Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Jan 1993

Vol. 425 No. 6

Nomination of Taoiseach (Resumed).

Atairgeadh an Cheist: "Go h-ainmneoidh Dáil Éireann an Teachta Albert Reynolds a cheaptha ag an Uachtarán mar Taoiseach".
Question again proposed: "That Dáil Éireann nominate Deputy Albert Reynolds for appointment by the President as Taoiseach".

Is mór an onóir dom cuidiú leis an tairiscint atá déanta ag an Aire Airgeadais go n-ainmneóidh Dáil Éireann an Teachta Albert Reynolds lena cheapadh ag Uachtarán na hÉireann mar Thaoiseach.

Ba mhaith liomsa ainm an Teachta John Bruton a chur roimh an Dáil lena cheapadh mar Thaoiseach. I believe, as I said on 14 December last, that Deputy Bruton has the capacity, the intellect, the passion and the selfless patriotism needed to fill the post of Taoiseach. Having said that, it now appears that a Government will be formed today comprising the Fianna Fáil Party and the Labour Party. However, the kind of Government proposed by Deputy Bruton before, during and after the election, i.e., a Government led by Deputies Bruton, Spring and O'Malley, would be a better Government. That is what most people expected and what most people wanted.

I was a member of three Governments, each of which was in partnership with the Labour Party — I use the word "partnership" deliberately because each of those Governments, whether the Taoiseach was Liam Cosgrave or Dr. Garret FitzGerald, was a partnership as, I am sure, any member who served in any one of those Administrations will agree. Since the election, and indeed during the election, it was distressing to see so many references in the media, attributed to spokespersons from the Labour Party, referring to how badly the Labour Party of the 1982-87 Government was treated. I believe that to be entirely untrue, and most unfair to Dr. Garret FitzGerald who at all times made sure that his Government operated as a unit and not as two separate parties. I think that Deputies Spring, Quinn and Kavanagh who are present here today and who were members of that Government will agree with what I am saying, and I hope that at some stage they will take the opportunity of saying so and setting the record straight, in fairness to the then Taoiseach.

It is now seven weeks since the election and, so far as we can judge publicly, the Government made no effort until yesterday to take any positive steps to deal with the currency crisis. I do not believe that high interest rates and extensive borrowing is the right policy. The two people who have primary responsibility for dealing with the crisis, the acting Taoiseach and the acting Minister for Finance, were too busy with internal politics, of trying to get back into Government, to do what they should have been doing, which is to harass, cajole, bully and persuade our partners in the European Community of the necessity for concerted European measures. The result of the failure in this regard is high interest rates which are leading families — even those with reasonable incomes — to despair of being able to meet their commitments, and which are bringing many small and medium businesses, whose competitive position was already eroded by the change in value between the Irish pound and the pound sterling, close to bankruptcy, with the consequent loss of jobs and lengthening of the dole queues.

Whatever Government is elected here today has no higher priority than to take immediate steps to deal with the currency crisis. Otherwise there will be a policy, that has been there for the last two months, of a drift towards recession which will continue with disastrous results for everybody. I believe, as I said earlier, that the person to deal with that problem is Deputy Bruton, and I confidently commend him to the House for appointment as Taoiseach.

I have the honour of formally seconding the name of Deputy John Bruton as Taoiseach. I believe that his nomination more correctly reflects the result of the election on 25 November, and I commend his name to the House.

Arising from the negotiations which have taken place between the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil, the Programme for Government which has been agreed between the parties, and following the Labour Party's special delegate conference on Sunday last I am informing the House that the Labour Party will be supporting Deputy Reynolds for Taoiseach. The programme negotiated is in the best interests of this country and its implementation will result in real and dramatic change in the next four years.

From the point of view of the general public it is something of a relief that eventually there is to be a Government, seven weeks tomorrow from the time they cast their vote. There is no doubt that the eventual outcome, in the shape of a Fianna Fáil-Labour Coalition, emerging today is a perversion of the will of the people as expressed then. Nowhere during the course of that election campaign was such a prospect even remotely put forward or canvassed by either party. Indeed, the contrary was the case given the campaigns of mutual hostility and public warnings undertaken by both parties which were features of the election. However, this confounding of the people's will has been well analysed by me and many others in the inconclusive weeks that have elapsed since 25 November. It is more appropriate now to turn our attention to the kind of administration Fianna Fáil and Labour are likely to give. That is where I now wish to focus.

At the outset, it must be acknowledged that this is not a very auspicious time for any party or combination of parties to assume the task of Government here. Times are very tough and many of our current difficulties stem from factors that, until very recently, have been essentially outside the control of this country. Ever since we as a people were brought to the precipice of economic disaster in the mid-eighties by the last partnership Government in which Deputy Spring was Tánaiste, a widespread consensus has existed on the necessity to control the size of the national debt and reverse the failure of successive Governments to pay their way. This consensus was given form in part through the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and given reality by the common sacrifice of our whole society and it resulted in a steady reduction of our national debt to 100 per cent of GNP by last year. The reality of this period notwithstanding, the pejorative cries about Thatcherite and Reaganite economics were nothing more than common sense economics trying to get this country back to living within its means. It was not done merely at the insistence of the Progressive Democrats. These responsible fiscal parameters were also endorsed by all the social partners, including the trade unions, to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.

In more recent years this policy has seen a significant net growth in employment, in the order of 70,000 extra jobs in the past five years and a net improvement in the levels of social welfare payments. It is important too that we understand the key factors that led to the dramatic improvement in this country's economic performance. They were solid fiscal discipline, improved international competitiveness and enhanced confidence in our economy. A key fact too was that this discipline was self-imposed. As a people we recognised the problems that accompanied living way beyond our means, crippling levels of borrowing and taxation and a mountain of debt that bled more and more of our national resources each year simply to pay the interest bill. As a society, we worked out a solution that worked well until recently. Now, in the shape of the new Fianna Fáil/Labour Programme for Government and the parallel budgetary skirmishing, the alarming indications are that we are about to start frittering away all those hard won corrections and improvements of the past five years.

Some of the protests from the Labour Party during the last few weeks, that they will do their damnedest to push the borrowing requirement beyond the soft Maastricht target, is nothing more than Alice in Wonderland speak. Based on their Government programme, it is clear that the new Coalition Administration want to buy jobs and make employment without any sacrifice. They seem to think it can be done in defiance of the basic law of economics, that a small open peripheral economy can only create sustainable employment by providing goods and services that others are willing to buy at their price. Gone is the concept of self-discipline. Gone is the target of steadily reducing our debt which the Progressive Democrats had insisted on in the last Government. Instead of the previously agreed and self-imposed positive discipline of an Exchequer borrowing requirement of 1.5 per cent of GNP this year, we are hearing about the negative commitment of not breaching the Maastricht guidelines.

Let us examine what this means. Dropping the term "GNP" from the lexicon of fiscal targeting in favour of the Maastricht guideline of GDP has peculiar and interesting implications for Ireland. So far as the Maastricht and European Community disciplines are concerned, Ireland is a special case. Our gross national product is about 10 per cent lower than our gross domestic product while our GDP is artificially inflated by two key factors — first, the profits recorded here by multinationals which are then repatriated and second the cost of foreign debt servicing. Ironically, these are two of the key structural imbalances in our economy, yet they will now be invoked in order to justify a higher level of borrowing and spending. The Maastricht Treaty employs the GDP term because it was already used in the European system of accounting. This rather fortuitous and undoubtedly misleading Maastricht guideline therefore enables the new Government to expand the level of borrowing this year by over £100 million. This should fool nobody, but it is one of the convenience stratagems being availed of by the new Government to satisfy Labour's desire to spend and Fianna Fáil's "flexible friend" approach to holding on to office.

