, were perjuring themselves.

The Deputy is trying to mislead the House. I suggest he is back on his slander track.

I am trying to get at the truth.

The Deputy is not trying to get the truth.

Let us take it stage by stage. Captain Kelly told you in your office, possibly at the first meeting in March, but you think more probably at the second meeting at the end of March or early April, that he had gone to Dublin port to bring in arms——

Of an event that had already taken place.

——of an attempt to bring in arms——

An abortive attempt that had already taken place and he did not tell me of the part he played in it.

He did not tell you whether he or the Army disappeared into the shadows? Is that what you did not know?

He did not——

Come off it.

He did not tell me of the part he played in it.

The Minister is going on record again.

Yes, I know.

It is on the record here again.

You will be quoted from that.

Yes, of course.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy FitzGerald is in possession.

Let us be entirely fair to the Minister. Let me quote his own words again. Apparently, he is anxious to have them repeated.

They are rather more accurate than the Deputy's version of it.

I read out every word before and I am happy to read it out again.

And the Deputy can then give his own version of it again.

And the Minister never thought of telling the Taoiseach about what was going on.

I shall deal with that point, too.

(Interruptions.)

Credibility, how are you!

I want to get the right papers together again. I think there is probably not much use wasting time going over all the bits I read before but I can do so if the Minister insists. Let me just read the concluding part in relation to this. Let me read rather more fully than I did before the end of the cross-examination here:

Mr. Sorohan handed to Mr. Gibbons a copy of the Official Report of the Dáil Debates and asked him to read it.

Having read it, Mr. Gibbons said the relevant piece of his speech in the Dáil was that it was suggested in a Radio Éireann interview that any participation by Captain James Kelly in an attempt to smuggle arms could only have been made with his (Mr. Gibbons) knowledge and consent.

Mr. Sorohan asked Mr. Gibbons to read the next sentence and Mr. Gibbons read: "I wish emphatically to deny such knowledge or consent".

Mr. Sorohan: You did have knowledge, did you not? I am not suggesting at the moment that you consented but did you not have knowledge from March?

Mr. Gibbons: I had vestigial knowledge.

Mr. Sorahan: What do you mean by that? Would you use perhaps a more mundane or down-to-earth word than that?

Mr. Gibbons: I had been given to understand previously by Captain Kelly in the most vague and nebulous way that he proposed to leave the army in order to take part in the assistance of the people in Northern Ireland and I understood that this could very well embrace the importation of arms. But the fact that he recognised that his resignation from the army would be necessary to do this...

Mr. Finlay (for Captain Kelly): The witness is not answering any question that was put to him. He is not giving an account of any conversation...

Mr. Sorahan: I agree. He has gone off the rails.

—not for the first time—

Mr. Sorahan then asked: You had vestigial knowledge, is that right?

Mr. Gibbons: Yes.

Mr. Sorahan: But you had knowledge simpliciter, is that not right?

Mr. Gibbons: Yes.

What more can anybody say in regard to that? I can go back and read out the business about the attempt on 25th March, the discussion of the question as to whether the Army or he had disappeared into the shadows, the question of what port the arms were coming from, where the next consignment was to come from, but what is the point? Is there one person in this country, Deputy Gibbons included, who would raise any question or shadow of a doubt that he had knowledge? He has admitted in the fullest sense to this knowledge. The only thing missing is the name of the boat.

I have not.

Do not let us waste time with this man.

The Minister admitted it to Mr. Sorohan.

(Interruptions.)

On a point of order—I said in court that I had vestigial knowledge of a scheme to import arms and I stand over that. What I meant by that was that a scheme to import arms was under way, but having any comprehensive knowledge of that, I denied in the court and I deny now. Deputy FitzGerald—and I have no doubt his colleagues as well — for the last six months have been endeavouring to slander me——

(Interruptions.)

——and they are going to fail.

Let him condemn himself.

The Minister knows that this is not a point of order; it may be a point of explanation, but not of order.

It is useful to have it on the record. The more he says the happier we are. The Minister does not deny that he had this discussion which he swore to on oath in court with Captain Kelly about the attempt to import arms on March 25th. He does not deny that, as he swore in court, he discussed it with him amicably, asked him questions about it, discussed with him the port from which the arms came and what was the port from which the next consignment would come. He does not deny these statements that he gave on oath, I take it, and yet he calls that "not knowledge"—or no, he calls it "vestigial knowledge". But when pressed to the full truth and asked: Was that not knowledge simpliciter? he has to say “Yes.”

Mr. Gibbons

What does the Deputy understand by the word “simpliciter”?

Unqualified knowledge: knowledge without qualification: knowledge not to be discounted, run down, or diminished.

True and full knowledge.

Unqualified knowledge of the fact that there was an attempt to import arms.

(Interruptions.)

Go back to Nkrumah.

At least Nkrumah knew when to go.

We have this Minister who is told of this attempt to import arms, who is told that a further attempt to import arms is being made through the port of Trieste, whose reaction to this attempt to import arms illegally — because, on his own evidence, it was done without his authority —is anything but what it should have been. With all that knowledge, how did he act? There are a number of possible ways in which a man could act in those circumstances. He could call the Chief of Staff and ask for immediate action to be taken against this officer engaged in, in the Minister's view, the illegal importation of arms. He could have this officer court-martialled. He could report to the Taoiseach. He could report to the Special Branch.

I did not have to. The Special Branch were aware of the position.

Did he do any of these things? No. The only thing he did was to try to get a job for this officer on the Border so that he could continue all these illegal activities. All the Minister for Defence at the time was concerned with was to get this man off his plate and on to someone else's. It was OK so long as the Minister was off the hook.

(Interruptions.)

I will not be lectured by a British Army deserter. Let the Deputy go back to the British Army and serve his time. He is absent without leave.

They say that the octopus, when he is in danger, exudes an inky dye. Fianna Fáil is exuding such a dye now.

I shall deal with my enemies all right.

The Labour Party are not getting the full honour: the Minister will "fix" the Opposition leader but he will only "deal with" the Labour Party.

How clever, how subtle, the Deputy is.

(Interruptions.)

I suggest both Members of the Government front bench at the moment should leave the House.

Again, the action the Minister took, when given this knowledge of an attempt simpliciter to import arms illegally and of a plan to import arms again illegally from the port of Trieste, was to seek to get the officer transferred from the Department of Defence to a position in which he would be involved in activities near the Border. In court it became clear in the Minister's cross-examination that he was not concerned if the officer went on importing arms illegally so long as he was no longer an Army officer. That is what the Minister said in court.

The Special Branch knew that Captain Kelly was engaged in these activities and I knew that they knew.

And, yet, the Minister did not know that there was an attempt to import arms.

The Chair would point out again that this House is not a court of law and, if a Member says that a statement is not true, it is the established practice in this House that the Member's statement is accepted.

We are left in some difficulties at this stage.

We certainly are.

The duty of a Minister in Government, when there is no policy decision to import arms to distribute in Northern Ireland, given knowledge of this, was to take action to prevent it, not to take action to facilitate it; not to consider his own skin or his individual responsibility in the Department of Defence but, as a Minister in the Government, to act collectively in dealing with this matter and in preventing this illegal act taking place. This he did not do. He did not inform the Taoiseach. When asked about informing the Taoiseach he said he told Deputy Haughey to inform the Taoiseach. There are various ways of dealing with a conspiracy, if I may use the word the Tánaiste used, and the most unusual way of dealing with a conspiracy is to tell one of the people you believe to be a conspirator to inform on himself. It does not seem an adequate way to discharge one's duties as a Member of the Government.

The excuse given by Deputy Gibbons is a rather curious one: he was only a junior Minister and it was not for him to go direct to the Taoiseach. I did not know the Taoiseach was held in such awe by his colleagues. This commanding figure! We know the Taoiseach as an approachable man. The idea that Ministers in Government are so junior that, when they discover an attempt to import arms illegally, they cannot approach the Taoiseach direct but can only do so through a man who is suspected of being one of the chief conspirators, is quite ludicrous. This does not lead one to believe there is much collective responsibility in the present Government as a whole. Deputy Gibbons, Minister for Defence at the time, could have told the Taoiseach what was happening.

An article appeared in This Week last May, which seemed to emanate from the Minister in which it was said, apparently on his authority, that he had informed the Taoiseach about these gentlemen in, I think, the previous December. The Taoiseach, however, did not accept this. He denied in the debate that the Minister had ever informed him about or reported to him on any other Minister. Once again, we are faced with a conflict of evidence. Are we to believe the statement which came from Deputy Gibbons, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, this week, exculpating himself hastily right in the middle of the debate, or are we to believe the Taoiseach? As between the two I have my choice as to whose evidence I would prefer, though I cannot suggest to the House that one can accept either statement with complete confidence.

There was, of course, a complete collapse of collective responsibility. More than that, there was in the handling of this whole affair the most utter incompetence. There was an absence of any chain of command and a complete breakdown in the system of Administration and Government. An army usually runs on a fairly strict basis from the point of view of the chain of command. If action is to be taken by a junior officer of the rank of captain, he will be told by his superior officer what that action is and what he is to do and that superior officer gets his instructions from higher up and ultimately, if it is a policy matter, it goes back right to the Government itself. If arms are to be imported for any purpose, legally or sub-legally, that can only result from a collective Government decision and the instruction goes through the Minister for Defence to the Chief of Staff and so on down along the line. If it is to be done through the Intelligence Corps it will go from the Chief of Staff to the Director of Intelligence. That was not the chain of command in this case. The accepted chain—this was given by the Director of Intelligence publicly in court as being the normal satisfactory way of receiving instructions in a matter of this kind—was for the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to tell his subordinate that arms were to be imported and the Director of Intelligence got the instructions from his subordinate, his subordinate having got them from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. A more ludicrous, incompetent way of doing an action of this kind is difficult to imagine.

The reason was that the authority of the Government had been subverted by Deputy Blaney. When one reads this trial carefully Deputy Blaney crops up time and time again and disappears again into the mist, covering his tracks so well that the District Justice refused information against him. He is the man who asked Mr. Luykx to help. He is the man to whom Captain Kelly was reporting every week. He was involved in this affair long before he came to the Minister for Defence and involved him in the affair and got his "negative" authorisation, when the Minister for Defence was so afraid of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries he was not prepared to countermand what was being done on the authority, we are told, of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. How can we carry on the government of this country on that basis? How can we tolerate a position in which you have a senior Minister, the Minister for Agriculture, running his own intelligence service in Northern Ireland, interfering in the Army, giving instruction to junior officers in the Army in a matter of this kind and purporting, apparently, to instruct the Director of Intelligence, through his subordinates, as to how he was to carry out his duties, with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries being reported to weekly — I do not mean "w-e-a-k-l-y"——

To whom is the Deputy referring when he speaks of "the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries"?

I am sorry. The then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. There is a difficulty here because of the reshuffle. The then Minister for Defence had not been approached by Captain Kelly until long after he, Captain Kelly, had been in weekly contact with the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I am glad Deputy Gibbons enabled me to clarify that point. One could get into some confusion here because of the change-over of portfolios.

We cannot tolerate a situation whereby the peace of the country is put in jeopardy by Ministers acting in that way, subverting the normal channels of authority, undermining Army discipline and acting without any authority. We were told in the evidence that a committee for northern affairs was appointed by the Government at some point. I hope I am correct when I say it consisted of Deputies Haughey, Blaney, Faulkner and Brennan. If I am wrong in not including the name of Deputy Gibbons I trust I shall be corrected. We were told the committee met once but that it became so clear to all concerned what they had to do that it did not meet again. Each person dispersed to his job. Just what the Ministers for Labour and Education were doing from then on in connection with this matter I do not know; their names never reappear. Perhaps they were engaged in some more constructive activities in connection with Northern Ireland, but we have not been told about this. After this one meeting, out of which it became so clear as to the action to be taken, the two other Ministers went about their duties, and the duties devolving from the Government through this committee, to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries were interpreted by him as being to take charge of the Army intelligence.

What Minister?

The former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

Since the nature of the Deputy's motion against me is on the basis of accuracy, the Deputy had better be accurate himself.

I was not inaccurate but I admit when one refers to a Minister by the title of his office this can lead to lack of clarity. I am glad to be reminded to be clear as well as accurate. The Minister will appreciate I am not attempting to confuse the issue here and am trying to explain clearly what happened.

We are talking about Deputy Blaney and I am happy to continue speaking about him in this manner rather than refer to him as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if this will make things more clear. Throughout the entire affair Deputy Blaney keeps popping up: he calls the meeting to see what has gone wrong, when somebody had got wise to the plot. At each stage Deputy Blaney emerges and when Deputy Gibbons was afraid to go to the Taoiseach because he was only a junior Minister, this reminds me of the word "fear" that was used by the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries——

In what context? Will the Deputy elaborate?

In relation to Deputy Blaney. I have not the records before me now but during the course of the trial it was said by a person giving evidence—I thought it was the Minister but if he denies it I must accept his word; I cannot check it at the moment—yes, it was the Minister —that he was afraid Deputy Blaney would do something worse or more rash. Having said he was afraid, in subsequent evidence he actually used the word "fear." It was the Minister opposite who said that. It seems to me when the Minister failed to do his duty and to report to the Taoiseach on the conspiracy that, in his view, was taking place, if there was fear in his mind it was not fear of the Taoiseach. I do not think the Taoiseach is a man who inspires fear. He may inspire other emotions; affection in some people——

——he may arouse discontent in others but not, I think, fear. The only person about whom the word "fear" has been used in this case by the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is Deputy Blaney. It appears to me when Deputy Gibbons failed to take action against a subordinate who had been reporting to Deputy Blaney week by week and getting his instructions from him, it was not because he was afraid to go to the Taoiseach because of his junior position but because he was afraid of the man behind it all—Deputy Blaney.

The Deputy is misrepresenting facts again.

Not only will the Minister have an opportunity of intervening throughout my speech to clarify points, which he is doing, he will have an opportunity to speak at more length later on. In all this Deputy Blaney emerges from the mists again and again and disappears, covering his traces. May I say I have heard the words "afraid" and "fear" from members of the party opposite used in relation to Deputy Blaney before now? I have heard it several times during the years as he is a man who inspires not affection but fear in the minds of many on the other side of the House. That is why there are so many Members opposite — they may include Deputy Haughey—who are hoping that on next Wednesday night Deputy Blaney will sit in his seat instead of walking into the Government Lobby so that thereby they can get rid of him. If the Dáil were rid of him I believe it would be a good thing; it is a harsh thing to say and there are few Deputies in this House about whom I would say it.

There has been incompetence in the running of the more serious aspects of our affairs; and there are few matters more serious than matters involving guns in relation to another part of this country. This matter was handled casually and incompetently, handled by people who suffered from "the casual arrogance of power" and who were so sure of themselves that they did not worry about being caught. Their shock and horror at discovering that there was a security service they had not subverted became evident at this meeting, called and recalled by Deputy Blaney when the whole thing began to come out.

There has also been incompetence in the control of Government expenditure: the way in which the money was gaily handed out to a fund to be placed in the names of three imaginary people, to be spent for purposes unknown, which we now know to have included the illegal purchase of arms. There has been such a total breakdown of the Government machine, so many attempts to subvert public servants, using them for illegal purposes against the interests of this State, that the men who did it and those who let them do it and tried to cover up for them should not be allowed to continue in power. At no time in the history of this State has there been more justification for a vote of no confidence in the Government.

Hear, hear.

Has Deputy FitzGerald promised Deputy Desmond some job in the Coalition?

You called out to Mr. Haughey to commiserate with him——

Not to commiserate.

Deputy FitzGerald.

Is Deputy Desmond going to support homosexuality and divorce when Dr. Noel Browne brings it up?

(Interruptions.)

Deputy FitzGerald.

There may be times when an Opposition party puts down a vote of no confidence that, for reasons of tactics, may not mean very much. It may be part of the Parliamentary game but this is no game. Things are much too serious to play games.

(Interruptions.)

Will Deputy FitzGerald please continue?

Let us look at the Government and consider how qualified they are to carry on the government of the country after getting rid of so many of the able men, as we were told. Ability is not so rife throughout the Fianna Fáil benches that you can get——

That is the Deputy's problem.

Deputy Colley has awoken at last——

He disgraced himself last week.

One speaker at a time is enough.

I do not think that the picture of this Government, photographed together at Dublin Airport welcoming back their Taoiseach, is such as to inspire great confidence.

In Deputy FitzGerald.

This does not give the picture to me, or perhaps to many other people, of a Government likely to be in command of our affairs, or even to run them more efficiently than they have been run for the last six months or a year. The Government that maintains Deputy Gibbons after his performance in court is a Government which cannot command much confidence.

Coming now to the patriots, or fellow-patriots, I ask what has happened them? What has happened the patriots? How many are left? Were there ten little nigger boys and are we down to two, or one, or any? What has happened them? Have the patriots been purchased and, if so, on what terms? Is it fear of losing their seats or fear of being unpopular in their party through precipitating an election that their party would lose, that has made them so tame? Is that why they have become so tame all of a sudden? Where now is the state of euphoria of Friday week? Where are the loud voices calling for the departure of Deputy J. Lynch? Where are the voices of men confidently saying that they feel arms should be sent to the north? I do not hear them so loudly. I would be interested to hear any of them in this debate. I would be more interested still to see them walk through that lobby to save their skins, but let them not use the word "patriot" to cover either what they have done or will do next Wednesday night.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, this motion calls on Dáil Éireann to reaffirm its confidence in An Taoiseach and the other members of the Government. I would like to ask for a ruling from you, in view of the fact that the Attorney General is not a member of the Government, as to whether or not it is in order for me to discuss on this motion the suitability of the Attorney General to hold his high office. The precedent established in this House has been that the Taoiseach answers for the activities of the Attorney General. I would ask you to rule that it is in order to discuss the Attorney General as well as the members of the Government and the Taoiseach.

The Deputy has been aware that judges or the law officers are not subject to a debate in this House. The Taoiseach answers for them.

This is a particular law officer who was appointed by the Taoiseach and, just like members of the Government, holds his office at the will and pleasure of the Taoiseach. The precedent has been that the Taoiseach has, on previous occasions, answered for the activities of this particular law officer and, in fact, there have been occasions when the Attorney General was a Member of this House.

The Deputy will appreciate that the motion that is before the House is one expressing confidence in the Taoiseach and in the members of the Government.

The point I would like to put to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is that the Taoiseach in this instance must include the Attorney Genral who is his law officer, who is his creation, and who remains in office only as long as the Taoiseach wishes him to remain there and whose actions must be considered to be the actions of the Taoiseach.

