["For almost two days now a motion of confidence in this Government has been debated in the House. As yet, I have not heard anyone actually define this motion. If we look up the definition of confidence we see that it is defined as having trust, reliance and a lack of fear. Therefore this motion of confidence in the Government is asking me if I trust this Government, if I would rely on them or would I have a lack of fear where they are concerned.\n\nI have been a Member of this House for just two years. I have been trying, as have all Members of the House, to do my bit for my constituents, my party and my country. However, in reviewing and assessing the performance of this Government for the past two years, and in particular the past ten months, I simply have to say that I do not have confidence in the Government. I can no longer trust the Government. In fact, I have no reliance at all on this Government.\n\nI ask myself: \"But how could I trust this Government?\" In many ways, it is indeed a Teflon Government - dirt and sludge may be all around it, but every effort is made at all times to ensure that none of it sticks. We note the Taoiseach in close association with various people in the business community, apparently happy and contented with them, but when they prove to have feet of clay he steps aside from them and leaves them twisting in the wind.\n\nBig business is one thing; semi-State bodies are something else again. It is a fact of life that Governments down through the years have staffed the semi-State bodies with people with whom they can be comfortable. While there may be undue cronvism in that arrangement, we must all admit that it also makes sense. However, if it does make sense, the  Government cannot then have it both ways. Either the semi-State bodies are outside their control and influence - in which case they have been failing to do their duty - or they have been party to some of the goings-on that are now causing so much disquiet. It is simply one way or the other.\n\nI believe there is at best a moral carelessness about this Government. Morality, the question of whether something is right or wrong, does not seem to have a very high priority with them, sadly. They stagger on from one moral crisis to another, apparently completely unaware that the cumulative effect of all of these allegations on our status as politicians is dire. With the Rugby World Cup approaching its climax, it may be worth remembering the story of the referee who told the very small scrum-half that if he saw anyone else hit him then he would be sent off. What had he been up to on the blind side that everybody was at him?\n\nMr. Calleary Mr. Calleary \n\nMrs. T. Ahern Mrs. T. Ahern \n\nMrs. T. Ahern: What have this Government been up to on the blind side - that is the real question - that everybody seems to have their story of corruption in high places? Are we to believe that the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, is the most unfortunate, the most maligned man to have ever graced this House, or is there something sinister in his make-up which attracts people of dubious moral standing to his side?\n\nI said at the beginning that I am proud to be a politician. What is more important is that I want to continue to be proud to be a politician. However, the result of recent scandals is that there is now an implication that all politicians are wheelers and dealers, and crooked ones at that. I resent that implication. I do not claim to be a saint, but I do claim to have moral standards, as do the vast majority of the Members of this House. I claim that there are things which are right or wrong in themselves. However, the result of the various scandals and the behaviour  of this Government is that the public will be led to believe that all politicians have no standards.\n\nI claim it is wrong for big business to have offshore companies that can have no purpose other than to defraud. A money trail that leads off to Cyprus, Jersey or to a numbered Swiss bank account; surely that is a crooked road? I believe there should be a special group in the Department of Finance that do nothing other than follow up any business or person who is discovered using offshore companies. Let this group have the resources to find out what is going on, to take action and to discover what wrongdoing is being manipulated. We should have a Government for which words such as \"integrity\" and \"honesty\" are actually part of policy rather than simply clichés in policy documents.\n\nDeputy Bruton said yesterday that this Government were rotten to the core and should go. I agree with him because this Government, by their recent actions, have undermined the confidence in our political system and, worse still, they are undermining the confidence and reliance in our institutions. The result of all of that is that they have undermined the name of all Irish people at home and abroad. That is surely a grievous misconduct of which to be guilty. The Government have proved to be very bad managers - very bad housekeepers, in fact - and not fit to be in charge of our national finances. All Members would agree that no household could continue to survive with a reckless, misdirected and, above all, a careless housekeeper.\n\nThe Government cannot survive because they have produced a fraudulent budget. By doing that, they have laid the basis for wrecking our national finances. Worse still, they have made commitments to the social partners that they knew they could not afford. Surely we cannot have confidence in a Government that perform in that way. Thankfully, recent polls show that the public will no longer tolerate such behaviour. The people are angry; they are embarrassed; they are appalled by the behaviour of the  Government. What must be realised is that what we say here as public representatives is what the people outside are saying. The Government's response to the recent scandals has been to provide investigation after investigation. Yes, they have been putting off the day of reckoning for as long as possible.\n\nIt is true and we must accept that the budget strategy has collapsed and that no steps have been taken and no efforts have been made to put anything else in its place. There is no accountability. The Government show little concern about what is happening today. Their only reaction is to ensure that all the mud will stick to other people, but we are not prepared to put up with that.\n\nThe sale of Carysfort College is an example of the way in which the Government work. It is now obviously good Government policy not to buy when property is cheap but to wait until it is really expensive. Can we expect the people of Ireland to allow a Government that behave in that way to continue? How can I go home to South Tipperary and expect the people of Cashel, who have been waiting for ten years for their community school because no finances were available, to accept that response when millions of pounds were available to buy Carysfort College when it suited the Taoiseach and the Government? How can I expect the teachers in our small rural schools who are waiting for extensions, trying to teach in conditions completely non-conducive to teaching, to believe that the Government have their interests at heart when they have failed to provide just a few thousand pounds to effect much-needed repairs? Those are the questions the people in my constituency are asking. They are questions for which I cannot provide an answer.\n\nThe Coalition Government have lost the ability to run our nation. They have lost the confidence of the farmers, they have lost the confidence of the unemployed, they have lost the confidence of the public sector, they have lost the confidence of the entire business community and they have also lost the support of many of their own members. In fact, the  Government have lost the confidence of the Irish people.\n\nI repeat I cannot support this motion of confidence. The behaviour of the Government is, I sadly say, in danger of making me ashamed of being a politician.","I would like again to remind Deputies on the far side of the House that the national debt increased  from £12 billion to £24 billion in that period and that repayments are a solid £2 billion per year.\n\nI agree entirely with what Deputy Blaney said in relation to the national debt but the one thing he forgot to say was that the achievements of this Government and the last Government have pegged back the rapid increase in that national debt.\n\nThat national debt is not at £27 billion, it is somewhere in the region of £26 billion. This Government and the previous Government have halted that increase. That is the reason this House should vote confidence in the Government.\n\nI would like also to remind the people on the far side of the House that Deputy Bruton and Deputy Spring were major players in that period: they were the people who ran that Government. I would like to remind Labour that it was Deputy Spring who, I think, from his hospital bed, made a statement - the first of many statements - where he endeavoured to pull that ludicrous Government down. They say we have no unity, but that was the most disunified Government in the history of the State.\n\nThe Fine Gael Party had a meeting the other day and if the photographs on television and in the newspapers are anything to go by, I do not think they will form, in the near future, an alternative Government. It was appalling to see how very few members of the parliamentary party actually turned up for the meeting, if that is the full complement.\n\nDeputy Spring makes great play of the fact that perhaps Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil should coalesce. Deputy Spring has made a rule that the Labour Party will never again take part in any Government. That is a cop out as far as I am concerned. Obviously, they got their fingers burnt between 1982 and 1987 and they will not make that mistake again. The reality is that from 1987 to date, we have had low inflation and low interest rates. These have been the achievements of the Government.\n\nWe have sustained growth in the economy. Proof of the fact that the Government have made some effort to get to grips with the unemployment problem can be seen from the CSO figures. I challenge any Member on the far side to look at the CSO figures for employment between 1985 and 1990 and he will see the important thing is that the numbers in employment have increased.\n\nThere were 40,000 more people employed in this country between 1985 and 1990 than previously. That is the achievement of this Government and the previous Government.\n\nAllegations have been  made over the last number of weeks and crocodile tears were shed because somebody was mentioned from this side regarding the naming of people in this House. Many people were named in this House over the last year but no crocodile tears were shed for them. I am very surprised that people with a legal background - such as Deputy Spring, Deputy McCartan and members of their parties - have come in here and made allegations without producing any proof. I always understood that somebody was presumed innocent until proven guilty, yet, here we have allegation after allegation without a scintilla of proof.\n\nI was very interested in the US Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Alan Dixon said that Judge Clarence Thomas was entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That was a very telling phrase and that is why the majority of the Senators backed him. He was presumed innocent until proven guilty and the allegations made against him were not proven. The one thing in Judge Clarence Thomas's favour - and may be that is a flaw in this Parliament - was that he was able to answer the allegations made against him in the same forum in which they were made, unlike some of the people who were named in this House over the last year. They were not able to come in here and disprove those allegations which were made under absolute privilege.\n\nThis brings me to Dáil reform. The Workers' Party brought forward a document the other day about Dáil reform. That party have not covered themselves in glory on the Oireachtas working committee on Dáil reform. At nearly every meeting we have had a different member of The Workers' Party was present. That is their testimony to Dáil reform.\n\nI am aware that they withdrew from it, because the Deputy who attended on that day did not realise what had taken place at previous meetings; hence my point that different people are turning up at every meeting.\n\nI want to refer briefly to the allegations  made in this House under absolute privilege which were read out at the tribunal, and immediately the media were in trouble. May be it is a salutory lesson to the media and to people on the far side that allegations cannot be made without substantial proof.\n\nIn relation to Dáil reform, we had a show here this morning for an hour involving calling for votes, which delayed proceedings. Perhaps the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should try to find some way to ensure that unsubstantiated statements cannot be made in this House unless they are backed up with some proof. One barrister at the tribunal referred to it as Leinster House tittle tattle. I think that says it all. It is an indication of why politicians are held in such low esteem by the general public.\n\nDeputy Spring is a hypocrite. He challenged Goodman's right to go into court and contest constitutional issues, yet if anyone other than Larry Goodman wanted to contest constitutional issues, Deputy Spring would be the first on the high moral ground crying halt, saying we were trying to override that person's constitutional right. Why is Mr. Goodman not as entitled as anyone else to go as far as he can in our courts?