Another fiscal wheeze is the proposal to provide some of the funding for the jobs programme by selling one State company, the ACC Bank to another State company, the ICC. It is claimed that this internal shuffle will create resources, like a farmer selling a cow to his wife in order to buy another cow. It is amazing, but why should it stop there? Why not, for instance, sell Aer Rianta to Aer Lingus and use the resources to subvent Aer Lingus? This incoming Government is not fooling the international markets.

A very serious currency problem has grown to disastrous proportions in recent weeks. By forcing the recent general election on the country, Fianna Fáil created an initial period of uncertainty. Subsequently the inordinate length of time spent by the new partners in Government in reaching agreement, accompanied by an apparent lessening of resolve to defend our currency, have resulted in enormous pressure on the Irish pound and on interest rates here. Interest rates are now causing real visible severe damage to our economy, to householders and to hard won indigenous industry. The financial difficulties are undoubtedly being exacerbated by the obvious weakening of resolve in the new Government partners to maintain sensible fiscal discipline.

The appalling monetary problem now bleeding this country stems from a structural defect in the EMS driven by market sentiment. The political hiatus of the past two and a half months has prevented the Irish Government from working with our Community partners to address the underlying problem. This same hiatus coupled with the unfortunate re-emergence of a very lukewarm commitment by the new Government in waiting to fiscal discipline in their budgetary skirmishings and in their programme has done nothing to encourage positive marketing sentiment.

We need the new Government to quickly demonstrate to financial markets a willingness to take the actions necessary to maintain the value of our currency and restore our competitiveness. To do this will require the incoming Government to set real and challenging fiscal targets for the next three years, and to state now what the EBR target for this year will be. They need to demonstrate a willingness to bring the current budget into broad balance so that it will not exceed our GNP by more than 1 per cent, and they need to tackle the ever rising growth in public expenditure. I fear they are unwilling to do any of these things and, unfortunately, our current interest rates suggest that markets are similarly concerned. I urge the new Government to immediately bring pressure to bear on our Community partners to address the fundamental structural defect in the EMS. If the Government pursues real fiscal discipline it will have the full support of the Progressive Democrats in that task.

In the overall Government programme there is much that is worthwhile. Undoubtedly it represents a sincere effort by the Labour Party especially to advance much needed social reforms in Irish society. I make this observation because the Progressive Democrats are well aware of how such programme making proceeds and the breakpoints and the resistance points of their Government partners. The extensive set of proposals in the equality section of the programme are especially to be welcomed. I pledge my party's support to their implementation but conscious as I am of the difficulties the Progressive Democrats encountered both in Government and in programme-making, I find it alarming and regrettable to note so many key omissions from the new Government programme.

I list merely the following: nothing on comprehensive constitutional reform and on the recent Supreme Court judgment on Cabinet confidentiality, in particular; no reference to Articles 2 and 3, given their fundamental role in the quest for a lasting settlement in Northern Ireland; and no reference to the appalling gap in our extradition law which must be dealt with to ensure that the possession as well as the use of guns and explosives are extraditable offences. There is a detailed section on heritage, yet no mention whatever of the controversial interpretative centres against which the Labour Party rightly railed while in Opposition.

I would gently remind that party that the era of progressive social and economic policy has not merely dawned on this country with the formation of this proposed Government. Under the two Government programmes negotiated by the Progressive Democrats and implemented as fully as we could, comprehensive tax reform was effectively commenced, industrial policy was radically overhauled, a new competition Act to benefit consumers was passed, the death penalty was abolished, Dublin's killer smog was banished, a new national Environmental Protection Agency was established, an appeals board for farmers in disadvantaged areas was set up, extra money for the health services and haemophiliac AIDS sufferers was provided, planning compensation was abolished and the abuse of section 4 in our planning process was ended.

There was much more. Many of the provisions of the new programme can be found in the two Progressive Democrat predecessors. Most notably, let me cite the Oireachtas reform measures already with the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The publication of a White Paper as a prelude to a divorce referendum and many of the law reform measures were already part of Government policy.

Before leaving the programme I must also record my regret at the vagueness of the section on tax reform. There are no targets whatsoever and the need to reform the PRSI system is not even mentioned. The cliché about improving tax collection and enforcement is repeated but the effective measure proposed by the Progressive Democrats, namely, a universal RSI number to combat tax evasion, is ignored. Instead the programme is riddled with plans for more State intervention, especially on the job creation and employment stimulation side. I have no doubt that a reduction in the PRSI burden on work would at a single stroke do more to boost employment than all the "make-work" and bureaucratic intervention measures proposed by the new Government.

In recent days there has been another controversy concerning ethics in politics. I am conscious of the view taken by you, a Cheann Comhairle, that the proceedings of the beef tribunal ought not to be the subject of improper comment here and, accordingly, I will avoid infringing that ruling. I feel obliged to put on record some facts, especially for the benefit of those who have challenged me "to put up or shut up" in relation to these matters. I wish to make it clear that I have not sought to impede the Fianna Fáil and Labour Parties from coming to a political agreement. On the last sitting day before Christmas I urged both parties to speed up the process of providing a Government if that was their decision. It is always the prerogative of a large majority of 101 Members to form a Government if they so wish but during the Adjournment debate before Christmas when I urged expedition of the process I did not know and could not have known that certain events were about to happen which led to the recent controversy.

As far as timing is concerned, my counsel had no control over the time when a startling admission was made to him, nor did I have any control over the timing of that information being conveyed to me. If anyone in this House was put out by the timing of these matters — and I can see that some of those involved in inter-party discussions must have been suspicious and resentful of it — then the blame for such timing lies with the person who made the admission, and with him alone. I acted immediately and responsibly. I did not ask for the matter to be revealed. It was done voluntarily and unexpectedly, but for all that the evidence is strong and the issue is grave. As to the question of the strength of the evidence, the admission in question was made to someone whose absolute and unquestionable integrity has been acknowledged by the person likely to become Tánaiste today.

I accepted your word in good faith that you would not infringe the rule which I have so strictly asked this House to obey with regard to discussing matters pertaining to the beef tribunal. I trust you will not infringe that rule to which we all conform in this House.

I made it clear at the outset that I wished not to infringe any ruling, but I feel I am entitled to speak in relation to certain matters that have come to light recently.

If the matters to which the Deputy is anxious to refer relate to the tribunal, then I suggest that the investigations lie there and not with this House.

This House cannot absolve itself of responsibility for seeking an explanation for some matters that have recently come to light.

At the appropriate time, Deputy, not now. When the tribunal reports, then and only then.

Can you be sure that both you and I will be around for that great day?

We shall have to wait and see.

That same Deputy has also acknowledged that in making me aware of what he had learned the counsel concerned acted in the proper course of his duty to me as his client. The same counsel acted on the highest view of his professional obligation. Criticism levelled on the ground that he might better have ignored what he had learned or forgotten it or suppressed it or left it within the confines of his profession is based on a total misunderstanding of that obligation which is owed to his client.