The Deputy is aware that if someone wants to make a specific law officer or judge or the Attorney General the subject of a motion in the House then a specific motion in that regard must be put down.

Is this true of Ministers?

I hope this will be discussed in the future. One of the matters which have emerged from the recent trial is the question of the suitability of the present holder of this very important position of Attorney General. The Attorney General is in such a position of power and, in view of the way in which he has conducted this particular trial and has not even been prepared to refrain from attacking the character of a distinguished retired Army officer, who had reached the highest rank which it is possible for any officer, except the Chief of Staff, to reach, and in a way that must be considered an attack on the whole morale of the Defence forces of this State, his suitability should surely be discussed. In view of that, and of your ruling, I hope that at some time somebody will arrange that the suitability of this individual to hold his high office will also be discussed in this House.

In so far as this motion is concerned the Members of Dáil Éireann are being asked to say by their votes, at a time which apparently has been fixed by the Whips of the three parties for 10.30 p.m. on tomorrow night, that they have confidence in the Taoiseach and in each individual member of the Government. In other words, we are to say by our votes that we believe the Taoiseach and each individual member of the Government is qualified to hold the high office which they occupy at present. While the Opposition naturally are at liberty to range over the whole field of Government activity and deal with every member of the Government if they like, I think it is quite clear that in fact this motion boils down to the question as to whether the Taoiseach is fit to be Taoiseach and the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is fit to be a Minister. I do not think anybody can be in any doubt as to my opinion on that question. Although it can be said with some force that my opinion is so well known that there is no need for me to expand on it, I propose to put on record the immediate considerations which made my attitude on this motion inevitable. It is also known that I am only one of a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies to hold the same opinions on this matter. That is something which is known to everybody including the Taoiseach.

We will know tomorrow night.

The exact number of those Deputies is, of course, not known. It will not be established as Deputy FitzGerald thinks. It will not be established by the vote tomorrow night. Neither will it be established by a roll call vote at a meeting of the Fianna Fáil political party at midnight under the threat of the immediate dissolution of the Dáil. The Taoiseach will not discover by this motion the number of Deputies on this side of the House who are of the opinion that he is not, in fact, fit to be Taoiseach and that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is not fit to be a Minister.

I want to say that I know there are a number of Deputies who have the same opinion as I have on this matter. If my action on this motion differs from that of others who hold the same views, I do not want to imply any condemnation of them because I act differently from the way they do. I am not so presumptuous as to assert that I must be right and they must be wrong. All I say is that it appears to me after long consideration and after hearing other views very forcibly put forward, that the action I propose to take is the right one and that, since I am fully convinced it is the right action, then it is the right course for me to follow. I can accept that others may sincerely see their duty differently and, if they do, that is their business. If they simply see their duty differently from me, then they are right to act as they think proper.

But I do say this: on the basis of established facts — and I think it is reasonable to assume that a matter that has been decided by a jury in the High Court after a long trial, after a trial and a half, is a fact and that if we are to accept anything as a fact we must accept such a decision as a fact—it is my opinion that no one who has any respect for the important institutions of the Dáil and the Government could actually believe that the time has not come for those two individuals to move to the back benches.

It is already on record that I have grave doubts as to the Taoiseach's adherence to what has hitherto been the Fianna Fáil attitude to the partition of our country. I have made it clear also what I think of the action in arresting John Kelly and I accept the Taoiseach's charge that what I advocated on that occasion would be a selective application of the law. That is right. But it would not be unusual, as Deputies on both sides of the House know, if there was a selective application of the law. It is beyond question there has been, in different instances, selective application of the law.

In regard to these things, on which I am on record and on which my thoughts are already known, I have doubts about the Taoiseach's credibility as a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach. I am prepared to wait until the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis or until finally the Taoiseach comes down to brass tacks and enunciates his new policy.

Before I deal with the particular issues that must decide my attitude in this matter, in view of the continued misrepresentation by certain members of the Government I want once again to make it clear that I am and always have been totally opposed to a policy of force towards the solution of the evil of partition and that I agree, as I have always agreed, that our approach in the Twenty-six Counties area should be as Fianna Fáil policy already has been.

These fundamental differences are, of course, more important than the actual immediate issue of personal suitability which cannot be avoided in this vote tomorrow night. In so far as I am concerned, these more fundamental differences could be postponed for some time, and since I have already dealt with them inside and outside the House, I do not propose to take up the time of the House now. It seems to me that the result of the recent conspiracy charge decided in the High Court is sufficient for me to consider in making up my mind. It does not seem to me to be necessary to go into it in any great detail: I do not see it is necessary for me to go into all the evidence given, as Deputy FitzGerald did. The judge's charge to the jury and the jury's verdict is sufficient to make it clear that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries are not entitled to the confidence they are asking this House to vote in them.

The issue seems to me to be perfectly simple and straightforward and the decision I will have to make at the conclusion of this debate does not seem to allow of any equivocation. If I am to abide by the majority decision of the Fianna Fáil Party, of the Fianna Fáil party parliamentary group—and that is what I understand by the word "party" as used in the pledge I signed prior to contesting the general election although I know I could, if I liked, quibble about the definition of the word "party" because it is not defined in any relevant document, what I understand is that it means the Fianna Fáil parliamentary group—I must vote to express confidence in the Taoiseach as Taoiseach and in the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries as a Minister, and that is absolutely out of the question.

I regard a vote in Dáil Éireann as a matter of grave significance and because of the action that has been forced on me I must show why I could not possibly support this motion, and this, unfortunately, involves showing why it appears to me that neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is fit to hold the important position he holds.

The position in regard to Deputy Gibbons is perfectly clear. Probably he was the principal State witness in the recent conspiracy trial and, as Minister for Defence at the time to which the charges in the High Court referred, he was one of the two Ministers who could make an importation of arms legal. There was no suggestion that the Minister for Justice had in any way acted to make the importation of arms in question legal, and the trial judge, in directing the jury, told them in the clearest possible terms that unless they were satisfied the Minister for Defence at the time had authorised this importation of arms they could not bring in a verdict of not guilty. The Minister for Defence, now the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, swore that he gave no such authority. The judge also told the jury that unless they were satisfied the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries had concocted his story of a conversation with the former Minister for Finance they could not bring in a verdict of not guilty.

They did bring in a verdict of not guilty and it is clear as daylight that the jury, in addition to finding the four accused not guilty, also brought in a verdict against the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. So, in helping me to make up my mind as to how I will vote tomorrow night, I have this verdict of this jury who had been charged by the judge and who had sworn to administer the law without fear or favour.

I feel that I should quote from the reports of those proceedings. In addressing the jury the trial judge said:

It is a question of whether Mr. Gibbons authorised the import of arms and ammunition for the use of armed forces, and he begins by saying he gave no such authorisation.

Further on, the trial judge said:

The only person authorised by Parliament to give approval was the Minister for Defence.

In opening his address to the jury, he told them that they must accept the law as he stated it and apply it as he stated it, and the jury of 12 men had sworn that they would do that. With regard to the conversation between the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the former Minister for Finance, the judge said:

It is a matter for you whether that conversation took place or not. If it took place in substance as Mr. Gibbons had recalled it, it would indicate that on that Friday or on that Monday Mr. Haughey knew of an illegal shipment and that he was undertaking to stop it for a month. And if it is correct, there can be no question that this was being imported under the authority of the Minister for Defence for the use of the armed forces because Mr. Gibbons was forbidding it...

Either Mr. Gibbons, it seems to me, had concocted — invented as Counsel put it to him—this conversation or it had happened in substance.

Further on he said:

It seems to me, and you are free to dismiss my opinion, either Mr. Gibbons concocted this and has come to court and perjured himself, or it happened.

It is quite clear that the jury decided in fact that Deputy Gibbons, the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, in whom the Dáil is asked to express its confidence concocted this story and, in the words of the judge, "came to the court and perjured himself".

Having gone on to deal with the evidence of Mr. Berry—and surely his case must be dealt with also by the Government because the jury by implication made the same decision in respect of Mr. Berry—the judge said, having dealt with his evidence:

...I would like to be able to suggest some way you can avoid holding there is perjury in this case. You have a solemn and serious responsibility to decide in this case firstly whether Mr. Gibbons's conversation took place or not; and secondly, whether Mr. Berry's conversation took place or not.

Further on, the judge said:

I shall not give any opinion on these crucial matters, because if I were to do so, I might be thought to be constituting myself the jury. These are matters reserved exclusively for a jury. But I would be wanting in my duty if I did not point out the crucial pieces of evidence. If you went to the jury room without having your attention drawn to these conflicts, these irreconcilable conflicts, you might reach a wrong decision.

Clearly, what this motion asks the House to do is to say that the jury, having had their attention drawn to these irreconcilable conflicts by the judge, having been told at the outset that they must accept the law as he stated it and apply it as he stated it and having sworn individually in open court to administer the law without fear or favour—that, in spite of all these things, they did perversely reach a wrong decision. That is what the Members of this House are asked to say by their votes tomorrow night but, of course, the Members of this House have not sworn an oath and this, in the immortal words of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, "is a Dáil debate".

The people are entitled to be assured that the elected legislators and, in particular, the Taoiseach and his Ministers will respect the due processes of the law. To reach our decision, we have available to us a duly recorded verdict of the High Court. The judge said that he could not find any way that the jury could avoid holding that there was perjury in this case. It is beyond doubt that the jury found there was perjury and it is crystal clear where the jury found that perjury to be. Apparently, however, such was the importance of Deputy Gibbons to the Taoiseach or to the Government—I do not know which —that during the trial the character of a most distinguished Army officer was savagely assailed and, as I said, this was done in a manner that struck at the morale of the Army as a whole— the Army which is one of the fundamental institutions of the State. Apparently, such is still the importance of Deputy Gibbons to the Taoiseach or to the Government—I do not know which—that now the character of the 12 jurymen who swore a solemn oath to bring in a just and true verdict is being attacked by the Taoiseach in press interviews, in New York and at Dublin Airport, as well as by this motion in the Dáil. Obviously, this constitutes an attack on another of the fundamental institutions of the State — the courts of justice.

Of course, it is evident beyond any shadow of doubt that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries are inextricably associated with each other in this whole business and that what goes for one must go for the other.

Hear, hear.

In this situation where there is such an open and indissoluble relationship between the Taoiseach and the Minister, between the man who gave the sworn testimony in court and the man who procured his services, it is correct to say that if there is culpability then the major degree of culpability attaches to the principal and the minor degree of culpability attaches to the instrument.

The Taoiseach has clearly and indissolubly associated himself with the Minister. During the debate on the nomination of Members of the Government on the 9th May, the Taoiseach in concluding, as reported at column 1339, Volume 246 of the Official Report said:

At no time had I any reason to suspect that Deputy Gibbons was engaged in any activity that did not befit his office. Allegations made following the opening of this debate have been thoroughly examined. As a result, I am satisfied that Deputy Gibbons was not involved in the importation of arms. If I were not so satisfied I would not now be asking the House to approve of his nomination as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

Further on the Taoiseach said at column 1346:

I explained to the House that I was satisfied before this debate started that Deputy Gibbons carried out his duties in accordance with the full requirements of his office. When these allegations were made during the course of the debate I had him very carefully and thoroughly investigated. As a result of that investigation I am satisfied that Deputy Gibbons——

Deputy Corish interjected:

Who is the liar, Kelly or Gibbons?

The Taoiseach continued:

As a result of that investigation I have no suspicion.

It is clear that the Taoiseach endorsed the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries before this trial and the abortive trial did not come to an end until after the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries had concluded his direct evidence and cross-examination. The result of that direct evidence and cross-examination was there for all to see. The proceedings were reported fully—I do not know from which trial Deputy FitzGerald was quoting—but they were reported fully both of the abortive trial and the trial that was concluded.

I do not think that anybody could believe that the Taoiseach and his Ministers did not read these reports, so that before the start of the actual trial that was decided they knew the performance that had been put up by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on the first occasion. They must have been aware of the conflicts of evidence to which the trial judge drew the attention of the jury. They must have been aware also of the conflicts in the evidence of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries himself. The case could have been withdrawn at that stage in view of the obvious unreliability of the principal State witness but it was not.

Such was the determination to secure a conviction that the Taoiseach and his law officer — who, I understand, I am not permitted to discuss on this motion — sent the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries back again to the High Court to repeat the performance, although this time, it is true, that again such was their determination to get a conviction that certain unworthy and unfair precautions and preparations were made to try to improve upon the performance that had created such a bad impression with everybody who read it or saw it on the first occasion. This action of continuing with the trial and the manner in which it was attempted to bolster up the evidence of the Minister, Deputy Gibbons, on this occasion clearly constituted a re-endorsement of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries by the Taoiseach during the trial and was a further very definite identifying of himself with the Minister by the Taoiseach.

Since then, since the verdict of the jury, the Taoiseach has further continued to endorse the Minister at his press interviews in New York and at that wildly enthusiastic reception at Dublin Airport under the auspices of Ryan's Tourist Holdings Ltd. Now, again, despite the fact that he has had time, following his return from New York to re-adjust himself to Irish circumstances and Irish conditions, and despite the fact that irrespective of the result of this vote he knows that not all the Fianna Fáil Party here by any means endorse the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, he insists that the Fianna Fáil Party will vote confidence in him. As I said, he has clearly and indissolubly identified himself with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in so far as this matter is concerned. He is welded to him.

Last May the Taoiseach said that it was not tolerable that there should be the slightest taint of suspicion attaching to a Member of the Government. I wonder can the Taoiseach seriously suggest that there is not at least the slightest taint of suspicion attaching to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and through him, in view of the fact that he has sponsored him before, during and after the trial, to himself as Taoiseach? If this is so, it surely is a new concept of the law, that suspicion attaches to those who are adjudged to be not guilty by the courts of justice and that those who are condemned by implication are without suspicion. It is a new concept of the law to me and it is, indeed, to use the Taoiseach's own word, something of a novelty.

I understand that I cannot deal with the Attorney General although the fact that the Attorney General at the time of that court case is still Attorney General is a reflection on the Taoiseach at whose will and pleasure he holds his office but that can possibly be dealt with at some other time. I daresay I cannot deal either with the fact that it has been established by the courts that the permanent head of the Department of Justice also perjured himself in the witness box. In any case, to deal with these matters might only confuse the issue that we have to decide. However, I must point out that it was not necessary for the jury in making the decision they made to make a judgment as between the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the former director of Army Intelligence, to make a value judgment between them merely on the basis of their own performance because the Minister's own evidence under cross-examination was sufficient to show who was telling the truth. In this respect the trial judge—I do not think it is necessary to do any more than quote what he had to say—said, and I quote:

Mr. Justice Henchy said that at the end of March or early in April Mr. Gibbons alleged that he was told by Captain Kelly that there had been an attempted importation of arms at the port of Dublin on March 25.

The report went on to say:

Mr. Gibbons had also said that when he suggested to Captain Kelly that this was the end of that consignment, Captain Kelly indicated that further efforts would be made to bring it in, probably from Trieste.

Clearly the Minister, who denied any knowledge of or any consent to the operation, actually admitted discussing the importation of arms with this junior officer. He described it, of course, as "vestigial knowledge" and I do not know whether it was vestigial knowledge or not, but he did discuss the importation of arms in which Captain Kelly was personally involved with Captain Kelly. The judge when dealing with this later said that:

The jury might say that Mr. Gibbons should have put his foot down and told Captain Kelly that he must not import arms in any circumstances, that that was a matter for the proper Army authorities and that when he (Mr. Gibbons) got information about the attempted importation into the port of Dublin and the projected importation from Vienna, and when he, Mr. Gibbons, did not say no in categorical terms, Captain Kelly was entitled to presume that Mr. Gibbons was saying yes.

"That is the view that is open to you; I will say no more about it" said Judge Henchy.

This is the view, which the judge said was open to them, which the jury, having heard all the evidence, clearly decided to take. It was obviously the only reasonable view to take. They could not have taken any other view in view of the oath they had sworn to bring in a just and true verdict They were ordinary, reasonable, intelligent men and they would know that if this importation of arms was a breach of Captain Kelly's duty as an Army officer it was not a minor breach of conduct such as not paying his mess bill but a major breach which was just about as serious a breach of conduct or as serious a misdemeanour as an Army officer could commit. However, the Minister who admitted being told about it, and that the attempt was to continue, also admitted that he did not even tell this Army officer to stop doing it. He did not have him transferred, he did not ask him to resign and he did not do what, if his story was true, was his absolute minimum duty to do, have him dealt with by military law. Of course, there is only one possible explanation for it and that is that he knew of this, that he approved of it and that he was part of it——

Deputies

Hear, hear.

——it was only when to his surprise he discovered that the Taoiseach was not prepared to stand over what was being done in pursuance of a Government decision that he admitted to in court, it was only then that he did a deal and the deal was to put on the performance that he put on in the High Court.

So the evidence of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in court made the jury's task simple. They naturally decided that the two tried and trusted Army officers were honourable men. They decided that the Army's estimation of these people was vindicated. They decided that the man who had been serving as a junior officer in the most trusted branch of the Army—the intelligence service— was properly assessed by the army Authorities as being fit for that job. They decided that the man who had progressed to the highest rank he could reach in the Army, the highest rank that can be reached by anyone in the Army except the chief-of-staff— colonel — and had held the position of maximum trust in the Army— director of intelligence — they decided that the army's assessment of these people was the correct assessment: it was vindicated. They decided also that, in this business, it was the then Minister for Defence who was the weakling.

So far as I am concerned, then the decision I have to make seems to be very clear-cut. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries are one. If there is culpability, the major culpability is that of the Taoiseach. In view of all that has happened and particularly in view of the jury's verdict, there can be no question of my supporting this Motion of Confidence.

There remains this matter of the party pledge I signed before contesting the general election. I pledged myself to abide by the majority decision of the party or else to resign my seat as a Teachta Dála. This seems to me to be a perfectly clear undertaking. I have listened to and considered very carefully very forceful contrary arguments put forward by many people who I respect greatly, both members of the political organisation to which I belong in my constituency and other constituencies, and other people. However, these do not seem to me to outweigh what I believe myself, and know myself, to have undertaken when I signed this pledge. I cannot see that I am morally entitled, in view of what I have undertaken to do, to vote against this motion or to abstain. There is no question whatever of my voting for it. I have no doubt I will be given further arguments before 10.30 tomorrow night but the prospect I see before me is perfectly clear. In so far as I am personally concerned, there seems to me to have been an inevitability about this whole thing from the very outset. My resignation from the Government last May was inevitable. I gave my reasons at the time. However, I suppose there is no need to repeat the reasons I have already given. A further reason for my resignation at that particular time is now apparent. Had I remained, I would have had to accept collective responsibility for this whole shameful action which was, even at that time, known to involve the dishonourable features that have since been exposed in the courts. Again, I think my action at the time of the arrest of John Kelly was inevitable. I think it was essential. It would be pointless to try to disassociate the republican party from this action after the failure of the conspiracy charge. What I said had to be said: it had to be said then—and, with Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey also arrested, there was not anybody else to say it.