\n\nI would like to refer to two other items: one is the Temple Bar issue where Deputy Spring made certain references recently to some companies' subsidiaries. He said something underhand was going on in those companies. He was very quickly checked by his sidekick, Deputy Quinn, and The Dublin Tribune published an account of this, but there was no withdrawal, even though they asked for one, and were able to prove he had no evidence to back up what he was saying. Also, I would like to remind the House, and I would like to put it on the record that one of the first contracts given to NCB was given by the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition. In 1986 the Department of Communications gave a contract, without tender, in relation to the privatisation of an Aer Lingus company. The Workers' Party are obviously relishing all the business scandals.\n\nIt is part of their political agenda to destabilise not only the Government but the institutions of this State. The Workers' Party have no answer to the unemployment problem, as their clinging to the Eastern European model has shown.\n\nBefore the Adjournment of the debate last evening I had been dealing with a number of issues in relation to The Workers' Party. Over the past ten to 15 years The Workers' Party have adopted a hypocritical attitude to politics in this country. One instance I might give is that in relation to the Peace Train, how, since the inception of the Peace Train movement, they have been in the vanguard of that movement. Yet, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the Official IRA, their alter ego, who  were the first people to bomb the Dublin-Belfast rail line just north of the Border where I live.\n\nI listened with great interest to what Deputy De Rossa had to say with regard to his links and those of his party with the Official IRA. I can recall an incident in Newry approximately 15 years ago when a bomber from the Official IRA blew himself up trying to bomb an installation just north of the Border. At the funeral of that gentleman the Official IRA knocked on every business door in Newry telling them to shut up shop. Perhaps my eyesight was not great at the time but I wonder whether the man who was at the front of the cortège bore any resemblance to the former Leader of The Workers' Party. Perhaps he did not; perhaps it was not the same person but it looked very like him.\n\nUnder the leadership of Deputy John Bruton Fine Gael have been going from issue to issue.\n\nI had been referring to the Fine Gael Party. As the Taoiseach said in the course of his remarks unfortunately, they have been hopping from  issue to issue under the leadership of Deputy John Bruton. The criticism levelled at the leadership of Fine Gael by former Senator Maurice O'Connell reflects the views of some of the members of Fine Gael. They should take a leaf out of his book.\n\nThe reality is that under Deputy John Bruton's leadership, their party are giving assistance to the looney left to bring down and destabilise some of the institutions of this State.\n\nI should like to remind them in relation to Telecom Éireann that it was they who gave more autonomy to Telecom Éireann, it was not Fianna Fáil. At the time we agreed with it. At the behest of the Labour Party it was they who said that the semi-State bodies should have more autonomy, that there should be a \"hands off\" approach to them. Look where the \"hands off\" approach has got us.\n\nI should like to refer now to a little piece of invective on the part of the Fine Gael Party. I refer to a postscript to the bottom of a notice of a constituency meeting in the midlands.\n\nYes, it is a very nice one but it just shows the depths to which Fine Gael have descended, the party of the late John Kelly and of former Taoisigh, Deputies Liam Cosgrave and indeed Garret FitzGerald. It is an agenda for a meeting - I will not quote it - but it is vindictive about an alleged Fianna Fáil connection with various scandals. It says that \"we all know of financial advantage being taken by Fianna Fáil\". It continues to say: \"if you have proof of such of these and believe that they may be illegal please raise them at item No. 6; our party may be able to use it to its  advantage\". It did not say: bring it to the attention of the Garda Síochána, so that at least it might be investigated to the national advantage. Rather it was for the advantage of Fine Gael. If anybody wants to see it I will produce the relevant notice. Those are the depths to which the Fine Gael Party have descended in recent years.\n\nAn Ceann Comhairle Seán Treacy\n\nI should like to refer briefly to what is happening north of the Border, the tit for tat murders which have been taking place which Deputy Currie quite rightly raised here this morning. I fully suppport what he said. Our papers have been inundated with reports on alleged scandals. Yet, unfortunately, the constant tit for tat murders have been afforded merely a tiny paragraph by the media. I say: \"Shame on us; shame on us on this side of the Border.\" Unfortunately there was killing on my side of the Border during the summer. This is a matter the House is not addressing properly. If there is any party that can actually bring along nationalist opinion on this side of the Border and on the northern side of the Border in regard to any future Brooke-type talks, it is Fianna Fáil. Deputy FitzGerald acknowledged that the intergovernmental conference in 1980 was the percursor of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.\n\nIt was acknowledged to me and probably on occasion to Deputy Barry in private that they want Fianna Fáil in power and at the negotiating table because it is we who will bring nationalist opinion along in regard to the problem in this island.","The remarks made by Deputy Ahern in the latter part of the speech are a sad reflection on himself and they are not in keeping with the public image he likes to portray of a serious politician who has something to contribute. To try to introduce bipartisanship into the affairs of Northern Ireland is contemptible.\n\nThe Deputy attends with me at meetings of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body where he makes extremely good and helpful contributions. The Deputy has let himself down very badly by introducing this tone in this House.\n\nIt is not in keeping with the spirit which has prevailed in this House regarding the North of Ireland during the past 20 years. I very much regret that the Deputy made those remarks. In doing so he has let himself down badly.\n\nThe reason for this debate is that this Government have lost control of the economy. They have also lost the confidence of this House. Certainly they have lost the confidence of some members of the Fianna Fáil Party and members of the Progressive Democrats as well. Whether they will be able to bring themselves to vote as their conscience dictates they should or whether their feet will declare otherwise I do not know. The Irish economy is in a difficult and potentially dangerous position at a time when it faces enormous challenges both at home and abroad.\n\nLast January this Government indulged in an orgy of self-congratulation when the Programme for Economic and Social Progress was agreed. The principle of national wage agreements is sound but in this instance the Government wanted agreement at almost any cost. The exact scale of that cost is now becoming evident and some of the social partners are expressing lack of confidence in the Government. They are naturally dismayed at the way the Government are reneging on agreed pay awards. It was clear from the outset that the Government could not honour the agreed pay rises for the public sector. There were too many variables in the equation. The Government set out to hold Exchequer borrowing at 1.9 per cent of GNP in 1991; it has in fact increased to 2.5 per cent. The much heralded growth has not taken place and will be at best 1.5 per cent this year. This figure has been forecast by almost every economist at the beginning of the year but it was ignored by the Government.\n\nThe Taoiseach has stated that the Government Exchequer borrowing requirement for 1992 will be held at 1.9 per cent, or less than £500 million. This means they will be seeking savings of £350 million to £500 million next year. Because the public sector accounts for 52 per cent of current spending on services, savings in this area are crucial to meet the target of 1.9 per cent. This is a matter to which the Government have not referred at all. The strain will either be taken by public sector pay or, as has happened so frequently under this Government, by the health and education services. The position is already critical, hence we are seeking signs of industrial unrest for the first time for many years. The position is exacerbated by other factors including the fact that over 260,000 people or 20 per cent of our workforce cannot get work.\n\nAnother factor is that inflation is tending to creep up. Although economic activity has slowed down considerably the rate of consumer price inflation has increased to 3.5 per cent, the first upward movement for ten years. We are entering  a new phase of competitiveness as we approach the completion of the Internal Market. The Government do not appear to be worried about the fact that the British rate of inflation has reduced considerably and the probability is that it will be down to our rate of inflation next year. Whatever advantage we had due to our low inflation rate in the British market, which still takes 35 per cent of our exports, will have vanished by the end of next year.\n\nThis Government's policies have all the hallmarks of ad hoc planning and lack of a clear national strategy. The lack of a national strategy has been evident in the Government's handling of two issues crucial to the Irish economy, the GATT talks and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. They have also failed to assess future developments such as European Monetary Union. Last January I suggested that it was not too late for the Government to produce a White Paper on the question of European Monetary Union in order to examine in a systematic way the likely impact on the Irish economy. This has not been done. There is still no paper setting out the Government's attitude.\n\nIn reply to a question this morning, the Taoiseach stated that the Whips could consider having a debate before the December meeting in Maastricht. That is totally unsatisfactory and it increases uncertainty abroad about the ability of this Government to stabilise the conditions under which business can operate. It is suggested from recent meetings in Brussels that there will be pressure to move beyond the transitional phase of European Monetary Union and that some member states want to move now. In order to proceed, the Government will have to meet strict monetary and economic targets and maintain a low rate of inflation and a stable currency, with a sustainable budget deficit. These are impossible targets this year because of the gross mismanagement of the Government. They have not planned structures in an orderly manner.\n\nThe Taoiseach said yesterday:\n\n Recently we successfully opposed attempts to create a two-tier approach with regard to the move to the final stage of European Monetary Union. This is a matter of fundamental importance for the Community and for Ireland. The strength of the Community lies in its ideals of unity and coherence.\n\nThe Government react to events by opposing things. We do not know what they are proposing. They have not told this House or the public generally precisely what the position is in regard to the two intergovernmental conferences. We have not had a debate on these matters. This adds to the lack of confidence and the uncertainty as to what will happen in the future.\n\nThe question of confidence is central to this debate. The Taoiseach has stated again and again that business flourishes in a climate of confidence. It appears, however, that the business community have lost confidence in the Government. A poll conducted in the Sunday Business Post with Arthur Andersen, an objective accountancy firm, showed satisfaction with the Government among business people had fallen from 71 per cent last June to 37 per cent last month. In a period of four months, confidence had more than halved. The report in that paper last Sunday suggested that the recent controversies and scandals are not the cause of the collapse but rather the handling of public finances.\n\nThe Irish economy is facing its greatest challenge since we joined the EC and the Government are doing nothing to restore confidence and to assist the business community to gear up for the completion of the Internal Market. Of course the current controversies, as they are euphemistically called, are adding to the concern and unease being felt in all sections of our community. The inquiries and investigations must proceed and reports and results of these inquiries must be available for public scrutiny. The Government must not use the fact that  these inquiries are taking place as an excuse for doing nothing about internal matters in semi-State companies. It is because they are being negligent and inactive that the situation has got out of hand. It is the duty of Government to set the parameters within which business and indeed the whole community should operate, and part of their task is to monitor the activities and ensure that proper standards are adhered to in all aspects of economic life.