Some have sought to trivialise or to dismiss the issues involved but that ignores the gravity of the matter. We are not dealing here with a boast, a jibe, a jest or a jeer. The admission reported to me was clear and unambiguous. Furthermore the contents of the admission were genuine, if foolhardy. It was conveyed to my counsel in the clearest and most unambiguous terms that (a) various drafts of my statement of proposed evidence to the tribunal had been made available to my political opponents and studied. There was a sequence of at least nine drafts of that statement.

I am sorry, Deputy O'Malley. I have given the Deputy some latitude but he now seeks to impinge upon the beef tribunal. This House set up that tribunal to deliberate on certain matters. The tribunal should be allowed to do its job. I am anxious that Deputy O'Malley should desist from any further reference to matters appertaining to the tribunal.

I am talking about matters that did not happen at the tribunal, Sir.

That is a ridiculous rule. It was in the Shelbourne Hotel, not at the other pantomime.

It was also reported to me that the accompanying notes written by a named counsel of mine had also been studied. The existence of such notes was not known to the person who heard the admission and could not have been guessed at.

I shall have to ask the Deputy to desist from any further reference to matters appertaining to the tribunal.

These matters were not mentioned at the tribunal.

(Interruptions.)

I feel sure Deputy O'Malley will seek to obey the Chair.

It was reported that those who had studied the drafts had been able to track certain specified figures from one draft to another and could see how they had been changed. Nobody could have simply guessed that the estimate of the figures involved and the basis of calculation would have changed substantially as they did in the period during which the sequence of drafts was prepared. It was also stated that those who had studied the drafts had noted the deletion of earlier references to repayments by the Iraqi Government in the later drafts. Again nobody could have guessed that drafts of my statement dealt with that issue.

As Deputy O'Malley and the House are aware, I have ruled consistently that the work of the tribunal must not be impinged upon or put at risk of being prejudiced in any way by the proceedings of this privileged assembly. I must now ask Deputy O'Malley to desist forthwith from any further reference to matters appertaining to the tribunal.

I do not have the slightest difficulty, Sir, in making this speech outside the Chamber; I can go upstairs to the RTE studio to brief the political correspondents and tell them what I have here.

That may be so and I would much prefer if the Deputy would do that.

For the information of this House, I wish to state that the early draft statements prepared for me were based on the incomplete information available to my counsel at that time and made a lower estimate of the liability of the State than the figure of £170 million given by me. They were amended at a later stage to reflect new and correct information about the size of that claim.

I have asked the Deputy to desist.

Likewise, early drafts under-estimated the amount of Iraqi repayments. Later drafts contained the correct figures for the Goodman claim but did not set out a basis of calculation for those figures.

Deputy O'Malley, please; these are matters for another place, not now.

On the back page of a newspaper but not for this Chamber.

It is regrettable, Sir, that I am not allowed to make reference to these matters. I am constantly challenged to deal with the issues.

The Deputies know my ruling full well on this matter. I have no intention of deviating from my ruling in respect of matters appertaining to the beef tribunal.

This is the stuff of the old Albanian Parliament.

I would prefer now if Deputy O'Malley would deal with more appropriate matters, with matters appropriate to the election of Taoiseach today.

In the circumstances I do not wish to be disorderly——

On a point of order——

——and I will go on to a later part of the statement I wish to make to this House. I will skip the next number of paragraphs in deference to your ruling but I respectfully submit that you are wrong and I think it makes something of a farce of this House that something like this can be said with absolute freedom outside the House but not here.

The Chair is merely being consistent with the decision of this House in setting up the tribunal to investigate certain matters and to report thereon.

On a point of order, Sir, I ask if you recollect that in the confidence debate which led to the general election of which this Dáil meeting is the outcome, you did allow fairly extensive references to the subject matter of the beef tribunal? I feel that you should be consistent with that ruling and allow Deputy O'Malley to complete his speech.

Deputy Bruton, the record will show that the Chair has been consistent in seeking to keep matters appertaining to the beef tribunal out of this Chamber. If they did slip in unintentionally, it was not my fault.

On a point of order, Sir, I would like to call to your mind the fact that at the outset of the confidence debate here on 5 November you stated that you would allow references to the beef tribunal——

There were certain circumstances——

——because of the events which led to the election. This Dáil meeting is the outcome of that election and the factors that obtained on 5 November are relevant now.

Deputy Bruton will have a chance to intervene in this debate; he may not obstruct the Chair and its ruling. I have asked Deputy O'Malley to avoid any further reference to matters appertaining to the beef tribunal and I hope he will be good enough to do so. It is in strict conformity with the decision of the Chair and the House.

He has said it all.

I regret, Sir, that it is necessary, if I am to defer to your ruling, to skip a number of paragraphs but at least the paragraphs will be available to anyone who wishes to read them. I will go on now to deal with a different aspect of the matter.

Some have wondered why I, like Deputy Spring, did not pursue in public a pattern of interference with one of my counsel. I can say this: I regarded it as a serious matter then, when it was brought to my attention, and I regard it as a serious matter now. At that time I deferred to the views and wishes of the counsel in question as Deputy Spring is and has been for the past number of months aware. I might add that, so far as I was concerned, the investigation into this matter was not completed and in fact the first intimation that it was being brought to a conclusion was a letter which was sent to one of my counsel on the matter on 6 January, which was last week, after this matter had become public knowledge.

It is quite clear that the Deputy is circumventing the ruling of the Chair.

Nobody would have been happier than I if the matter could have been investigated fully earlier but, by the same token, we might, in retrospect, never have learned the substance of the later admissions if the earlier matters had been investigated more fully then and certainly nobody could suggest that I was vindictive or sensationalist in my approach to the matter last October or in the ensuing election.

I must also record here my deep unhappiness at the obviously partial and one sided rush to judgment by the Attorney General last Wednesday without hearing at all from my witnesses about the very serious allegations at the heart of this matter.

Please, Deputy O'Malley; this is not good enough. The Deputy knows my view on this matter and he ought to obey the Chair. I must ask him not to make any further reference in this House——

The Bar Council can investigate it but we cannot talk about it.

——to the matters under discussion or to public officials.

The truth is bitter.

I want to go on to mention in passing a statement made by what is described as a "Government spokesman". I suppose, technically, he is a public official but it has always been the practice in this House to refer to statements issued by what are called Government spokesmen. I feel I should be allowed to do that because equally extraordinary in my view were the reported remarks of the "Government spokesman" on Thursday night last, less than three hours after I and four others had submitted, as promised, detailed statements to the Attorney General. The Government spokesman sought to dismiss the contents of those statements as being of no value. Later, he sought to retract these comments and to claim that he had not seen the documents.

I think the Deputy would agree with the Chair that it is not good enough to make personal charges against any person.

(Interruptions.)

That is what led to the tribunal; we would not have had a tribunal if personal charges had not been made.

If personal charges are to be made there is a procedure laid down in this House for doing so.

It seems rather peculiar, if an aspect of Government policy, whatever it is, is enunciated by a Government spokesman, it cannot be discussed then in this House. That kind of ruling, if you were to make it, would bring the already farcical situation in which this House often finds itself to the absolute limits of incredulity, to the point where we might as well close down the House and stand out in the street and address one another there.

I think the Deputy should leave matters appertaining to the beef tribunal to that tribunal; it does not belong here.

