Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1976

Vol. 295 No. 5

Nomination of Member of the Government: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann approves the nomination by the Taoiseach of Deputy Oliver John Flanagan for appointment by the President to be a member of the Government.
—(The Taoiseach.)

I see this appointment as an attempt by the Government to try to bolster up the constituency of Laois-Offaly, because it is a constituency, along with many more, that has been completely let down by the Coalition. I understand that Deputy Flanagan is today in Mountmellick turning a sod for a proposed advance factory. Three years ago the National Coalition turned three sods, in Edenderry, Tullamore and Birr. The factories were erected by the IDA but are now unoccupied. There is a great deal of talk about all kinds of industry coming to the area, but that is all we hear; nobody is moving in, and all this has cost the taxpayer over £500,000.

In Offaly last year the net loss of jobs was approximately 600, and no new industry has been attracted there since the Coalition came into office. I have no hesitation in saying that that is the reason why they are now giving a ministerial appointment to Laois-Offaly. However, they will not hoodwink the people of Laois-Offaly. It is a constituency in which you must deliver the goods and there is no use in just talking about this, that or the other. The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Flanagan has in the past been a great man for kite-flying but as he will be in the Cabinet after we have gone through the lobbies here, I presume he will have to adhere to collective decisions taken by the Government. I do not know whether he will or not; knowing Deputy Flanagan, I realise he could go anyway or everyway. In any event, Laois-Offaly will be expecting from him some radical changes in the policy of the Government, and also in regard to hospitalisation in Offaly, they will be expecting a change of heart by the Government on this important issue. The County hospital in Offaly is being downgraded and turned into a community hospital, better known as a home for the aged.

That is hardly relevant on this issue.

When the proposed Minister comes to the constituency everything will be relevant and people will make it known to him what is relevant. The Taoiseach and all members of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties must know that we have them on the run, and this appointment is the last effort to bolster up the Coalition before they head for the country in the New Year. Before the last election the Coalition candidates said what they were going to do and what we did not do. The record will show that in Laois-Offaly we achieved more in industrial development in our last three-and-a-half years of office than has been achieved under this regime. The Parliamentary Secretary may laugh if he likes. He might not like to hear the facts, but that is the situation. The Government have been trying to deceive the people in a number of speeches over the last few months in regard to taxation, saying what they will do when it comes to the budget. Running into an election year they will give a sop here and a sop there.

I do not intend to deal with the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Flanagan, from a personal point of view, but I would like to know what he will do for the constituency of Laois-Offaly when he is appointed Minister for Defence. This area is going through a very bad time from the point of view of employment. Thousands of school leavers are unable to get employment anywhere. They are coming to the labour exchange daily and the Government now find themselves unable to finance the Bord na Móna third programme. This constituency, and especially Offaly, has a vast amount of bog and it is due to the amount of bog that the roads there are in such bad condition. The Government were supposed to be committed to this expansion programme for Bord na Móna, but they cannot find the capital for this purpose now. The people of Laois-Offaly will be looking to the new Minister for Defence to do something about that. There is no point in digging sods here and sods there; when you erect the factories, you must be in a position to employ people in them.

This Government have failed to do that. The incentives offered have been unattractive. The grant available in Laois-Offaly at the moment is around 25 per cent. That is no good. The Parliamentary Secretary is not here now. He is down in Laois being congratulated by everybody. Nevertheless, this will be on the record. He must take note of what I am saying and bring back my views to his colleagues in the Cabinet so that they will be made aware of the position in the constituency of Laois-Offaly. I am sure they are aware of the situation in that constituency because the Taoiseach would have not made this appointment if he was not so aware. I see it as a bolstering-up job to try to hold on to the third seat. I do not think they will be able to do that because the people of the constituency will realise that it is the last post in an effort to pretend that the constituency is getting something. After almost four years in Government it is late in the day to be doing that. The people of Offaly will be looking for a change of heart in regard to hospitalisation in the county. They view that situation with great concern and I have no doubt they will be looking to the new Minister to bring about a change in that regard. There is little use in him saying that the hospital will continue as it is for a number of years because it is being downgraded daily.

That is out of order in this debate.

I have known Deputy Flanagan for many years and I get on well with him in the constituency, as I do with all the other people there but we differ in our political views. When he was a Government backbencher he was able to go anyway and everyway but I wonder will he continue to go anyway and everyway now. It will be interesting to see how he will go. I hope he does not set up the Department of Defence for a propaganda exercise. Before he got this appointment he was the mother and father at propaganda and he does not need the Department of Defence, although that Department may be able to help him out in anything he does not know in the propaganda line. We have heard nothing but propaganda for the last two weeks about his appointment; he was being appointed and he was not being appointed. The people in the constituency did not treat that with too much concern but they are now wondering what he will deliver. He will be judged by his performance as a member of the Government. As a backbencher, he could get up outside the chapel gates and say he was not responsible for things; that if he was there it would not have happened but he cannot do that now. He will have to tell the people the truth and the truth is that he will have to accept collective responsibility for decisions of the Government.

I am not aware whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government knows what collective responsibility is, only time will tell, but he will not be able to go this way, that way and the other way. He will have to stay with the Cabinet as a team. It will be interesting to see how he will try to snooker himself out of a corner when a decision is being taken, even if it affects the constituency of Laois-Offaly. When the hospital in Tullamore was being downgraded he said that if he was there it would never have happened. It is not too late yet; he might be able to change the thinking of the Government on this issue. I would not be surprised, coming up to election time, if he threw out some kind of red herring. It might not be too good but he would be hoping that the people would say: "Oliver is after giving us something". If that happens, the people of the constituency, a very intelligent electorate will look at the proposal closely.

I wish Deputy Flanagan well and I hope he will uphold the dignity of the office. I always got on well with my political opponents and when it came to dealing with the affairs of the constituency we always did the best we could for our people. It will not be long until those people get an opportunity of passing judgment on him. He should remember that he will have to deliver the goods; nothing else will do in Laois-Offaly.

I should like to join with Deputy Connolly in congratulating Deputy Flanagan, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government, on his appointment as Minister for Defence. The appointment of a Deputy of any constituency as a Minister confers an honour on that constituency. We take it that the constituency is put in a privileged position and from that point of view, on behalf of my constituents, I welcome the change of mind by the Taoiseach. The appointment of Deputy Flanagan indicates that the Taoiseach has now recognised the importance of that constituency. For a considerable time the constituency enjoyed recognition in that capacity and quite an amount of progress was made as a result. While I was not surprised at the appointment, many of my constituents, not of my political thinking, were surprised in 1973 that the Taoiseach frowned on the constituency, the only one to return three Fine Gael Deputies. They were surprised that the Taoiseach did not honour the constituency by the appointment of one of its Deputies as a Parliamentary Secretary in spite of the fact that Deputy Flanagan had been a Parliamentary Secretary in a previous inter-Party Government. Subsequently, the Taoiseach appointed Deputy Flanagan as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and there was rumour at that time that over a period Deputy Flanagan appeared to be a disgruntled member of the Coalition back benchers support. We were extremely conscious of the fact that over the first couple of years of the Coalition, while by-elections were being fought reasonably successfully from the Coalition point of view, all the campaigns suffered from the absence of Deputy Flanagan. He was conducting himself outside the House like a dog with a sore tail. His contribution at party level to the Coalition Government's efforts at that time was not very pronounced.

In saying this, I am expressing views that were expressed within the constituency in regard to the treatment the Taoiseach then meted out to Deputy Flanagan. We did have the change some 12 months ago when Deputy Flanagan was belatedly appoined Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government. Rumour had it then that the appointment arose because of a demand or threat from Deputy Flanagan to the Taoiseach. I mentioned this matter in the House previously and the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Flanagan, was present. He told me that I was repeating something that had been mis-stated in the newspapers and that the matter was sub judice and that a case was being brought for defamation of character. I have never heard of that case since, but I did repeat in the House what I gathered and what had been said in the papers, and I was called upon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government to withdraw it because of the fact that it was incorrect. I believe it cannot have been correct because I cannot imagine the Taoiseach being so jellylivered as to proceed to make the appointment as Minister for Defence having been forced to make the previous appointment.

Speaking as a representative of the constituency of Laois-Offaly I feel this should be a worthwhile appointment from our point of view, but I am worried about it from the national viewpoint. Deputy Connolly has spoken of the fact that the Government are, and have always been expected to have collective responsibility. I have been rather surprised during the day by interventions by the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in regard to the confining of the debate strictly to dealing with the qualifications or suitability of the nomination for the post of Minister for Defence. I do not challenge the Chair's rulings but the motion before us seeks approval of the nomination by the Taoiseach of a member of the Government. The Member is not named and the portfolio being offered is not stated in the Order of Business. Despite what the Press has been telling us for the past month and what Deputy Flanagan himself has been telling us for the past fortnight, it was only this morning that we became officially aware of the identity of the nominee for the post of Minister for Defence. The Taoiseach suitably chose to overlook informing us as to whether the Parliamentary Secretaryship vacancy is to be filled. I presume he cannot do that until the House has approved the appointment of the new Minister.