\n\nThe notion of democratic accountability is central to our political system. If the people see sums of money being misused or squandered they are rightly concerned and outraged. The so-called controversies are increasing the cynicism that is now the hallmark of the Irish electorate. We cannot afford this cynicism. The democratic process itself will begin to suffer if people become disillusioned and feel powerless to affect the system. What motivation is there for young and not so young idealistic people to enter politics if they perceive the system is ineffective, unrepresentative and unresponsive to their needs and demands?\n\nIn this regard I want to say something about the Progressive Democrats who have been strangely absent either as participants or as listeners in this debate for the last two days.\n\nIt is not that they are more or less culpable than their coalition partners in Fianna Fáil. It is because they formed a new political party in order to establish the notion of high standards in public office. They have at times verged on the self righteous. They set themselves up as mould breakers and political reformers. From the smiles on faces this morning we will certainly be forgiven if we think later on today that they are not represented at the Cabinet table at all. They have attempted on a number of occasions to distance themselves from the well established principle of collective responsibility.\n\nThere was the farcical position a month ago in Cork when Deputy Mairín Quill said they were trying to distance themselves from the job creation policies of Fianna Fáil in Government despite the fact that the leader of her own party is the Minister for Industry and Commerce who many people would consider would have the primary responsibility for creating jobs. Deputy Quill says they should distance themselves from Fianna Fáil. Are they in or out of Government? Really Deputy Walsh, here representing the Government, should find out, because if the Progressive Democrats do not get the Government this time they will get them after Christmas on the budget. The Government need to watch themselves. The Government, as a unit, are collectively culpable for the disastrous state of the public finances. The Progressive Democrats cannot shrug off their responsibility in that regard. If, as the Progressive Democrats suggest, there are aspects of the conduct of Government that they find unacceptable, why have they continued to participate? The obvious thing would be to pull out or to vote against the Government tomorrow night.\n\nIt also seems that the current negotiations between the Government parties are nothing short of extraordinary. In the middle of a five year period they sit down and spend four months renegotiating their position. This is not democratic. They do not even show any urgency in the renegotiations but leave them until the very last minute. As I stand here today there is still, as far as we know, no agreement. However I suspect there is and that the battle between the Progressive Democrats and their conscience has resulted in their poor conscience getting another hammering and being put aside.\n\nIf these negotiations include fundamental questions such as changing the electoral system, then the situation is very serious indeed, These are matters which should have been all  thrashed out before coming into Government, not in the middle of a term of office. To be arguing about the disastrous public spending and taxation at this time of the year shows quite clearly that the budget of last January was cobbled together for political reasons and had nothing to do with the state of the economy at that time. A point that Deputy Bruton also made yesterday is that it reinforces our claim that the Government have no plan at all but are flying by the seat of their pants. It is clear that there is no real commitment to any kind of long term planning necessary to reduce the national debt and create jobs for the 260,000 people who are currently unemployed. This Coalition Government seem to be based on expedience and power-seeking both within each of the parties and between the two parties rather than on any sense of the national interest. The main characteristics of this Government are that they are operating by reacting to issues and events rather than initiating or planning strategies and policies. They are long on aspiration but short on action.\n\nThis lack of action is perhaps best and most dramatically in evidence with regard to our participation in the European Community. With just seven weeks to go of the intergovernmental conferences in Maastricht we have no clear indication of our contribution to these conferences. The Government have given no indication of the position on a number of key issues. These issues include the future of decision-making structures within the European Community, the role of the European Parliament, the role of the Commission, the role of the Council of Ministers. The Government have not addressed themselves to any of these issues and what the President of the Commission himself terms as the democratic deficit which should be of concern to every parliamentarian in this country.\n\nDoes anybody know what the Government's position is with regard to more powers for the European Parliament. What are their views on the expansion of the European Parliament? Are we in favour of more countries coming in? Do  we agree with the Germans that Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary should be allowed in next year? Have the Government any views on that? The pace as well as the scale of change requires careful analysis and study and as I have already pointed out we are unsure and unclear as to the aspect of European economic monetary union. There has been no White Paper and no serious debate on this issue, a point that has been brought up time and time again by members of the Opposition in this House over the last two years. This Government are not serious about Europe. Nobody knows what they are doing. They are waiting for something to emerge and then they make up their minds whether they are for or against it. If they are for it they shut up and if they are against it the Taoiseach comes back in here and says we are opposed to something happening in Europe.\n\nThe crucial question that has been studiously dodged by the Government is the question of Ireland's role in the common foreign and defence policy. There is no doubt that such a policy will emerge in the next two years and perhaps much sooner if we are to judge from what the German Foreign Minister has been saying over the last few days. The Government must not be allowed to involve us by stealth in a defence agreement. I personally would view a defence agreement within the European Community as an obligation we should undertake. However it should not be done by stealth. It should be done by open debate in this House and not the way the Minister for Foreign Affairs attended the WUE conference three weeks ago when he appeared to agree - though it is not clear whether he did or not - that at some stage the Western European Union forces could be put at the disposal of the European Community. This is not something we could agree to without a debate in this House. The Minister was there like a man going into a pub for a drink who did not want to be seen having it. All these issues must come before this House and this Parliament must decide  in favour if that is what we want to do, but it must not be done by default, because a Minister at the Council decides to keep his mouth shut and that is taken as assent. No decision on these issues can be taken without full consultation with this House.\n\nLast year the Government agreed to the setting up of an Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs. Again he reiterated that this was the policy of the Government. Nothing happened in 12 months except one thing; he was criticised by his friend of 30 years standing who had been evidently given a promise that he would be chairman of this foreign affairs committee. However when he criticised the Taoiseach that was immediately dropped. Is that Cabinet responsibility? This is Government by pique: a Taoiseach is annoyed because somebody criticised him and he will not therefore set up a committee on foreign affairs which is essential so that this House can understand what is going on in foreign policy at the European Community in the future.","May I just say it is not the first time Fine Gael have had to step aside for Blaney.\n\nOn a lighter note, as the father of the House, may I say that I remember the last father of the House before me. If he were here this evening he would not have taken the attitude that his son has taken.\n\nIn regard to this debate, in a sense it is a cause of wonder that we are debating whether there should be confidence in this Government and that that appears to be related almost entirely, if not solely, to the recent scandals, scams or allegations of such that have been made in the financial world all around us - in semi-State boards, private boards and so on. These have not yet been proven. Nor has there been any proof yet adduced to connect the Government or their Ministers with any wrongdoing that may emerge as a result of the tribunals and investigations going on. Though these scandals have not been proven it looks fairly likely that some of them will be proven. On the other hand there has been no evidence of Government or ministerial involvement. Again due to persistent media and reportage of those making the allegations, innuendos, it would appear that there is a perception of guilt on the part of or in relation to Ministers and/or the Taoiseach as the case may be; a perception.\n\nOne of the dangers I see emerging from all of this is that perceptions can destabilise Government, diminish respect for this House and every Member of it. Generally speaking we ourselves have been our worst enemies, as Members of this Parliament, over the years in adding to that concept popularly put around: oh sure, they are all the  same. Well, they are not all the same because, if they were all the same, we would not be debating anything here this evening; we would all be in the same boat. Naturally we would not start fighting about the boat or its nature if we were all the same.\n\nOn the so-called scandals, and the allegations of scandals and scams - again perhaps I am being unfair - but I do feel that, not being in Government, or sufficiently close to Government to know what is the scene at present, what it has been in the recent past, or indeed over the past ten to 20 years since I was in Government, Ministers, under whose jurisdiction boards have been established - were I in their place - even if only out of curiosity would like to have known fairly frequently what was going on. That has not been demonstrated fairly clearly to be the case. It would appear from what I have been hearing from the Government side this evening - and I am sure if the Opposition were in Government they would be telling us the same thing - that they have given freedom to those boards they have appointed in order that they may the better compete commercially with the private sector or with such boards in other countries in international trade. Perhaps that is the answer.\n\nI am not passing judgment. I am not seeking to pass judgment. I do not believe we should be wasting our time - and it is a waste of time - other than to correct allegations that have not been proved or to put it to the public that, as yet, these are only allegations, that we should await the outcome of the investigations and tribunals before we start pointing the finger and accusing this, that or the other person of wrongdoing. If and when those investigations show that any people, whether inside or outside this House, in Government or in Opposition, have any connection with them, then they should be dealt with thoroughly, completely, properly, justly but, above all, that they will be exposed.\n\nMy concern about voting confidence in this Government has little to do with the news-making scandals of these past  weeks. Rather do I go back over some period to examine this Government's performance, to examine it from the point of view of the circumstances prevailing in this country, regardless of interest rates, balance of payments deficits and all the things that have been properly trotted out by Government spokesmen as their achievements. Despite all of these - and they have painted a very good picture from the material at their disposal - what we do have to keep in mind - and this applies to all the parties in the House perhaps with the exception of The Workers' Party who I do not think really existed at the time about which I am speaking - is that we started borrowing in 1972. It is very interesting that the Minister whom I think was mainly responsible for that at the time is now the Leader of the Progressive Democrats, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. He began in 1972 on the basis that, because of the oil crisis, we could not run our current budget and balance the books. We had an election in 1973 won by a Coalition who, in the following four years, in addition to the couple of millions of pounds that Deputy Desmond O'Malley and his then Government in 1972 might have borrowed, ran up a debt on current spending of £6 billion. That was the figure for the first four or five years of our spending spree; the rakes progress had started. In the following election in 1977 Fianna Fáil had their largest ever majority. Lo and behold, from 1977 to 1981 we doubled the national debt, again on current spending, not balancing our books. I might add that up to 1972 in the history of this parliament we had never budgeted for a deficit. We had never budgeted for a deficit in the 13 years in which I was a Minister in a Fianna Fáil Government. It was unheard of. We began in a small way in 1972 but, by the year 1977, we were £6 billion in the red. By the year 1981 we were £12 billion in the red. Between a short term of a Fianna Fáil Government and another Coalition, up to 1987, our debt had increased to £25 billion, with not a thing to show for it because it was all spent on housekeeping.  