It is a long way from the beef tribunal.

It does not belong here and I have so ruled.

You are wrong.

Later, Sir, he rushed to retract these comments and to claim that he had not seen the documents. The following morning the Attorney General was reported as claiming that he had not spoken to the Government spokesman after he received the documents.

I must ask Deputy O'Malley to desist.

The question to ask therefore is who did speak to the Government spokesman. Given all the circumstances, an explanation is called for at a political level. The charge of dishonesty made against me——

Deputy O'Malley, please.

——was made at a political level and had far-reaching political consequences. An admission that my private papers were copied and studied and a claim that it justified the charge of dishonesty under oath is a very serious matter indeed.

Deputy O'Malley, please desist.

It is not an admission that can be simply relegated to investigation by a professional body or left to the tribunal alone. It requires a political explanation.

The Deputy is showing a flagrant disregard for the ruling of the Chair.

You have not heard the end of it yet by a long shot.

(Interruptions.)

The truth is always painful.

It is ironic that the final outcome of a general election which almost everyone interpreted as an unprecedented cry for change from the electorate is going to be the re-election of Deputy Reynolds as Taoiseach and the reappointment of many members of the discredited outgoing Administration to the Cabinet table.

Democratic Left made it clear during the election campaign that we would not do anything that would facilitate the return of Fianna Fáil to office in any capacity. Accordingly we will be voting against the nomination of Deputy Reynolds for the position of Taoiseach.

When Deputy Reynolds was first nominated as Taoiseach on 11 February last year, I expressed serious doubts about his capacity to do the job. Nothing in the intervening 11 months has given me grounds to revise that opinion. Indeed, any examination of his record would seem to confirm my assessment. As many speakers remarked during the confidence debate on 5 November, Deputy Reynolds has been a disaster as Taoiseach and led this country from one disaster to another.

The main focus of Deputy Reynolds' attentions during his term of office seems to have been his own private war with his then Coalition colleagues, the Progressive Democrats — an obsession which eventually led to the collapse of that Government. Meanwhile the social and economic problems of the country were allowed to mount. In December 1991 there were 269,200 on the live register. After less than 12 months of Deputy Reynolds' leadership that figure for December 1992 had jumped to 293,700. The real figure for unemployment is actually around 315,000 as some 16,000 people on pre-retirement schemes and 5,000 others were removed from the live register, although they are not employed. Nobody who presided over such a dismal record on unemployment deserves to be elected as Taoiseach here today.

Deputy Albert Reynolds also presided over a Cabinet which approved a whole range of vicious social welfare cuts — dubbed "McCreevy's dirty dozen" by the Labour Party during the general election campaign. Surprisingly the Programme for Government does not contain any reference to these, let alone any commitment to have them reversed.

Neither was Deputy Albert Reynolds' record in the social area any better. He insisted on going ahead with the widely criticised Protocol to the Maastricht Treaty which could have had the effect of jeopardising the lives and health of Irish women.

He totally misjudged the mood of the country in the after math of the X case and came up with a form of wording for the substantive abortion issue which failed to satisfy either those who were totally opposed to abortion in every circumstance or those who favoured a more tolerant approach.

Despite the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, Deputy Reynolds made it clear that reform of our law on homosexuality was at the bottom of his list of priorities. In passing, I have to congratulate the negotiators of the Programme for Government for managing to propose the decriminalisation of homosexuality without once mentioning the dreaded `H' word. Clearly in somebody's view homosexuality is still "the love that dare not speak its name".

Many serious questions remain about the handling by Deputy Reynolds of the Maastricht Treaty and its aftermath. During the referendum campaign we were warned time and time again that, if we did not ratify it in the form agreed, disaster would follow, unemployment would grow and interest rates would go through the roof. The people ratified it overwhelmingly. Unemployment has reached record levels. People who borrowed either for productive purposes or simply to put a roof over their heads are being beggared by crippling interest rates. Householders face the prospect of a 3 per cent hike in mortgage rates in the next few days which will mean that the monthly repayment on a £50,000 mortgage will have increased by more than £200 per month in the past six months.

During the Maastricht debate Democratic Left warned of the dangers of removing national currency controls without first putting in place effective European controls and the necessary political and economic supports to protect us during any transitional period. We were dismissed as prophets of doom, but now the speculators have been allowed to run riot. Since September we have had unprecedented currency speculation, which is destroying jobs and crippling people financially.

We have had two European Summits since the crisis started — Birmingham in October and Edinburgh in December. Yet Deputy Reynolds does not appear, at either of those meetings, to have made any demands on the Community or our partners that action should be taken to end the speculation costing us so much.

The Programme for Government agreed between Fianna Fáil and Labour is a substantial one, one which requires careful study. My Democratic Left colleagues will be dealing with the policy issues in more detail during the debate on the formation of the Government this evening, but there are a few general comments I would like to make.

As we pointed out in our detailed analysis published on Friday, while the influence of Labour is seen in the social content of that programme, Fianna Fáil thinking dominates the programme's economic policies. Job creation, tax reform and the elimination of poverty are all subordinated to the over-riding requirement of the Maastricht Treaty, namely, confining borrowing to 3 per cent of GDP. This strict adherence to a doctrinaire fiscal policy is further underlined by the programme's monetarist assertion that economic growth is dependent on public expenditure control and cutbacks. We believe sound economic and fiscal policies are possible only by creating economic growth and radically reducing poverty. This means rejecting the unidimensional one-legged approach explicit in the Maastricht guidelines which narrowly focuses on the monetary criteria at the expense of interest rates and economic criteria. Even accepting these guidelines, the Government is not compelled to abide by the 3 per cent until 1994. Democratic Left opposes the underlying economic conservatism of the programme.

The Programme for Government makes it clear that it is based on the Fianna Fáil and Labour Party manifestos and not on the working paper agreed between Democratic Left and Labour. Nevertheless we are pleased that a number of the ideas Democratic Left promoted have survived in the Programme for Government. We will certainly press for and support their implementation when brought before the Dáil. There are other aspects of the programme we will also consider supporting, subject to the acceptability of legislation when published.

Following the general election we entered into discussions with the Labour Party in the hope that a centre/left Government could be created involving our two parties and Fine Gael. Had such a project gone ahead, the two parties of the Left would have been negotiating with Fine Gael on almost a 50:50 basis. We believe that a programme for Government finalised under such an arrangement would have been far stronger. Fine Gael's political elitism and their fear of leaving the Progressive Democrats in Opposition scuttled that option and made it inevitable that Labour would turn to Fianna Fáil.

Former Deputy Eric Byrne scuttled it.

A programme negotiated between Fianna Fáil and Labour, where the party of the left was in a minority of two to one, was bound to be a different document with serious questions remaining about its implementation.

If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of this document will be in the delivery of the promises made. Given the record of previous administrations, especially ones involving Fianna Fáil, we cannot be confident that this will be done. Many of the commitments are aspirational. Others will need to be fleshed out in much more detail before they can be adequately assessed.

The Government is being formed against the background of the new accusations arising from the beef tribunal. We may know in time whether the very serious allegations made by Deputy O'Malley were well founded. On the other hand it may not be possible to absolutely prove or disprove them. It is an indication of the sort of problems that the new Government will face. I suspect that there will be more unpleasant surprises for Deputy Spring and his colleagues in the months ahead.