My resignation as honorary secretary of the Fianna Fáil Party was also inevitable. Of course, this is an internal party matter which does not specifically concern the House and which probably is not really relevant. My resignation there arose because of a new concept of democratic procedure introduced into our organisation for the first time by the Taoiseach and insisted upon by him. Briefly, members had to allow the finger to be put on them through the medium of a roll call "Yes" or "No"—with the double-barrelled gun or threatened resignation and a general election pointed at their heads. In other words, an immediate split was decided on in the event of a vote. I decided at that time—inevitably, I think—in the interests of unity or in the hope of possible future unity, to avoid the introduction at that time of this new hallmark of a democratic party. Now, there is this decision which is demanded by the Taoiseach. My action in regard to what is required of me at 10.30 tomorrow night is also inevitable.

I have been assured—and I am inclined to agree—that this latest move, which possibly is the last move so far as I am concerned, is a planned inevitability intended to embrace myself and Deputy Blaney—to quote the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries —the big fish that got away. The fact that I recognise that this is a well-prepared and baited trap does not mean that it can be avoided. The Taoiseach holds the cards by virtue of the decision we all helped to get from the people in June of last year. He is the dealer of the cards. If he dexterously selects the cards he deals me, I can only play the losing hand that I have been dealt. Nobody knows better than he does that, under no circumstances whatever, could I, in the parliament of this country or of this State—I suppose, this State—declare that I believe that the man who has been pronounced on so adversely by the High Court, by a jury in the High Court, is suitable for the high office of Minister in the Government or that the man who procured his ignoble services is fit to be Taoiseach and I am sure that somebody has made the Taoiseach aware of the terms of the pledge that I signed.

I have no desire to split or damage in any way the Fianna Fáil Party. All of my energy since I left the Army after the Emergency—and both before and since my election to the Dáil—has been spent in an effort to maintain the efficiency of the party organisation and the strength of the party here in this House. But, since last May, I have had an opportunity of surveying the end product of all that effort by myself and by others—notably by Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey. I have had an opportunity of seeing the end product of all that effort since last May. As I look around me, I can see quite clearly that there is nothing left to me but my own personal honour, such as it is—and I propose to retain that.

I am very pleased indeed that I have the privilege of being the first member of the House to congratulate Deputy Boland on the stand he is taking on this matter: I shall come back to that later on. Now, Sir, this is a peculiar type of Vote in as much as, for the first time, Dáil Éireann is asked, as a body, to vote confidence in a Government where the real test and the real need for that confidence lies within the Government and the Government party itself. These Motions have not been brought about by Fine Gael: neither have they been brought about by Labour. They have been brought about entirely by the Fianna Fáil Party and particularly by senior members of that party. We have a volume of this size containing the words which were spoken on this question in this House last May. During the past few months we have had numerous pages of newscript covering the sordid details of this business and I think we have had enough.

I did not bring into this House with me any documentation to make a statement on this Vote of Confidence because I am well aware that the people of this country from Malin Head to Cape Clear are quite conversant with the issues before them, and I am well aware that the people are only too anxious to express their verdict of confidence or no confidence, as the case may be, in the Government. It may be said that Labour speakers and Fine Gael speakers in making contributions to this discussion would naturally have a slanted view and be biassed against the Government, and that their observations would in no way be impartial so I propose, to a large extent, to dismiss the statements made by Fine Gael and Labour Party speakers in this debate because I think the outstanding statement was not made by a Fine Gael speaker. Neither was it made by a Labour Party speaker. It was made by the speaker who has just resumed his seat.

Who is this man who has just resumed his seat? As he mentioned himself, he is one of the chief architects of the Fianna Fáil Party. He is the man who, when he came in here in 1957, was seen to be suitable and fitted for ministerial advancement straight away, and he was appointed Minister on the first day of his membership of this House. Since then he has held exalted office as Minister of State. He has served in a Government headed by the present President. He has served in a Government headed by the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass. He has served in a Government headed by the present Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch. Surely a man with his insight and his long record of public service as a Minister of this State is much more capable of giving an objective view on the merits of the present Government than any Opposition speaker?

To sum up Deputy Boland's case as made here—and I agree with it largely—he claims that the Taoiseach who is asking this House for a Vote of Confidence in him is an intriguer. He also mentioned one other Minister of the Government, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries as an intriguer.

Mention has been made in the course of this debate of slander and there was a question as to whether slanders in this House should be withdrawn or otherwise. During the course of a speech in the House earlier today that matter arose between the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the presiding Chairman at the time, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Slanders there are and numerous slanders. We are sick of listening to slanders since May of this year, but who is doing the slandering? We are not doing it. I do not think the Fine Gael Party are doing it. It is the people over there who are doing it. The Fianna Fáil people are slandering each other. You will agree with that, a Cheann Comhairle, I am sure. They are slandering each other.

We had statements made by responsible Members of this House. We must accept that ex-Ministers, four of them, with long records of public service within this House, have charged and violently charged the Taoiseach, the present head of this Government, with being an unsuitable person to head this Government, and that he is also guilty of gross intrigue. He has been charged with bullying members of the party and intimidating them on Tuesday night of last week. I do not know whether he did or not. I accept Deputy Boland's statement in toto. I think I took down what he said. The Taoiseach, says Deputy Boland, got votes at the meeting by intimidation, by holding out the big stick of a general election over the heads of the members of Fianna Fáil. He intimidated them into voting for him, a number of them against their will and, as he said in another phrase, he had the gun to their heads that a general election was in the offing and they might possibly lose their seats.

I have no doubt that that statement of Deputy Boland's is quite correct. He made another very lucid and clear-cut statement that a number of Deputies within the Fianna Fáil Party share his views on the Taoiseach and some members of the present Cabinet but, for some reasons which I think he specified subsequently—such as an early general election—they were prepared to change their minds and vote for the Taoiseach and for the Cabinet even though they shared Deputy Boland's views on them.

I said here in May and I now restate that I believe that once a Government are elected through the democratic process in operation in this country they are entitled to govern for five years. I am a believer in and an upholder of that view but I said then and I repeat now that, despite the inconveniences or difficulties it may mean for any Member of this House, or to the Government, or their henchmen some of our senior civil servants, in view of what has happened, which no one could visualise or anticipate last year, there is only one course open to the Taoiseach and that is to do as Deputy Boland and Deputy Haughey and a number of other Deputies in his own party, together with the combined Opposition, have asked him to do and, that is, to dissolve this Dáil.

Surely to God the Taoiseach will not continue to sit over in that seat having heard, as I am sure he has heard, the statement made just now in this Parliament by Deputy Boland and having seen the statements made in Press comments by commentators and others within recent months. Surely the people are entitled to act as the jury in this trial because I say Fianna Fáil are on trial? I do not think it is fair to the Government—and I want to see everything fair and above board; I want to see everybody getting a fair crack of the whip—that Labour Members or Fine Gael Members should be asked to judge this matter.

Our judgment is clear but we could be charged with bias. Fianna Fáil members have expressed their opinions of the Government and surely the Irish people from Cork to Donegal are entitled to express their opinions and to say whether they want a continuance of this Government which, according to a recent statement of an ex-senior Minister, Deputy Blaney, is composed of boys.

The main question, so far as I am concerned, is of a much more serious nature. Fianna Fáil have had it. If Fianna Fáil, as a party, have had it the question to which the Irish people are addressing themselves is what is the alternative. Everybody in the country knows enough about what has happened within the Fianna Fáil Party. Their fighting, their abuse has been well publicised and there is no need for any Deputy to take up the time of this House reiterating it. What I want to get at is the position when they are gone. I cannot see how Deputy Jack Lynch, no matter how much he likes the glint of power, can stay away from the Park beyond 11 o'clock tomorrow night, no matter how many vote for him.

I wonder what the people of Cork would think about a socialist republic.

I will tell you about your socialist republic.

You are a socialist. It is part of your philosophy.

Before I do that I wonder what kind of eye specialist the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Lenihan, attends. Here is how he sees this. I quote from column 210, volume 249, No. 2, of the official report:

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 to govern.

I wonder what kind of spectacles the Minister wears. That was as nonsensical a statement as could be made by any man in the street, never mind a Minister of State. There is no need to comment on it further.

Subsequent to making that statement he made a statement which was quite the opposite in that every word of it was correct, in my view. He said:

The main reason we were entrusted with the responsibility of governing during the past twelve months was the recognition by the people of the disarray in which the opposing political parties found themselves during the last general election.

The first day I came into the Dáil after the election I said Fianna Fáil was over there because of the disarray within the two Opposition Parties in the 1969 general election. I believe in forthright speaking and in calling a spade a spade. Fianna Fáil were elected with 75 seats and a minority vote of 113,000 but it was not the votes that elected them. It was, as the Minister pointed out, the disarray that existed within the Fine Gael and Labour Parties.

In that election the Opposition parties adopted the foolish idea that both parties could get into government on their own. We had Deputy Cosgrave expressing the view that the Irish people had sufficient confidence in Fine Gael to elect them independently as the Government. We had attached to every telegraph pole in the country the slogan: "Fine Gael will win." People did not accept that. People did not accept that Fine Gael had sufficient strength to win the election on their own. On the other side of the road we had posters which said: "Win with Labour." I have no doubt, and I had no hesitation in saying it then as I have said it now, that the Irish people did not accept that Labour would get sufficient votes to become the Government of this country. Deputy Lenihan was quite correct in asserting that disarray existed among the Opposition parties in the last election. I accept Deputy Lenihan's words as an apt description of what happened in the 1969 election.

Dáil Éireann will possibly be dissolved tomorrow night. Are we to have this disarray again within the Opposition parties?

I say "No".

Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Dr. Thornley——

(Interruptions.)

The central council of the Labour Party does not agree with coalition.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Murphy.

That is the only hope Fianna Fáil have.

Deputy Murphy asked me a question and I gave him an answer.

Yes. Fianna Fáil succeeded in getting that across prior to the 1969 election. They drove a wedge and were helped by some of their Taca friends, in the guise of Fine Gael or Labour supporters, to drive that wedge and ensure that there was no unity among the Opposition parties. I am satisfied that on the 18th June, 1969, the one thing that elected Fianna Fáil was the fact that there was no co-operation good, bad or indifferent between Fine Gael and Labour and the fact that the people accepted Fianna Fáil as the strongest party numerically and as the only party likely to form a government on their own. That was how the Irish people viewed the situation.

But they were not that right, you know.

How about policies?

Deputy Murphy is entitled to make his own speech.

I know there are pressures from other Deputies who want to make speeches.

Keep going. We like to listen to you.

When I got up I did not intend staying too long but I intend staying a little longer now than I anticipated.

My statements are based on the assumption that we are having an immediate election and that the Irish people will pass a certain verdict on Fianna Fáil. Before I was interrupted I was coming to another qualification which Fianna Fáil claimed to have during the 1969 election campaign— that is the qualification of solidarity, of unity. They were one in belief, one in achievement, one in everything.

That unity and solidarity is now burst and burst badly and I think "burst" is the word. The Irish people will not swallow that carrot if the election is held next month. The Taoiseach cannot go down to Cork; he cannot go to Donegal, neither can he go to the midlands nor to any other part of this country and say: "Vote for Fianna Fáil. We are a united party. We are the only party capable of giving good government in this country". That was accepted, even though luck was on your side in the 1969 election. You have a voting strength here at the moment of 75 votes to 67—a majority of eight, an exceptionally high majority for this Parliament. What is happening? You are breaking up and it is about time you did. I do not want my last remark to be misinterpreted. I remember saying in May, 1969, that I regretted, as I am sure Members of this House regretted, what was happening within Government circles. We are all anxious to see Ireland advance. Despite any political differences we may have, we are all anxious to see the Government of the day doing a good job for the people. My remark can be interpreted as meaning that Fianna Fáil had power long enough in this country. They had power too long. They have grown stale, dictatorial and arrogant and it is time to replace them. During the past 38 years they have been in power for 32 years. They feel that there is no other group or combination of parties fit to govern Ireland save themselves. It is time to get rid of that idea. It is no harm that some of their Taca associates and some of our senior civil servants in particular got it into their heads that there is a possibility that Fianna Fáil will go and that the protection which some of them enjoy at the present time will go with them.

Who will replace them?

Deputy Murphy, without interruption.

I am open for questions. I have been asked by my good friend, Deputy Moore, who will replace them. Who replaced them in 1948?

For how long?

Who replaced them in 1954? My view is that there is an alternative Government. I am a Labour man but I am satisfied that in the ensuing election Labour cannot, even though they will get a much increased vote on the 1969 figure, get sufficient seats to become the Government of this country. I am a member of a Party who have opposed the policy of Fianna Fáil violently, forcibly and vehemently down through the years. I am satisfied, taking a look at the Irish position as it is, that the same applies to the Fine Gael Party. They cannot of their own, because of insufficiency of votes and insufficiency of seats, form a Government.

What then do you find? You find, as has been found in a number of other countries, a combination of parties and in this context it only means two parties. That is my own view. It is a matter for Fine Gael to say whether they agree or disagree with that. I know the members of the parties here and I am sufficiently confident that an alternative Government much more capable and with greater integrity, can be formed after the next election from the Fine Gael and Labour benches if both parties do the sensible thing. The alternative is chaos.

Why does the Deputy not join Fine Gael?

Does the Deputy agree with Deputy Dr. Browne's views which are being dealt with in the party tomorrow morning?

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree with Deputy Neil Blaney?

Will the Deputies allow Deputy Murphy to make his speech?

I was going to refer to the Parliamentary Secretary as Dr. Andrews. He will lose his post tomorrow night possibly.

I would be very flattered.

In answer to the question asked by Deputy Dowling——

(Interruptions.)

I cannot answer five or six questions together. Deputy Dowling asked me why I do not join Fine Gael. I am a Labour man. I have been a Labour man all my life and I hope I will continue to be one.

Not a socialist.

Would the Deputies please allow Deputy Murphy to make his speech?

I am factual about those things. It is about time, the eleventh hour, that the people learned about the alternative Government. In my estimation we are moving very close to the twelfth hour. In 1948 Fianna Fáil were ousted from power by a combination of parties which made it much more difficult then than it would now to form a coalition because at that time we had four parties in the House and a number of Independents. Consequently, difficulties arose. I have asserted during my time in public life that that Government were responsible for legislation which was then, and still is, advantageous to the Irish people. They brought new life to the Irish people. Up to that unless you were a member of a Fianna Fáil cumann you would not even get a job on the roads. The Coalition Government changed that. They held office for three years.

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

I was outlining the advantages which accrued to the Irish people from the formation of the first inter-Party Government in 1948. Then there was a second inter-Party Government from 1954 until 1957 and it worked quite well. The only unfortunate happening was that there should have been an election in 1957. I sincerely hope we shall have an inter-Party Government in 1970.

I do not intend to go back to this waste of public money through the trial that was held in the Four Courts. Surely you need have no legal knowledge to know that so far as three of the accused were concerned they could not be found guilty of any charges. Having regard to the fact that they were working under the direction of the Government of the State, that trial was a waste of money. On Thursday last, Deputy Tully was interested in another question and we have to learn what is happening in regard to people in high places. Deputy Tully was inquiring about one of the defendants in this trial, Albert Luykx, and I quote from column 247, volume 249, of the Official Report of 29th October, 1970 where he says:

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——

Then the Leas-Cheann Comhairle intervenes. At column 248 Deputy Tully says:

...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?

Later on he says:

The Chair has given a ruling which I accept.

That is, that there should be no discussion on Mr. Luykx, and continues:

I am making no charge against Mr. Luykx but if somebody has the ear of a Cabinet Minister or Ministers and 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 am sure that Deputy Tully did not make that assertion without being sure of his facts, that Mr. Luykx was a man who had contact with the Government, that he was a man who was riding in Government Ministers' cars. I do not like making charges against any man who is not a Member of this House but I should like to quote from a Belgium paper which reported this trial. It is the Belgian Weekly Bulletin and the issue of 22nd October has this heading: “Belgian Nazi on trial” and goes on to say:

A former Belgian member of the SS, Antoine Luykx, who was condemned to death in Belgium after the war (the sentence was later commuted to 20 years in prison) is being tried in the Irish Republic in connection with arms smuggling into Northern Ireland. He is one of four on trial, including a former Irish Minister of Finance.

Luykx, born at Lommel in Limburg province, was arrested by the Belgian military authorities after the liberation and accused of denouncing Belgian resistance leaders, recruiting Belgian youths for the Nazi armed forces and making economic capital out of the war.

In 1946 he was tried and condemned to death. The sentence was commuted——

Mr. J. Lenehan

This is absolutely political.

Would Deputy Lenehan keep quiet? Deputy Murphy is criticising the private affairs of an individual who has no way of replying to him in this House, and Deputy Tully was ruled out of order last Thursday on the same point. Deputy Tully was out of order and certainly Deputy Murphy is out of order.

I prefaced my remarks by saying that I disliked doing that but here is the position, if you will bear with me, Sir. This is a vote of confidence in the Government, and in the course of the discussion the trial has been mentioned by a number of members.

This is a vote of confidence in the present Government, not the past one.

Would Deputy Carter please cease interrupting?

This gentleman was riding around in Ministerial cars.

Mr. Luykx can be criticised for his part in the arms question but his private life is a matter for himself and not for this House.

Mr. J. Lenehan

His private life cannot be any worse than that of some of the band over there.

If Deputy Lenehan wishes to remain here he should desist.

Are you saying this is not a matter for public comment?

Any person's private life cannot be bandied around this House.

I shall accept your ruling. Let me refer now to the dismissal of the Ministers which took place at 2.55 in the morning. It is only ghosts that are around at that hour. I should like the Taoiseach, when replying, to tell the House why he selected this unearthly hour to dismiss his Ministers. I asked that question during the May debate but as the trial was on the matter was sub judice and the Taoiseach could not reply. I did not see anything on reading the trial indicating a degree of urgency which necessitated this happening at 2.55 a.m.

As I mentioned at the outset, it is unnecessary to recap on what happened. The public are well aware what happened. My reason for speaking in this debate is to bring home to this House and the people the necessity for providing an alternative Government. I am satisfied from my experience as a Member of this House and from my knowledge of the people that such an alternative exists without question.