According to the Order of Business what we are really talking about is the nomination by the Taoiseach of a member of the Government. I accept the rulings of the Chair but, you see, the problem is—I am sorry to use the words "you see"; I do not intend it as any reflection on the next Minister for Defence who introduced the usage into the House—that every Minister in the present Cabinet appears to have a wide field in which he can make pronouncements. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, except in this House, says very little about his own Department, but outside he is the greatest expert we have on foreign affairs, economics and Northern Ireland difficulties. I am in no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Flanagan, is unlikely to confine himself to dissertations only on the Department of Defence when he becomes Minister. We saw that he circulated a speech last Wednesday in regard to a function he was asked to attend, the opening of a school. The following day, by way of explanation, he found it necessary to arrange for the Government Information Service to issue a statement on his behalf. Again I have to say, and it is worth repeating: this is the only successful section of the present Government. It is crowned with success in its achievements, and both its directors have been wonders. More than anything else, it has kept the Government's head above water even if the country's economic situation cannot be kept above water, but I am not allowed to refer to that.

It is unfortunate that in debating this appointment the Chair should be continually reminding us to confine our remarks to the suitability of the appointment, because if the debate were allowed to embrace the overall mismanagement of the Government, Deputies on this side of the House, who are the only Deputies contributing, would not have to concentrate so much on criticism of the nominee for the post. We are forced into this. When one tries to do some research on the background of the new Minister for Defence it is very difficult to be as restrictive in one's remarks concerning him, as I wish to be. The Minister-designate has been honoured to be a Deputy for the constituency for the past 33 years. I am in the position of one representing the same constituency—second senior man, if you like—for the past 15 or 16 years —half his time and it would be most improper if, in reflecting the views of the majority of people in my constituency up to now, I were to say that he was not fit to be a Minister. I do not say that.

The great expectations the people had in 1972 are being shattered. They have now discovered that the galaxy of stars was only a mirage and we are now back to the fundamentals. The Taoiseach on the eve of an election looked around for a man to fill a vacancy forced on him by circumstances. He was looking for a down to earth individual, a man who had succeeded in getting his message across to his constituents over a long period, and he chose the new Minister for Defence.

I re-echo Deputy Connolly's remarks that we expect—and it is an expectation that can be justified by the people of Laois/Offaly in the light of 33 years of glorious promises—the new Minister will deliver. I want to say categorically that I wish he had been chosen by the Taoiseach to fill an alternative position. One can ask what has Laois/Offaly to do with Defence? What benefits will accrue to his constituents because of his new position? I do not look at this problem from that angle because once he is in the Cabinet he will be able to fight our cause.

We have heard a lot from him at local level. He has fought to have the disadvantaged areas scheme extended to our constituency. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries extended that scheme last week. If that decision had been deferred until next week, the new Minister might have been able to further influence him at the next Cabinet meeting.

I found it remarkable that the Taoiseach remained mum. Of course, I should not have found it remarkable because that is his usual trance situation. For the last fortnight the Press were speculating and Government spokesmen were saying that the appointment was being made the following Wednesday. When it became apparent some months ago that the Taoiseach had decided to send a Minister as a Commissioner to Europe, it was obvious that there would have to be a replacement. Without reflecting on the Parliamentary Secretary at present in the House or on any of his colleagues, the House and the Press logically expected the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach to be the Taoiseach's nominee for this post. I am pleased this position was given to Deputy Flanagan because I am selfish so far as my constituents are concerned. It is like the county councillor in the old days who was canvassed for the rate collecting job by the potential rate collector and the county councillor, in a consoling way said "If I cannot do you any good, I won't do you any harm". From that point of view I am pleased Deputy Flanagan has been appointed, because I am sure he will not do any harm to the constituency although it is hard to visualise how as Minister for Defence he will be in a position to do a great deal of good.

I am sorry he is not in this House to listen to my contribution and that of Deputy Connolly. Maybe I have my priorities wrong and he has his priorities right. This motion was introduced this morning at 10.30 a.m. by the Taoiseach. He asked the House to approve the nomination of Deputy Oliver John Flanagan. Last Thursday I received a letter from the IDA inviting me to a sod cutting ceremony in Mountmellick today for the building of a new advance factory. The following morning as Opposition Whip I rang the Government Whip. The Parliamentary Secretary was not available but I spoke to his private secretary. I drew his attention to the fact that this motion was being taken today. I assumed that Deputy Flanagan would be nominated and we would debate this matter today. I thought such a discussion today would be inappropriate for two reasons. I have indicated consistently that a Minister should not look for an official pair unless he is on official business. This sod-cutting ceremony was arranged between the Minister and the IDA. It could have been arranged for last Monday or even next Friday. There was no necessity to have it today.

I feel that my responsibility as a Deputy is to be present in this Dáil, unless I am sick. I am pleased we will have a new advance factory in Mountmellick. I am hoping, with the co-operation of the new Minister, that even before this factory is completed he will do something about getting industries into the empty advance factories in Portlaoise, Tullamore and Birr, although I gather from the IDA that some progress is being made there.

Tomorrow morning the people will get the impression that this new Minister is doing a double job. Although we are electing him here, he is not present because he knows there are enough feet to get him elected. This is the day he has waited for for 33 long years and one would expect him to be sitting behind the Taoiseach. I have a pride in my position. If the Leader of my party was back as Taoiseach and appointed me as a Minister I would take pleasure in being here to hear the announcement.

Of course Deputy Flanagan did not bother to come up here to hear the Taoiseach, and I begin to wonder if the Taoiseach is in touch any longer. Deputy Flanagan is privileged to be in Mountmellick today cutting a sod, but he would have been more privileged if he had arranged with the Minister for Industry and Commerce to have the ceremony postponed until Friday when we would have been all free and if he had come up here to hear the Taoiseach's announcement. If I had been nasty enough—Opposition Whips have certain powers—to let the debate collapse at midday when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach frantically came to my room to say there was nobody beside Deputy Dowling in the House, we would have had a position——

You would have had a vote.

Since I came to the Dáil in 1961 I have not had occasion to be a great admirer of the incoming Minister for Defence and I do not expect him to give me any reason in the future to be a great admirer of him. I welcome the appointment because it may be of benefit to the constituency and because Deputy Flanagan has waited 33 years and deserves this from his party, but I regret he is not here because I do not like issuing warnings to fellow Deputies unless I do so face to face with them. We all remember that after the debate on the Offences Against the State Act he opposed his party's line. It will be recalled also that the Minister for Local Government made an order, effective from 31st December last, introducing a means test of sorts for eligibility for new house grants. Up to then anyone who built a new house could qualify for the grant which was, generally speaking, £325. However, that Minister made an order decreeing that anybody who applied for a new house grant after 1st January, 1976 would not be eligible unless his means were below a certain figure.

I want to say to the incoming Minister for Defence that I know he personally accepted representations from constituents of mine, and I have no doubt from others as well, subsequent to 1st January and that he backdated them, rubber stamped them, as having been in before 31st December. I can stand over that statement.

I will be most careful in the manner in which I watch the operations of the new Minister for Defence. I am conscious of the fact that while we were in office many nasty things were said about our Ministers—"Fix up your friends" is a phrase the Taoiseach has used. I was privileged to be a Minister and, whether I made a success or failure of it, I tried to be honest. Deputy Flanagan is on record as having stated that he believed one should fix up one's friends if one were in power. He stated that on television, in an interview in the "Late Late Show" or one of those programmes, three or four years ago. I apologise for the phraseology but the effect of what he said is that if he had the power he would do all he could for his friends. He went a little further. Perhaps from the point of view of that promise of his, our expectations may be a little far-fetched.

I make one promise to the incoming Minister for Defence. It is that I will not do to him what he did to me. If a constituent comes to me seeking something that I genuinely feel he is not entitled to, whether it be a grant or something else, I will not tell him: "I am sorry, I am in Opposition now. If I were in Government it would be different. Go to Deputy Flanagan"— in the full knowledge that he could not do anything.

I am very sorry that the Ministerelect is not here. If he were I could say to him across the House the number of times he has said this to me by way of joke, by way of the embarrassment he has created for me. Last night Deputy Flanagan approached me to ask me to pair with him to go to Mountmellick today; not to go with him but we were both to have gone to the sod-cutting and the function afterwards. I explained to him that I had been a Parliamentary Secretary and Minister from 1965 to 1973 and that over that period I never once asked him to pair with me. If I needed pairings as Minister in my official capacity the application was always made through the Whip of my party and I never at any stage made an individual approach to any Deputy of the Opposition at the time to pair with me. I feel that there is a form for pairing.

I am embarrassed because it will be said of me that Lalor suffered from sour grapes and would not turn up in Oliver Flanagan's, the Minister's home town today for the cutting of a sod. I would have been privileged to have done it. I have some great friends in Mountmellick who I hope will be able to get jobs in this factory but as Whip of the Opposition and with such a debate going on in this House the thought did not cross my mind. As long ago as Friday when I got the letter from the Regional Director of the IDA I replied saying, "Many thanks for your kind invitation to the sod-cutting ceremony at the IDA's advance factory in Mountmellick on Wednesday next, 15th. Regrettably as the Dáil is in progress at that time I shall be unable to attend".

It would have been a privilege. I was Minister for Industry and Commerce. I know all these IDA people and I know the great satisfaction those people, business people or heads of any group in the town will have in seeing this sod being cut. It is a momentous day from the new Minister's point of view in so far as on the day he was appointed a Minister, appropriately enough a new sod was being cut.