I welcome the commitment given in the programme that the new Government will accept and implement the recommendations of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry. I hope that the new relationship between Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party will not in any way sap the will of any party in this House to see Mr. Justice Hamilton adequately and fully complete the mandate given to him by the Oireachtas.

The new Government faces social and economic problems on a daunting scale. I genuinely hope it will be successful in dealing with these problems, although I cannot express any confidence that it will. However, we will judge each matter brought before the Dáil on its merits. Parliamentary democracy requires not just good government but also good and effective opposition. Democratic Left will provide vigorous but principled opposition from a socialist perspective.

I am relieved, as I think most Members are, that we are about to have a Government. Christmas, and the New Year, have both passed but no new Government has been put in place. The coming together of Labour and Fianna Fáil was inevitable, in my estimation, once the election returns became known. On the first day we met I indicated that we should stop fiddling around about a rainbow coalition and get down to business in the only obvious way that one could or alternatively go to the country. We least of all want to go to the country. but, it is true to say, the people do not want to see us campaigning again under any circumstances.

They wanted a change.

They are getting a change. What is really troubling many of you is that the change is so unexpected and so strange. It has not happened since 1932 that Fianna Fáil was supported by Labour in a Government.

A Deputy

That did not last long.

In the interim I have the hope and the expectation——

It only lasted a year.

——that Fianna Fáil who, over the years, suppressed the Labour Party by being the labour party might revert to that role now that they get the encouragement from Labour. In the Programme for Government there is practically everything that one could think about — cynically one could say, pious platitudes. Taken that it is the intention of the two parties to try to put into operation the various indications under so many heads, then we can only take it that that is their intention and that these are not pious platitudes, despite the fact that the restrictions imposed on them by the Maastricht Treaty — indicated by Deputy De Rossa — will, in a major way, curtail their ambitions to secure much of what is contained in this document.

I opposed the Maastricht Treaty as best I could but with little real results; it was carried. There is no point in blaming Deputy Albert Reynolds or any member of Fianna Fáil or any of the other parties that supported Maastricht. The issue was put to the people — I did not think it was put fairly or impartially — and was carried by a large majority. We are stuck with it and that is what the incoming Government will have to deal with. It will be found that we were unwise to adopt the Treaty in the form it was presented to us. We would have been better off had we rejected it. Had we done so, as the Danes did and as the French almost did, we would have a different Treaty with the best we could wish for contained in it and a good deal of the restrictions removed.

The 101 Fianna Fáil/Labour Party Deputies will decide on the person who will lead the Government. As we are now discussing nominations for Taoiseach, 101 Deputies have given their clear indication that Deputy Albert Reynolds is their choice. As I said on the first day the 27th Dáil met, 14 December, the Taoiseach has not been in office for long and he is carrying a great deal of the odium of what went before he took office. That is not to say I have wonderful expectations that he can do magical things in the future but — as I said then — there is better to come from the Taoiseach than he has been given the opportunity to show during the rather traumatic months he has been Taoiseach. The roof fell in on him and it was not he who weakened the roof in any special personal way.

On the agreed programme I am glad to see — it was inevitable — that employment is the big issue. I do not think the decisions and the indications in this document are sufficiently strong to bring about a major change in our unemployment problem. Housing has got special mention and we are told there will be 3,500 new starts this year but I do not think that will do anything other than tinker with the housing crisis. There are up to 40,000 approved for public housing at present. Where are we going with 3,500; how long will it take to make up the deficit? There is a crisis for those waiting on houses. The benefit would be that if we concentrated on the construction industry, particularly on housing which we need, we could drastically reduce our unemployment. We should reintroduce housing grants, rather than paying the first time owner single grant which is becoming a joke. It would be easier to build a house without the restrictions and the regulations attached to the grant requirements and forget about the couple of thousand pounds. We should conserve the housing stock we have. Grants should be allocated for reconstruction and repair. We want big grants for those who are approved for local authority housing.

In the long run this would not cost us and we could take thousands, and tens of thousands, off our unemployment list. We could save the cost of collecting the tax to pay those people, and collect extra PRSI, income tax, VAT on materials and so on. It is unwise not to go into the construction industry in a big way. I hope the new Minister for the Environment will be the person I think it should be; I will not name him, because that might mar his chances at this stage. If that person is appointed I have great expectations that he will not live with what is contained in the programme.

Roads have been mentioned and there is no point in having a good national road network which is funded to a great extent by the EC, if our county roads programme is not properly funded. By means of a request to Brussels we can use a percentage of that money for less important roads. That is and has been available to us and we have done nothing but we spend millions of pounds on a few miles of road here, there and elsewhere on our primary road system which requires repairs. That is not making the best use of the money in present circumstances.

The matter of fisheries is not being catered for in the way it should be. We did a bad deal in the EC years ago and we are labouring under that. There was a revision of that deal in the past year and while the Minister for the Marine appears to have got some recognition of the poor deal we have not pressed our demands home. I ask the incoming Minister for the Marine to seek a significant increase in our quotas.

In regard to transport, it is not sufficient to talk about improving the Belfast-Dublin rail link. We should extend our railway system. I suggest that in the talks which we have heard will take place between the North, the South and the UK, we ask that the rail link from Portadown to Derry, which also served Donegal, would be restored. It was a bigoted political decision which led to the closure of that link, a line that connected with the Dublin line in Portadown——

The Deputy was part of the Government which allowed that to happen.

In case Deputy Harte has got mixed up, we do not have anything to do with the rail link from Portadown to Derry.

We used to have.

I hope the Deputy is not going to tell me he does not know where it is.

(Interruptions.)

I know where it is, and the Government of which the Deputy was a member agreed to close it.

This is like a county council meeting, a Cheann Comhairle.

I hope I would at least have Deputy Harte's support in seeking to try to have that rail link, which will be ever more important in the future, restored.

Absolutely, but the Deputy was part of the Government which closed it.

I was the only one who voted against it.

(Interruptions.)

Can I have Deputy Harte's support in seeking to try to have this rail link restored?

Is it the one they closed?

That is what I really want.

According to his speech, the Deputy is back on the rails.

That is more than will ever be said about Deputy Harte.

We should let the Deputy finish as we will not hear from him for another four years.

(Interruptions.)

In regard to these talks, I wish to reiterate what I said on 14 December, that is, that Articles 2 and 3——

Rip Van Winkle.

——must not be bartered away for any peculiar reasons which our negotiators might have put to them by those who sit on the other side of the table when they go to the North or to London. I listened yesterday evening with some amazement to Mr. Mayhew talking about the resumption of the talks at which, as I understood him to indicate, Articles 2 and 3 must be on the table. If that is what he wants on the table he should be told to put Article 75 of the Ireland Act on the table first because if that was dispensed with we would not need Articles 2 and 3 since we would be back where we were, that is, a 32 county country rather than a 26 county country.

I welcome the absolute assertions in the programme for Government that we will not be joining the Western European Union or NATO. Those are very important aspects of the programme; for the first time they flatfootedly put in print something we will not do.