In the constituency of Cork south west last Sunday week I was given an unanimous vote of approval for the formation of an inter-Party Government should an election arise. In by-elections in Kildare and Longford-Westmeath the people indicated what kind of Government they want by their votes. We shall not shed any tears now that Fianna Fáil are moving out but we must ensure, should the Dáil be dissolved tomorrow night, that an alternative Government exists to replace them which will give the people the type of Government they have not had for years but which I hope they will get in the future through the inter-Party system.

In my contribution to this debate I want principally to apply myself to the resolution in the name of Deputy Cosgrave naming me, and with typical Fine Gael ineptitude quoting a certain column of the Official Report and thereafter amending it——

On a point of order, is this resolution before the House?

I do not think this is in order.

Is Deputy Cosgrave's resolution before the House?

That particular motion is not before the House.

The Minister is out of order.

I shall amend what I have said by saying that I shall apply myself to the slanders upon my name and character and upon the names and characters of my family that have arisen from the tabling of this motion. It is unquestionable that the motivation, apart from the political motivation and apart from the attempt to divide the Fianna Fáil Government and Party, behind the tabling of this motion is a continuation of what has probably been the biggest attack on a single Member of this House since its establishment. This volume of the Official Report is probably bigger in size and weight than any other report of a single sitting of the Dáil. The greater proportion of it is devoted to speeches made by members of the Fine Gael Party, whose main stock in trade is the destruction of people's good names and the slandering of people whom they cannot injure in any other way, the contents of which are aimed at me and at some of my colleagues with particular reference to the Taoiseach.

The Fine Gael motion, superseded by the subsequent motion of the Taoiseach, originally referred to column 792 of volume 246 No. 7 of the Official Report. Deputy Cosgrave spoke in this House the other day like the Pharisee in the temple beating his breast and thanking God that he was not like the rest of men. I have never seen anything so disgusting in all my life. It was reminiscent of the Ard-Fheis which followed this particular debate last May when Deputy Cosgrave shouted in the squeaky voice which he adopts when he simulates anger, and I recall him saying that people have often asked what is the difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and he shouted, "Now you know the difference". The clear inference is that all the saints, all the men of virtue and integrity belong to the Fine Gael Party and they give thanks that they are not like the other adulterers and perjurers which, as has been said during the course of this debate, exist only on this side of the House. This is the pharisaical attitude of the Fine Gael Party in general and of Deputy Cosgrave in particular.

I am prepared to concede, as Deputy Cosgrave conceded when he spoke earlier in this debate, that he and I have had cordial relations for many years. I am also prepared to concede that he is a quiet, inoffensive little man, but I would not make the same concession about some of the people who sit either beside or behind him. I have no doubt that as this debate proceeds the malicious slanders on me, my family, the Government which I serve and the party which I serve will continue and all the charges will be baseless.

The basis of the Fine Gael attack is that I, at some stage, attempted to deceive this House and, as has been said by Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, "told lies in this House". This volume of the Official Report is a compendium of Fine Gael lies of the most fantastic and outrageous kind. I would say to Fine Gael before they suggest that I, either on this occasion or on any other occasion, deliberately misled this House, find something to go on. If they think by a succession of months of malicious, spiteful slanders that they can make me retreat one inch I want to assure them very firmly that there will be no surrender from me. I will not be betrayed by my party. I am certain about that as well. If Fine Gael think they can destroy this party by isolating one member of it or by attacking either the Taoiseach or myself they do not understand the meaning of the words "Fianna Fáil".

Fianna Fáil does not draw its strength from the Deputies on these benches. It does not draw its strength from any elected Member. Journalists and others think of us as wheeler-dealers and ward-heelers. This is not what the Fianna Fáil machine is at all. An example of what the Fianna Fáil machine actually is occurred shortly after this affair broke last May when Fianna Fáil held its national collection. In every constituency in the country there was a spontaneous reaction from the ordinary people, who are our strength and have kept us as the major political Party since 1932.

By an instinctive reaction they increased their contributions to our national collection by anything from 30 to 50 per cent. That is what you are up against. Slanders on me, or on my leader, Deputy Jack Lynch, or on any colleagues of mine here will have no effect on us. If you think you can break our courage with words or in any other way you had better think again.

I shall now turn to the contribution that I made as reported in this volume of 8th and 9th May and the first assertion arose from a spiteful contribution made on the basis of an anonymous letter hawked about this House by Deputy Cosgrave. I shall quote a little bit, and a little bit will be sufficient, from the speech made by Deputy Ryan sitting opposite:

It is quite clear that evidence has been given to the Taoiseach which links certain names with such activities not related alone to the attempted importation of arms from Vienna but related also to training which was given in at least one Army camp to civilians in the use of arms.

There are two specific things there: one is the question of the importation of arms from Vienna and I want to say that the first intimation of this importation of arms from Vienna that I got, was from the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Mr. Stephen Hearney on Friday, 17th April. While I was speaking to him I ascertained that the Department of Justice were also aware of this circumstance. As I have already informed the House by way of interjection today, I was also aware for some time that the activities of certain Members of this House and Captain Kelly were under the surveillance of the Special Branch and I felt that from the security point of view this was sufficient and adequate. It saved me, as Minister for Defence, from the distasteful task of acting as a policeman on people who were my colleagues since the security of the State has been impugned.

As regard the second point in this reference, the training of civilians, no civilian was trained in any Army camp. I explained with some considerable detail in the court the circumstances surrounding the enlistment of certain people from outside the Twenty-Six County area into the FCA, their attestation into that force and their donning of the uniform of that force and their induction into that force and their subsequent training. I should point out to the House that this practice is by no means unique. The FCA, like any other military force, carries on a continuous process of recruitment and it is not at all unusual for young men from the cross-Border areas to join the FCA because this might be their inclination. My personal feeling especially at that time was that it would be impolite and imprudent to decline enlistment of these people whom I knew to be from the Six-County area but I ensured that they were informed of the regulations that governed such things. They were enlisted as people coming from Donegal. Those are the facts but Deputy Ryan is not correct in asserting that they were civilians but my interjection, and it is merely an interjection, "That is not true" is correct. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more on that particular point.

Fine Gael in their efforts to bolster up their slanderous attack on me changed their tactics in mid-stream. I think I will assist them myself because I think the contribution I made in this debate was quite brief and I shall refer them to my own statement which began in column 838 and the first relevant part to which I wish to refer is this. I quote:

...to refer to a statement that I have heard has been made by Mr. Patrick Kennedy, MP, in the course of a radio interview. I have been informed that Mr. Patrick Kennedy, MP, in the course of a Radio Éireann interview, suggested that any participation by Captain James Kelly in an attempt to smuggle arms could only have been made with my knowledge and consent.

For a very long period in the courts recently this particular matter was examined and I explained to the court the circumstances of my first meeting with Captain Kelly in what I believe to be mid-March. It was disclosed to the satisfaction of the court, as I remember it that a great deal had been done months before about the assembly of weapons in what afterwards proved to be Antwerp and for their eventual despatch to this country.

On the first occasion that Captain Kelly came to me he came to inform me that he had formed a moral obligation to the people in the north — and mark you there was no specific reference to defence committees as such, he merely told me that his allegiance had shifted from his Army duties to the beleaguered people in the Catholic ghettos in Belfast and elsewhere in the north — and that because he wanted to assist them he proposed to resign his commission in the Army. I told the court then and I tell the Dáil now that I looked upon this as an honest and honourable gesture from an Army officer. I should add also that Captain Kelly's coming to me was at the request of a senior colleague of mine at that time and that is why I saw this junior officer at all. I thought since his declaration of faith had been so forthright and honest that some effort should be made to provide an alternative living for him. I asked him about his family and his family circumstances and how he proposed to live.

I must interrupt myself at this juncture to say that I do not propose to go into any particular details of the trial because on that occasion I testified for, I think, a total of about 15 hours on oath. I do not propose to elaborate on that but it is necessary to clarify this short statement of mine. After that, either in the last days of March or the early days of April, Captain Kelly who before that quite evidently had been actively engaged in the procurement, purchase and assembly of arms in Antwerp, told me nothing about that, nor was I told about it by anybody else except for the vague allusion made by the Director of Intelligence, Colonel Heffron, at that time to a proposed visit in the month of February by Captain Kelly to Frankfurt to see his sister. I accepted this at its face value. I recall distinctly saying to the Director of Intelligence at that time; "Is it not the most reasonable thing in the world for a person who does happen to have a sister in Frankfurt to visit that sister?" I asked him: "Does he happen to have a sister in Frankfurt?" and the Director of Intelligence said: "He does". I said: "Is it not the most reasonable thing in the world for an officer, whom you tell me is an honourable and high-principled man, to make such a visit to this sister?" and he readily agreed it was.

We proceed then to the last period to which I have just alluded, the period I would place in the last days of March or early April. It is quite impossible to be precise about this. He mentioned that there had been an abortive attempt to smuggle in arms through the port of Dublin. I did not know whether this illegal importation of arms was a squalid suitcase operation concerning half-a-dozen revolvers or what kind of operation it was. I did not know who was involved. I did not know what part Captain Kelly played in it except, and this must be said, and I have already said it in the court, that it was quite clear he made no great effort to conceal the fact that he was involved in some way, but in what way I could not say and he did not tell me.

Did the Minister ask him?

Do not interrupt. When Deputy Garret FitzGerald was speaking he made a great deal of heavy weather about knowledge vestigial and knowledge simpliciter. I said that I had vestigial knowledge. What I meant by that was that I had this tiny intimation that in some obscure, quite undefined way this officer, who was as yet attached to the Army Intelligence Service was connected, as he told me himself he was, with this business of the importation of arms. Deputy Garret FitzGerald, with his Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass almost visible in his hand, asked: “Did you not have knowledge simpliciter?” He seems to misunderstand that expression or, possibly, I do. From my rather limited knowledge of the Latin language “simple knowledge” is the way I would translate it. But this is a very, very different thing from total knowledge or even substantial knowledge. I used the expression “vestigial knowledge” and Mr. Sorohan asked me to explain in more mundane language what I meant by “vestigial knowledge”. What I meant by by that was that I knew both from Captain Kelly himself and from Colonel Heffron, who was then the Director of Intelligence, that Captain Kelly was up to something in the matter of the importation of arms but, beyond that, I knew very little.

Now there is a hiatus here. Except for this vital thing I had a pretty good idea for some months that the Special Branch of the police was on to Captain Kelly and on to this arms conspiracy generally. I had confirmation of this from the then Minister for Justice about that time too and, as I have already said, I felt that since this was the case it relieved me of the distasteful task of acting as a policeman——

Of doing your job.

——to beset my colleagues. It did not deter me in any way from pursuing as actively as I could the removal of this officer in as quiet and unobtrusive a way as possible from the Army because I felt, as I said in this speech, I thought it was the most prudent and expedient thing that this Army officer be quietly got out of the Army because there was a very big security question involved in all this. If he had been courtmartialled there would have been a great deal of pother about it and there would have been a great deal of rejoicing in the Paisleyite camp and possibly in other camps as well. This was the way I, at that time, deemed to be the most prudent way of dealing with the situation, the more so as I had knowledge that this man's activities were, in fact, under surveillance.

With regard to the hiatus between then and 17th April, what happened in that period I was not informed about at all and I so testified in court. I will proceed further now with the analysis of this short statement of mine because I want to assist the House as best I can.

I was aware, through the Director of Intelligence that attempts to smuggle arms were a constant danger and these attempts were kept under surveillance at all times.

It is evident that, when I said that, I depended in toto on the good faith of the then Director of Intelligence. What has emerged subsequently would naturally change my view on this, but to assert that this particular statement at that particular time is in any way misleading is in itself a misleading assertion.

I wish to say I discharged my duty to the full extent of my knowledge of the situation.

This knowledge I have been at some pains to point out, was quite marginal. I think it worthwhile at this juncture to ask, since this operation had been going on for quite some time and since the Department of Defence was one of the only ways by which arms could be imported into this country at all, why was the subject broached and broached to me so gently? I think the answer to that also emerged in the court because on that day, or possibly the day following, on which I was informed of the abortive attempt to land weapons in the port of Dublin the question was put to me as to whether I would allow my Department to be used for the illegal importation of arms. It was put straight to me and I answered it straightly and the answer was "No." I want to say further that, if I had wished to co-operate or if I sympathised in any way with the illegal importation of arms, by virtue of my office I could have done it and there would have been no case and there would be nobody any the wiser. But that is what happened.

As I said, I do not propose to go back over the evidence I gave on oath in court except to say that it was evidence given on oath. Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien said in this House that I was a convicted liar. Upon what basis he makes that charge I do not know. I do not know what code of ethics Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien observes. I do not know whether or not he is a Christian at all, but I want to tell Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien that when I take the Book in my hands it means something to me although it may mean nothing to him——

Does this mean that without the Book you can lie like a trooper?

I am inviting the Deputy or any of his colleagues, whether they come from Accra, Moscow or Havana, to demonstrate here or elsewhere that the charge the Deputy has made against me has any substance. I am inviting the Deputy to substantiate the foul charge he made against me——

Deputy Boland has also made it.

The Minister's colleague has also made it.

The Deputy is getting angry now because he is ashamed of himself and he is very right to be ashamed of himself. I am a countryman——

and look like one——

The Minister is under severe mental strain——

Order. Deputies must cease interrupting.

(Cavan): All of this is only a smokescreen.

The Chair wants to point out——

Mr. J. Lenehan

You should all shut up.

Is it in order for the Deputy to tell the Chair to shut up?

The Chair has already pointed out this evening that in a debate such as this Members on both sides should refrain from interrupting the Member in possession. Everybody who wishes to speak will get the opportunity to do so. Personalities and casting aspersions ought to be avoided; aspersions are disorderly and that has already been said this evening.

I was dealing with the assertion that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien made in this House the other night that I was a convicted liar. I was going on from there to compare our different backgrounds and to compare the sources from which we draw our different ethics because obviously they are very different.

Hear, hear. I thank the Minister.

I have said I am a countryman and I learned my first bit of ethics from the penny catechism——

The Minister should learn to tell the truth.

I do not know whether Karl Marx, Che Guevara or Kwame Nkrumah——

The Minister is indulging in personalities now.

The Minister is being abusive now.

He is putting up a very poor defence.

I am not nearly as abusive as the Deputy was the other night. Neither Deputy Cruise-O'Brien nor any other Deputy in the House has any grounds to call me a convicted liar.

The same grounds as every other Deputy — it is what you have put on the record.

I am on the records and I am inviting you today, as I invited you then, to destroy my credibility if you can.

It does not need to be destroyed; it is gone forever.

Is Deputy Cruise-O'Brien to be allowed to continue in this way?

Am I supposed to put up with all those attacks?

The Chair has already pointed out that interruptions from any side are disorderly. The Minister must be allowed to make his speech.

We will leave Dr. Cruise-O'Brien alone because the country in general understands by now where he stands——

If you want to know, why not go to the country?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Any time you like.

All right, tonight then.

I was speaking earlier about the strength of the Fianna Fáil Party and the source from which it derives. We will give the Opposition a demonstration of that any time they like.

Do it tonight then.

I shall continue to quote from my previous statement:

I want to refer specially to the references that were made in this debate by Deputy Ryan, in which he sought by innuendo to suggest that in some way or other I was implicated in the business of running guns into this country for illegal organisations or for any other purpose. I can only say that if Deputy Ryan, or any other Deputy has any scintilla of evidence of any such activity on my part, he has an obligation to produce it and to produce it at once so that the necessary steps may be taken.

This invitation was issued on the 8th or 9th of May and not one scrap of evidence has come from Deputy Ryan or anybody else. I shall continue to quote from my statement:

I am happy in this knowledge and I give challenge in this knowledge that since there is no such evidence of any implication on my part there is nobody in this House or outside it who can produce any evidence of the kind suggested by Deputy Ryan.

I would add that Deputy Cosgrave who brandished his anonymous letter in this House a long time ago has not produced any evidence either. I further stated:

I am well aware that this suggestion of Deputy Ryan's, made originally the other night, has given rise to certain speculation in the Press and on the radio and television. I want, once and for all, to state my position and to state it as clearly as I can. I think I have done that. That was my principal intention in rising to speak on this debate.

I want to refer to other matters which were alluded to in this debate so far. There was a suggestion by Deputy Tully that weapons, presumably for illegal organisations, were collected in Army trucks at Dublin docks and presumably driven away to some unknown destination. Does Deputy Tully realise what a serious thing this is to say? Does he realise how fantastically and absurdly untrue it is? That is the least offensive part of it. The real danger lies in the fact when a person of Deputy Tully's standing makes such a suggestion, even though I think it was merely speculative in nature, it must be realised that, once made, one must always bargain for a residual of credence and for somebody getting a hold of the story and getting the idea that Army trucks were used for the carriage of illegal arms.

The Official Report of the 8th/9th May, 1970, possibly the largest single volume since the establishment of this House, is a plethora of the most foul Fine Gael and Labour allegations and attempts to destroy the reputation of people by slander of the vilest kind. I want to assure them they have been totally unsuccessful.

Ask Deputy Boland.

The Minister could not convince the jury.

It was not my business to convince the jury.

Mr. J. Lenehan

That is a reflection on the jury.

The bright young men have been gymnastically somersaulted.

(Interruptions.)

Again, I appeal to the House to allow the Minister to continue.

I want to assist the Fine Gael Party as much as I can. Evidently, they are unable to identify the parts of my speech upon which they have based their dastardly charge of misleading the Dáil. Therefore, I shall continue to quote from my previous speech:

There have been fantastic suggestions made by some Opposition speakers earlier today about ships lying in Dublin Bay and sailing away with murderers on board.

I think it was Deputy Ryan who made that suggestion. Is this misleading the Dáil? Have they any evidence of any such occurrence? Is this not part of the smear campaign they have carried on during these months? Do the Opposition not realise the drastic action the Taoiseach took when this affair blew up? May I suggest to Deputy Cosgrave that he might question Deputy Ryan's suitability for membership of this House? Perhaps he might also question his own suitability for membership in view of the treatment he gave to a malicious anonymous letter? I shall continue to quote from my speech in an effort to help Fine Gael:

By inference, at any rate, it is suggested that members of the Government are involved in this kind of thing. There is an obligation on me to point out that this kind of talk is very destructive to the country at a time like this. There was some reference to the training of civilians in Donegal. I want to point out the position of the Defence Forces in this regard. The Defence Forces train only members of their own ranks, whether they be FCA or Army or Naval personnel. That is the extent of their training. This story first got currency in the Protestant Telegraph. It is time that stories of this kind cease.

Effectively, that is the contribution about which there has been all this pother.