It is embarrassing from my point of view that I should have to be making those remarks. First of all, I honestly and, I might say, enthusiastically congratulate the man on his appointment but I am worried about the fact that it is to a Department where solidarity, stability and straightness are so vital. The editor of the Irish Independent is not noted for his admiration of the Opposition; he has, not alone in the papers but even on interviews on radio, fallen very much into line with Government thinking. On Friday I was struck because he expressed my sentiments on that morning in the sub-leader under the heading of “Indiscretion” when he said:

It will not be known until next week whether or not Mr. Oliver J. Flanagan will be our next Minister for Defence. In the meantime the Taoiseach will have to measure the extent of the Parliamentary Secretary's indiscretion in Mountmellick.

The last Minister for Defence has found himself demoted because he spoke out of turn, and while Mr. Flanagan's indiscretion was not of the same magnitude it may nevertheless raise the question of his suitability for a very important post.

Mr. Flanagan may seek to make the press the scapegoat in this affair —but it can hardly be denied that the press was merely reporting what happened at Mountmellick.

There are many matter of serious import known to all Government Ministers arising out of their ministerial or Cabinet meetings. For instance, in January next the Minister for Finance will come into this House and announce his budget and every Minister and former Minister in this House will, once the Minister stands up to read out the budget, be given a copy of the script. All the Ministers who have been attending Cabinet meetings and who have been collectively deciding to back the Minister for Finance or to take the decisions on where taxation is being imposed and where taxation is being lifted know the details pretty well for a week beforehand or maybe longer, but the Minister for Finance is basically doing his sums up to the last minute. There was a situation in Britain a few years ago when a photographer took a photograph and there was some question that something might be seen beforehand. Imagine the danger of having among the members of that Cabinet somebody who does not know when to stay quiet, when to keep his mouth shut.

Last Thursday in this House I sat at a table with three or four of my colleagues and we were discussing what the Irish Independent calls “indiscretion”. One colleague senior to me who was a Minister for quite a considerable time before I was, in old God's time when the late Éamon de Valera was Taoiseach, said “I would hate to be Oliver facing back up to Dev in the old days having blown like that after being told that he was due for appointment next week”. Another ex-Minister said that it would have been exactly the same with the late Seán Lemass and with Jack Lynch. The nominee would be called into the Taoiseach's room and told “I have changed my mind”. I had a fear on behalf of my constituency that the present Taoiseach might eventually be found to have had the guts of the late Éamon de Valera, of the late Seán Lemass or of Jack Lynch, but it transpired he had not. Maybe that is one of the reasons why things are so bad in general that we cannot talk about them.

There are two final points I would like to make. One is that this debate since 10.30 this morning has been remarkable in that all the contributions to it have come from this side of the House. Maybe the Government will say "It was a foregone conclusion. The debate was conducted in the papers for the last fortnight. Why are you holding things up? Let us get on with the job". The other conclusion that I can come to is that there is a muzzle in some shape or form on Government speakers. The general public, popular opinion, the overall study of the capacity of the back-bench group on the Government's side, and the political pundits who study this situation was that Deputy John Kelly, Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, would be appointed to be in charge of Education. The Taoiseach was playing his cards close to his chest and there would be no reshuffle. The Minister for Education would go to Europe out of politics and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach would be promoted to that post. As the Leader of my party said this morning we were given to understand, replying to the debate that we cannot discuss, that the Taoiseach said he had full confidence in the Minister for Defence and had no notion of changing him.

The day before the Presidential inauguration we got this change followed by the leak that it would not be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach who would be promoted. Maybe I might be embarrassing the Parliamentary Secretary because it transpired afterwards that he was going to an official function representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. When I came into the House this morning I was surprised to see that there was no Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government but that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs was all dressed up. I thought he was going to Aras an Uachtaráin and the Taoiseach had played his cards close to his chest again and had left everybody, including my colleague, whistling and he had the other man linedup.

I have not as close contact with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach as I have with my colleague in the constituency over a period. I felt that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs had earned promotion. I presume the Taoiseach feels he does a wonderful job as Government Whip. He certainly does. He has done his job so well that the man who played truant at the beginning of this Dáil is now getting this honour conferred on him.

I suppose the practical reason for promoting Deputy Flanagan is the one my colleague, Deputy Connolly, spoke about. The message has come through that that constituency which honoured the present Taoiseach by sending him six feet which up to now he has used for voting purposes to increase taxation on farmers and generally to increase the cost of living on everybody would be replaced by four feet after the next election. Somebody got the message across to the Taoiseach that he might consolidate the position in Laois-Offaly and he might put up a barrier against the danger of Fianna Fáil recapturing that seat by appointing Deputy Flanagan as Minister for Defence. If the Taoiseach feels that the nomination of Deputy Flanagan as a member of the Government will wipe out the disappointment, the frustration, the increased unemployment, the unopened factories in Tullamore, Birr and Portlaoise and the closure of the factories in Clara and Rathdowney good luck to him. If Deputy Flanagan, or somebody on his behalf has succeeded in getting the message across to the Taoiseach that this will stymie Deputies Connolly and Lalor and prevent them getting the extra seat we so narrowly missed holding on to on the last occasion, good luck to him but he has another think coming.

When I spoke about Deputy Kelly I said I was speaking about him without casting any reflections on any of the other Parliamentary Secretaries who were senior to the Parliamentary Secretary who has been selected. We have had a number of debates when the Government decided they would leave it to the Opposition and they would not go in. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach found it impossible to stay out arising out of something that was said. He was dragged into the debate. My contribution is not for the purpose of getting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach come in here to tell us that he is not disappointed, that he did not expect promotion and that Deputy Flanagan is a far greater individual than he is and more fitted to the job. I would be surprised if he came in and said that. He said this morning, arising out of an interruption of mine, that it was beneath me, that is was unworthy of me. He may think, for some reason or other, reasonably highly of Deputy Lalor. I think so highly of him that I would not expect him to come in and tell that sort of a lie.

The Parliamentary Secretary is probably listening to me on the monitor. I challenge him to bring in any quotation from the Official Report showing that we had at any time a straightforward proposal like we had this morning from the Taoiseach saying he was nominating Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan as a member of the Government and he was appointing him Minister for Defence. The Taoiseach did not find any words to justify that appointment. He did not say he was appointing him because he would be a far better man than the man who was replaced some weeks ago, that he was more qualified to talk on defence than anybody in the country. I have already publicly stated there must be some rumpus within the Cabinet or perhaps with Deputy Burke gone from the Cabinet and with Senator Robinson moving her Bill tomorrow he wanted at least one man on the Cabinet who would say "yes" to what he has to say in connection with it. I also have to say that if the new Minister for Defence proposes at Cabinet level that the Government should not accept the Bill it would be a thundering disgrace if there was not somebody else to second it.

The appointment of a Minister in any democracy should be a joyful occasion. It shows the system working whereby the head of a Government can change his team in the interests of better government. Opposition Members normally rejoice and say that it is good to see this change taking place because we will have better government. We can understand why the Taoiseach must make changes at certain times.

The occasion today is a very sad one for me not because Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan has been promoted but because of the very circumstances of the appointment and because for the last six weeks the country has been subjected to a minor crisis because of the indiscretions of a former Minister for Defence, the resignation of a President and the resultant upset.

Perhaps I should warn the Deputy that on a number of occasions today the Chair has ruled as not being in order on this motion debate on these matters.

I will accept the Chair's ruling. The appointment had to be made because a vacancy occurred. The Dublin bus strike may sound very irrelevant in the present circumstances but in my opinion it is very relevant. The Taoiseach in his wisdom decided, or was forced to decide, that he would have to change the Minister for Transport and Power into another ministerial office. The Minister for Transport and Power would have given some thought to the chaotic position in relation to the Dublin city bus services. Thousands of people are being deprived of proper bus services and have to wait for hours before getting home in the evenings. I do not attribute the blame to any side because I do not know enough about it. There will be cynicism in the hearts of our people this evening when they realise we are discussing this matter while they are standing in the cold waiting for a bus that will come an hour or two hours late. If Nero fiddled while Rome burned, we are doing something similar.

The Deputy has made a point that is not in order.

We are talking about a matter which was partly brought about by the decision of the Taoiseach to shift a Minister for Transport and Power from his office in order to do a patchwork job on the reconstruction of the Cabinet, arising from the appointment of Deputy Flanagan to the high rank of Minister. The cynicism that is being bred in the hearts of the people as a result of the goings on of the Government over the past six weeks can already be seen. I had always respected the Taoiseach and had thought of him as a man of law and order, yet when the highest personage in the State was attacked and the highest office in the State was attacked, no action was taken to safeguard our democratic structure.

I do not want to be holding up the Deputy needlessly, but the Chair has to stick to certain conventions, which I am sure the Deputy will appreciate. Reference may be made to the calibre of the person who is being appointed to the post, or to the reallocation of the Departments between members of the Government, but recent debates which dealt with Government policy or the question of the resignation of the President are not in order on this debate; neither is economic nor Government policy in order.

It is a precedent created today by the Ceann Comhairle. This has never happened before.

Standing Order 48 provides that:

No member shall reopen a discussion on a question already discussed during the preceding six months....

I am not criticising the Chair, but the interpretation put on that Standing Order by the Chair is very inhibiting. Unless we tackle the problems and the attitudes of people towards the whole democracy we will not ensure that democracy will last. At a time of national cynicism we should do everything possible to ensure that we can speak our minds with parliamentary privilege, to show that we are very much alive to certain things which are wrong in the structure of Government. Unless I can do that it will be hard to continue making any contribution. I am sure the Chair would not wish that Deputies cannot make a contribution.