In regard to education, much work needs to be done, for example, construction work, refurbishment and rebuilding. I wish to say in passing that our third level regional technical colleges and, in particular, the regional technical college in Letterkenny, have been sadly neglected to the extent that over half the students in Letterkenny Regional Technical College are no longer capable of being accommodated in the main building and must receive their education in another building a mile from the campus. This is not good enough, and I do not think the new governing boards which have been set up will make any difference as they merely mean a return to Marlborough Street of the control of regional technical colleges which were made a success by the vocational education committees: as soon as the regional technical colleges became successful and established they were pulled back into Marlborough Street. I shudder to think what the future is going to be for them.

In conclusion, I wish to say that agriculture has not been given any high priority in this document. This is not new; it has been said over the past few weeks that agriculture is being neglected. I would not quite say that; what has happened is that the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, which we have largely gone along with, have already buried prospects for Irish agriculture and will see the demise of the small farmer in the next ten years. We should now be seeking in the EC to have applied to this country, if not to all others, a differentiated price support within the Common Agricultural Policy in order to give smaller farmers, who need help most, the help they need and to cease to give to large farmers — not that there are many of them in Ireland — more than they really need or deserve.

In regard to transport, I suggest that a freight equalisation programme would be much more beneficial to this country and the peripheral areas than the building up of new structures and better roads which, although necessary, do not improve our lot one whit in so far as the drag to the centre is concerned.

I wish to say to the incoming Government, since the outgoing Government clearly has not so far done so, that Nicky Kelly should be paid the compensation he has been awarded. It was a lousy award to say the least but he should have been paid. Perhaps the new Government, whoever is in charge, will pay him his compensation.

As we are now, in effect, debating the formation of a Fianna Fáil-Labour Coalition in this motion on the nomination for Taoiseach, I wish to put on record that I do not believe a Labour-Fianna Fáil partnership represents a progressive political development. It is my view that the long term disadvantage of this coalition arrangement is that it will set back the prospects of a left-right political divide in this country and will not achieve significant moves towards social equality.

I wish to refer again to what was stated following the outcome of the general election to be the preferred option of the Labour Party, that is, a coalition involving Democratic Left and Fine Gael, supported by me and the Green Party Member. I fully accept the good faith of the members of the Labour Party who conveyed that option to me. It has been suggested that this was never a serious option so far as the Labour Party leadership was concerned and that the Labour-Democratic Left talks were simply part of a carefully laid trap to frighten off Fine Gael. While I do not necessarily accept this interpretation of events, if it was the case then Fine Gael rushed into that trap. I only mention this in passing while I am not interested in speculating about Labour's motivations, I believe that the very daft approach of Fine Gael — not to have any discussions with the four members of Democratic Left — was a most decisive factor in facilitating and making inevitable the proposed Fianna Fáil-Labour coalition. There were options and alternatives to a Labour-Fianna Fáil partnership and if all of those options had been fully explored the outcome could have been different.

I was intrigued at the time — it is worth putting this on the record — by the absolute refusal of Fine Gael to speak to the elected Members of Democratic Left. This was particularly intriguing to me because as a member of Dublin City Council I am not aware of any difficulty on the part of leading front bench Members of Fine Gael in working with the Democratic Left members of the city council, their allies in the closely knit Civic Alliance. Indeed, the same Fine Gael front bench Members are involved in a binding agreement, on which they will vote very shortly, to support the Democratic Left or The Workers' Party nominee for the position of Dublin's first citizen, the Lord Mayor, a public office held in the highest esteem nationally.

Against this background, it seems strange that it was impossible for Fine Gael to sit at the same table with Democratic Left in the aftermath of the general election. However, I acknowledge the fact that Deputy John Bruton extended to me the courtesy of a meeting with him to exchange views on the formation of a Government. However, had Fine Gael been willing to respond to and explore the possibility of Labour's stated preferred option, and if a programme had been agreed, a Government could have been formed, admittedly with a slim majority, but there is a strongly held view that Governments with a slight majority are better for democracy than Governments with the huge majority which the Labour/Fianna Fáil Coalition will now command——

And the record of a Government that relied on Deputy Gregory.

It is also my view that the long term benefits for Labour and the left in such an arrangement would have been far greater than in a Fianna Fáil dominated coalition. I had thought that such a Government, with a unified left group involved, could have achieved far more by way of specific objectives in the interests of social equality than the well-meaning aspirations which seem, to some extent at least, to dominate the programme put before us by a coalition in which Fianna Fáil hold a more than 2:1 majority.

However, having listened in this House last week to Deputy Bruton making the extraordinary admission that he intended to oppose a Labour/Fianna Fáil Coalition on the basis that such a coalition would build local authority houses for the homeless, it makes me wonder——

That is not what I said.

That is precisely what the Deputy said. That makes me wonder if Deputy Bruton spared us all what was in retrospect a waste of time——

If the Deputy reads the record he will see that that is not what I said.

At least I was in the House last week to hear the Deputy, unlike most Members of his Front Bench.

When will we see you here next?

I previously raised the very serious issue of the homeless and I welcome the fact that it is one of the issues which has been positively responded to in the Programme for Government.

It has not.

Particularly welcome to me, and to the many thousands of people on local authority waiting lists, is the 3,500 new local authority housing starts for 1993——

That would be enough for one local authority in the country.

It is a drop in the ocean.

——the special emphasis on inner city housing and the accelerated programme of remedial work with special attention paid to inner city flat complexes.

There are many positive elements in the programme. Let me refer briefly to several specific commitments. The commitment to stop large scale privatisation will be welcomed, particularly by the workers in Telecom Éireann whose trade union is to be applauded for its campaign against what was a very real threat from the defunct Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat alliance. On tax reform, there is the priority objective of broadening the standard tax band and removing low paid workers from the tax net. On health, there is the proposal to provide an additional £20 million to reduce hospital waiting lists. On education, one of the priorities is smaller class sizes with the reduction in the pupil/teacher ratio at primary level and the recruitment of 500 additional remedial teachers. On transport, there is a commitment to provide a new light rail system for Dublin and the scrapping of the eastern bypass while providing a new access to Dublin Port. The Ethics in Government section in its entirely while it does not go far enough, is clearly a significant step in the right direction.

On industrial policy, although less specific, the emphasis in the programme is on the development of indigenous industry based on our own natural resources along with the strengthening of a dynamic and efficient State enterprise sector with the main priority being a stronger indigenous industrial base making a greater contribution to employment. There is a commitment to a vigorous campaign for an EC industrial policy, because if industrial policy does not change at European Community level then it is inevitable that our small country on the periphery of Europe will lose out and become little more than a tourist destination for industrialised Europe.

There is also the very positive community development programme that will give the long term unemployed a real motivation to get involved in the training and community work projects without the threat of the loss of their secondary social welfare benefits. Perhaps this facility might be extended to Dublin's street traders whose benefits are being vindictively taken from them for doing a few hours work.

While the reference to the community enterprise development programme emphasises tourism related projects, it is important to point out that job projects can be created to meet the needs of our own people and of our own communities as well as providing for the needs of tourists.

However, it has to be said that despite these positive elements in industrial policy and community employment there is little that specifically indicates how this Government will create jobs for the 300,000 unemployed. The appointment of a Minister for Equality can be a most radical and progressive measure if the mechanisms are put in place to ensure that all Government Departments are responsive to the objective of equality by ensuring that decisions they take have a positive impact on disadvantaged communities and marginalised people. If each Government Department does not positively discriminate in favour of disadvantaged communities whether in Education, Health, industrial policy and so on, then the task of the Ministry for Equality will undoubtedly fail.