That figure of £25 billion is today £27 billion-plus. It will be wished away by telling us that it is a lesser percentage of GNP by far than it was ten years ago.\n\nThe fact is we still owe more than £27 billion and we have nothing to show for it except cut after cut, a diminution of the services to our people and a rising debt. Call it a percentage of what you will, it does not add up to proper government or good government. It ill behoves those in Government to castigate the Opposition about it, and it ill behoves the main Opposition party to castigate the Government about our present economic situation. All together were responsible for it - the rake's progress, the elections by auction. We have not had a Government properly elected since 1969. The dog was fed with a bit of his own tail in every election since then. Governments were put out rather than Governments returned. By auction we did it and this is the result.\n\nIn the early eighties there were 60,000 people unemployed; the figure now is nearly 260,000 and rising. Half a million of our young people have gone in the same decade and work is not available for those coming on the market. Surely we should be talking about unemployment, emigration and our incapacity to rectify the debts which we incurred for no good purpose in previous years. We must try to work ourselves out of those problems rather than borrow further. We have been trying to borrow our way out of our problems.\n\nI look at the Government and ask how can I have confidence in them. Then I look at the other side and ask what confidence I could have in any other concoction. That is the dilemma of the public. We have all contributed by abusing each other in all sorts of little ways, aided and abetted by the media who gleefully tack on to anything we say about each other. In the eyes of the public we are all the same. An election in the morning would not give the public any great glee because they will look as I am looking and ask where we will get a Government that will be any better or worse or do any more or any less than at  present. That is the perception outside. We deserve that perception and we have contributed largely to it, not only by the wrongdoings in our economics and in our financial operations but in our abuse of each other.\n\nWe must consider what we might have done about this and what we still can do about it. The Government, instead of puffing out the chest and boasting about the good lines they are getting from the international agencies praising them for their achievements in relation to the balance of payments, bringing down inflation and interest rates and so on, should remember that this is being done at the expense of the public and of our emigrants. Whatever the international agencies may think about our performance, our Government should not feel in any way proud of their achievements when they are at the expense of our people. Government and Parliament must be about people's wellbeing. We should not be proud of ourselves in that we have been chasing them out for the past ten years and cutting expenditure on health, roads and education to bring about the improvements which are praised by these international agencies. We should ask if this is the correct way. Are we achieving anything really worth while? Are we not deluding ourselves when we hear Government spokespeople saying that we have to get inflation and interest rates down and the balance of payments in credit before we can begin to provide jobs for our people? Where will those people be by then? Where are they today? More of them would have left were it not for the recession which has hit our nearest island and the USA as well. We have nothing to be proud of in our performance as a Government or Parliament over the past 20 years or more.\n\nThis vote of confidence was brought about for the wrong reasons and is being discussed in the light of the wrong reasons, but it is nevertheless a vote of confidence. How can anybody in his  sanity think in terms of a vote of confidence or no confidence in a Government when the whole scene is overshadowed by the internal strife of the components of that Government? The Progressive Democrats are almost writhing about on the floor, throwing fits and tantrums, as to whether or not they can vote confidence in their Government, the coalition Government of which they are part. If they cannot vote confidence in that Government they will be casting a vote of no confidence in themselves. Many on the Opposition benches would say they should do so. I do not disagree, but that is neither here nor there. It is ludicrous that this major debate is being overshadowed by the little men of that little coalition wrestling together to see who will come out best at the end of this week. Regarding the Progressive Democrats, I will not mention any names because I believe it is not fair to mention names of people outside the House.\n\nIn this case that person will have had his say and no doubt will be afforded by the media generally more say than anybody over there or here. I refer to the ayatollah who is not in this House but who controls the Progressive Democrats. It is an extraordinary situation. A man who is not a Deputy is calling the shots as to what the Government will do with the coalition and whether they will survive. It is bloody ludicrous. The little ayatollah should be told where he gets off.\n\nProbably the most serious aspect of all in facing up to the confidence vote in this Government has to do with the national question, the North of Ireland, the Six Counties, our occupied territory, our war-torn corner of this country. We have a Government who are collaborating with the occupiers, who have done so many U-turns, starting with the hunger strikes and the attitude towards the hunger strikers. When they could have done something they did nothing. I condemned the Anglo-Irish Agreement on  the night Deputy FitzGerald signed it. Within minutes Fianna Fáil through their spokesman condemned it and said it was copperfastening partition. Now they operate it and the only excuse I have got, inside or outside this House, is that because a previous Government had come to some arrangement they felt bound by it. If that was the case we would be still 32 counties in UK occupation. We would never have got out of that if some sort of Government had done that deal before our time. We would still have the Governor General in the Park and would be still paying the land annuities across the water. We would still have the soldiers and we would have the Navy in Lough Swilly and in Cork if there was any basis for the justification which has been given to me for operating the Anglo-Irish Agreement.\n\nExtradition has been a disaster for Fianna Fáil. They were totally against it but now they operate it. Dessie Ellis is going through it at present and he should not even be in England. That again is one of the problems that I face. There is section 31, not that it matters a damn whether it is there or not because if the gurus of the media, whether national television, radio or newspapers, wish to keep people out of the news they can do it without section 31. Fianna Fáil were committed to removing section 31 and they operate it as if it was their baby for all time.\n\nOn these matters, the collaboration with and the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the continuing bloodshed and death as I have said time without number in this House and I repeat it again, will continue so long as there is an occupation force in the country claiming jurisdiction over part of our land. Do not have any doubt about it. I wish it could be otherwise but that is the way it is, and the first people we have to convince of that is the Government of the day in this House whether it is this Government or another. If the Government, speaking on behalf of the parliament of this nation, are not convinced, how then can we expect the British to be  convinced that the best thing they could do is to find a way to get out of their occupation of our country and give us the hope of having the beginnings of peace in our land. Without that we will never have it and our own Government are the people who are more to blame than are the British. How can we expect the British to see our point of view from an Irish standpoint if our own Government do not see it from that standpoint. And they do not see it that way. They want to continue collaborating with alleged security forces. If they were put in the dock, as are these financial people who are being investigated at the moment, all those here who have collaborated with them - and most have - would be ashamed of themselves. The shoot to kill people are still there. All the black-guarding that ever went on is still going on. The discrimination in jobs is unbelievable today, so much so that I was shocked when I saw some of the up-to-date records from the fair employment agencies up there. I was literally shocked because I thought the changes that had taken place with one man one vote, the prorogation of Stormont, had brought about some improvement instead of which the discrimination in jobs is bad if not worse today then it has been at any time in the last 70 years.\n\nThose are the people we are dealing with. Those are the people we are treating as if they would be reasonable. They are not and they never will be reasonable while Britain maintains her presence and her assurance that she will remain there as long as the majority, a contrived majority, wish it. Those people cannot even talk to us for the simple reason that by so doing they would be regarded as committing treason because unionism is not divisible. It cannot be compromised. The very act of sitting down to talk about the real problem, which is partition and unionism, is an admission that unionism is in fact capable of being talked about and therefore a concession by those on the Unionist side that it is something that can be dispensed with.\n\n That is the way it is and that is the way it will continue to be so long as we are the gutless lot that we are here in this House who are prepared to play along with any old game without facing up to the realities, biting the bullet, and telling the British that we and they must find a way for them to get out of our country and leave it to the people of Ireland, North and South, to govern themselves in the manner of their choice without interference from any outside power in the future. I believe the day that Britain decides to follow that road, since no other one will work - and God knows they have tried many - is the day we will begin to get together as we have never done before and true peace and, ultimately, true unity will exist.\n\nI will conclude with those thoughts and the others that went before, mainly on our economy and on our finances and some local parochial matters as well like the airport we never got in Letterkenny because we were so concerned about putting it in Derry that we did not give a damn about Donegal, or the new RTC Bill which would float our RTCs into orbit at the wishes of the vast majority of the principals of those colleges in cahoots with the Minister who is herself by profession part of them. She is doing a damnedly bad job if she does this. They are good institutions doing great work and they are part and parcel of our local authorities. We hear lip service given to local control. Here we are taking away the most vital thing that has been provided in the last 25 years and taking it out of the control of the local authorities and restoring it to the central control back down in Marlborough Street. It is a bad day for Ireland, a bad day for third level education, and a bad day for this Government from which three years ago I got an assurance that this would not happen. I thought I had convinced them that it should not happen but apparently those that are seeking to be leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party in the future are now too strong to be curbed and they push on their own way. Thank you, and through you thank you to the Ceann Comhairle  for standing up for the rights of a minority Deputy in this House.","I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. The debate on the scandals engulfing this country is time-consuming and is taking  away from the real issues that affect this country, the fall in farm incomes, rural development, health care, jobs and housing. These are the basic needs that the ordinary everyday person in this country is concerned about and they have not yet been discussed despite the fact that we are now back in Leinster House for two days.