The Chair does not wish to inhibit anyone. The Chair is as much bound by Standing Orders as any Deputy in the House. The Chair must ensure that debate is conducted within the limits which are laid down for the Chair.

I am trying to make some sort of an intelligent contribution. I am surprised at the interpretation of the Standing Order. The appointment is a matter of Government, and Governmental offices are the collective responsibility of any Cabinet. When a Minister criticises the first citizen and after a period that person is replaced, surely it is open to any of us to discuss relevant matters regarding the appointments. We have to ensure that our actions and our words will do everything possible to ensure that democracy will survive despite the present Government. Can democracy survive if we are to have performances such as we have had over the last few weeks from Ministers and from the Taoiseach?

We first heard the announcement of the ministerial appointment through the newspapers. That should have been heard first in this House. That appointment is subject to the authority of this House and the new Minister has yet to be endorsed by this House. This House is the only assembly in the country which can make a new Minister. The authority of this House is being flaunted by people making statements outside the House about ministerial appointments, as they have been reported to have done, without contradiction. I am disappointed with the attitude of the head of the Government. I saw the Taoiseach making some queer decisions in this House in his voting pattern. At the time I could see a certain wisdom in what he did and even a certain amount of principle. What am I to think now about the performance of the Government in the way they have handled matters in the last few weeks? What am I to think of an assembly which discusses the appointment of a Minister while we have so many pressing problems which we are not dealing with? If one looks at some of the questions on today's Order Paper, one realises the problems we are facing.

We are discussing this matter because the House has the duty of endorsing a ministerial appointment. I am not going to criticise the character or the ability of Deputy Flanagan. He has served the House for many years, he is a keen politician and I will leave it at that. We can only judge his performance as Minister for Defence over a period. It may be that he will not be in his new office for very long because we know that this is the prelude to a general election.

I have no doubt that Deputy Flanagan will do his best in his new post. He is a man of great energy and he will not be lazy in his new job. However, it is equally true that the vast majority of Members have the energy and will to tackle the many problems that face the country. I should like to develop the matter of the bus strike although I cannot get the permission of the Chair to do so. It might also be pointed out that we have industrial, commercial and fishing problems with which to contend.

This country is faced with a colossal unemployment problem and in this city there are about 8,000 families or individuals on the housing waiting list. These are matters which the Government should be tackling. I agree that as men of goodwill the Government probably want to solve these problems but they are bedevilling their own efforts by their mismanagement of the primary problem, namely, the smooth running of the Cabinet.

The appointment of a new Minister should be a matter of joy for all Members of the House, even though the Opposition might not agree with the selection. That is not the point. In a democratic system such as ours, the House should be told in the first place of the appointment of a Minister. All of us believe in democracy and a Minister of State can be regarded as a pillar of democracy. One must be saddened by the series of events that led to the proposed appointment of Deputy Flanagan. Certainly the circumstances were not auspicious.

I do not think there is much rejoicing or disappointment among the people regarding this new appointment. What we are doing in the House is breeding cynicism. Once people become cynical democracy is on its way out because to work properly democracy must have the whole-hearted co-operation of the people. They must join with the Government and Parliament in framing the laws that will be fair to all and in striving to solve the social problems which beset the nation. Never in the history of the State have we had to face so many social problems but little attention is given to them by the Government. I should much prefer to speak this afternoon on the appointment of a Minister for Housing——

Unfortunately we are dealing with Motion No. 4.

We are trying to help the Government. Now that the Taoiseach has nominated a new Minister he may decide to make other changes. I am not offering any carping criticism of the Government. I am making some suggestions which might make for better Government. If the House were appointing a Minister for Housing, at least the Government would deserve credit for recognising the need for such a Minister, and the same applies with regard to a Minister for Fisheries. It must be obvious by now that there is need for a separate Department to deal with fisheries. All of these changes should stem from the desire of the Taoiseach to strengthen the Cabinet and to make it more efficient.

The proposed appointment we are discussing has been forced on the Taoiseach. In my opinion he reacted wrongly to the first challenge. Of course he had more information on the matter than other Members, but the point is that in appointing a Minister regard should be had to the prime needs of the country. I suggest that the prime needs of the country are social rather than political. We have problems which may call for the appointment of new Ministers within the limits laid down in the Constitution. I am sorry the Taoiseach did not seize the opportunity of reviewing the entire Cabinet rather than making just one or two new appointments. He should have taken stock of the entire Cabinet and listened to the people outside. He might even have stood in a bus queue where people waited for hours for a bus and listened to what they said about this appointment. It might be discovered that people were critical not only of the Government but of Parliament in general. This will not redound to the credit of democracy.

The Taoiseach may tell us that because of the majority which the Government have in the House the motion will be carried. I agree there is need for a new Minister for Defence but it does not matter in the slightest to the people outside if we have a new Minister because the problems are just too much and they are neither excited nor disappointed by the Taoiseach's move here today. The youth who have neither jobs nor prospects regard this appointment as a cynical exercise. Youth today are just as idealistic and patriotic as were youth of previous generations and we are not here setting an example they would like to follow. Because of the ruling of the Chair, I cannot discuss the problems confronting the people but I do not think it is too late yet for the Taoiseach to rearrange his Cabinet in the hope that that new Cabinet will do better than the present one. He must demonstrate that he will not tolerate promotions or demotions and, if he wants us to retain any respect for him, he must adhere to the rules of procedure in this House and we must be told the Taoiseach wishes the House to endorse what he is doing.

One does not get over-excited about rumours of promotions and demotions. I am inhibited in what I say by the fact that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and no doubt you, Sir, would do likewise, ruled that we cannot discuss what we should like to discuss. We have the right to discuss the appointment of a new Minister but, in discussing that appointment, we are anxious to show the people that we are mindful of their problems. The appointment of a new Minister is an integral part of our democratic system but we now find our job is to act as a kind of rubber stamp to a proposal by the Taoiseach and we will have to wait for some other opportunity to discuss social problems. That opportunity will not arise this side of Christmas. I do not know when we will be coming back here but, if we do come back, I hope we will have an opportunity of discussing these important matters. Will the Dublin bus dispute have been solved in the interval? Will the register of unemployed show an increase or a decrease? Will some of the social problems mentioned at Question Time have been resolved? I asked the responsible Minister if he had seen a report of alleged suicidal tendencies by a section of citizens in Dublin or a tendency towards delinquency in another age group. This is what democracy should be all about and these are the things which should be discussed.

I do not want to violate any Standing Order but I feel it incumbent to mention these problems so that people will know we are not ignoring their presence. Had the appointment of a new Minister to the Department of Defence given us an opportunity of highlighting these problems and suggesting solutions to them, then the appointment of that new Minister would have done some good in providing us with an opportunity of discussing these matters.

It was notable that the Taoiseach in moving the appointment of this new Minister did not eulogise the new Minister. There was absolute economy of language. The motion was simply put. I hope the Taoiseach will reply to this debate. I think he did himself an injustice this morning and over the last few days in his handling of this matter. It may be that, being the experienced politician he is, he deliberately set out on the path of doing it his way. He has the right to do it his way but at the same time he has a duty to explain why it is done in that way. Why was the announcement not made in the first place in this House?

I hope Deputy Oliver Flanagan proves to be a very successful Minister for Defence and I hope his every action will be for the benefit of those over whom he has authority and for the benefit of the people in general. It would be wrong for me to wish him anything else but I am disappointed at the circumstances of his appointment. I believe he is aware of the attitude of the people. I know he will try to serve to the best of his ability but not for some considerable time will that wipe out the bad taste the whole sorry matter has caused inside and outside this House. In many countries democracy is disappearing. It will disappear here unless we interpret the warning signs correctly and act as the guardians of democracy. As a famous Englishman, Sir Winston Churchill once said, it was the worst possible system apart from all the others that had been tried.

Therefore, while the Taoiseach has to run his Government as he sees fit, he must also ensure that no action of his endangers democracy or lessens respect for parliament. Once respect for parliament is lessened the way is open to all kinds of different regimes striving to take over. I hope the newly-appointed Minister will be very successful in his office. At the same time, I wish the circumstances of his appointment were somewhat different to what they are now.

I do not feel I can be as charitable as my colleague in relation to this appointment. I pledge on my oath, however, that what I am about to say is not a personal attack but is based on my criticism of the ability of this man to fill the post to which he has been appointed. This is a man who has a long record throughout his political career of showing very little respect for the truth either in this House or outside it, for the truth, for the Presidency of our country, for the great Éamon de Valera who held that position with great dignity and honour. This is a man who only a few short years ago on the "Late Late Show" said he considered patronage one of the spoils of office. This is a man who, no doubt, will carry this further in the way in which promotions will be made. The whole dignity of the Army has suffered a blow by this appointment.

When I think of him as Minister for Defence I am reminded of the story of the vet who was sent for to artificially inseminate a cow. When he arrived at the farm he asked the farmer was she quiet and the farmer said she was. He proceeded about his business and the cow gave him such a kick that he landed up in the rafters. He said "I thought you said the cow was gentle", and the farmer replied, "I suppose it is the first time she has ever seen a bull with a bowler hat". I feel that would be somewhat like the reaction of the Army to their Minister for Defence. As I say, I believe this man has not the ability to fill this post. We have heard him speaking in this House with his "d'y see" and "d'y know". It has been said that that book, "The Letters of a TD", by J.B. Keane was written with that man in mind. I would certainly say he fills the role in the conduct of his office.