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy, but much of what he is saying would be more appropriate to the debate on the appointment of members of the Government at a later stage. Let me dissuade Members from going into some detail on the election of Taoiseach which might be left to a later stage of the proceedings.

A Cheann Comhairle, I can assure you that I will not be referring to the beef tribunal or the rail line from I cannot remember where. I am referring to relevant matters. I have not much more to say, a Cheann Comhairle, if you will bear with me.

On unemployment, educational disadvantage is not just something that affects individuals, it now affects entire communities and Government policy must relate at every level to that fact. The inner city of Dublin represents just one of those disadvantaged communities where there are, in some areas, over 70 per cent unemployed and not one child reaching university education while 50 per cent leave school before they reach 15 years of age. It will take a very experienced and effective Minister for Equality to deal with social inequity on such a scale.

Last, I have to say I welcome the appointment of an independent electoral commission to revise constituency boundaries. While the new commission will have the same chairman, I trust this time it will operate independently in line with its brief and will not permit the political interference and manipulation which sadly characterised the last supposedly independent commission. The inclusion of the Ombudsman on this occasion is a welcome factor and will, I hope, assist its independence. There is little point talking about ethics in Government if the very source, the very base of the democratic process, the constituency, is gerrymandered in certain instances to suit particular political interests.

Regrettably, there are very grave omissions from the Programme for Government. The section on social welfare makes no reference to the solemn commitment made by Labour Party candidates to reverse the welfare cuts of Deputy McCreevy. In many constituencies, my own included, Labour Party candidates' election campaigns were dominated by this issue, calling on people to fight the cuts by voting Labour. Yet now, with Labour in Government, the cuts, it seems will remain. This brings to my mind Fianna Fáil's hypocritical slogan, "health cuts hurt the old, the sick and the handicapped" a slogan which was very quickly forgotten, and even greater cuts introduced, after that election.

In the past few days Labour spokespersons have promised that there will be no more welfare cuts, whatever that means. The fact is that for many people on social welfare, there is simply nothing left to cut. Perhaps the section on ethics in Government should include a measure on false promises before elections. The entire section on social welfare in the Programme for Government brings into question Labour's stated priority commitment, to move towards greater equality throughout society and to eliminate social disadvantage and poverty, particularly since there is no specific timescale or commitment to fully implement the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare, even over the next four years.

Given Labour's special responsibility to the poor and the disadvantaged their ability and resolve to negotiate on behalf of social welfare recipients appears to be sadly lacking if one is to judge from their Programme for Government. Despite this very major shortcoming and, indeed, the shadow of the beef tribunal which hangs over the formation of this Government, it is my hope that the Labour influence in the new coalition will, in the long term, work in the interests of the poor and that the largely aspirational commitments of the programme to achieve greater equality and eliminate social disadvantage and poverty will become a reality. While I will support any and every measure designed to bring about the realisation of the ideal of the 1916 signatories to cherish all the children of the nation equally I will, however, be voting in the way I believe that those who elected me gave me a mandate to vote — against the nomination of the Taoiseach.

Let us hear about the Balbriggan bypass.

Is mian liom ar dtús, a Cheann Comhairle, beannachtaí na hathbhliana a ghuí ort féin agus ar chuile dhuine anseo agus atá ag éisteacht nó ag féachaint orainn. Ní ró-fhada a bheidh sé, le cúnamh Dé, nuair a chraolfar cúrsaí an Tí seo ar an Teilifís nua Gaeilge an fhaid is a táimid i mbun gnó sa chéad teanga.

I regret to have to say it but the Green Party — Comhaontas Glas — would have an insurmountable problem in supporting Deputy Reynolds for Taoiseach. Every day when I see members of the Green Party standing in wintry weather asking people to write to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in an attempt to prevent THORP (Sellafield 2) coming into operation, I think of the Taoiseach and the way he gave the go ahead to £3 billion of EC funds in 1990 to be made available for nuclear reprocessing plants, including THORP.

Whenever I see the Taoiseach I think of Fianna Fáil, the "slap on the back" politics of deals and strokes, disempowering people rather than empowering them, following policies which cause depopulation of rural areas and a drift towards cities and mass emigration. Notwithstanding that, I think of soaring unemployment, the unchanged melody of rhetoric about growth, investment schemes and infrastructure. Where has it got us? Has it made Ireland more self-reliant? No. Instead we are more dependent now on outside influences than ever before in our history. The people of Ireland are now like puppets on a string because of EC funds, export markets and interest rates. I got a letter from a constituent in Dublin North today who has £8 take home pay after he has paid his inflated mortgage repayments every month.

This shiny white document, Clár Rialtais 1993-1997, would like us to believe that everything has changed utterly — a terrible beauty is born. I know that there are very welcome references to legislation on waste management, extension of smog regulations, energy conservation in public buildings, protection of oak forests and a commitment to biomass, tidal power and wind energy. However, there is not a word about the rights of animals or hare coursing. Unfortunately, all these eminently sensible aspirations, initiated by the Green Party — Comhaontas Glas — in the first place will do little to save the earth until both left and right wing parties realise that an alternative economic system is necessary to avoid the misery created by a two-tier society, to avoid the ceaseless consumption of limited resources and the generation of more and more waste. Even if all car owners could salve their consciences by fitting catalytic convertors, the car still needs oil and petrol, still needs to consume large amounts of metal and plastic in its production and still necessitates the movement of oil tankers like the Braer around the world, killing hundreds of thousands of sea birds.

Growth economics must give way to sustainable economics, which is at the core of green politics. There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed, as Gandhi said. Presenting us with a title in the programme like "Sustaining Growth for Employment" is a very obvious decoy to make one think that there has been change. For a start, growth is not sustainable, a child who keeps blowing into a balloon until it bursts will tell you that. As the Green Party — Comhaontas Glas — said before, economic growth nowadays often reduces employment and studies abound to show this. To further compound the illusion of change and environmental concern. I read on page 3: "we will seek to promote a high level of economic growth that is export led". That means we will need much more transport than we have now, meaning more oil tankers, more smog, more road accidents, more dependency on circumstances beyond our control, and if we can kill the indigenous industry in other countries in the Third World or wherever, all the better because then we can increase our exports.

Can we not restructure our economic system so that it does not have to prosper at the expense of foreign producers and the earth herself of which we are a part and on which we depend? The earth is bountiful and can provide for the needs of all without the need for chemical additives. That reminds me there is no mention in the programme of helping or even encouraging chemical farmers who wish to transfer to organic methods. As chemical fertilisers are made from oil they are also partly responsible for the consequences of accidents involving oil tankers. Consequently, oil based products also increase our dependence on imports, causing capital to leave the country.

The Green Party — Comhaontas Glas — supports the principle of local production for local needs. Such a principle is badly needed in Dublin North where imports outsell local produce and unemployment is unacceptably high. The main hindrances to enterprise and employment are penal labour taxes, Government waste, bureaucracy, inertia and over regulation of the lives of citizens in the social welfare system. The Green Party thinks that the Government should give us our money in the form of a "citizen's dividend" or "guaranteed basic income" so that we can get on with living, supplementing our dividend if we wish through work sharing — which is the case in Dublin Airport and is very successful — seasonal work, growing our own food or working in the home. The artificial division between employed and unemployed would be gone, the root cause of much criminal activity would also be gone and there would not be any need for many to emigrate or drift towards Dublin if they could make a go of a part-time enterprise where they live. Towns around Ireland could once again field football teams.