\n\nThis scandal would never have arisen if a number of people had not been promoted by the present Government as the prima donnas of the business world, out of whose book we were told we should take a leaf, because they were the people who set a standard and who had the ability to do what others could not. There are honest decent business people in this country and 95 per cent of business people are honest and decent and nobody should have any fear of doing business with them. They were picked on and were made feel in some way inadequate because they could not make the vast wealth that this small handful were capable of making. This small handful have turned out to be nothing more than conmen. The conmen at the fair of long ago, the smart alek with his three cards, produced the joker time and again when it suited him. The people gathered around him and placed their bets, but the joker was not there. The joker can take any shape, it could be a red brick building with \"JMB\" stamped across it or an old college with \"CC\" stamped across it or maybe a large lump of sugar. Whatever form it took it was a joker. It was placed where it could not be got at but was brought to light when it suited. The conman of old could not succeed and his business could not develop if he did not have his shill, the fellow who would come from the crowd when people were beginning to see that there was nothing to be made on this, and place his bet and make a vast amount of money. People would then become interested. He worked with a conman but was not seen to be associated with him. That is where the Government come in with their shill, these conmen, so-called businessmen, who were  trying to reap vast riches from the unfortunate taxpayers of this country. I hope we have seen the last of it and that they have been exposed for what they are. The Government have been found out to their shame and they are trying now to disassociate themselves from them but they will not get away with it.\n\nHowever, I would prefer to spend my time talking about the real issues, the fall in farm incomes. The Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, came into the Dáil this evening but never as much as mentioned the impossibility of selling small cattle in the marts throughout the length and breadth of the country at present. Never in the history of this country was farm income so depressed, and I want to bring that to the attention of urban Deputies as well as rural Deputies, who are very much aware of it at all times. In the past if milk prices were low then the prices paid for cattle, pigs, poultry or turkeys were high. But at this stage everything has collapsed, and we have a Government that is seen to be completely inadequate to deal with the problems. That will not be accepted by the people of this country because the agricultural industry is the bedrock of this economy. There is an old saying that when the farmers are doing well, then the country is doing well. The farmers are not doing well and the country's economy has collapsed.\n\nThe scandal in relation to the eradication of bovine TB has gone on for too long - the disease has now been with us for more than 40 years and we are no further down the line than we were on the day we started. There is the problem of BSE, for which this country was labelled, when, in fact, only a few cases of BSE occurred here and they were found to have been caused by imports of either cattle or feed. However, the Minister, his officials and the Government have done nothing to make clearly heard abroad in the marketplaces of Europe and further afield the message that our cattle have a disease-free status second to none.\n\nThen, of course, comes the scandal of jungle juice and angel dust being used to  boost the production of lean beef. Last July in the House I asked a question of the Minister in relation to this very serious problem. He assured me and the House that the problem was in hand and that there were adequate measures in the factories and abattoirs to detect the substances. However, ten days ago in a comprehensive, full page article published in the Irish Independent it was clearly stated, and has not been since denied, that the use of those prohibited substances is now as widespread as it was 12 months ago when it first surfaced. I should like the Minister to answer that challenge.\n\nConfidence? How could one have confidence in a Minister or a Government who are so incapable of dealing with these major problems?\n\nI should also like to know about rural development. The Taoiseach referred to the Structural Fund. I state here and now, clearly and categorically, that the Irish uptake of the Structural Fund is behind quota. Ireland is one of three member states in the European Community that have not to date taken up the quota of Structural Funds available to them. However, there is widespread demand for funding. The infrastructure of the country is in tatters; our county roads are impassable; small children cannot get to school without wearing wellingtons; school buses cannot traverse certain roads; doctors are refusing to call to homes because of the risk of damage to their cars - there is a litany of problems, and all because our county roads have been allowed to reach a deplorable state. Yet there is funding from Brussels available for the improvement and development of the roads. Why are the Structural Funds allocations being held up?\n\nI shall tell Members why funding is being held up. I received information from Brussels that there is indecision within the Government between a Minister of State, Deputy Mary Harney, and the Minister for Transport and Tourism, Deputy Séamus Brennan, as to whether a rail system should be set up around Dublin city or from Dublin Airport to O'Connell Bridge. That is one of the  most outrageous proposals I have ever heard. Dublin city is so adequately serviced in relation to transport - it has excellent roads, excellent bus services and a DART system that costs every Irish taxpayer \"X\" amount of pounds to be kept on the rails. However, the Government believe that a further rail system for Dublin city is a priority. As a result of that, allocations from the Structural Funds are being held up in Brussels. That is a serious challenge and I stand over it, but I also say that the Structural Funds were never intended for the development of the large urban areas. To my knowledge and to the understanding of the people of this country who turned out in their hundreds at parish meetings with ideas of developing their holdings and their private homes for further income, these funds were to be spent in rural Ireland. Lo and behold, the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats Coalition Government say that there are no votes in rural Ireland, that it is better to plant it, that it is easier to look into the woods than it is to canvass them and that the money should be spent in Dublin city, where the population and the votes are. They have forgotten about rural Ireland; they have forgotten that there is life beyond Phoenix Park. It is a sad state of affairs that the Government are creating a rural/urban divide in this country and in this House. I do not like that division, it is wrong and it should not be allowed to happen. But if that is the way the Government face up to the decision then let us, the rural Deputies, speak with one voice and demand that the rural areas get their fair share of the national cake and that all parts of this country - be they on the east coast or the west coast - are developed to the same level. What is fish for one should be fish for the another.\n\nIndeed, and I shall come back to it. I wish to mention in passing the standard of Irish health care. It is now a fact that people over 80 in this  country are not wanted and have no place if their families cannot look after them. All over the country there are waiting lists for the county homes, and when old people arrive at their doors the message is: \"Sorry, we cannot take you in, we cannot afford to look after you.\". It is not good enough that that is the message given to people who have given their lives to this country. It is an indictment of the Government and their past record.\n\nI have no confidence in the Government. They should do the honourable thing, move over, let us take over and we will do the job.","I believe the Government have the confidence of Dáil Éireann. I have been listening to three Deputies from the Opposition who have competed with each other for some hours in expressing their moral indignation. They have been wringing their hands and craw-thumping about business ethics and the judgment of this Government. Might I remind the public that these lectures are being delivered by, among others, former Ministers who were virtually run out of office for their gross neglect of our Irish economy. These were the Deputies who presided over a national debt which doubled during their term of office; these were the Deputies who pushed the economy to the brink of collapse; these same Deputies were those who, as Ministers, pushed the Exchequer borrowing requirement to 13 per cent of GNP; these were the Deputies who, as Ministers, pushed the national debt to 130 per cent of gross national product. This was the Finance Minister, Deputy Bruton, who presided over the highest personal tax regime ever - a standard rate of 35 per cent, the highest in any OECD country. This was the Finance Minister who subjected one out of every three taxpayers to paying the highest rate of taxation. Was it any wonder then, that this Government which left office in early 1987, was rejected by the Irish public at that election? Was this not the same former Tánaiste, the same former Minister for Finance, the same Fine Gael Party and the same Labour Party that gave us, in their time in Government, the Irish Shipping scandal, the Insurance Corporation of Ireland scandal the PMPA scandal,  the Dublin Gas scandal, and indeed the early days of the Aer Lingus Holidays scandal? Did the Taoiseach of the day, did his Ministers, ask anyone connected with these scandals to step aside or to resign? Were the chairmen of any of these companies responsible for the scandals asked to resign by the Government of the day? Where were the lectures by these Deputies, then Ministers, about the accountability of Ministers when hundreds of millions of pounds were being spent by them on B & I, Irish Shipping, Dublin Gas and the Insurance Corporation of Ireland?\n\nI was making the point that I can certainly take lectures and, indeed, advice - as all of us can - about the responsibility of Ministers in regard to the supervision of companies, but I find it hard to take some of the lectures today from the same Deputies  who, when in Government, oversaw perhaps the greatest list of business fiascos in the history of our State.\n\nIn the case of Irish Shipping the then Minister for Communications, Deputy J. Mitchell, told the Dáil that speculative charter agreements were entered into without his knowledge or without his consent as Minister of the day. He also made it clear that the Minister for Finance was not aware of these speculative charters. There was no suggestion at that time from any Deputies on that side of the House that they should have known or ought to have known. In June 1986 the Irish Spruce was sold off for £3 million a fraction of its original cost. Estimated liabilities at the time amounted to £117 million, of which about £40 million was guaranteed by the State and had to be met by the Irish taxpayer. Had that Government not panicked at that time I believe the company could perhaps - as I am now attempting to do with the B & I - have been repackaged and placed in new ownership.\n\nThe Insurance Corporation of Ireland, whose liabilities were in the region of £200 million, were bailed out by an arrangement involving the Central Bank. Where was the supervisory role of the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism of the day, Deputy John Bruton? What of the emphatic reassurances of Minister of State, Deputy Eddie Collins, that there was no crisis in the industry, barely one month before the collapse? Did the Government of the day feel that the business crisis was the Government's fault? Did the Taoiseach of the day or the Ministers ask those responsible to step aside or to resign? They did not.\n\nThe Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, explained on RTE with regard to the PMPA debacle that had he known earlier and been able to act sooner he may have saved the taxpayer some £10 million. Where were the lectures about ministerial responsibility for such companies?\n\nWith regard to Dublin Gas, Deputies Bruton and Spring in Government did a deal with Dublin Gas which allegedly  insured that the private sector would carry its share of risk. This resulted in the taxpayer being liable for all the debts of Dublin Gas, amounting to £129 million when Dublin Gas went bankrupt and were taken over by Bord Gáis Éireann. Deputy Gay Mitchell criticised the company for its lack of accountability, however where was the criticism by Deputies then, of ministerial responsibility during that crisis?\n\nThese few example show the hypocrisy of the protestations today in the speeches we have heard in relation to the responsibility of Ministers with regard to the supervision of business matters. The Deputies well know that it is impossible in Government to fully supervise every detail of every company. It has been demonstrated that our predecessors were unable to do that. It is not the Government's job to supervise these details. It is the Government's responsibility to provide legislation to promote the development of business within an appropriate framework. It is also the responsibility of Government, when wrongdoing or bad judgment come to their attention to take firm and decisive action. Unlike our predecessors in office this Government have done that.