It is not the end. We asked you to clarify the position.

I concluded my statement by saying:

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

Why not clarify them?

I can clarify the story a great deal better than the Deputy. The only matter that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien might clarify at some time at his convenience is whether his allegiance lies with Kwame Nkrumah or with Che Guevara.

(Interruptions.)

I think it was Deputy Keating who made some snide and dirty slanderous suggestions the other night regarding the funds from which these guns were allegedly paid. I want to say that during this process I knew nothing whatever about bank accounts in Baggot Street, Clones or anywhere else. After the affair had become public I discovered the actual source of some of the funds. However, during the whole process I knew nothing whatever about it. But it is plain to me there was some kind of an arrangement to import and a fall guy was necessary, and I was to be this fall guy. I do not think that the country will accept that the Minister for Defence would lend his own co-operation or the co-operation of his Department to this miserable and contemptible operation of latter-day patriots who would operate behind other people's innocent backs. If there is anybody who can accept that kind of thing and operate their superrepublicanism from behind the backs of innocent fall guys, I do not think the country will swallow that. No matter how much the Fine Gael Party work on the slander campaign — I am in this House 13 years and about every two years they mount a slander campaign; this is by no means their first corruption campaign but on this occasion their guns are turned on me — I want to tell you, and tell you very definitely that if you think you can frighten me with your shouts and insults and slanders of one kind or another you have another guess coming. If you think you can destroy the Fianna Fáil Party you have even a bigger guess coming to you. The strength of the Fianna Fáil Party does not lie on these benches. It is among the ordinary people of Ireland and I told you what their instinctive reaction was to the dangers in which they saw their party in May last. If you think, like Deputy M.P. Murphy, of making preparation for the next coalition — whatever way the Deputy Justin Keating attitude to the EEC and the Fine Gael attitude to it will be worked out, and I have no doubt it will be worked out — you have yet to deal with the Fianna Fáil Party machine and the Fianna Fáil Party machine is the people of Ireland and I have confidence in them. A Cheann Comhairle, I trust I have exploded the unwarranted and dastardly charge made against me by Deputy Liam Cosgrave. I acquit him personally. As I have said before, basically he is a decent little man but I would not so describe some of the people who are behind him. They have failed totally to demonstrate what they set out to demonstrate. So far as I am concerned and so far as their resolution is concerned, I am staying here.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The great tragedy of Deputy Gibbons is that every time he opens his unfortunate mouth he only makes a bad situation worse. The best thing that Deputy Gibbons can do to preserve his own honour and the standards that should be observed by all people in public life is to resign. Perhaps the only reason Deputy Gibbons has not resigned is because part of the sordid burden which led certain of his comrades to the dock was that, having turned informer, he would not be let down by the man to whom he informed.

(Interruptions.)

We shall see in the next few weeks the terms of the conspiracy which is being conspired. Ever since the three Fianna Fáil dissidents left the Fianna Fáil Party meeting last week after midnight saying they would not vote for the Taoiseach and for his Ministers, we are just waiting for the moment when the inevitable happens, when Deputy Lynch, having a diplomatic illness or other ailment of that nature, hands over his seal of office and thereby Deputy Gibbons will lose his ministerial post without Deputy Jack Lynch sacking him. Then those who seek the Taoiseach's blood and Deputy Gibbons's blood will have it and some new person will be offered as the agreed candidate for these people within Fianna Fáil whose hatred for the Opposition is nothing to the depth and extent of the hatred which they bear for one another.

Exactly six months ago today, on 3rd May, when the Taoiseach came into the House and announced the resignation of the first of the names involved in the disarray of the Fianna Fáil Cabinet, Deputy Cosgrave asked: "Is this just the tip of the iceberg?" and the Taoiseach replied: "I do not know what the Deputy is talking about". Well, he knows now, the Fianna Fáil Party know now, the country knows now, that sailing on the sea of Ireland is an iceberg which can crush our people because crushed and depressed and frightened and bewildered they are today; and instead of destroying this iceberg of conspiracy, the Taoiseach is endeavouring still to keep it down in the water so that only the tip can be seen on the surface.

Therefore, it is not the passing fortune of any group of politicians which is at stake in Ireland. It is our whole system of democracy if by that we mean the right and the ability of the people to select the Government they want to carry out the policies they believe in. That is not what we have at the moment. Even the people who voted for Fianna Fáil have not got a Government which they trust, a Government united in their policies who will carry out the policies which they were elected to carry out. We have indeed a Government who announced a proposal last month as being their policy but which they changed three days later and which they changed again four days later.

We have a complete breakdown in the whole machinery, purpose and morality of the Government and it is therefore understandable that our people should have feelings of great frustration. But perhaps this terrible blight which our nation has will have been justified if it brings the awareness that it is only through the ballot box that an Irish Government can be elected, that it is only through the ballot box that standards of morality in Government can be dictated by the people.

Those who elected Fianna Fáil, or the vast majority of them, thought they were electing a Government which would be in keeping with the best traditions of what public life ought to be. They now know to the contrary, but they know also that through the ballot box they have the changing of that Government at any time the Taoiseach will unwillingly allow the people to exercise that opportunity which he knows they would certainly exercise against Fianna Fáil.

There are people asking what will replace the Fianna Fáil Government, whether it will be Fine Gael, an inter-Party Government or what Deputy Haughey, from his mansion in the wealthy suburbs of Dublin, described as chaos. One thing is certain: nothing will ever be the same again. Whenever the election comes, whether this week, next week, next year or in two years, nothing will ever be the same again in this country. The grip of Fianna Fáil has been broken. They have now come back to the roots, corrupt, detesting one another as they detested those who were against them 50 years ago. There is, however, total, absolute slavish agreement that even when they cannot agree among themselves they have the right to rule, going from one opportunity to another.

The contribution of Deputy Gibbons tonight was pitiful. He spent the first 8½ minutes of his speech in attack, in miserable, cheap, taunting, pointless, debasing attack. Let us be fair to him. He was following the one man who is keeping him where he is, the one man who has promised he will not let him go: he was following the example of the Taoiseach who, when there were fundamental matters in relation to how Government should be conducted, on the breakdown and the collapse of the Government's credibility, came into the House and spent practically the whole of his speech when opening this debate taunting, jeering, sneering and making snide remarks about the Opposition. What trust can the country put in a man who will not rise to the occasion, who will not deal with basic principles, who will not give the people the opportunity of selecting a Government in which they can trust? The Taoiseach began by boasting he would wipe the eye of Fine Gael and Labour by putting down a substantive motion which, because of his position, he has the right to move, a motion of confidence in himself and his nominees. He boasted that by doing that he had tricked the Opposition of their right to have the position——

Please be accurate.

How despicable can the Taoiseach become? At a time of crisis, when all organs of public opinion are taxing the Government for their behaviour, all he can do is boast. It is in keeping with what we have, a Government by trickery. The Taoiseach governs by trickery. He tries to rule this House by trickery and to rule his own party by the threat of a general election. That threat alone was able to change five men who were prepared to vote against him into three men at a meeting late at night. From that meeting came the three Fianna Fáil witches. I do not know what has happened to them since. In Macbeth, Act 1 Scene 1, the first witch speaks and says: “When shall we three meet again, in thunder, lightning or in rain.” The second witch: “When the hurly burly's done, when the battle's lost or won”; and the third witch: “That will be e'er the setting of the sun.”

Do we recall the three witches when we think of the three dissidents? Together they said: "Fair is foul and foul is fair, hover through fog and filthy air."

Good theatre.

Exeunt the witches. "Fair is foul and foul is fair." People wondered at times what the Fs in Fianna Fáil stood for: fair is foul and foul is fair, hover through fog and filthy air, conspiracy with, for and against one another. This gives us no joy. It gives national regret because it is against the interests of the Irish people. Deputy Gibbons, one of the innocents——

Who is Duncan?

——swore on oath that a man who is supporting him, whom he seeks and whom the Taoiseach seeks to keep them in office was on 27th April last setting a trap to trap him. He said also, as he boasted tonight, that he still has the support of the man whom he said was doing something hooky. He spoke also in court on oath of Deputy Blaney behaving suspiciously. We all remember, in all its political and religious ramifications, the frightful evidence on oath of Deputy Gibbons when he sent 500 guns with ammunition to Dundalk. Why? In case Deputy Blaney might do something more rash. On his own admission he committed a rash, a reckless, a dangerous and an unpardonable act. He did it, he said, because he was afraid that one of his own colleagues would do something even more rash.

Is it possible to find in any part of the world, even in those countries referred to slightingly by Deputy Gibbons, any conduct on the part of any Government or member of any Government so despicable, so rash, so reckless, so opposed to the national interest and so much in conflict with the very needs of humanity itself? I do not believe there is. Neither do I believe that now or at at any time in the past has there been a Government that has acted so irresponsibly.

These, then, are the matters on which I wish to dwell, apart from the Government's mishandling of the whole northern situation and the arrangement to import arms. I shall come back to that later because some of the remarks made by Deputy Gibbons require specific reference which I will deal with by way of quotations from the Dáil debates and from the actual court reports.

The most important decision facing this nation at the present time is whether or not we become a member of the EEC. It seems to me that the Government's mishandling of one of the most vital aspects of this matter in relation to this country indicates that they are utterly unfit to lead our people to reach a right decision in this matter. When I say this I am not in any way criticising people who have expressed opposition to our entry into the EEC. We are, or should be, mature enough as a nation to consider all the facets of membership and, on weighing all the pros and cons, to make an appropriate decision. Our first discussions in relation to the EEC began with one of the most calamitous undertakings given unnecessarily, recklessly and foolishly by the then Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, Mr. Seán Lemass — an undertaking which has been given again by the present Taoiseach who now seeks our support to endorse him in his position as Taoiseach, an undertaking that was given as recently as June last by the Minister for External Affairs, speaking in Luxembourg. I speak, of course, of their declaration that Ireland was ready to abandon her traditional policy of neutrality. That was something which they did unnecessarily and without invitation because member states have never required from themselves or anybody else, as a condition of membership, that countries should abandon their neutral position, if they had such.

Neutrality is a positive virtue; war is a negative concept and a negative activity. Morality and prudence dictate that this country is neutral and should remain neutral. It was wrong and very foolish of the Taoiseach and his Minister for External Affairs to commit Ireland to abandoning a stand that is entirely justifiable and which is indeed the only appropriate one for this country to take at any time.

Hear, hear. Mr. de Valera did not do so.

Having made that mistake, they have belittled us before the member nations of the Council of Europe who accepted that Ireland was a neutral country but who then saw a grovelling, begging and slithering applicant who had not the guts to stand on its own dignity and strength and on its sense of propriety. That was fault number one, and as the weeks go on it becomes more clear that this was a crucial mistake to make in relation to Irish public opinion. The Irish public are not prepared to abandon the neutral stand which this country took as early as 1925 and which guided us in the international conflict of 1939-1945. It was General Richard Mulcahy, as Minister for Defence of the first Cosgrave Government and who later became leader of our party, who asserted Ireland's right to be neutral even if Britain or the other Commonwealth nations went to war. That has been a cardinal principle and one that has been agreed by all parties in this State. There may have been some individuals in the past who could not agree but they took the honourable course. There is no reason or justification for abandoning that policy now. It seems that the Government have mishandled the situation. They have misled the other applicant nations in the Council of Europe. Also, they have brought into the debate here something which is irrelevant, which is dangerous and which might lead the people into making a decision in the ultimate referendum which would be injurious to Ireland's interest.

The other matter to which I wish to refer is the recent statement of the Taoiseach at the United Nations when he declared our emphatic desire to use only peaceful means towards achieving the unity of Ireland. We welcome his endorsement of the stand which Fine Gael have taken always and we are glad that it should be on record in the international forum where all nations come, with the exception of China, that Ireland is committed— that all parties, or such of them as can still call themselves parties, are committed — to a policy of unity by peaceful means.

However, where we disagree with the Taoiseach is in his precipitous and presumptuous absolving of Britain from any continuing blame for the situation in the North of Ireland. The reality of the matter is that the much promised reforms, which are necessary if peace with justice is to be achieved, are not proceeding fast enough but to suggest and, in particular to suggest at an international forum, that the British are doing their best is likely only to relax the pressure which we would hope the Westminster Government would be bringing to bear on the powers that be in the north. It is necessary that these reforms be implemented without all the play acting and all the postponements that we have seen up to now. It was a mistake at the United Nations to appear to let Britain off the hook.

I do not speak with any feeling of ill-will towards Britain. Neither do I speak with any desire to rake up old disagreements with Britain, but it is necessary that we look at the situation in Ireland as we have inherited it and that we accept the problem as given to us. It is necessary that we face that problem without belittling ourselves in the process.

Of course, we appreciate that the Taoiseach was in a difficult position. He is, and still endeavours to be, head of a Government which has lost practically one-third of its membership because that one-third disagreed fundamentally with the Taoiseach in his endeavour to lead his party on a course of unity and reconciliation rather than on a course of destruction and subjugation. Therefore, he had to endeavour to make amends and to camouflage the gross errors of the people whom he had selected only 15 or 16 months earlier as Ministers in his own Government, knowing their attitudes, knowing their traditions and knowing their convictions. But why does Ireland have to be belittled and Britain absolved because the Taoiseach makes a wrong decision? That is what happened in the United Nations.

I would ask the Dáil to pause for a moment to consider how it is that the British Prime Minister, Mr. Health, the Leader of the Tory Party, prefaces every statement he ever makes on Northern Ireland with a renewed guarantee of British support for those Irishmen who refuse to work with their fellow countrymen irrespective of religious or political background? That is what Mr. Heath does. No matter what he or any other British politicians may profess about not standing in the way of Irish people if they agree to unite the reality is that as long as the British Prime Minister guarantees to support the Unionists in their intransigence they know they have no need to look to the south, they know that there will be no compulsion on them to endeavour to work out a formula, they know they can continue in their wrong doing because they will never be asked to survive on their own or to learn how to live with us.

God knows, one does not have to go to the sophisticated and difficult field of international politics to appreciate that, if there are two people involved in a row or if two people will not talk with one another, the sure way of keeping them apart is for a third party to come along and say: "Look, as long as you want to keep up that fight, as long as you want to stay apart, I will support you and maintain you". That is exactly what Britain is doing to the tune of £140 million a year. It is maintaining that separate entity. This is not at all to make little of the frightful problems which any peacekeeping force whether it be British, international or Irish, would have to face in the present highly dangerous and sad situation in the North of Ireland. As human beings we can certainly understand, particularly with the approach of winter, that standing all night in the streets being the target for petrol bombs, stones and so forth, is not a pleasant or enviable position to be in, but having said all that it is very necessary that we would say here, and that the Taoiseach would say direct to the British and in any international forum if he ever again addresses one, that Britain must realise that her interests, all Ireland's interests, dictate a unified Ireland and that the time has come for an end to the repeated declarations of the British Prime Minister to lend support to those Irish people who are not prepared to work with their fellow countrymen.

This, Sir, may have drifted somewhat from the general tenor of the debate but I felt it was necessary because to my mind these are very fundamental matters, (1) the unity of our country and (2) the question of whether or not our country will at least set out on a policy of neutrality for the future. It is because we in Fine Gael have no confidence in the Taoiseach that he has made the right declarations in these matters or is prepared to do so in the future, that we are unable to lend him support and that is why we must vote against this motion even if we had never seen the terrible scandals of the last six months.

I also want to draw the attention of the Dáil for a few moments to the pitiful plight of our forgotten people —the nearly 500,000 people who are living below the breadline, who have not got enough to provide themselves with a sufficient diet much less to put clothes on their backs and pay their rent, the aged, the poor and the unemployed who are increasing in numbers daily. Where are they while the giants fight out their battle? Where are they while the Fianna Fáil Party fight out their personal animosities and rivalries? They are forgotten. When taxation was increased last week by £21 million what was there for them? Nothing. They are forgotten and the dreadful thing is that this country is in danger once again of embarking upon decades of futile dialogue and animosity and bitterness such as accompanied the inauguration of this State. That was the case at that time due to the follies of those who now form the Fianna Fáil Party. We pray to God that now they are going to disintegrate we are not going to be set upon a course which again will leave the miserable, the poor, the little people who make up our country, forgotten, dejected and overlooked.

Last week the Minister for Finance told us that there was an increase of £3.6 million in the Budget for social welfare last year; it was to provide the standard of living of anybody on social welfare last year; it was to provide the pittance which is given to our unemployed who have increased in number since the Budget of last April. It is more than a coincidence that this increase in unemployment has gone hand in hand with the sordid conspiracies of the Government, with the lack of leadership on the part of the Government, with the confusion and disintegration of the Government and their policies. The Minister for Finance said last week that it was an illusion that rising money incomes give rising standards. That is something which we will quote to the Minister for Social Welfare whenever he introduces his Social Welfare Bill or any other proposals. We are forever having rammed down our throats a comparison in money incomes between now and 1956. But of course it is true that it is an illusion that rising money incomes give rising standards; it is a complete illusion and that is the illusion under which the Fianna Fáil Party endeavour to live and to mislead the people. We were told last week that in health there was an increase since April of this year of £3.8 million, not to provide better health services, but simply to provide for the increases in prices and costs. We think of the little people who are forgotten, the little people who have to travel on the buses. In Belfast they protest vigorously against increases but here we have the tragic situation, apparently, of many of our people now so subjected, now so demoralised that they can accept two increases in bus fares, amounting in many instances to 45 per cent or 50 per cent, since last June. Many people would call this petty and small but to my mind it is a barometer of the dejection, frustration and worry which pervades this land at present.

Of 12 European countries Ireland comes first with the greatest number of unemployed per head of the population. Our unemployment figure is 7.6 per cent. Next comes the colonels' country, Greece, the dictatorship of Greece, with 3.6 per cent and we, a free democracy, or an alleged democracy, have 7.6 per cent of our people unemployed. In social welfare, of 12 European nations we come last. We are the last in what we give. In 16 countries Ireland is the only one to have a drop in industrial production this year. Again, it is more than a coincidence, I venture to submit, that all this has happened while the Government are in a state of disarray. The country has not got a Government; it has a conspiracy occupying the seats of power. Production costs in Ireland for the third quarter of last year increased by 11.5 per cent. Our nearest rival in rising costs of production was Italy with an increase of 7.5 per cent. In strikes and industrial disputes Ireland comes pitifully at the top of the scale. In 1968, we lost 920 man days per 1,000 employed compared with 370 for Great Britain. In 1969, we lost 2,122 man days for every 1,000 people employed. We have not got the figures available yet but we know that this year the figure is infinitely worse.