Excerpts from the Locke's Distillery Tribunal report were read in the House this morning. I believe the actual wording at the sitting of the tribunal was much more severe. It would be interesting to refer back to some of the papers at that time to find out what he actually said. People may say that that was many years ago and that the man has matured since then. I do not believe he has. This Government have shown nothing but contempt for the people whom they are there primarily to serve through the appointment of this man.

There is a lack of respect being shown to our institutions of State by the Leader of the Government despite their so-called care about security. The Taoiseach, in answer to a supplementary question by Deputy O'Malley as to how many times he had been to visit the former President, Cearbhail Ó Dálaigh, and whether he had discussed policy with him, said he had discussed policy. He tried to make it a side issue and could not say what he had discussed, that he was not asked that question. I know he never did, and this is the man who has stood up before the people of this country and given the impression that his party is a party of law and order, a party that respects the institutions of the State. They are showing very little respect for these institutions of State by some of their appointments and by this appointment in particular.

I understand that according to Standing Orders we are not allowed to discuss anything outside the limits of this appointment. I wonder, therefore, whether in a month's time, if the Taoiseach decided to reappoint a new Minister for Defence, we would be forbidden to discuss this because this discussion on the Minister for Defence will have taken place within the six months' period. I think the abuse of Standing Orders to try to restrict Members of the Opposition, to curtail them in their freedom of speech——

Is the Deputy indulging in a reflection on the Chair?

I am only reflecting on the confines within which——

The Chair merely interprets Standing Orders.

I do not want to argue with you. All I can say is that there is no precedent for the Opposition being curtailed in their freedom to widen the scope of a debate on the appointment of a Minister to include other Ministers. Recently in the United States another Minister of the Government, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien, stated what he thought would happen if Britain announced any intention to withdraw from this country, that this country would have a civil war parallel only to that in the Lebanon. That did a great deal of harm to this country; I am sure the IDA were very concerned; all the money they spent during this year must have gone up the spout because of the damage done as far as potential investors are concerned. This was something on which the Taoiseach should have acted immediately and very strongly, but he did not do this. The Taoiseach, in some of his appointments, I am sorry to say, has literally sabotaged many of the institutions of the State, and the economy in particular. The day will come when as regards those two men, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the newely-appointed Minister for Defence, who are poles apart in their thinking and actions, the story will be told that the Government were not united. I can understand the feeling of some members of Fine Gael and Labour who must be still wretching inside from the news of this appointment. In my opinion this is the worst appointment the Government ever made. I do not think the people will have any vestige of respect left for the Taoiseach following the appointment of this man.

My colleague, Deputy Moore, commented that our people were so burdened by the economic situation that they were apathetic to any appointments by the Government but I do not accept that. The Government have mistaken silence for approval and they will find out with greater certainty at the next election how the people feel. Our people have respect for the institutions of the State; they have respect for the forces of law and order and they do not like to see them abused. This appointment is an abuse of our last line of defence, our Army. The Army are entitled to have as their Minister a man of known integrity. Most of the speeches have dealt with the lack of confidence which Fianna Fáil have in this appointment. Fianna Fáil represent the majority of our people and they are satisfied that the appointment is a bad one. They have no confidence in the Taoiseach or the Government. Our confidence in the future of the country under the present Government has been struck another blow. Deputy Moore referred to the slim line between democracy and dictatorship.

If this country does not get the leadership it requires within the next few years, we will witness the end of democracy as we have known it because the people are impatient and angry. They are very sad to see the way the Government they claimed had been denied a chance, as they put it, for so long have behaved after been given the authority to govern by the people. The Government have misused that authority and the appointment today is another abuse. In my view it is the biggest abuse yet. We can expect anything from the Government. We have had all sorts of speculation as to when a general election will take place but I believe the Government will hold on to the last minute. I would not be surprised if they attempted to force a Bill through this House to increase the life of the Dáil to seven years. The Government want to hold on to power while they have it. The 16 years of Government by Fianna Fáil never saw as many appointments as were made in the last few years. I hope the Army will be patient because I believe with certainty, and not because of any recent poll, that Fianna Fáil will be back after the next general election to form a government. We will be able to restore again the dignity of the Army.

The motion we are discussing, the appointment of Deputy Oliver Flanagan as a member of the Government, in particular as Minister for Defence, is a sad one for us all. The Taoiseach had open to him the possibility of appointing any one of 55 or more people to the vacant office of Minister for Defence. I doubt if he could have picked a more unsuitable person than the man he has seen fit to choose. It is a sad reflection on our country that a person like Deputy Flanagan is being put in charge of the Department of Defence. While I am confined, apparently, to talking about the Deputy's personal fitness for office I do not want to pass any reflections on him personally in any sort of private capacity or in respect of any views he may have in a private capacity. I will refer only to his public reported statements and actions.

It seems that there can be little explanation for the appointment of this man other than patronage of some form, of paying off some kind of debt that I cannot envisage and of trying to manoeuvre some sort of short-term political advantage by his appointment. It is clear that the proposal to appoint him has nothing to do either with ability or merit. There are people on the other side of the House who have greater ability and are more meritorious of appointment to the serious office of a member of the Government. In appointing the Minister for Defence for reasons other than merit or ability the Taoiseach and the Government are not breaking any new ground as far as defence matters and the Army are concerned because the number of promotions within the Army within recent years on grounds that have nothing to do with merit or ability are legion. We have had that repeated again in recent weeks by the Taoiseach, while acting as Minister for Defence.

Two men were promoted to senior ranks within the Army even though their military experience is limited. Their chief attribute is their equestrian ability. We have had people promoted to the senior rank of colonel in the Army who, as recently as two years ago, were junior captains. Although there is a strict rule in the Army that nobody is promoted beyond the rank of captain without undergoing a command and staff course at the Curragh for nine months various of these noted horsemen who have now achieved high rank in the Army have never undergone any such course. I wonder in the exhilaration of office if the Taoiseach and the Government consider the damage they are doing to the Army. If they could hear officers talking privately about how they feel and about their careers in the light of what has happened in the past few years, would they come to some realisation of the damage they have been doing and are doing?

Is today's proposal to appoint a particularly unsuitable man as Minister for Defence going to do anything to increase confidence on the part of the Army? If they see a very unsuitable man as Minister for Defence they cannot be surprised if the various ranks of the Army are filled with men who are less suitable than those passed over. Trying to put the matter as fairly as I can, I think it is correct to say that there is not a great deal of change between the former Minister removed from office as Minister for Defence—I am leaving out the interregnum while the Taoiseach was there for a couple of weeks—Deputy Donegan, now Minister for Lands, and the proposed Minister, Deputy Oliver Flanagan. It seems to me that a proposal to appoint him is a proposal to replace an intemperate buffoon by a temperate buffoon. It is rather tragic for the country that this should be so but it is so.

Deputy Flanagan has been in public life for upwards of 30 years and a Member of this House for over 30 years and one would have thought in a life-time of membership of the House and other public bodies that even if it was not there at the beginning, sense would be there by now but I cannot see any evidence that common sense, maturity, stability and judgment exist in the man this House is now asked to ratify as a member of the Government and Minister for Defence.

While he has been a Member of the House, Deputy Oliver Flanagan has probably made more pronouncements than any other Deputy and the proportion of pronouncements that he made that were odd—to say the least —is very high. This goes back over a long number of years. One might appropriately and relevantly bring to the notice of the House dozens of quotations from him before the House decides to appoint him as a member of the Government. I have selected only one or two as I do not want to delay the House indefinitely and stay the hours one might profitably stay reading the assembled thoughts and declarations of Deputy Flanagan over the past 30 years. In particular, I want to refer to a report of a speech Deputy Flanagan made at the General Council of Committees of Agriculture general meeting in Dublin on 6th August, 1969 reported in The Irish Press on the following day. It is a short report of a few paragraphs and the heading is: “ `No room for Nazis'—Flanagan”. It reads:

A call to the Land Commission to take the necessary steps to repossess the land bought by Germans was made in Dublin yesterday by Mr. Oliver J. Flanagan, TD. He suggested that it be given to Irishmen who were capable and prepared to work it.

"We have no room in this country for Nazis and we are not going to entertain them here. This country is falling too much into the hands of Germans," said Mr. Flanagan who was addressing a meeting of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture.

"I am not at all as opposed to the Englishman having a holding here as to a German and the sooner we take steps to end this the better," he added.

He wanted a sub-committee appointed to go to the Minister for Lands to deal with the situation, but the council decided not to discuss the matter at yesterday's meeting.

He claimed that the situation was now getting out of hand and called for Government action. He objected to Germans because they were Nazis and because they were alien. When asked about his use of the word Nazi, Mr. Flanagan said he considered all Germans to be Nazis. He said he would raise the matter in the Dáil.

That is the man we are asked to make a member of the Government today. Even though I have to speak to empty benches because none of them will come in to defend or support him today, I would say to them if they can hear me in some other part of the House, and in particular I say to members of the Labour Party and to people in that party like the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Cruise-O'Brien and Deputy Barry Desmond: will they come in here tonight and vote approval for the appointment to the Government of a man who said that he objected to Germans because they were Nazis and because they were alien and went on to say that he considered all Germans to be Nazis?