\n\nThis debate is timely. We have to clear the air about events of recent weeks. It is important to state clearly that from our perspective these were business scandals, not Government or political scandals. Nevertheless, they were totally unacceptable to the Government. There is not any Government member in any way involved in such scandals. All the alleged matters took place in the semi-State sector or by the action of individual business people. It is important to understand the difference. The only way the Government of the day can be judged is how they respond to such matters. The Government took swift, decisive corrective action wherever and whenever problems were identified. We took swift action in relation to Aer Lingus Holidays. Within hours of being notified I directed the company to bring the matter to the immediate attention of the  Fraud Squad whose findings are now with lowing a review over several weeks, I also instructed Aer Lingus to shut down the subsidiary company involved, to overhaul their procedures and take disciplinary action.\n\nThe Telecom affair first came to my attention in the summer of 1991.\n\nI immediately asked Telecom for information on their Ballsbridge site. Following a review over several weeks, I remained unsatisfied with the information made available to me. I immediately ordered a formal inquiry under the Secretary of the Department of Communications to investigate all matters connected with Telecom's Ballsbridge site and other properties. I also immediately froze further development of the Ballsbridge site. I also announced that there would be full disclosure of the inquiry's report. After establishing the inquiry I agreed, with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that if the inquiry did not receive full co-operation from all the parties involved, we would immediately request the Minister to appoint an Inspector under the Companies Act.\n\nWhen this co-operation was not forthcoming from one of the parties, on 1 October, 1991, the inquiry requested that an inspector be appointed. The inquiry subsequently published their findings in full that day. An inspector was also appointed that day.\n\nThis was another example of firm action by the Government. It shows what can be done. The Government took swift, decisive and correct action in regard to the Telecom affair.\n\nI instituted a thorough, professional inquiry and I would like to pay tribute to the public servants who worked untiringly on this inquiry. The inquiry established 13 key facts and  made five key recommendations which I intend to follow up.\n\nWith regard to Celtic Helicopters, when the leader of the Opposition, Deputy John Bruton and his Transport spokesman, Deputy Yates, approached me with certain allegations that confidential Aer Lingus information had been provided to Celtic Helicopters on Wednesday evening 25 September, I took immediate action to learn the facts. I replied to Deputy Bruton on Friday 27 September. When Deputy Bruton sought further information on Friday 27 September, I again sought this information from Aer Lingus and forwarded same to Deputy Bruton on Saturday 28 September. Additional information was provided by Aer Lingus to Deputy Bruton this week.\n\nIn referring to Government action in relation to this matter, I wish to highlight that, as in the Telecom affair, I, and the Government, acted in an open manner, fully divulged all the information asked for, did not hide behind any State company and acted honourably at all times.\n\nMinisters cannot be held responsible for particular transactions of semi-State companies which do not require their approval or consent. It is a duty of directors to run these companies on behalf of their shareholders and staff. Directors of companies are responsible for ensuring the proper day to day management of the companies.\n\nIt is the obligation of the board of directors to vigorously investigate issues which give rise to concern. They should not wait around for the Government, media or indeed the inspectors to take action for them. Boards of semi-State companies have authority. I advise them again, as I have done many times in the past, to use that authority to develop their companies.\n\nThe financial crisis of the Deputy Garret FitzGerald and Deputy Dick Spring coalition Government was tackled head-on by the Fianna Fáil Government of 1987-89 and by the present Government. The magnitude of the difficulties facing the Government were extreme. We were heading for bankruptcy. We  had reached the edge of the financial cliff and we were toppling over. We had to take action. We reduced public borrowing; improved the competitiveness of Irish business; maintained a stable IR£ within the EMS; created 40,000 more jobs than in 1986, and reduced the tax rate to 29 per cent from 35 per cent. We developed the financial services centre, the envy of many capital cities. We negotiated the Programme for National Recovery and Programme for Economic and Social Progress, both historical agreements, with the social partners. We negotiated EC Structural Funds, total investment £9 billion to restructure our economy and we played a leading role in the development of the new Europe.\n\nThe Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications accounts for 17 per cent of GNP and 13 per cent of total employment in the State.\n\nThe tourism sector has taken off since Fianna Fáil assumed office in 1987. Tourism has achieved record targets of 15 per cent growth for the past three years - three times more than the world average. It is now earning in excess of £1 billion in foreign earnings. It now employs 80,000, a 45 per cent increase since 1987. It is still producing 5,000 new jobs every year.\n\nThe Government have also presided, at EC level, over a liberalisation of air transport which is opening up the skies of Europe. We have invested heavily in regional airports and are fully committed to their development.\n\nAn Post are experiencing difficulties. Despite their financial position I could not support An Post's viability plan because of its effects on rural Ireland and I decided that the plan should be scrapped. However, An Post must, at a minimum, break even and they can do so if both sides are willing to compromise on their current positions and jointly plan the way ahead. I urge both sides to leave aside their differences in the current dispute and sit down and secure the future of the postal services.\n\nMy Department and I have achieved much in two years but I am impatient and there is much yet to be done. I should like to tell the House today that my review of the Broadcasting Act is now virtually complete. I have met all the parties concerned, RTE, TV3, the Association of Independent Radio Stations, the CII, the advertising industry, independent film makers and the national newspapers. I have come to the conclusion that the Act requires changes and I will shortly be presenting my proposals.\n\nThe new aviation authority announced on 30 July will involve the movement of some 600 civil servants from my Department into a new State body. I will shortly be introducing the necessary legislation. My bus competition Bill which will open up the bus industry to real competition is being finalised.\n\nThe sale of the B & I will be pushed through by me in the near future. I am following up my technical and financial studies into the possibility of a light rail system for Dublin. I am also in the course of presenting a major new initiative in the tourism area designed to continue employment growth in that sector.\n\nI have already apologised to the House; it will be circulated as soon as possible. I have to make some last minute changes as I wanted to respond to some of the points made by Deputies this morning. It will be circulated shortly. I will give the Deputy a specially bound edition with a photograph of the Minister on the cover.\n\nThis morning Deputy Bruton raised the question of NCB getting consultancies. I had the opportunity since then to check the position with my Department. Of the 28 consultancies given by my Department since 1983 NCB received one which was given to them by the then Minister for Communications, Deputy Jim Mitchell. I wanted to clear that matter up in the House as I am sure it is important. Deputy Bruton asked why I did not include Findlater House and the property on the Merrion Road in the inquiry. I announced publicly that I was including them in the inquiry but the Deputy must have missed that announcement.\n\nAs I am sure former Ministers realise, one is tempted to consult the files when one has them at one's disposal particularly when Members are playing the perception game. I do not want to play that game, I have resisted the temptation to do so. However, I am  aware of many cases - I stress that I do not think there is anything wrong with this - where State companies have done business with supporters of the Opposition parties who run companies well. They do good business with State companies and there is nothing wrong with that. I am aware of many cases where supporters who previously had been excellent fund-raisers for Opposition parties appear on State boards. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with that so long as there is full declaration. What I am suggesting from my casual perusal of the files is that I would prefer not to be lectured by the other side of the House about these matters, in particular by former Ministers who should know better. They should know - if one wants to play the perception game - that one can put all the simple facts on a piece of paper, that so and so raises money for a party, appears on a State board and does business with a State company, and if one produces it on the right day, at the right time and in the right atmosphere one has a scandal. We could all play that game. I was very tempted in carrying out research for this debate to do so but it is not my style and I would prefer not to get into it.\n\nMr. Currie\n\nAnother point I should like to make to my good friends in The Workers' Party is that they too can play the selectivity game and I would not blame them for that. That is one of the ways political activity has developed. They castigated the boards of directors - the fat cats, as they would call them - the business people and much of it was justified. I agree that many of the practices are unacceptable but I know they do not mean to exclude, for example, the very fine worker directors on State boards when they castigate the board of a State company. There is no such thing as different types of directors,  there are the worker directors and ordinary directors and if one wants to complain about the board of a State company one has to include all members, including the worker representatives and ministerial appointees. I know The Workers' Party do not exempt anyone from criticism and I take it that when they criticise a board they criticise the whole board without selectivity.\n\nI have given some examples of the major policy initiatives I will be bringing forward in the period ahead. This is a strong, competent and determined Government. They will not take fright at each and every opinion poll and will not buckle under wild allegations. Rather they will continue to aggressively develop the economy, play an active role in the new emerging Europe, and, above all else, continue to develop a country, the kind of country of which Irish people can continue to be proud.","At present, the public image of politicians is not good. I am a full-time politician. I have no business or other interest from which I earn money. My only income derives from being a full-time politician in this House. I have no hang-up about declaring my interest in any new document the Government may bring on stream and I am sure most other politicians feel the same. Indeed, if the truth were known about most full-time politicians in this House, the bank managers would be the people to declare the interest on our behalf because of the situation in which we find ourselves from year to year, and particularly from election to election.\n\nWe have heard much about elections in the last three days. Everyone on the far side seems to want an election. I have never seen as many smiles on the faces of politicians as I did this morning when the word came out that the Progressive Democrats and the Fianna Fáil Party were about to come to an arrangement and were to continue in Government. If all politicians were honest, they would admit to being happy that there was not to be a general election.\n\nThe allegations and the financial scandals in Greencore and Telecom of the past four to six weeks are not normal in this country. The truth needs to be established and the public informed of that truth. I hope the investigation committees, which are now in being, will establish the truth so that we will know who are the guilty people. I am very concerned about Greencore because of the massive amounts of profit made by individuals or by groups of individuals within that company. There is a need to get to the bottom of this allegation, to establish the truth and to have that truth made known to the general public. If there has been wrongdoing and it can be proved, then these people should face the full rigours of the law. As a Fianna Fáil politician I have no hang-up about people being brought to justice. I hold no brief for such people and I would be only too glad, when the inquiry report back on Greencore and Telecom and the truth is established, if action is taken.\n\nAs Deputy Davern said, all business people should not be tarnished with the one brush. The majority of business people are decent hard working people who make an honest living and provide jobs. It is important that those people who are providing a service should be recognised and that we would not tarnish the good name of business people in Ireland because of what happened to a minority.