So this is the scale of the Government's failure economically, socially, politically. Dare we mention the forgotten, if it was ever born, Third Programme for Economic Expansion and Social Development—the first time that they ever, in any of their programmes, mentioned social development. It has now been forgotten because the whole Third Programme is incapable of being implemented because the Government are incapable of agreeing among themselves what they want. When they agree within themselves they are denounced, contradicted and repudiated by their own party. How can the Civil Service, Government-sponsored bodies, private industry, the trade unions—anybody in the country —know what they are to do when the Government themselves are incapable, in economic, social and financial matters, of giving the kind of leadership it is essential this country should get if it is to make any progress whatsoever?

I should like to return briefly now to the matter which unfortunately has been capturing the greatest public attention—unfortunately, because it should never have arisen but, having arisen, it is proper that it should be aired. We can thank the statesmanship and patriotism of Deputy Liam Cosgrave, Leader of the Opposition, for having aired it and as a result of his action it was aired on 6th, 8th and 9th of May last in this House and it was aired in the courts and it is being aired here again. It is now clearer than ever that the Taoiseach would not have carried out his responsibility to the nation if he had not been embarrassed into doing so by the knowledge that the Leader of the Opposition knew that his Ministers were untrustworthy and that they were involved in some way or other against the safety of the State or that they were working against the Taoiseach and against Dáil Éíreann by opposing the policies which Dáil Éireann had enunciated.

I mentioned in May last, and it is with sorrow that I mention it again, that there stands undebated, unvoted upon, the motion on the Order Paper of Dáil Éireann asking that Dáil Éireann reaffirm its conviction that the unity of Ireland should be achieved only by peaceful methods. We endeavoured to have that motion debated last November—a year ago—when the northern situation was being debated but the Taoiseach would not have it. He was up to his little tricks then as now. He put down his own substantive motion. He would not allow the Dáil, he would not allow his own party, to vote. He would not give what might have been a very useful instrument in the hands of the peacemakers. He would not give them a unanimous vote from Dáil Éireann that everybody here, with the votes of the people, was committed only to a course of peace towards the solution of the division of our country. Why?

I accept the bona fides of the Taoiseach: I accept that he personally believes peace is the only course open to us and that, even if it was not, it is the only course proper for the Irish people to adopt. He is afraid of his own party. He was afraid last November. He has been living in fear of them. He was still afraid of them when he knew they were doing wrong, when, to use his own words, there were suspicions in relation to their conduct. He did nothing until he was forced into action by the Leader of the Opposition who reminded him that there was far more to the iceberg than the tip. Then he moved.

The Taoiseach now comes here and asks us once again to assert that we have confidence in him and in his Ministers when we know he has not got the unanimous support, I believe, of even his Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries in the policies which he personally enunciated—and he certainly has not got the support of the Fianna Fáil Party in these policies. On that account, how can Irishmen north of the Border, who have been unwilling to work with us in the past, trust a Government who are dependent on the support of people who would use guns to fight out issues between Irish people? That is the reality of the situation.

It may be that the Taoiseach will not long remain Taoiseach. Maybe he will dissolve the Dáil tomorrow: that may well be on the cards. We do not know. Tomorrow night, if the Dáil survives that long, we have to vote on whether the Taoiseach and his Ministers deserve our confidence. To that question we give an emphatic "No". Throughout the sorry disclosures of the past six months there has been evidence, which the Taoiseach's own view supports, that Ministers of his Government endeavoured to pervert, endeavoured to subvert, the Army, the Gardaí, the Civil Service and the Red Cross. Deputy James Gibbons, the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, repeated tonight a great deal of what he said on oath in the courts and some of which he inferred on 8th May last. I speak with charity of him and say, as Deputy Boland said earlier tonight: the jury did not believe him.

It is important that, as the Army, the Gardaí, the Civil Service and the Red Cross have been involved in the misconduct of members of the Government, we should pay tribute in this House to the manner in which the Army, and the Gardaí and the Civil Service refused to be subverted. We should applaud them for the manner in which they executed their duty impartially and in discharge of their clear obligations to the fundamental principles of democracy, namely, the rule of law as applied by the votes of the elected representatives of the people in this House. The public officials who were involved in this affair—not of their own volition but because of the efforts by their political heads to subvert them—performed their duty impeccably. They refused to turn the blind eye to wrong when personally it might have been the easier course for them to adopt. They refused to facilitate wrongdoing because they knew that what was being done or was attempted to be done was wrong. They refused to be intimidated by the majesty of ministerial office. We must recall as a vital principle of democracy and of our way of life that our Army, our Gardaí and our Civil Service are responsible to all the Irish people who express their voice through this House. It is not apparent that this fundamental principle is accepted by the Taoiseach and all members of his Government or all members of his party.

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Gibbons, made heavy weather tonight. We wondered why he was so long in the witness box in the Four Courts: now we know. It takes him a long time to deal with simple matters and, because he takes so long, he endeavours to confuse them. He quoted from column 792 of the Official Report of 8th May, 1970. He gave what he earlier described, when another Deputy was speaking, as an edited version. I will read out the full paragraph. I will indicate when the Minister commenced his quotes. I said, as reported at column 792 of the Official Report of 8th May last:

The purpose of an army is to protect a people against external and internal violence and our Army is responsible to all our people through Dáil Éireann. What then must we think of anybody who has attempted to pervert Army officers in the execution of their duty, who has endeavoured to get or persuade members of the Army to act contrary to their oath to serve Oireachtas Éireann and no other group? We must condemn such people. Such people have committed criminal offences.

At this point the Minister commenced his quote:

It is quite clear that evidence has been given to the Taoiseach which links certain names with such activities not related alone to the attempted importation of arms from Vienna but relating also to training which was given in at least one Army camp to civilians in the use of arms.

The Minister then interjected: "That is not true." I take it he was referring to my statement that evidence was given to the Taoiseach that training was given in at least one Army camp to civilians in the use of arms.

Suggestions were made by the Minister that we were taking an unholy delight in raking up all this filth. Might I just quote the next sentence to show our concern for the welfare of the nation, our anxiety that what need not be disclosed, if it would be harmful to the national interest, should not be disclosed. After the Minister's contradiction and denial of what I said that apparently there was evidence in support of, I said:

It seems that this crisis is so grave that the Taoiseach—the present one or whoever shortly succeeds him— has a clear obligation to take the whole Dáil into his confidence. There is provision in the Constitution for the holding of a secret session of the Dáil in case of national emergency. I believe that we are in such a position at the present time— that we are in a state of national emergency and if there is information available which the Taoiseach believes it would not be in the public interest to reveal he can call that secret session.

I then went on to say that we were not particularly wishful that these issues should be resolved in secret but that it was a matter for the Taoiseach, as Taoiseach, if he felt that the issues justified it, to save the nation from any harm that might be brought about by disclosures. The Taoiseach decided otherwise. He referred the matter to the Attorney General with the consequences which we now know. It was not from these benches that this matter was revealed although, as I mentioned earlier, we have not any regrets that it has been revealed, terrible and all as those consequences have been.

The Minister then went on to quote from his own speech. It is a pity he did not quote from the radio and television appearances which he made that day. Unfortunately I have not got the scripts of them but, if I remember rightly, he accused me of making allegations against him. Here I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that I mentioned nobody. I said it appeared that evidence had been given to the Taoiseach relating to an attempt to illegally import arms from Vienna and that also there was evidence of training in at least one Army camp. I did not name the Minister but even before he spoke in this House to contradict what I said, Deputy Gibbons went on radio and television to denounce me and accuse me of uttering slanderous remarks concerning him. It was he, Sir, who put the cap on himself, not I. I may have tailored the cap but he put it on, believing that it was on his head alone that it should rest.

Later that day he said he wished to deny that there was any attempt to import arms or that he was implicated in such an attempt. Be that as it may, the court has heard and the court has given its verdict. As reported at column 841 of the Official Report of 8th May, 1970, the Minister said:

There was some reference to the training of civilians in Donegal. I want to point out the position of the Defence Forces in this regard. The Defence Forces train only members of their own ranks, whether they be FCA or Army or Naval personnel. This story first got currency in the Protestant Telegraph. It is time that stories of this kind ceased.

They did not cease. The Minister's own evidence on oath in court gave the specific details and these details indicate that the Minister was a party to limited truths, if not untruths, and that the Taoiseach, by reinstating him in ministerial office and by promoting him and by appointing Deputy Cronin to ministerial office, also has been and continues to be a party to the limited truths, to the untruths and to efforts to definitely and deliberately mislead the Dáil. I propose to quote chapter and verse to prove it.

Giving evidence in court on Friday, 9th October, as reported in the Irish Times of 10th October, page 8, column 8, the Minister said in reply to Mr. Finlay that he had heard of a demand by the representatives of the Citizens Defence Committees in Belfast and Derry for training by the Irish Army and this demand was met to some extent by the process of enrolling citizens of Derry in the FCA and giving them a week's training at a fort in Donegal. I want to repeat those words because it is necessary to underline them in view of what the Minister has been saying and what he said here again today, and what Deputy Cronin has said as Minister for Defence, when they endeavoured to give the impression that nothing unusual occurred, that this was a routine recruitment of people without any investigation as to whether their addresses within the Republic were genuine. The Minister said in court that he had heard of a demand by representatives of citizens defence committees for training by the Irish Army and this demand was met to some extent by the process of enrolling citizens of Derry in the FCA and giving them a week's training at a fort in Donegal.

These were Derry citizens, mark you, citizens, Bogsiders, and they understood it. They were certain selected people. Selected by whom I wonder? Certain selected people presented themselves and requested training. They were informed that they would have to enroll in the Defence Forces which they duly did and they received their training. So far as he could recall the number who received this training was nine. They were immediately enrolled in the FCA, received their training and then went back to Derry. Asked if this course of action was stopped because of newspaper publicity, the Minister replied that the Taoiseach was on leave and "I sanctioned that on my own initiative", indicating that he was consulted before these people were recruited and received into the FCA. The Minister was consulted about whether or not it should be done and on his own initiative he said: "Yes".

Hear, hear.

Today once again he suggests that people who quote his own words and rely upon his own words, his own oath, are slandering him. It was said by a Deputy in the House who is medically qualified to speak that perhaps the Minister is not well. We would be prepared to accept that but we cannot accept that when we rely upon his own words we are slandering him unless it be that he knows his own words are perjury. Certainly we do not know. Whatever suspicions we may have we rely upon his own words where he states that on his own initiative he recruited people from Derry to get training in arms in Donegal for the purpose of going back to Derry and that that is exactly what happened. When the matter was put before him in the Dáil he denied it.

Let us be fair to him. I am prepared to quote his justification for his denial. As reported in the Irish Times of 10th October, the Minister asked if this course of action was stopped because of newspaper publicity, replied that the Taoiseach was on leave and “I sanctioned that on my own initiative”. I already quoted that. I want to go on to the next paragraph. The Minister explained to Mr. Finlay that the FCA was a local defence force and the intention behind it was to provide in each area of the country opportunities for persons to perfect themselves in the use of arms so that they might be available as a reserve force. It was a part-time organisation.

Mr. Finlay: It is not intended for the purpose of training people living outside the Republic?

Mr. Gibbons: Not strictly speaking.

Mr. Finlay: Do you agree that the enrolment of the people of Derry on your order into the FCA was an unorthodox method of achieving what you thought a proper objective?

Mr. Gibbons: Yes.

He did not deny, when the question was specifically put to him, that he recruited these people into the FCA on his own order, on his own initiative. He did it and is there to be no end to his denials, to his contradictions? Nobody has to suggest that he is a convicted liar. He convicts himself every time he opens his mouth and he is incapable of doing otherwise.

Hear, hear.

The poor, miserable fellow that the Taoiseach stands over.

Again I quote from the Irish Times of Saturday, 10th October, page 9, dealing with the evidence of the Minister in court the previous day. He was asked:

What was the point of training them in the use of guns if they were not going to get guns?

His reply was:

My chief motivation in this gesture would be to convey to them that their dire straits were perceived by us and were sympathised with by us.

He was asked:

May I take it that your purpose or idea, in permitting the enrolment of a number of citizens from Derry in the FCA, was simply to make a gesture of sympathy to the people of the Bogside?

He replied:

I think that would be accurate.

Again, no denial that it was his purpose, his idea, to permit the enrolment of people from the Bogside of Derry.

Again, he was put the question:

Did you think it was going to be of any practical assistance to the people of Derry?

The Minister replied:

My principal objective in ordering this action was to indicate to the people of Derry that they had our sympathy and the refusal of an action of this kind of ours could be misunderstood by them as a total rejection of their plight.

Again it was his order which caused these people to be trained there in arms.

This, then, is the Minister who spent the first eight and a half minutes of his speech today attacking the Opposition because they were criticising him and spent the last 18 minutes of his speech in like attacks upon the Opposition because he said they were defaming him and his family. I had not heard his family brought into this at all. It would be most unfair to criticise the family of any Member unless we knew that the family was in some way or other involved. His family have never been involved by us and if he puts that baby in his arms he can throw that baby out. We have not put it there and we will not have it suggested against us that we are unfairly criticising people who are not in this House. The Minister is here. He has answered in the House and, having answered in the House, he is accountable to the House and the House has a right to criticise him.

Before I go on to the general philosophy of Fianna Fáil, which apparently justifies this kind of misleading statement, I want to deal with two questions which were addressed to the present Minister for Defence, Deputy Cronin, in the House on the 21st May last. My esteemed colleague, Deputy P. Hogan, asked the Minister for Defence if citizens from Northern Ireland were brought into this State any time last year for special army training; on whose authority this was arranged; the extent of the operation; whether he was informed of it beforehand; whether he gave approval; and whether any financial commitments fell to be met by the State. Deputy P. Belton asked the Minister for Defence if civilians were afforded the training facilities of the FCA in Donegal recently; and, if so, what action he intends to have taken against the officers in charge of the units concerned. The Minister for Defence adopted the same line as Deputy Gibbons had attempted to justify on the 8th May last, that people were no longer civilians once they had the jacket of the FCA put on their shoulders. He said the position was explained by the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in the Dáil on the 8th instant. The Minister went on to say, and this is interesting:

While, under Defence Force Regulations, a person ordinarily resident outside the State is not, subject to certain exceptions, eligible for enlisting in the FCA, it has not been the practice of attesting officers to question the addresses within the State given by potential recruits as their place of ordinary residence.

Here, again, the great cover-up, the statement that it is not the practice to recruit people into the FCA outside the jurisdiction of this Dáil which our Constitution recognises for the time being as applying only to the Twenty-Six counties. It is not the practice and it is not the practice either to query their addresses. At column 2171 of the Official Report for the same date Deputy P. Hogan, as a supplementary, asked the Minister a perfectly straightforward question:

Is the Minister satisfied that citizens from Northern Ireland did not participate in any training activities under arms in the Republic?

The Minister replied:

I have no such information.

Deputy Gibbons acknowledged under oath in court that he ordered it, he initiated it, he directed it. He gave his motives for doing it. He then stated that the whole matter was called off when the Taoiseach got to know about it, that the Taoiseach considered it and the Taoiseach stopped it and that the nine people in question were sent back to Derry. On the 21st May with that information known to the senior officers in the Army, known to the officials of the Department of Defence, known to the Taoiseach, possibly known to senior officials of the Taoiseach's Department and known also to the man who was promoted to the position of Minister for Defence, they come out and blatantly say in the Dáil that they have no information relating to the training of citizens from Northern Ireland in arms in the Republic. They were not even asked whether they were citizens while they were training. They were not asked were they civilians while they were training. They were asked whether any citizens from the North of Ireland got training in arms in the Republic. The only honest answer to that was: "Yes". That was not the answer that was given but the Taoiseach remained silent. The Taoiseach has remained silent over all this, leaving the mugs to do the dirty work but he has appointed them, he promotes them, he keeps them in his Cabinet, he asks this Dáil and the Irish people to endorse his conduct, to say that it is all right to mislead because, according to the Fianna Fáil doctrine, you may lie if you are under attack in the Dáil.

On Saturday, 10th October the Irish Times reported the court case of the previous day and gave this evidence from Deputy Gibbons. When reference was being made to the quotation which I gave earlier of the 8th May when I said that the Taoiseach had evidence which suggested that people had been trained in arms in the north of Ireland I pointed out that Deputy Gibbons interjected: “That is not true”. He was questioned about that in court at considerable length. I do not want to go into it all. I have already indicated that the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister for Defence, were all aware that this had occurred. It was misleading to the nth degree to suggest it was not so. Deputy Gibbons was asked:

Do you think that your reply to Deputy Ryan was not something of a half truth?

He said:

I am suggesting what Deputy Ryan said was inaccurate.

So be it. My conscience is clear and I have no doubt about the view of the 12 jurymen on that particular issue or what the verdict would be by the people of Ireland if they were asked who was telling the truth and who was being accurate. Deputy Gibbons was then asked:

Would you accept that in this instance you had told the truth but only half the truth?

His reply was:

This was a Dáil debate.

He was then asked:

Is that your answer Mr. Gibbons, that one is not bound to tell the truth in a Dáil debate?

He sharply replied:

This is a Dáil debate in which Deputy Ryan and his colleagues are seeking to demolish the Government and the Government Party.

Is that not extraordinary? This is the doctrine of governmental behaviour, the guideline for governmental behaviour, which the Taoiseach stands over, that when the Government are under attack in the Dáil they are entitled to lie, they are entitled to tell half truths, they are entitled to hold back, they are entitled to refuse to answer questions. God knows we have known here for years and years that we were not getting the truth in reply to Parliamentary questions.

What has happened? Unfortunately, this is the tragedy for this country, that instead of the people seeing where the blame lies they are inclined to repudiate all the institutions of this State and to have a desperate lack of faith in them. When that lack of faith becomes all pervading, as I fear it is becoming in this country, then democracy will be destroyed overnight. Anybody last week who had the privilege of hearing Madame Helen Vlachos, the newspaper owner from Athens who refused to continue to publish her newspaper under the censorship of the colonels, would have realised just how easy it is for democracy to be overthrown and dictatorship to be installed. It happened in Greece on a normal day, on a quiet day, when there were no rumours of conspiracy and when there were no known dangers threatening the State, when everybody was at ease. They woke up in the morning to find democracy had been overthrown because some people, apparently with their own standards as to what the country should do, decided to reject democracy and to impose their will. I fear for this country. This is the kind of concern which ought to be affecting our minds tonight, a concern for the institutions of this State, and for the survival of our little State here. We could be a great little State amongst the greatest in the world but we have belittled, cheapened and ridiculed ourselves. We have demeaned ourselves to ourselves and before the world. This is an appalling state of affairs and those primarily responsible are the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and all the members of the Government.