Is this the sort of man that it is appropriate should be a member of the Government—even of this Government? Is this the sort of man that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs wants to sit down with around the table once, twice or three times a week and have the most confidential and fundamental discussions of any group of men in the country? Is this the sort of man with whom other Ministers want to share collective responsibility for every decision made by the Government? Is this the sort of man that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs along with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the rest of them are prepared to stand behind when he comes out—as inevitably he will—to make some pronouncement equally as obnoxious as the one I have just quoted? Do they want to commit themselves to standing behind him in the views that he holds and that they will not change, views that apparently he has held for upwards of 30 years in public life? Is that the kind of Government they want? More pertinently, I might ask is this the kind of Government the country wants or needs?

I want to refer also to the report of the tribunal appointed to inquire into various allegations made by Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan in relation to Locke's Distillery, which tribunal consisting of a Supreme Court judge and two High Court judges reported on 18th December, 1947 to the then Taoiseach, the late Éamon de Valera. In paragraph 49 on page 15 of that report the three judges unanimously stated:

In like manner, we found it necessary to exercise extreme caution in dealing with the evidence of Deputy Flanagan. We found him very uncandid and much disposed to answer questions unthinkingly as if he were directing his replies elsewhere than to the Tribunal. On several occasions he contradicted himself and was disposed to shift his ground, when he found that answers already given would lead him where he did not wish to go. He was, on other occasions, in conflict with testimony which we believed to be true. In respect of two matters we are satisfied that he told us what he knew to be untrue.

I draw particular attention to the last sentence: "In respect of two matters we are satisfied that he told us what he knew to be untrue". Remember what he told those three judges at the tribunal was told on oath. It was not a question that he gave evidence that was wrong but believed might be right; he told them what he knew was untrue and he did that on oath.

We are asked now on behalf and as representatives of the people of Ireland to ratify and approve the Taoiseach's appointment of such a man to be a member of the Government. I find it very difficult to do that. All Deputies on this side find it difficult to do it for the sake of this country. There must be many Deputies on the other side who find it equally difficult and obnoxious to do it. Will they go through the hypocritical performance that tragically we have become used to in recent years, of trooping in to do something they know is wrong? I suppose they will. I say this to some of the people to whom I have already referred, such as Deputy B. Desmond, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to think deeply before they cast their vote in favour of the appointment of this man who said he objected to Germans because they were Nazis and alien and said he considered all Germans were Nazis.

The normal procedure followed when a Minister is being appointed to the Government is that the Taoiseach of the day announces it to the House. That is generally the first time anyone, except the prospective Minister, knows about it. For the past ten days we have been reading that Deputy Flanagan is to be appointed Minister for Defence.

We even read reports in one newspaper about a week ago that he thanked the people in his constituency for their congratulations which had been offered publicly to him as a result of his telling the people in charge of that function that he was to be appointed Minister.

The fact that he should go round telling all and sundry that he was to be appointed Minister for Defence is in itself a ground for serious doubt as to his suitability. I do not know what the attitude of the Taoiseach to such free and easy leaking of what one would imagine should be extremely confidential information is, but nonetheless that has been the case over the past ten years. The country had been told by Deputy Flanagan that he was to be appointed Minister for Defence, but it would not be officially announced for a little time yet. Then, the Taoiseach comes here this morning and announced it. Up to the moment the announcement was made, I thought he would not do it. I thought that if the various other things that had happened down through the years were not sufficient ground for regarding Deputy Flanagan as unsuitable, the fact that he had been announcing it for the past ten days would have been sufficient ground to render him unsuitable, but, unhappily, that was not so.

The Army have been going through a very difficult period. All that was brought to a head by the attack of the former Minister on the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, the first citizen of this country. It was an attack which was not withdrawn and the Minister's offer of resignation was refused by the Taoiseach and this in turn caused the resignation of the President. Is there any evidence that can be adduced to show that Deputy O.J. Flanagan is any less likely than Deputy Donegan was to make some kind of outrageous statement that would be grossly offensive, perhaps, to the President but more likely to some lesser authority during whatever time he will occupy the position of Minister for Defence? I do not think there is any evidence that would suggest that the likelihood of some outrageous statement or action being made or taken by Deputy O.J. Flanagan is any less than some of the outrageous things that were don by his predecessor.

We are being asked now to the appointment of someone everyone in this House must know is not suitable. I remember when the Taoiseach proposed in March, 1973, the appointment of a number of Ministers. There was a very short debate; it may have lasted 30 minutes or one hour. There was a very general discussion about the nature of the appointments. The suitability of individual members of the proposed Government was not gone into. At that time it would have been appropriate—and looking back on it, it was a pity it did not happen— to question the suitability of Deputy Donegan to hold the post of Minister for Defence. If it had been gone into, it might have caused some rethinking.

It was a public fact that Deputy Donegan had done some extraordinary things in relation to a group of itinerants who were camped in the vicinity of his house. It seemed to me that a man who did what he did on that occasion was quite unsuited to the post into which it was proposed to put him. Tragically, that proved to be the case. It was not only when he insulted the President that he was grossly unsuitable. That was only the straw that broke the camel's back. Within a week of entering his office, he did and said things that were quite inappropriate for a Minister for Defence. He continued to act in an undisciplined way, to make extraordinary statements and do extraordinary things from time to time. He exercised a degree of patronage within the Department of Defence, in the Army in particular and in various appointments connected with the Department of Defence, in a way that was positively shameless. I have given the House details of some of these before and I do not want to go into them again because it is not necessary as many of them are well known. Others are not well known, but the best thing now that that Minister is gone is to leave them alone.

Can we have any confidence that the same sort of thing will not happen under the man it is now proposed to appoint as Minister? We can have no such confidence. There are, I suggest, a dozen or more people on the Fine Gael and Labour benches who are clearly more worthy and more suited to appointment to this post than the man now being put forward. There is a heavy onus on the Taoiseach to say why this man is suitable. Nobody either in this House or outside has been able to say why he is suitable. I look forward to hearing of his suitability from the Taoiseach.

I want to put this final challenge to the members of the Labour Party in particular and to some members of the Fine Gael Party and ask them to realise what they are doing when they go through the lobbies to ratify the appointment of Deputy O.J. Flanagan as a member of a Government of this country. Unless they have become entirely bereft of all conscience, they cannot in conscience do what they have been asked by the Taoiseach to do, something which they know well to be wrong and bad.

As far as I know, no speaker from the opposite side has contributed to this motion, except the Taoiseach when he formally moved it. There is a great deal of significance in that and in the fact that none of the Deputies on the benches opposite is prepared to come in to put on record his support for the nomination of Deputy Oliver Flanagan to the position of Minister for Defence.

It is true, of course, that the Deputies opposite will have to come in and put on the record of the House their support for the motion in the sense of voting for it, but most of the leading members of Fine Gael and Labour are not renowned for their reticence and unwillingness to give to us and to the country generally the benefit of their views on topics diverse, but there is a noted lack of willingness and enthusiasm to put their views on record, other than the votes which they are compelled to give or otherwise to bring about the downfall of the Government.

I regret that in dealing with this motion it would appear to be almost mandatory, particularly because of the narrow ruling of the Chair in relation to it, to engage in a personal attack on another Member of the House. I regret that and wish as far as I can to confine what I have to say in regard to Deputy Oliver Flanagan to a political attack but it is, I frankly admit, sometimes difficult to draw the line between the two. To the extent that what I have to say amounts to a personal attack, I regret it, but I think it is necessary that it should be said.

Before saying anything of that kind, however, I want to underline a fundamental issue involved in this, and it is that the real responsibility for what is proposed to be done in this motion lies not with Deputy Oliver Flanagan or with the other Deputies on the opposite benches in general, but with the Taoiseach personally because it is the Taoiseach personally who, under the Constitution, is responsible for the nomination of members of the Government. Nobody else is entitled to exercise that function. Of course, he has to get the support of the majority of Deputies for his proposition, but that proposition would not be before us if the Taoiseach, personally and individually, had not decided to bring the proposition here.

The first thing that becomes obvious on even a cursory examination of this motion is the personal unsuitability of Deputy Oliver Flanagan to be Minister for Defence or, indeed, to be a member of the Government. Only in the last few days we have had highlighted one example of that unsuitability. I refer, of course, to the indiscretion committed by Deputy Flanagan when he stated at a public meeting that his appointment was about to be announced. It is true that he issued a statement designed to deny that, but that statement was too clever by half, and it carefully referred only to his scripted speech: it did not deny the accuracy of the newspaper reports that he had used the words attributed to him.

This kind of thing, I freely confess, is not a major issue but it is an indication of the kind of indiscretion which every Member of this House expects from Deputy Oliver Flanagan but which one would hope as far as possible to avoid in a member of the Government. I am not suggesting that every member of every Government has been so discreet as to meet the highest standards one might aim for but I am suggesting that this indiscretion was to be expected and I predict that if the Government last long enough there will be further indiscretions by Deputy Flanagan as Minister for Defence.

Deputy Oliver Flanagan for many years has been well known, one might even say notorious, for some of the most outrageous statements of abuse in this House and outside it, but particularly in this House, and for some amazing statements of prejudice and bias, and these statements have stretched over his whole public career. I do not propose to go back over that record now—I think enough reference has been made and sufficient evidence has been furnished by this side of the House to make my statement in that respect incontrovertible.