If we are serious about change a prerequisite is a comprehensive Freedom of Information Act. The programme talks about "considering this" but there does not seem to be much enthusiasm for it. If such an Act had been in place we could have avoided the Beef Tribunal. People need to know that an electricity inter-connector with Britain would mean importing nuclear generated electricity, thus weakening our case against Sellafield. Again, there does not seem to be any great enthusiasm for that in the programme.

People also need to know if the Government intends to use taxpayers' money to mount any more one sided campaigns in any future referenda. There are not any safeguards against this in the programme. However, while there is much that is well intentioned in this document, unfortunately it is fundamentally contradictory and flawed and I must vote against it. I wish I could support some parts of the document, even if the Green Party has huge problems with other sections but, as this is not possible, I can only say on behalf of the Green Party — Comhaontas Glas — that I wish the new Taoiseach and Tánaiste — and their respective parties — well in Government. I hope we can all learn as we progress.

I am calling Deputy Johnny Fox. As this is the Deputy's first address to the House I welcome him and wish him success and personal happiness.

Thank you very much, a Cheann Comhairle. I should also like to thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to speak very briefly as I realise there is an extensive agenda.

The deliberations for the formation of a new Administration which will run this country for the next four and a half or five years have been going on for seven weeks. Some of the deliberations have been serious — some have not — but the proposals before the House today are the most realistic and serious so far. I support the proposals before the House today, not because I want to be on the right side and not because they need me.

Does he know something?

Old habits die hard.

I am well aware that the numbers are quite sufficient without me but that may not always be the case.

(Interruptions.)

I assure the House that I will judge each issue on its merit, I will support what I regard as good and will vote against something with which I do not agree. Over the past few days I have had an opportunity to study the proposals in the Programme for Government by the incoming Administration. Some of the proposals are worthwhile and deserve support but others are obviously a little ambitious.

I am disappointed that some proposals have not been included. On 14 December last Deputy Gregory — quite rightly — pointed out the social deprivation and desolation experienced by people in the inner city. I support his stand but I should like to see it extended in relation to the social deprivation and desolation in parts of rural Ireland. Politicians were elected to govern the country and we should not preside over a situation where people are afraid to open their doors, not just at night but in the day time. People live in terror of opening their door, because of the bandits in the countryside. They live in the certain knowledge that if they are robbed, harmed or murdered they will have little recourse to the law because the Garda force has been so depleted as to render its job almost impossible. I accept the force is doing its very best within limited resources.

Unfortunately, the outgoing Government presided over the running down of the post office service. People living alone in isolated areas are no longer afforded the opportunity of listening for the postman's knock. This matter should be redressed immediately. I look forward to the incoming Government doing that.

Even though the Labour Party may be considered to be an urban or city based party it has a duty to ensure that every citizen is treated equally; for those in rural Ireland, that is not the case. I hope also that the incoming Government will immediately address the ridiculous situation whereby a son or daughter is prevented from taking over a family farm, from which previous generations made their living, because of the penal inheritance tax which is applied and which is accelerating the flight from the land. I would like to see these matters included in the Programme for Government. Perhaps there is reference to them in the fine print. I have not yet had an opportunity to study the programme in detail. I will be vociferous, however, in raising this matter of inheritance tax at every opportunity afforded to me.

I realise we are faced with a pressing agenda and I thank you, Sir, for affording me the opportunity to speak. I will conclude by wishing well the incoming Government of Deputy Reynolds and the Fianna Fáil Party and of Deputy Spring and the Labour Party. I give an assurance to offer constructive criticism but when something needs to be said I will not be mute on these benches.

Like on Luggala.

I will make a brief contribution on the nomination of Taoiseach. I wish the incoming Taoiseach and his Ministers every success. They face a difficult task. It seems a foregone conclusion as to who will be elected today but whoever takes on the job should have the best wishes and blessing of this House. I hope the difficult tasks facing us will be addressed.

There is an opinion abroad that Dublin is doing better than the other regions and that the countryside is hard done by. Let me put down a marker: the rate of unemployment in Dublin is 10 per cent above the national average. During previous unemployment crises Dublin was buffered and its unemployment rate was lower than in the rest of the country. However, that has now changed and it is disingenuous of Members to suggest that Dublin can continue to suffer while the rest of the country benefits at its expense. That cannot go on and those of us who represent Dublin constituencies have to put down a pointer that we have interests and we must organise that those interests are served as well.

On the question of the appointment of a Minister for Equality let me make two points. First, no Government can create equality but we in this House can give people equal opportunities and then it is up to them to avail of those opportunities for themselves. As far as I am concerned there are two areas that need to be given priority in this regard. They are equal access to third level education and equal access to decent housing. For a great many people, particularly in this city, access to third level education is not a reality and has not been so for a very long time. If we want to give people equal opportunities let us give them access to third level education.

Even when people have such access how can one expect them to study in some of the living conditions we have presided over particularly between the two canals in this city where people are living in the most appalling local authority flat complexes, in which none of us would aspire to live in? I made this point time and time again no matter who was in Government. The refurbishment of the flat complexes could be financed by rearranging some of the less cost effective local authority expenditure and this could go a long way to giving people a decent standard of housing and equal opportunity. If those two areas are not given priority it will be nonsense to talk about equality for our citizens. I hope the incoming Taoiseach will take that point on board.

I have been elected to the Dáil now on six occasions. I am approaching middle age and I am becoming tired of serving in successive Dáileanna which are no more than rubber stamps for successive Governments. There is a role for Parliament in its own right. I hope the proposals in the Government programme that deal with parliamentary reform will be carried through. We, the Members have the power to decide, Government gives us nothing, civil servants give us nothing, it is up to us to decide what we want for ourselves. This business of toeing the party line so that one, two, three or a handful of Members enjoy all the rights is nonsense. It is time the Members of the House took that power back. For those Members who will not continue to serve in Government or for those who will be disappointed that they are not appointed to Government, as well as the rest of us, it is time to put down a marker that we want to see this House reformed. We are now seven years from the third millennium. If this Dáil lasts the normal period we will be on the eve of the 21st century at the next election. Like most people I am concerned for the future of my children. I believe that is my duty over and above my duty to this House or to my party or to anybody else. Most people are concerned for the future of their children. It is time to stop the nonsense and get down to constructive work, so that Members on all sides constructively oversee the Executive and its agencies. I believe that has to be central to the role of this Dáil.

We need radical Government, we also need radical and constructive Opposition. In my view there has to be change in every part of this House if the children of the nation are to have hope in the future.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 102; Níl, 60.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Breathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • De Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • Ó Cuiv, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Sémus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cox, Pat.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Boylan.
Question declared carried.

I declare Deputy Albert Reynolds to have been nominated by Dáil Éireann for appointment by the President to be Taoiseach.

Ba mhaith liom fíor bhuíochas a chur in iúl don Dáil as ucht mé a ainmniú mar Thaoiseach arís. I appreciate the great honour conferred on me by the Dáil in nominating me for Taoiseach again. I do not intend to comment on the points made in this debate, many of which refer to allegations — I repeat, allegations — which are being handled by the appropriate authorities in order to find out where the real truth of these matters lies.

Barr
Roinn