\n\nWe need business people to invest and create jobs. Unfortunately, during the past six weeks the real problems of unemployment have been sidelined on all sides of the House, including this side. There must be serious concern about our high unemployment problems. Too many of our young people are unemployed and too many of them have to leave Ireland. In some housing estates, including some in my constituency 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the working population are unemployed. This is a national scandal. It is important, regardless of our political persuasions, that we put our heads together and try to resolve our unemployment problems. It is not good enough for politicians to continue to pay lip service to our escalating unemployment problem. We must have concrete proposals to deal with these unemployment problems.\n\nI hope the Programme for Government agreed today between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats - which includes very positive ideas and actions to deal with unemployment - will be pursued and that we will get the full support of the political parties on all sides to resolve the serious problems that exist.\n\nWe have other problems in Ireland at present. Agriculture is going through a difficult time and there are problems in housing and with the economy generally. Some of the allegations made in this House are not doing politicians any good. The sincerely held view of all Members is that some of the allegations made here over the last three days are an absolute disgrace and have done much damage to politicians generally. In the real world the people are cynical of politicians today.  They see this House as a cosy little arrangement making large amounts of money, being well-paid and looking after ourselves, but in many instances that is not the case. Most politicians - regardless of which party they represent - are decent hard working people and represent their constituents to the best of their ability.\n\nDuring the past six to eight weeks the media have been very unfair to politicians. They have presumed by innuendo, allegation and by half-truths that politicians are all gangsters, that we are in it for what we can get out of it and that we are making massive amounts of money from big business. As we are all aware a certain amount of the allegations, innuendo and half-truths will stick and will affect us all in the long term. The media must have some sense of national responsibility. They are part of Irish society and should think carefully about the damage they are doing to some of the business concerns and business people who are working within the law and providing jobs. I am not saying all media people are guilty but, over the last six to eight weeks the majority have not come out of this situation with glory.\n\nToday, we are discussing a motion of confidence and I have no doubt the Government will survive, that we will continue to provide good Government and that we will continue to improve the economy for our people.\n\nMany of the red herrings introduced by the Opposition during the last three days will be seen by the general public for what they are nothing more than political propaganda to try to embarrass the Fianna Fáil side of this Government. I say they have wasted their  time and the public will continue to support this Fianna Fáil-led Government for the next two and a half years.","We are having this confidence debate because the Government have undermined confidence in the political system and confidence in our institutions. They have undermined the confidence of the Irish people in themselves. The Government, by producing a fraudulent budget in 1991, laid the foundation for the undermining of the national finances. This Government in the way they negotiated the Programme for Economic and Social Progress knowingly made commitments that the State could not afford. They deceived people. They undermined the trust on which good industrial relations is based. This Government, by forcing spending Estimates through without examination and all in one vote last July, undermined the constitutional role of Dáil Éireann.\n\nThis Government, sleepwalking through a world-wide economic recession, have presided over the highest level of unemployment and emigration in the history of the State. This Government, in their culture of clever deals and clientelist politics, have lowered standards and contaminated other parts of our society. This Government have abandoned the agricultural community to their fate in Europe, without tabling any alternative to the MacSharry proposals. This Government have allowed the housing problem to grow to the point that we now have 30,000 families in bad housing  conditions waiting to be housed. That is the legacy after their four years in office.\n\nThis Government have become profoundly unpopular, not because of recent scandals but because those scandals have awakened people to the fact that their Government react to events rather than seek to shape them. The Government reacted to the scandals with a spate of partial investigations but they did not prevent the scandals in the first place through proper ministerial supervision of Government bodies. They reacted with surprise and bafflement to the dramatic growth in unemployment this year, with a spate of task forces but never had and do not now have any coherent employment strategy for next year, the year after or the rest of the century.\n\nThey reacted with a series of ill-considered radio interviews to the fact that their 1991 budget, predictably, went off the rails. They followed this instant reaction with inconclusive discussions with the social partners. It is clear now, despite all we have heard, that the Government's entire budgetary strategy has collapsed and they have nothing to put in its place. The 1992 budget is looming, bills must be met but the Government have not begun to consider how they will be met. That is a measure of the Government's loss of a sense of coherence and direction.\n\nAs Northern Ireland moves deeper and deeper into sectarian conflict with one murder following another, the Irish Government just sit and occasionally react to the latest move by the British Secretary of State, but they have no policy of their own, and have not had one for the past four years. Neither do they appear to care very much one way or another.\n\nAnd, probably worst of all in its long-term seriousness, this Government again react helplessly to the latest proposals from others on the shape of the new Europe, on the Common Agricultural Policy, and on the latest proposal on European defence. Again, they have no policy of their own on any of these matters. They have not produced an Irish  White Paper on how the new federal Europe should be structured. They are drifting into European defence commitments, with no concept of why they are doing so, apart from a vague and pathetic wish not to be seen to be left out of the club. That is about the depth of the Government's consideration of European issues.\n\nIn the real sense of the word, Ireland does not now have a Government. We have Ministers, we have an impressive Government office, much more impressive than four years ago, we have black cars going to official openings, but we do not have anybody planning the nation's future, or at least for more than 48 hours ahead.\n\nPerhaps the most expressive photograph in 1991 of \"Mr. Haughey's Ireland,\" to use the title of a television programme, is that of people, middleaged as well as young, queuing up in Dublin's historic GPO to post off applications for Morrison visas, to get out of here as quickly as possible to the recession-ridden United States. That is the extent of their confidence in \"Mr. Haughey's Ireland\" after four years of Fianna Fáil.\n\nEven the much touted successes of the earlier years are now seen to have been superficial. The large growth rate of the 1987-88 period is now revealed by students of economics to have been little more than the release of pent-up consumer savings. A large part of the budgetary economies of 1987-89 came from simply postponing pay commitments to the then distant \"future\". That future has now arrived, the bills must now be paid, and the so-called achievements of earlier years are seen in their true context, postponements, of problems. A large part of the other budgetary economies of that time were also achieved through postponements, postponements of hospital buildings, postponements of school buildings and postponements of house building. All will have to be built eventually but most assuredly by a different Government.\n\nIndeed the most notable feature of the  1987-89 period was the Tallaght Strategy wherein, for the first time in the nation's history, the main Opposition party offered constructive co-operation to a minority Government in the national interest. It says much about the core values of Fianna Fáil that they rejected this new approach in a petulant fashion at the earliest possible opportunity. It also says a great deal about the core values of the Progressive Democrats now absent from the House that they spent those two years doing their very best to sabotage the Tallaght Strategy.\n\nAt least the two parties now in Government have that much in common. Neither party in the period 1987 to 1989 had any appreciation of the national interest. Indeed, both parties deservedly lost seats in the subsequent general election. Neither of them have any real regard for the national interest at the present time, otherwise they would not be carrying on the destabilising charade that we have witnessed during the past 13 weeks.\n\nThroughout the past four years there has been virtually no structural reform of the economy, of our institutions or of public spending. Despite promises, there has been no local government reform. Our system is still centralised and our elected councillors have been reduced to being little more then temporary unpaid public relations officers for permanent officialdom.\n\nThere has been no reform of the public service. There has been no public service reform Bill, as the Government led by Deputy FitzGerald had planned. There is no reward for exceptional services performed by permanent officials. There is no delegation of formal responsibility to named officials. There is just the continuance of the old system under which all power theoretically resides in the Minister's office, and nothing gets done.\n\nNor has there been any overall reform of the health service in the past four years. It is still an illness service. It is still hospital centred. It is still over-administered and under-managed. The present Taoiseach still does not hear the message that so much took him by surprise in the  middle of the 1989 general election. He could see no crisis in the health service then, just as he could see no jobs crisis earlier this year.\n\nThere has been no fundamental educational reform. After four years the Minister for Education is still talking about producing discussion documents. We have had no Education Act, no educational accountability, no educational targets, no comparisons with other countries and no statutory body set up to set and examine the curriculum. After four years the system is still driven by written exams alone. Children are still dropping out of school too early. Access to third level education is still grossly unfair - unfair to those of limited means, and unfair in particular to those whose parents are in the PAYE sector. There is no money to put this right, we are told, but there is money - nearly £10 million - to take Carysfort College off the hands of a friend.\n\nThere has been talk of tax reform - enough talk to make people unsure about the future, unsure, in particular, about the future of mortgage interest relief, and thus reluctant, perhaps, to invest in a home. But there has not been much actual tax reform. In a country with a huge shortage of work we tax work in such a way as to make sure that we have even less of it than we had previously. Ireland's tax system, in a country with record levels of unemployment is, quite simply, perverse.\n\nThe entire structure of our rural life is about to be devastated. Thousands of PAYE jobs in the food industry are to be destroyed by the MacSharry proposals, without any mention from Commissioner MacSharry of compensation for those PAYE people who lose their jobs. However, this Irish Government have no policy or plan for the future of Irish agriculture, no more than they have tabled any alternative proposals to those put forward by Commissioner MacSharry. They are willing to sit and agree meekly with those proposals, apart from making a few public relations gestures for domestic consumption. Indeed, as all of that happens the same Government  are allowing our food industry's remaining good name to be destroyed by intervention scandals, by angel dust and by the failure to eradicate bovine TB.\n\nMeanwhile, however, in Government Buildings it is party politics as usual - Chinese politics, it seems. The Progressive Democrats are like Mao Tse-Tung. He believed in perpetual revolution. They believe in perpetual renegotiation. They cannot make up their minds whether they are part of the Government. They have two voices - one for the Cabinet Room and another for the public gallery. As for the Taoiseach, he sees himself as some sort of ancient Chinese leader who goes on and on and on and on - a depressing self-obsession.\n\nI shall not refer to the content of the Taoiseach's rather foolish speech made in the House today, beyond saying that he made many references to and innuendoes about people who could not defend themselves and then made a reference to a person who is not here in the House, did not elaborate the charge he was making and did not have the grace to withdraw the charge when he was challenged. That says a lot about the extent to which the Taoiseach has thought through what he is doing in this House. I suppose the most charitable thing that could be said about the Taoiseach's speech is that it was in its content and its delivery indicative of the desperate position in which he finds himself.