However, there is another matter, which also has been referred to and which I feel obliged to refer to again because of the very serious nature of what is involved, and that is the finding of the tribunal of inquiry in the Locke Distillery case in which High Court judges found that statements made on oath by Deputy Oliver Flanagan were untrue and that he knew they were untrue. I suggest that since that is a matter of public record there is a very heavy onus on the Taoiseach, when replying to the debate, to explain why, given that that is so and a matter of public record, he feels justified in putting forward the name of Deputy Oliver Flanagan, in respect of whom that finding was made by High Court judges, as a suitable person to be a member of the Government and in particular Minister for Defence.

I want to suggest to the Taoiseach that there is no answer and no justification for it, that the Taoiseach was tempted to engage in discussions on other matters relating to other Governments and other persons whenever instances might have occurred which the Taoiseach might think would assist him. One could go back to 1922 to find instances that the Taoiseach might feel would assist him in justifying this nomination, but I say now, in case the Taoiseach should be tempted to adopt that line, that whatever view one may take of any other incidents, that is not what we are dealing with now. What we are dealing with is the proposal of the present Taoiseach to nominate Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan now to be a member of the Government and to be Minister for Defence. That is the issue before the House and that is the issue in respect of which the onus lies on the Taoiseach to justify that nomination having regard to what is on the public record of this country in regard to Deputy Flanagan and his statements on oath which three High Court judges found to be untrue and known to him to be untrue when he made those statements on oath.

I point out to the Deputy that it is not within the rules at the moment on this debate to refer to the judicial tribunal without at least quoting the exact words of the presiding judge and that to this extent the Deputy is confined, and very confined, in the remarks he may make in regard to this matter. I just want to inform the Deputy of the position.

I thank the Acting Chairman for pointing that out to me. I have, in fact, finished with that topic and I did not purport to quote the findings of the tribunal because the previous speaker quoted extensively and I did not wish to repeat the matter.

It is a well-known fact that there is not a great deal of cohesion in this present Government and I do not think I can be accused of over-statement when I say that. But I would suggest that the appointment of Deputy Oliver Flanagan to the Government will certainly not add to their cohesion. We are all aware of the fact—indeed, it is on the record—that Deputy Oliver Flanagan has been an outspoken critic of some major aspects of the policy of this Government which the Taoiseach now proposes he should join. If my recollection serves me adequately, there were long stretches after the present Government came to office during which Deputy Flanagan did not attend this House at all. It was generally assumed—and I stress this is only an assumption which cannot be proved —that this happened as a mark of his dissatisfaction with his Government. Whether the Government have changed their approach so that Deputy Flanagan is now satisfied with their policies or whether Deputy Flanagan adheres to the views he then held but is constrained to keep them to himself for the moment because he wishes to be a Minister of State, is a matter for conjecture.

Let me make it clear that I certainly do not fault Deputy Flanagan in any way for wishing to be a Minister of State. It is, indeed, a great honour for anybody in this country and any Member of this House to be a Minister of State. It is a position of great responsibility. There are very onerous duties attached to it and I would not fault Deputy Flanagan in any way for wishing to be a Minister of State. However, I am, I suggest, entitled to question whether, in accepting the invitation of the Taoiseach to become a member of the Government, Deputy Flanagan has changed his views. We have no indication as to what Deputy Flanagan's views are now. In particular, we have no indication in this debate because we have had no contributions from the other side of the House.

I suggest that, having regard to the personal unsuitability of Deputy Flanagan to which I have referred and having regard to the political disagreements between Deputy Flanagan and the Government, we can get a fair indication of the real values placed by the Government and in particular by the Taoiseach on the protestations of their concern and regard for the Defence Forces. The Defence Forces are a vitally important part of the institutions of this State. Seldom have they been more important to the preservation of the State than in recent years. The appointment of a Minister for Defence is never a matter to be taken lightly but at present it is a matter of particular concern to all our citizens. There must be few people who, if asked to pick out the Deputy in this House who would be least suitable for the position of Minister for Defence, would come up with somebody other than Deputy Oliver Flanagan.

The reasons which prompted the Taoiseach to put forward this nomination are, of course, known only to the Taoiseach himself. We can speculate on them but can do no more than that. The most obvious reason is the improvement of the electoral chances of the Fine Gael Party in the constituency of Laois-Offaly. There may, indeed, be other reasons. It is my hope, indeed, my belief, that that calculation will backfire and that, contrary to the belief expressed that such an appointment will improve the electoral chances of the Fine Gael Party in Laois-Offaly, the direct consequence will be the loss of a seat by Fine Gael in Laois-Offaly in the next election. I think it would have happened anyway, if that is any consolation to the Taoiseach but I think also that this will improve the chances of that occurring. I suppose it is legitimate for others outside to speculate on that but, basically, it is an internal Fine Gael matter.

But the appointment of Deputy Oliver Flanagan to be a member of the Government and to be Minister for Defence is not an internal Fine Gael matter and should not be decided for Fine Gael party reasons. This vacancy has arisen because of the nomination of Deputy Richard Burke, former Minister for Education, to be a member of the Commission of the European Economic Community and the resultant reshuffle arising from that vacancy so created. It is legitimate to point out that the nomination which produced the vacancy which the Taoiseach is now seeking to fill was marked by disgraceful manoeuvring among members of the Government. That manoeuvring took place largely in the press but it also took place behind the scenes. It revealed the depth of disloyalty and dissension which is almost unbelievable. It revealed a Government riven by rivalries, apparent competition and by incompatible political philosophies.

The fact that the nomination was made does not end either the rivalries or the incompatibility. It underlines the extent to which this misfortunate country is saddled with a Government of the kind revealed in those manoeuvres and goes some way to explain their inability to grapple with most of the major issues coming before them. This inability is seen in a manoeuvre backwards almost every time they come up against a difficult decision while the situation of the country, particularly the economy, drifts on and on towards unmanageable chaos.

One of the consequences of the appointment of Deputy Richard Burke to the EEC Commission was the reshuffle which took place, which included the transfer of the former Minister for Defence to the Department of Lands. I do not want to dwell on that matter and I do not know the extent to which I would be allowed to do so. The translation of Deputy Donegan at the very least indicates how right we were on this side of the House when we proposed a motion of no confidence in him. It is a belated acknowledgment by the Taoiseach of how right we were and carries with it the question many people have asked. Why did the Taoiseach not recognise that in the first instance? Why did he not act in the first instance and thereby save the country and many people, not least the present Minister for Lands, a great deal of anxiety and, perhaps, worse than that?

I do not know how many people today remember when Deputy Oliver Flanagan was first elected to the House that he stood as a candidate for the party of monetary reform. We might well ask, in the light of that and also since he has been nominated to be a member of the Government, who have a constitutional obligation of collective responsibility, what are the views of Deputy Oliver Flanagan or what is his attitude to our current economic problems? What will his approach be to the curbing or expanding of public expenditure? Does he believe that some steps of monetary reform are open to us and, if so, what are those steps? What will he be urging? Will he favour in the forthcoming budget a reduction in capital expenditure as we had this year and a consequent decrease in the limited possibilities there were in job creation? Will he feel that is a justifiable approach in order, hopefully, to bring down inflation although no particular result of that kind appears to have attended the Government's efforts this year despite the substantial reduction in the real level of capital spending as against what was proposed?

I presume Deputy Flanagan, as a member of the Government, will make his contribution to the discussions on the forthcoming budget. It would be of considerable assistance if one knew what his general stand on those matters was. We do not know. We do not know if he favours the policies followed by the Government in recent years which have produced the enormous amount of public debt with which we are now saddled. Will he try to reverse it or urge it on further? We do not know if he favours tax cuts. What are his views on what wage levels should be in the coming year? We do not know any of those things. Perhaps some people will say it does not matter. That may be a realistic view but it is cynical. I prefer to take the view that the views any member of the Government expresses in the preparation of a budget are important.

I suspect, when the Taoiseach replies to this debate, that he will be very tempted to tell us about the votes which Deputy Flanagan has got at successive elections in the constituency of Laois-Offaly. That would be a legitimate approach for him. If he is tempted to pursue that line, I suggest to him, before he does that, to give a little thought to this.

The fact that Deputy Flanagan has been re-elected at successive elections to this House usually if not always, and I think it was always since the second general election, at the top of the poll is no answer to the putting forward of his nomination as a member of the Government. Many Deputies have been re-elected at election after election, some of them at the top of the poll, and many of them make very good representatives for their constituencies. That is why they are re-elected.

I would not deny that Deputy Flanagan appears to be a very good representative for his constituency. He would not continue to get the support he has got in his constituency if he was not a good representative. The fact that a Deputy is a good representative for his constituency does not mean that he would make a good Minister or that he should be nominated as a member of the Government. I suspect very strongly, in the case of Deputy Oliver Flanagan, that many of those who vote for him would be among the first to say that he is a good representative but not suitable material to be in the Government.