There is one thing which makes me wonder. Have we heard everything yet? Deputy Haughey, and what he described as his fellow-patriots in court, gave evidence that, when the Taoiseach was out of town, relaxing in Cork or having his well-entitled rest, it was Deputy Haughey who was in charge. One wonders where the Tánaiste was. Why was he not consulted? Is he the boy who is left, as we suspect he is, or has been for years, the fellow who is never considered, whose views are never considered? It was not to Deputy Childers, the Tánaiste, the senior member of the Government, the man next to the Taoiseach, that Deputy Blaney, Deputy Haughey, Deputy Gibbons or anybody else went to when crisis, doomsday or some matter of dramatic importance arose. No, it was always, according to Deputy Haughey, and this was not contradicted by anybody else, to him.

We are asked to endorse as Tánaiste a man whom nobody in the Fianna Fáil Party will speak to. God knows apparently it is difficult enough for Ministers to communicate with the Taoiseach who apparently has his touchables and his untouchables. The untouchables cannot communicate with him except through one of the higher people like those who have now been dismissed. Apparently, the Tánaiste was never to be used either when he was still in town when the Taoiseach was away or even as a conduit pipe to get to the Taoiseach. Mark you, Deputy Erskine Childers, the Tánaiste, lives in my own constituency just down the road from me. If anybody is ever in any difficulty in contacting him and gets in touch with me I will be his messenger boy and drop down the road to see him. He is hardly ever out of town at weekends but apparently he was never consulted at all. His counsel was never sought. That is an extraordinary position. One wonders that the Taoiseach would have about him somebody who is apparently of such little consequence.

We come to another extraordinary episode in this sordid and frightening playacting. On the 2nd April, in common with all his ministerial colleagues who were not attending to their duties but were seeking to win a by-election to hold them in office and to help them keep their hands on the loot, Deputy Gibbons then Minister for Defence, was being transported to the constituency of Kildare in a State car when he was held up by a member of the Garda Síochána who handed him a piece of paper containing a number which he was to ring immediately. Apparently he did not know who he was to ring. He rang from the Fianna Fáil headquarters in Naas and he spoke to Deputy Blaney the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the man who was supposed to be concerned about protecting our fisheries but had not even got a rowing boat to protect them.

Deputy Blaney, since dismissed from the Government, but on whose support the Government still hope to rely, indicated to Deputy Gibbons he was going to do something rash. I wonder what rash thing Deputy Blaney had in mind to do that day. It must have been really dreadful because Deputy Gibbons, in order to stop Deputy Blaney doing something more rash, rang up the Chief-of-Staff of our armed forces and gave him a direction to move 500 guns from some safe secure place to Dundalk together with the appropriate ammunition.

This is one of the ironic twists of this situation. The Taoiseach quite recently, perhaps on his return from New York or some other place, said that the first two national priorities of Fianna Fáil were the restoration of national unity and the restoration of the Irish language. The ironic aspect of this sordid Naas episode is that the Minister for Defence decided to speak in Irish on the telephone to the Chief-of-Staff so that nobody would know what they were talking about. Here we have the Minister for Defence using the failure for Fianna Fáil's second national aim to make sure that the achievement of the first national aim is absolutely impossible in our time. Was there ever a greater condemnation of the Fianna Fáil Party, of its total failure in its two principal aims that they use Irish so that nobody will understand it in order that they can use arms against fellow-Irishmen so that they will hate the rest of the people and never unite with them?

This is just typical of the lack of thought, the stupidity, the hypocrisy of the Taoiseach and his Ministers in whom he now asks us to vote confidence. They continue to play down other opinions and attitudes suggesting that they alone are the great custodians of the Irish Celtic heritage and that without their remaining in office it would be utterly and completely destroyed.

We have not heard the end of this sorry story and we will not, I fear, hear the end of it as long as the Government remain in office. Surely it should be apparent that the Government must go. The national interest requires nothing else. There is unexplained still £99,999 9s of public money voted by this House for the relief of human distress and misery in the streets of Belfast and Derry. We do not know what, if anything, ever got it. Maybe it is as well that decimalisation has not come in for the nines might have gone on forever. All the Taoiseach would say up to now is that he was assured that none of the money voted by this House had been used for the attempted importation of arms. All we know now apparently, if we are to rely upon the testimony which Deputy Gibbons asks us to rely upon, is that some £20,000 or £30,000 of that money was certainly not used for the purpose for which it was voted by this House.

Therefore, the nation is entitled to an immediate and detailed account of all that money. We believe that all the forces of the Garda Síochána, the Army and the courts are not of themselves sufficient to get an appropriate account of this money. We voted that money on behalf of the Irish people. We voted it for the relief of human misery and distress so that people's wounds might be bound, so that the hungry might be fed, so that the unclothed might be clothed, so that those without bedding might get bedding, so that those without a roof might get a roof above them, without discrimination as to whether they were Protestant or Catholic. That was the will and the wish of our people, and I do not think there is .0001 per cent of our people south of the Border who would wish that money to be spent in any discriminatory way. We wished it to be spent for the relief of our kith and kin without regard to their religious or political convictions and that was the direction which was given.

What do we find? We find that the Irish section of the Red Cross was again subverted and perverted by the Government, by agents of the Government and Ministers of the Government, for the purpose of using that very money voted for humanitarian reasons in a way contrary to the interests of humanity and the interests of the Irish people in particular.

Our name in international circles, if it is not mud, is a laughing stock. In the United Nations, the Council of Europe, across the world, the banana republic in the Celtic mist and fog off the western shores of Europe is a laughing stock. I was in Strasbourg and in Berlin during the conspiracy trial. All the continental papers carried accounts of the evidence that was revealed one day after another. Ireland was the joke in Europe but it was a rather sick joke for the Irish people to have to hear the laughter and the statements made. You could not blame other people: "Oh, the Irish are as bad as ever they were. The stage Irishman is still alive. They are a gas lot, the Irish. How they ever survive one just does not know." This is the kind of remark that is being passed in the international corridors, and how could it be otherwise? Goodness knows we have already belittled ourselves with undertakings which were called for in relation to neutrality and by absolving the British from any continuing responsibility in regard to the northern situation. We are now in this appalling position of having destroyed practically the last vestige of our reputation and we are now on record as having used or misused the International Red Cross for the sordid purpose of buying guns to shoot people.

This is the negation of what the International Red Cross stands for. I heard the criticism offered last week of the International Red Cross that it was the great "cover-upper" because it would not condemn the Government when it saw the mistreatment of prisoners or when it saw the misuse of public funds. The only reason why the Red Cross does not do it is that the Red Cross in order to bring necessary relief to the sick, the anguished and the dying, must not involve itself in politics. It must not, even when it knows wrong to have been committed, condemn the wrongdoer, in the hope that by remaining silent it will be allowed in to relieve the victims of the wrongdoer. To use the Red Cross for this purpose is to my mind a dastardly and unforgivable act. We have shamed ourselves before the world in every activity over which this Government have any control or ought to have control.

This Government will dissolve sooner or later. Political parties, like all human societies, have their disagreements from time to time. There are the clashes of personalities from time to time. These do not matter a great deal. They may, in fact, be of benefit to the country, be of benefit to the party. But it does matter where the people who are having these disagreements happen to be at the time they are having them, and it does matter that they should not use the institutions of the State and that they should not subvert public officials for the purpose of carrying out their intrigue against one another or because they have a clash of policy even on fundamental matters.

What has happened here and what is doing most damage to the country is not that Fianna Fáil are having disagreements. I can even respect those who have opinions on this and other matters which are in total conflict with mine. One could not but have respect for Deputy Kevin Boland who took an honourable course. We have often criticised him for his intransigence, for his lack of understanding for the other person's point of view, but he at least has had the integrity, when he found himself in conflict on a matter of principle, on a matter of policy and on a matter of strategy, to leave the Government. However, because he did leave the Government and criticised the Government that he had left, he has been drummed out of the Fianna Fáil party.

This to my mind is not the worst part of it, because at least Deputy Boland is out of the Government. Even if they detest him they can proceed without him. They do not need his support— which is just as well because quite obviously they will not get it — but there are others supporting the Government; there are others still within the Government who, I believe, fundamentally disagree with the Taoiseach in his statement that force must not be used in any way in relation to the issues concerning the unification of our country or even when our people disagree.

The Opposition parties here have had their disagreements. They are well publicised. They have been thrashed out. Perhaps they are not all solved yet. This is the way in any democracy and it is a good process. But when it happens that a Government is torn by the intrigues of its members against one another, when they are perverting and subverting the institutions of the State and the people that are in them, in the Army and the Garda Síochána, then it is time to cry halt and say: "Look, boys, sort yourselves out. Come back to the Government again if the people give you the chance, but please," and this is the cry on the lips of all our people with the exception of the diehard Fianna Fáil supporters, even from the lukewarm Fianna Fáil supporters, "hand over office to somebody else while you sort yourselves out. When you have sorted yourselves out and found out who is going to win, whether it is Lynch with Gibbons, because Gibbons ratted on his colleagues, or whether it is Hillery without Gibbons, promoting the fellows on whom Gibbons ratted or whether it is somebody else it does not matter." Fianna Fáil cannot settle this dispute. It is too deep, and they know it. It is too extensive, and they know it. It has done the country immense harm, and they know it. It has done the Fianna Fáil Party a total disservice and because of that it has done the country a total disservice. Answer the pleas of our people to get out and let into office a Government which will be agreed on fundamentals, agreed in carrying out their policies and, when they have had a chance of doing so, then the people can decide whether a reformed and united Fianna Fáil Party can ever come into power again.

Deputy Dowling.

Deputy Gibbons spoke before Deputy Ryan.

Since the debate began Fine Gael have taken four hours 45 minutes, Labour have taken one hour and 50 minutes and the Government party have taken one hour and 46 minutes.

Surely, we have been operating on the basis of a fair rotation throughout the House? This emerged in a recent discussion and it would appear on the rotation principle that a Labour Deputy is now entitled to speak.

Of course he is.

The Chair will give the House that fair rotation and for that reason I am calling on Deputy Dowling.

A Fianna Fáil Deputy spoke before Deputy Ryan and a Labour Deputy is now entitled to follow.

I do not quite understand the Chair's ruling on rotation. I think I rose before Deputy Dowling. If the Chair rules that Deputy Dowling holds the floor I have to respect the Chair's ruling but would ask that I be called after him.

The Deputy must not say that.

Deputy O'Higgins has just said that Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien must not say what?

Will Deputy Andrews take himself to a debating society in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.

(Interruptions.)

The one, one, one principle has been enshrined in debates here.

That is not so.

The one, one, one principle has been enshrined in debates so far as Private Deputies' Motions are concerned and the Chair has always held to that.

Deputies

No.

I disagree with the Chair.

I appeal to the fairness of Deputies on all sides of the House. The position is, as I have pointed out, that since the debate began Fine Gael Deputies have spoken for four and three-quarter hours.

This has never arisen before.

Fianna Fáil Deputies never offered to speak.

If Fianna Fáil are ashamed to defend themselves, what can we do about it?

The position is that the Opposition have monopolised seven hours of the time as against the Government's one and three-quarter hours.

(Cavan): May I ask the Chair on which side Deputy Boland is put?

Deputy Boland has been put on the independent side.

This is a radical departure from the normal procedure of this House.

The usual procedure is party after party. Surely the Chair will agree it is not a matter of the duration of the speech? A Government spokesman is entitled to speak as long as he likes.

The Chair smiles. Is it the situation that the Government have a bad case and are ashamed?

It has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the case.

The Government have no credibility.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Dowling has been called upon by the Chair to speak. He is the Fianna Fáil Deputy who stands in the gap and is always seen by the Chair.

The Whips of the three parties came to an agreement which was registered by motion today and agreed to. If there had been any suspicion of a departure from the usual rotation I, for one, would not have made that arrangement.

The Chair is surprised that the Whips arrived at that decision because the Chair was not consulted.

That may be the case, but if this rotation is upset we shall have to look into this matter again.

On a point of order.

The Chair has already heard a point of order on this matter. The Chair has explained fully to the Deputy and if he cannot understand that the Opposition have taken up six and a half hours as against one hour fifty minutes——

A Deputy is being denied his right to speak in proper rotation and this is unprecedented. The strongest possible protest was made about this before.

At the time I indicated my willingness to yield to Deputy Dowling I was not aware of the agreement reached between the Whips of which Deputy R. Burke has just spoken.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien should be allowed to finish making his point of order.

I do not want to upset that agreement, which would be in accordance with orderly proceedings here, but I should like to assert formally my claim to speak.

The Chair would also like to point out that the debate is limited and it is the duty of the Chair, where the debate is limited, to give all points of view an opportunity.

May I respectfully ask on what precedent and on what Standing Order the Chair relies for this ruling? I am a new Deputy here. I have the rights which ordinary Deputies have and I think that these rights are being over-ridden by the Chair and, I may say so, not entirely for the first time.

This has always been the position. The Chair has always held to the one, one, one principle on Private Deputies' Motions.

The Chair did not hold to that when Deputy Boland spoke for seven hours.

The Chair well knows that the strongest possible exception was taken to this departure in the past and it is very unusual that the Chair should adopt the same procedure here tonight.

I am glad the Deputy agrees that there has been a departure in the past. I understood from some Deputies that it had never occurred before.

(Cavan): I understood the Chair to rule in the past that speeches rotated from one party to another and that the Chair was not going to depart from that.

The Chair agrees with the Deputy, but that was so far as Private Members' Motions were concerned.

(Interruptions.)

We have not had Private Members' Business for the last one and a half years.

I am calling on Deputy Dowling.

I should like to speak to the motion:

That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in An Taoiseach and the other Members of the Government.

In doing so I want to say that I am not concerned with a rehash of what took place in court or what has taken place in the Press in relation to the recent trial. I am concerned, like most other realistic Deputies, with the bread and butter issues facing this country at present. I am concerned with providing jobs for workers and ensuring a better standard of living for all our people, because it is by these things that the Taoiseach and the Government are judged. We stand on the records produced during our years in office in relation to these matters. We are well aware that no policy is an excuse for talking. That is the reason why the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party have been so vocal on this Motion of No Confidence in the Government.

When the Taoiseach introduced his motion he indicated that he was well aware the debate here would follow the line it is now following. It is important to note that at the moment, there is not a single member of the Labour Party in the House. Evidently, they have no interest in the discussions which are taking place here. The political banshees of the Fine Gael Party have been crying here for the past two days or months. We heard Deputy Ryan tonight and others today. We shall probably hear Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, who left the Chamber sulking some time ago and again tonight. We shall hear in due course the type of trash that has already been dished out today and previously. They spoke about credible alternatives, a credible alternative that has now run away from a little problem as to who was to speak. We are left with three members of Fine Gael and no member of the Labour Party. This is the credible alternative to Fianna Fáil which runs away and sulks when the position is put to them regarding speakers.

The position is clear in regard to discussions that have taken place. There may be and there are differences of opinion within our party, but these can be solved by taking a lift to the fifth floor. We shall not have to travel to Peking or to Cuba or elsewhere to solve our problems. They can and will be solved here. In regard to the Taoiseach and the Government, the policy that has been presented and endorsed on numerous occasions by the people——

I think we should have a House for this oratory. Even his own Deputies will not listen to him. Bring them in.

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

I should like to thank Deputy O'Donovan. Since I came here his main function in the House appears to be calling for a quorum.

The bell man.

Bell man for the Labour Party. The Government's policy is one on which we can look back with credit as regards industrial and social development, health and housing and other features of that policy. If we were faced with an alternative we have two members of Fine Gael here now and no member of the Labour Party — and these people say they can present an alternative Government.

Fine Gael have a policy known as The Just Society as an alternative to the Fianna Fáil policy. Transport workers and others should know of what is meant by The Just Society which will be put forward by a Fine Gael Government. During the recent election campaign we saw a letter which appeared in the paper under the heading "The Just Society" in which it was said that a bus conductor in Dublin North-West was rejected because he could not raise £300 for the Fine Gael Party. The situation is that The Just Society demands from an ordinary worker £300. Was he deprived of an opportunity of standing for Dáil Éireann because he had not got £300 or because he was a bus conductor? This is the question Fine Gael must answer. The transport workers would be delighted to know that embodied in Fine Gael policy is a demand from workers in this city for £300 or else they cannot stand for election.

This is only a down payment on their seat in Dáil Éireann which they get on hire purchase, £300 down and the balance when elected. We would like to know — it has not yet been published— what is the deposit on a Seanad seat. A worker in this city was deprived of an opportunity of standing for election because he was a worker. The excuse was that he had not got £300 to pump into the Fine Gael funds. It is now clear that workers are not required in Fine Gael; it is a lawyers' party and the people with £300 to advance are the people who will be selected in the future. This is the alternative party with an alternative policy which would debar an important section of the community from standing for election to Dáil Éireann.

We are well aware of the manner in which this policy was rejected by the people not so long ago. We had the leader of the party for the time being— I shall deal in some detail with the attempts that have been made and that will be made to dislodge him — criticising the Taoiseach some time ago for not acting and when he acted in regard to the problem mentioned Deputy Cosgrave criticised the Taoiseach for acting. So you cannot win if you are a Taoiseach of a Fianna Fáil Government so far as Deputy Cosgrave is concerned.

There was one matter in relation to the statement made by Deputy Cosgrave which was referred to tonight by Deputy Ryan, the letter which he produced in this House. Rumour has it at the moment that the letter he produced and waved in this House was obtained on the basis of a promise of promotion if the Government were toppled. Is this correct? Rumour has it that there was a promise of promotion for this person if the Government fell as a result of the free supply of information. Is this information continuing to be supplied to Deputy Cosgrave or what price is he paying for it? If it was supplied by an Irishman in an Irish service it is understandable. However, it may have been supplied by the British secret service and, if so, was the same promise of promotion made to the person who supplied this information? Without doubt Deputy Cosgrave has so many friends, as the Fine Gael Party have, across the water that there would be no difficulty in influencing the promotion of such a person. Rumour has it that this is what has taken place and I should like to know if it is correct. It is not a very creditable way for a leader to act, to wave a letter and at no time give the source of his information. He did not give it in court, when he had an opportunity of presenting the information there, but he waved it here in this House. I should like to know if Deputy Cosgrave is at this moment prepared to give this House the name of the person who supplied this information, or is he going to continue to protect a traitor, a person who divulged information for a price. What price? Is it the price of promotion? Is that the price he promised for the information? This has been said and there may be something in it. We will get to the bottom of it in due course.

Why not get to the top of it?