In this matter of the nomination of Deputy Flanagan to be a member of the Government, to be the Minister of Defence, the responsibility does not lie with Deputy Flanagan, it lies with the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach made the choice and is proposing this to the House. It is no answer for the Taoiseach to tell us that Deputy Flanagan has demonstrated that he has the support of his constituents. Deputy Flanagan has the support of his constituents as a Member of Dáil Éireann. The Taoiseach has the responsibility for putting him forward as a member of the Government, not the people of Laois-Offaly. The Taoiseach has taken on that responsibility and it must be discharged. I have no doubt that the Taoiseach will do his best to discharge that responsibility shortly in this House, but in the end the judgment on whether the Taoiseach has discharged that responsibility will not be made in this House, it will be made outside the House at the next general election and it will not be made only in Laois-Offaly, it will be made in every constituency. I have no doubt whatever as to what the verdict on the Taoiseach's action today will be.

I suppose this debate might be described as a preChristmas free-for-all. I will try to stick strictly to the facts. Deputy Lynch, the Leader of the Opposition, complained that on a previous occasion when a matter of this sort was debated, the debate was widened, and he went on to refer to events of May, 1970. Deputy Lynch chose the date, perhaps I will be accorded the privilege of choosing the quotations. On that occasion the then Taoiseach announced that the then Minister for Justice had tendered his resignation. The reason I refer to this is because the Leader of the Opposition used some words of criticism about the fact that I had, as he put it, concealed from the Dáil some weeks ago the offer by the then Minister for Defence of his resignation as Minister. I informed the Dáil of his offer after it was made, but when the then Taoiseach on 5th May, 1970 in Volume 246 of the Official Report, column 519, announced that the then Minister for Justice had tendered his resignation I asked:

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

The then Taoiseach said:

I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.

The Order of Business was then proceeded with and the financial resolutions were discussed. I demurred to the idea of taking the motion to appoint Deputy Desmond O'Malley as a member of the Government. Business proceeded and the budget debate was proceeded with. On the following day there was a motion by the then Taoiseach not merely to appoint Deputy O'Malley as a member of the Government, but as a result of what might be described as a nocturnal spree, three other members of the Government left office.

It is necessary to recall this because Deputies opposite who have spoken on this debate have been very vocal about what Deputy Flanagan said or about what somebody else said. Recently in this House we had a debate in which Deputy Haughey and others were concerned about the respect that they asserted I showed for the Constitution. The facts are that two members of the then Government did not tender their resignation, in fact they did not accede to the request of the then Taoiseach to give him their resignations. For the first time under this Constitution, and as far as I know under the 1922 Constitution, the Taoiseach had to terminate their assignments. In other words, they were sacked.

The Ministers sacked at the time were Deputy Blaney and Deputy C.J. Haughey. The then Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Kevin Boland, was so outraged at what had happened that he tendered his resignation and his colleague the then Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Paudge Brennan, also resigned as a Parliamentary Secretary. It is important to get this into perspective. The facts were that the then Minister for Finance met with an accident prior to the budget and the then Taoiseach took over and introduced the budget. Those present in the House at that time including the then Leader of the Labour Party, my colleague the Minister for Health and I, expressed our sympathy at what had happened. That had occurred in April 1970. Subsequently in May the then Taoiseach visited the then Minister for Finance in hospital and discussed at some stage with Deputy Neil T. Blaney what he had discovered had happened. In the Dáil Debates to which I have referred the then Taoiseach said that he would take action, but he recalled that I paid a little call on him that night.

On a point of order, I have refrained from making this point of order up to now because I thought the Taoiseach was trying to make a procedural point. I suggest that the Taoiseach has gone way beyond that and since the rest of the Deputies contributing to this debate have been very narrowly constrained by the Chair I would suggest that the same should apply to the Taoiseach.

They got much wider latitude than I will take. They discussed economic facts. I am sticking to nominations to the Government. Deputy Lynch referred to this specific volume of the Dáil Debates—he introduced it.

Does that mean that the whole volume is open to discussion?

Deputy Lynch introduced the volume, not I. I said "if he is taking that path, he can walk it, but I will walk it too".

Within the rules of order.

Within the rules of order. Deputy Lynch discussed the economy until he was hauled up, and in fact continued to discuss it. He referred to this specific volume of the debates and was not stopped.

It was on a procedural point. We did not debate it.

There was no procedural point at all. I want to contrast the position of the nomination of a member of this Government and of the transfer of assignments by the Government with what happened under Fianna Fáil. I want to show to Deputy Colley and to any other Deputy, in case they have forgotten, the report of the Committee of Public Accounts. In that report three Ministers, a triumvirate were named. The Deputies opposite do not forget this. They know it well, they have it nearly by heart——

On a point of order, I was told last night by the Ceann Comhairle—I consider he might have been here at this moment—that we could not refer to anything other than the suitability of the appointment we are discussing. I was specifically told to inform my people of that fact. We were told we would not be allowed to rehash the debate we had some time ago. Now the Taoiseach is playing the same tune——

The point is that Fianna Fáil did not do that. The Leader of the Opposition started this morning and, after a few preliminary remarks, he started to discuss the economy. Then he switched from the economy and he produced this debate. If the Deputies opposite do not want to hear about it I must tell them it is on the record. Public money was misappropriated and three Ministers failed to tell the then Taoiseach. This was not a speech, a comment or a discussion document as Deputy Dowling said this morning. I understand that Fianna Fáil discussion documents are brought forward by Deputy Brennan, when he is not being run by the dissidents as a candidate for the Presidency. This morning Deputy Dowling referred to Deputy Flanagan as a "conscientious objector". Deputy Briscoe was a conscientious objector on the Public Accounts Committee. He resigned from it. Some of his colleagues found that public money had been misappropriated——

It was challenged in the courts and I was vindicated.

On a point of order, we will have to seek a ruling on this matter. I submit this is grossly outside the rules of order and we must have a ruling.

(Interruptions.)

It was the Leader of the Opposition who introduced it into the debate——

I am not asking for the Taoiseach's ruling. I am asking the Chair to rule on the matter.

I am advised the Taoiseach is not out of order. He is claiming he is contrasting this occasion with a previous occasion.

In view of the fact that I got other instructions from the Ceann Comhairle I am withdrawing from the House.

Deputies Lalor, Colley and Briscoe withdrew from the Chamber.

(Interruptions.)

I am very sorry I have run the Opposition out of the House. I do not want to disturb their equanimity. There is no need for me to quote again from the report I referred to because Deputies are familiar with it. It shows that not merely were statements made but that three Ministers of the then Government failed to inform the then Taoiseach of what was happening. What happened? One left the party, another resigned from the House and another went to the back benches and while there he remained silent. Time passed. Then when he was on a canvass in North-West Dublin who did he meet accidentally but the Leader of his own party. It was almost like Livingstone and Stanley. They met in Dublin North-West; they were previously acquainted but in case they had forgotten each other they were reintroduced. After some time the Deputy was invited down to the front bench and to celebrate his return he met an old colleague, Deputy Blaney. The latter put an arm round him in the corridor— outside the bar there is a long chair —when they met. Deputy Blaney is on record as saying that Ministers of the then Government were responsible for starting the Provisional IRA.

I have here a photograph which shows some events that were somewhat delayed in the recording. The event in Dublin North-West and what occurred here were instantly recorded by the camera but there was a little delay in the public relations operation with regard to an event in May, 1970. This was not a speech, a comment or, in the words of Deputy Dowling, a discussion document. This was the action of the Committee of Public Accounts after an exhaustive and extensive investigation. Under the rules of that Committee it is comprised of Deputies from all parties. Deputy Briscoe was a conscientious objector and he resigned from that Committee. In case people may think I am giving a partial account of what happened, I would also point out that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Keating, also resigned at one stage. Both Deputies were replaced; strangely enough, Deputy Briscoe was replaced by Deputy Dowling and Deputy Keating was replaced by Deputy Cluskey. It is not necessary to repeat what is contained in the report because Deputies opposite, the House, the Press and the media are familiar with it. It found for the first time in the history of the State that public money had been misappropriated without the Ministers named in the report informing the then Taoiseach.

I do not think Deputies opposite really had their hearts in this debate. They introduced it as an effort to cover up for recent events and to try to score off the Government. In fact, the debate could be described as a non-event. They anticipated that references would be made to this report but I do not want to traverse old ground. I suppose few people know Fianna Fáil better than I do. Deputy Flanagan and I have looked at them from both sides of the House and we know them fairly well. However, there is one person who knows them better that we do. We speak from external knowledge but he speaks from internal knowledge. He was once described by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was Taoiseach as "a rock of integrity". On 8th December last there was an article in the Irish Independent headed: “Ex-Minister finds peace”. I will give a few quotations from that article. He said:

As far as the party was concerned the prior concern was a personal one. We, as individuals, fourteen of us, had acquired permanent jobs in Government. We were there 12 years and were starting another term. So there was a vested interest in staying. Money and power had taken over the party and they were not prepared to give this up for the people of the North. They had grown to like being the representatives of the major party in the country, so the initial treachery was allowed to happen.

The most telling quotation was the following:

The party founded by my father absorbed my life from my boyhood and I am sorry it is such a disaster. It could have been otherwise.

I do not think any more telling condemnation of the party opposite could be made than that expression by Mr. Kevin Boland. He was reared in Fianna Fáil, he knew the party and he had been a colleague of the Ministers concerned. He was described by his then Leader as "a rock of integrity". That is his verdict of Fianna Fáil. It is the most effective, severe and in many respects the most accurate that anybody could make. I will leave it at that. I will settle for it. I could not be more severe in my comments.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 56.

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Dick.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Halligan, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.

Níl

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Healy.
Question declared carried.
Barr
Roinn