Maybe, from time to time, we will get additional information. This is the alternative leader who is being presented to this House. Of course, we had Deputy Ryan letting us know some time ago what happened in Fine Gael. He went into the meeting as Richard the Lion Heart and he came out as Richard the Chicken Heart. This is the Sunday Independent of 7th December, 1969 — this is the alternative government presented to this House. We will see what Richard the Lion Heart had to say before he became Richard the Chicken Heart:

Last Wednesday night I was discharging my duties as Fine Gael shadow Minister for Health in the Dáil Chamber moving amendments to the Health Bill. I was necessarily excused from the Oireachtas Party meeting which was going on at the same time in Leinster House. Without any notice to me the business of my constituency was irregularly discussed... I could have been summoned from the Dáil Chamber within 30 seconds.

They did not think enough of him to send for him. Next day, December 8th, the front bench Fine Gael Deputy, Richard Ryan, was prepared to name those involved in the alleged plot to overthrow the party chief, if they did not stop their sabotage. This was Deputy Richie Ryan:

You can identify them by their failure to attack those who have been already attacking the party and by their readiness now to rush and criticise me.

Again: "Ryan tells of canvass for Higgins." Deputy O'Higgins, the man in the gap. "Mr. Ryan's statement, the second in 24 hours, was issued in reply to remarks by Tom O'Higgins. Mr. Ryan pledged to keep Mr. Cosgrave as party leader." However, Deputy Ryan was not sent for, but he gives some indications of the hatchets that were being sharpened and the attempts to overthrow the leader of Fine Gael in May, 1971, and that has yet to come. They talk about an alternative Government knowing there is disruption in their own party. They talk about confusion in our party while there is patent disruption in their, with the hatchet men out to get at the leader, and Deputy Ryan is the man who went into that meeting threatening to spill the beans and to confront the party with the names of those who wanted to put Deputy O'Higgins in place of Deputy Cosgrave. As he said tonight: "There are still problems in our party and we hope they will soon be solved." We have some indication now of the type of alternative government the Fine Gael Party could provide. We know the type of man the leader is, accepting information from a variety of sources without telling us those sources. One does not, of course, know what the terms were. After a course of corrective training lasting several days Deputy Ryan came back into the Dáil. The doctors advised he should return to normal duties for a prolonged period. He was demoted to the back bench and, after he had purged himself, he was promoted once more to the front bench. This is the alternative government with which we are presented.

We know that Deputy Ryan, who spoke at length here tonight, was the chief architect in the destruction of Dublin City Council. He had no regard whatsoever for the sick, the unemployed and those dependent on social welfare benefits, the benefits this Government provided and increased over the years. He and the members of the Labour Party destroyed the Dublin City Council by failing to measure up to their responsibilities and by trying to ensure that the unfortunate people would not get the benefits the Fianna Fáil Government had provided for them over the years.

Differential rents.

I will deal with differential rents and everything else. By our re-affirming our confidence in the members of the Government we know we will continue to ensure that the weaker sections of our community will be protected, protected from the political vultures representing Fine Gael and Labour on the Dublin City Council, vultures who have no regard for the weaker sections of our community. We will continue to build our industrial arm. We will continue our housing programme. We will continue our agricultural policy. We will not allow these to be sabotaged again as they were sabotaged by Fine Gael and Labour in the Coalition Governments. Deputy Ryan must bear a great burden of responsibility for the dissolution of Dublin City Council. He obviously disliked the unfortunate people who were getting social welfare benefits; all he succeeded in doing was putting himself and his colleagues on the scrap heap.

I have no doubt whatever that the day of reckoning has come for Deputy Ryan. In recent editions of certain papers we have seen a photograph of a Cabinet ready to govern, the alternative Fine Gael Government. There has has been a notable omission. Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan has not appeared in the photographs. We wonder why he is missing. Is it because he spoke his mind in relation to the Germans? Is it because of the Ryan affair? Is it because he wanted to see the leader of the party toppled? I have my own ideas. Others have theirs. But this is a notable omission. Perhaps he did not arrive in time or perhaps the photographer was told to leave, but Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan is missing. They probably will not be ready to govern until they have a cabinet with Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan in it.

With regard to Deputy Garret FitzGerald, he was described as a Sherlock Holmes going around with a magnifying glass in his hand. A very apt description. I can see him with his deerstalker hat, his pipe and his magnifying glass. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries made mince-meat of some of the statements made by him and his colleagues in the course of this debate. In regard to the Labour Party I wish to say that I agree fully with Deputy Cruise-O'Brien because I think he described the Labour Party very well. He has stated that the Labour Party has been dominated for years by dismal poltroons, by spineless and gutless individuals. This is Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's opinion of the Labour Party. This is the other half of the party that is going to present an alternative government for this country.

We saw these poltroons being pushed into the Labour Party lobby last Wednesday; a fight broke out among them in the Chamber when they were instructed to vote, I take it on the instructions of the Fine Gael Whip and the Fine Gael Leader. I understand a decision had already been reached by the Labour Party not to vote against the motion concerned but they were pushed into the division lobby. When they saw that there might be an opportunity of obtaining power they decided to vote against their principles.

Are we to accept their policy which is a sick policy? The left-wing radicals have spelled it out — divorce, abortion, pill-pushing and contraception. These people have preached here on these matters time and again and have explained their policy in detail——

What has this to do with Deputy Blaney?

I know that Deputy Coughlan has his own problems with Barry and some of the others. I know Deputy Coughlan probably would not push pills too hard——

I would be pushing the guns with Deputy Blaney, though.

Once the Deputy is under the influence of his colleagues he does not know what might happen. This is the alternative that is being presented here. There are two policies: one, the Just Society that debars workers from participating in the affairs of the State, and the other people who want a sick society. We know the kind of society that would be developed if the Labour policy was implemented. We would have sexy films, made and shown to suggest ideas and to titillate desires——

Would the Deputy mind repeating that? That should be gone out of the Deputy's head a long time ago. How old is the Deputy?

I am a normal individual. I am only repeating what the Labour policy would be.

The Deputy is making a joke of this House.

The people would be asked to decide if they wanted a combination of these two policies and, no doubt, both of the parties would have to come together and present their policies to the public as they did before. I am quite certain when they go before the people they will get their answer, as they did in the past.

The documentation of the Labour Party says that it is essential to open up the minds of the children. It is their aim to contaminate the minds of the children. One can see now the type of society that would be developed by the Labour Party if they had power. Apart from the confiscation of land, the nationalisation of the firm of Guinness and the various other schemes they indicated they were prepared to advance——

On a point of order, Sir, I am new to this House and would ask you to advise me. I was under the impression that when direct quotations were made from documents they were tabled in the House?

If quotations are made from documents, that is so, but not if a Deputy is giving his own résumé.

If Deputy Thornley wants a copy of the Labour Party policy we will see that he gets one. It is obvious that the Deputy does not understand or know the contents of the Labour Party policies as outlined in their little blue book. We know that policy as stated in the policy document and if the Deputy wants direct quotations we will get them for him. We have had many interruptions here over the last few hours from Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, Deputy Murphy, Deputy Thornley and others. I want to look at the alternative for this country if the Labour Party got into office. The Labour Party have one great advantage over the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Parties and that is that they have a visiting psychiatrist to meet them every day and to see that they are in a fit condition to come into the House. I feel that one such psychiatrist is not enough. They should try to get another to correct the ailments which exist among them. At the moment they are not fit to be a government and they are fortunate in having a visiting psychiatrist available to them.

(Interruptions.)

Interruptions are disorderly.

I remember the time when the Labour Party had two seats in my constituency. I am confident that they are a forgotten force there now and the activities here last Wednesday when they were put into the Lobby by the Fine Gael Party assured me and others that they had joined, behind the backs of their conference, with Fine Gael. They must do what the Fine Gael members tell them. Deputy Dr. FitzGerald spoke to the Labour Party members prior to the vote and to the Labour Party Whip who was one of the tellers on that occasion. It is quite evident that no longer can anyone have any confidence in the type of set-up which exists. They forsook their principles to ensure that they would vote with Fine Gael. We had that super-Socialist from Cork, Deputy M.P. Murphy, who projects in Cork the image of a super-Socialist who stands for everything that the Labour Party stand for — and he must accept the lot including divorce, abortion, contraception, et cetera— but he tells the people in Cork during his election campaign that those policies are only for the Dublin Labour Party and do not apply in Cork. We have the Labour Party Member of the House who subscribes in full to the Labour Party policy within the House but in Cork tells his constituents that the policy is only for the Dublin lads. That would indicate that Deputy Thornley, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, Deputy Browne, Deputy Cluskey, Deputy O'Donovan and others accept this situation. I will not say the Deputy is two-faced but he surely speaks with divers tongues. I would protect the Labour Party people from Deputy M.P. Murphy. It is terrible that he should attack his Labour Party colleagues in this fashion.

There is one man at the moment who should have a word with Deputy M.P. Murphy who comes to Dublin to say one thing, while saying another to his constituents in Cork. At least the Fianna Fáil Deputies say the same things in Dublin, Cork, Galway and elsewhere. We have only one acceptable policy for the people and this has been endorsed on many occasions. We have been presented with a "credible alternative" and this is the credible alternative. Deputy M.P. Murphy tells us there will be one set of rules for the Cork people and another set for the Dublin people and the set for the Dublin people will not be too good at all. There is only one Labour policy and that is the policy which Deputy M.P. Murphy supports as do Deputy Tully and other Members here in this House.

What about Donegal?

I believe the Deputy may need protection in the future. He is giving a bad impression of Deputy Thornley, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and Deputy O'Donovan. Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien spoke about the poltroons of the Labour Party, as he described them. I fully endorse what Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien has stated. I would not like to dwell at length on the super-Socialist from Cork. There are other members of the Labour Party who are entitled to corrective training as well. I listened with interest to Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and some of his interruptions of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and others. I would like to speak about some of his activities. There is a publication in the US called Human Events in which some time ago a person called Alice Winder said of a function which the Deputy attended that they were all “drunk with success” and could not care less about what the Kremlin said because “they figured they were destined to be world leaders”. This is the kind of company that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien keeps.

It is a type of McCarthy-like smear.

(Interruptions.)

I do not question Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's right to mix with the type of people who were present at the Civil Liberties Committee last December but I say that I wonder if his activities here are just a front for this revolutionary body. The Deputy was the first speaker. He was referred to as a recently-elected Member of the Republic of Ireland Parliament and said that violence was the only way to ensure moderation.

On a point of fact I was quoting something said by the late Mr. William O'Brien, the former MP.

With this violent group in the US we have a Deputy who has been mixing with their pretty bad company. I would ask responsible men to exercise some authority over this man. I could imagine a person getting injured when mixing with that type of group. It could happen in Belfast. One never knows where there is violence——

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's poetry on "7 Days" and his interruptions here give one a clear picture of the type of man he is and of the company he keeps. I would ask responsible men like Deputy Stephen Coughlan to ensure that Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien is kept on a tight leash in future. He will get into trouble otherwise. We are wondering whether his activities here are a front for this group of people who will take over the United States because there were some funny individuals at the function I spoke about and many funny things were said in relation to the US Army which I would not like to put on the record of this House. The language used at that particular function and recorded by this lady was something which would not be tolerated here. It is a type of language I would not use.

I wish to quote now from the Sunday Press of 11th October, 1970. There was a heading “Is Thornley afraid of Socialism?” The article went on to say that Deputy Dr. Browne said that he considered that his attitude was more honourable than that of Deputy Thornley who suggested that the Labour Party should oppose the vote against the Taoiseach but at the same time make sure that enough Labour Party Deputies absented themselves from the House lest the Government be defeated and there would be an early election.

I denied that statement, as the Deputy knows.

This is the type of individual Deputy Thornley is. I accept Deputy Dr. Browne as an honourable man who has been in this House for a number of years although I disagree with his policies from time to time. I disagree with some of the statements but I do not think anybody can point a finger at Deputy Browne and say he tells lies. He is not afraid to say what he thinks or to indicate events in the past. It is stated in this report that Deputy Thornley suggested we should oppose and vote against the Taoiseach.

The Deputy said that before.

We know all about this type of nonsense that Labour have been throwing into debates. They have no policy whatever. Any opportunity that presents itself is good enough for them——

When will the Deputy finish?

Not for a long time. When an opportunity presents itself I will not be deprived of expressing myself in this House. I was saying that that is the type of member Labour have. Apart from Deputies Murphy and Cruise-O'Brien, there is another honourable man coming in now.

I thank the Deputy.

The Deputy did not go into the lobbies and vote for them. However, there is no honour among the others or in Fine Gael — there is the secret pact between closed doors.

On a point of nothing in particular — this is a very funny music hall term——

Deputies

Down, down.

I am leaving the House, which men died to establish, rather than listen to any more of this.

Deputies

He cannot take it.

This is the credible alternative to Fianna Fáil. They are the men who do not want divisions, who do not want to vote, who ask their colleagues to stay away, but who want to be recorded as opposing. This is the game with them. They can be assured that we will go into the lobbies tomorrow night and that there will be a substantial majority in favour of the Taoiseach, and Deputy Thornley may rest assured that it will not be necessary for him to ask any Labour Deputy to stay away.

What about your Deputy Blaney?

I come now to the Sunday Press of 4th October. There is a report which states: “Deputy Lynch has clearly emerged as a leader among leaders.”

Is that Gibbons?

This is Deputy Browne.

Boland said it.

The heading states: "Why Noël Browne is wrong." It is by Dr. David Thornley.

What did he say about us?

That is what Deputy Browne said.

It is selective quotations.

There is a meeting of your backbenchers outside. Everything will have changed by tomorrow night.

We know Deputy O'Leary has been sent in here to disrupt a very orderly discussion.

Deputies

What?

It has been orderly.

I often heard better at Puck Fair.

Interruptions must cease. Deputy Dowling to continue and to address the Chair.

They are upsetting me. I am sorry Deputy Thornley has left the House because there were references in this article of 4th October which I should like to remind him of. He stated this:

Early in 1969 I was asked by the Labour Party. I had been previously offered a Fine Gael nomination by Deputy Gerard Sweetman but, despite my admiration for Garret FitzGerald and other Deputies, I was unable to accept the invitation.

So he went from the Just Society to the sick society. Anything at all to get into Dáil Éireann. Anything at all was good enough so long as he could sit here. He is not concerned about policy. A substantial effort was made by Fine Gael to get him a place in Dublin South West but despite his admiration, not for Deputy Sweetman but for Deputy FitzGerald, another old Coalitioner like himself, he did not accept. Policies and principles were not important. I should like to say a number of things here to Deputy Thornley but it would not be fair because he has left the House.

Another man who disrupted proceedings today is Deputy Desmond. I do not know why he is not here. They have sent Deputy O'Leary here to heckle. Deputy Desmond is another of the heckling brigade who is probably listening in on the intercom. He is another who has presented himself as an alternative to Fianna Fáil. Of course, Deputy Desmond got his answer from Deputy Coughlan when the latter referred to him as a jumped up, political pipsqueak. Deputy Desmond tries to interfere in everybody's constituency. We can see here the difference between a down-to-earth man like Deputy Coughlan and a pipsqueak like Deputy Desmond whose heckling contributions in this House are such that no party could be proud of. Deputy Coughlan was right in keeping him out of his constituency. Otherwise he might have brought along some of his football friends with whom he marched some time ago.

Labour Party policy has been mentioned briefly here tonight. There are certain aspects of that policy other than those mentioned. We have had a motion put down by them in relation to the direction of labour — that is the sending of workers to any part of the country. In other words, Irish workers would be dictated to in the same way as are Russian workers and workers in other occupied countries. We have heard also from them about the confiscation of land, about the taking-over of Guinness and other firms but there is yet another aspect of their policy and that is that they would dictate the type of games we might attend, whether we might attend Croke Park, Lansdowne Road or Dalymount Park. This is the party that is offering itself as the credible alternative.

Which side is the Deputy on?

I am in favour of the Motion that Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Taoiseach and the other Members of the Government. I have always stated openly where I stand. I take my stand according to my conscience and according to what is right.

Is the Deputy for Haughey or for Lynch?

I have already said that I am in favour of the Motion before the House.

We cannot continue on this question and answer basis.

The Deputy should not allow himself to be led astray. The Minister for Finance has done many things of which the Deputy has no knowledge.

The Chair has already pointed out that these interruptions are disorderly.

If Lily the Pink has come in here in an effort to upset me, he will not succeed. This, then, is the credible alternative——

Will the Deputy be a Breslin man or a McGlinchey man?

Deputy Coughlan must cease interrupting and allow the debate to continue.

Apart from these aspects of the Labour Party's policy that I have mentioned — a policy that is a combination of the sick society and the just society — there are yet other aspects that most of us would find appalling. For instance, they would go so far as to dictate to Aer Lingus whom that company might or might not carry on their aeroplanes and if by any chance people whom the Party might not like managed to board a plane, they would direct that such person's baggage would not be handled. Of course there are different ideas in Limerick among the Labour Party from those there are in Dublin. However, Deputy Coughlan put the political pipsqueaks in their place and has ensured that democracy functions in Limerick with the result that the people of Limerick are free to attend whatever type of games they wish.

What will be the Deputy's stand in relation to the Donegal by-election?

May I again remind the Deputy that I support fully the Taoiseach and the Members of his Cabinet?

Is that what the Deputy thinks of Deputy Boland?

These interruptions must cease.

This credible alternative, if elected to power, would also propagate filth. The question tonight is not whether they want the Taoiseach out of office but, rather, this gives them an opportunity to get rid of Deputy Corish and the same applies to Fine Gael who are anxious to be rid of Deputy Cosgrave. Deputy Ryan has already indicated, as reported in press statements, that there is a plot afoot to get rid of Deputy Cosgrave and that this plot, like an insurance policy, would mature in May of 1971. There are still differences within that party. Nobody has been expelled, which means that those who are hatching that plot are still active. They may be watched but, no doubt, they will succeed. Therefore, is it not time that Deputy Cosgrave packed his bags and got out? By availing of this opportunity now, these people would succeed without having to expose themselves to the public.

Deputy Corish is in a somewhat different position. He is there by toleration. He has already stated that he would be prepared to go to the backbench but he will go there anyway if some of the boys have their way. I was speaking some time ago to a member of the Labour Party, a "leftie," and he said in relation to Deputy Corish: "Well, he presents a nice, respectable front for the Labour Party and he will stay for as long as we want him."

What kind of "leftie" would talk to the Deputy?

Is not the Deputy speaking to me now? At any rate, it is apparent that both of those men will be got rid of. Is it not an insult to the people who supported Labour to hear that their leader is there simply because he presents a nice, respectable front for the party?

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 4th November, 1970.
Barr
Roinn