\n\nBut let me turn to more fundamental issues. The recent spate of scandals arose precisely because we do not have a proper system of accountable parliamentary democracy in Dáil Éireann. If the Dáil had proper powers of scrutiny, and if the Government and State bodies had felt themselves to be genuinely accountable to the House on an ongoing basis in the past four years, then none of those scandals would ever have happened. It is because the Dáil has not been reformed, because the Dáil does not have the means to call Ministers and State bodies to account before decisions are taken that there has been this depressing and damaging succession of scandals.  The source of the problem lies ultimately in the unreformed nature of this House.\n\nLast July £6 billion of taxpayers' money was approved here, at the Government's request and with the agreement of other parties, in a single Vote, without a single item of spending being scrutinised. That done, this Government then sent the entire House off on holidays for three months. If that is the way this House treats the approval of the spending of £6 billion, is it any wonder that State companies have acquired a rather light-hearted way of dealing with the expenditure of a mere £1 million or £2 million? The problem starts here in this House. Neither Ministers nor permanent officials are ever asked to come before a committee of this House to explain before they spend taxpayers' money why they propose to spend it in a particular way. There is no parliament in Europe where that would be the case except this one. As elected representatives we are uniquely irresponsible. That is why we continue to have scandals. That is why this party are determined to take office in this country in order to reform Dáil Éireann and our political system. Until that happens we will have the risk continuing of a recurrence of the sort of situation that has done so much damage in this country over the last two months. Of course in this House we are great, and indeed this Government are particularly good, at ordering inquiries and looking for papers after the harm has been done, when the money is already misspent. That would not be necessary if the Dáil had been allowed do its job properly in the first place. Again, because Ministers themselves are not held accountable here in this House, in turn they do not feel any need to hold State boards responsible for accounting to them until it is too late. That is the price we pay for not having a proper working committee system here in Dáil Éireann.\n\nFacing an exploding jobs crisis earlier this year Fine Gael, a party of 55 Deputies, formally proposed the establishment of an all-party forum on jobs,  indeed a call that was supported by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is a measure of the contempt in which this Taoiseach holds the Dáil and its Members that he did not even have the manners to reply to that offer from the second largest party in the House in the face of a jobs crisis of historic proportions.\n\nNext year the Irish people will vote in a referendum to approve a fundamental change in the constitution of the European Community. That is what it is behind all the gobbledegook about Inter-Governmental Conferences; it is a new constitution for a new Europe. Much of this has been agreed already behind closed doors. Yet no one in this House, this sovereign Assembly, has been allowed to examine, let alone debate, any of the many drafts of this new European Treaty. This House has not been allowed - and will not be allowed as long as this Government remain in office - to make any contribution towards getting the best deal possible for Ireland. Yet the final treaty is to be settled in Maastricht - again behind closed doors - no more than seven weeks from now. The pattern is the same as with all the other issues to which I have just referred. Because this House is not holding the Government to account over their policy on Europe, the Government do not actually need to have a policy and this Government do not have any policy as far as this new development in Europe is concerned. As a result - I say this carefully in the hope that all in this House will listen - we may well be heading for a national disaster in the referendum on the new European Constitution next year. If that happens it will be because Dáil Éireann was not involved in the process and public opinion was not prepared for what the public will be asked to agree next year.\n\nOf course, this lack of accountability suits the Taoiseach's very personal style of government - nothing on paper; no Cabinet minutes; just a quite telephone call, radio interview or, more often, the knowing glare and the job is done; no trace left behind. The muck sticks to other people, disposable people. And the people around him, the 77 Fianna Fáil  Deputies, are prepared to go on putting up with this. Well, the Irish people are not prepared to put up with it any longer. That is the message from this House and from my party in this debate; it is time to go.\n\nWhy did NCB get all those consultancies without open tender, including one from the Department of Energy? Why was UCD asked to buy Carysfort, not when it was available at a low price, but later on when it was almost £2 million dearer and when nobody else wanted to buy it? Why did that happen? Why can State board chairmen be sacked on radio without a Cabinet meeting to discuss whether that should happen? The answer to all three questions is quite simple. Under the present Taoiseach Ireland does not have accountable Cabinet Government. We have personal Government. In the final analysis it will be the fault of every one of us here in Dáil Éireann, including the Deputies on the Fianna Fáil backbenches, if that continues for much longer. Indeed, in every sense, public life is now dominated by what I would describe as the culture of the deal - a quiet deal to take the Johnston Mooney and O'Brien site off Mr. Desmond's hands; a quiet deal to ensure that Mr. Desmond's \"Sail Ireland\" got a large amount of public sponsorship from Government companies already deeply in debt, a quiet deal with the social partners about matters that are the proper responsibility of elected representatives in this House. And now, it is hoped, a quiet deal, or perhaps not such a quiet deal, with Deputy Desmond O'Malley, Minister for Industry and Commerce.\n\nIt seems to me now that it is not just the detail that is wrong as far as this Government are concerned; it is the whole culture. As Eastern Europe opens up long-shut cupboards to the rigours of parliamentary democracy and to open market competition we here, at the very western extreme of Europe, are setting out in the opposite direction to keep our  elected Parliament in the dark about all-important matters, to take business decisions, not on the basis of competitive efficiency but rather on the basis - to use the famous phrase in the recently published letter - of \"political contacts\". We are going in precisely the opposite direction, in so far as opening up our society, to that which the newly democratised countries of Eastern Europe are travelling.\n\nOf course in this debate we will be told there are investigations under way and that we should not prejudge them. I prejudge nothing. I speak simply on the basis of the facts that are already known and uncontested. On the basis of those facts I assert that this Government are rotten to the core and should go. In any event, the investigations they now propose are only partial and inadequate investigations of some, but not all, of the allegations. For example, the Telecom inquiry does not specifically include the Findlater House building or the Merrion Road building. The Telecom inspector does not have the power of access to bank accounts. Without access to bank accounts, to the \"money trail\", so to speak, one cannot actually find out, in modern commercial arrangements, who is really benefiting from any particular deal. In this surreal world of Cypriot companies, of mysterious shareholders and interlocking transactions the truth is whatever the man who is paying one's bill says it is. The inspectors appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce have not been given the power to go behind that and follow bank accounts as they must if they are to get to the truth.\n\nOf course - and the Taoiseach made a few references to me during this debate about an allegation I made - the allegation I made, one which has been entirely substantiated by Aer Lingus, in respect of the leak of Aer Lingus information to Celtic Helicopters, is not being investigated either. There is no need to investigate it; the case is proven. Neither is there an investigation into the amazing decision subsequently to appoint Mr. Dermot Desmond Chairman of Aer Rianta despite the fact that the Tánaiste,  and other Ministers, knew what had happened. Nor indeed is there any investigation into the circumstances in which the Minister for the Environment instructed Dublin County Council to initiate a special pipeline across the Taoiseach's land. Not only do these investigations not cover these important matters, and thus are ridiculously limited, but the Government's other proposals in response to these scandals have been entirely unconvincing. There was no mention of a serious fraud office until after Fine Gael had called for it. There was no mention of chairmen \"stepping aside\" until after Fine Gael had called for that also; even the precise words used were borrowed. There was no mention of an ethics code until Fine Gael and other Opposition parties had called for that. Significantly, the hastily proposed ethics code is to apply to State boards, but not to Ministers. I wonder why.\n\nThere are many Members who are fearful of a general election. There are people outside this House who profess themselves worried about what they describe as \"instability\". Let me ask those people a serious question. What, in all seriousness, could be more unstable than the attempted continuance of this Government for another two years? No decisions will be taken, planning will stop. Those who want no change in any area are always talking about \"instability\". This is the most unstable Government this country could possibly have at this juncture in our national history.\n\nAny Government who could spend 13 weeks debating whether they could continue or not and then only make up their minds after a confidence debate has started are profoundly unstable. If a political scientist wants to find an example of a government which is inherently unstable, then this Government represent that example. This is not the first time. Throughout the past two years there has been a recurring series of \"high noons\" and last minute stand-offs. This has created continuing instability and it will continue with ever greater intensity, no matter what is agreed or not agreed  today, tomorrow or next week, for as long as this Government lasts. In today's case this stand-off has actually led to substantial outflows of funds because of the instability and uncertainty created by the fact that the Government cannot make up their minds whether to stay together or not. These outflows of money can be documented. It is costing this country money and much of this money will never come back. If this Government continue in office, this sort of thing will go on happening month after month. It is not good for the country. The Progressive Democrats are not serving either their party's or their nation's interests by keeping the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, in power. They know that and their supporters know it.\n\nAs long as this Government continue, survival will be the sole guiding principle. The entire drama will be about one individual, not about the needs and aspirations of 3.5 million people who want to feel that this is their country and that it is a country to be proud of. That is something they do not feel today.\n\nA Cheann Comhairle, I should like to say to Deputy Haughey directly, you and your associates, by staying on in office, are stifling the regeneration of this country; you are a barrier on the road; you are a reminder of past vanities, a hangover from an earlier era, it is time for you to go.\n\nIf Members want to form an alternative Government they can and will do it. That is what the Irish people want them to do. Of course smaller parties may protest that they would like someone else to do the job. They might suggest that someone else should put Fianna Fáil back into office after the next election. Supporters of all the parties in this House, apart from supporters of Fianna Fáil, do not want to see Fianna Fáil back in office after the next election with the support of anybody. I can confidently assert that there will be no party in this House who will wish to see Fianna Fáil back in office after the next election. Whatever honest differences there are among the parties, there will be no party in this House who will collaborate in putting Fianna Fáil  back into office after what we have seen in the past two years. The Progressive Democrats will not do it. The Workers' Party will not do it and the Independents will not do it. The Labour Party will not do it and the Fine Gael Party will not do it. Our supporters do not want to see Fianna Fáil back in office and they will not let us put them back in office.\n\nWe will put in place a Government who will not be led by Fianna Fáil. That is what the people now want and that is necessarily and inevitably what they will get. That Government will restore the faith of Irish people in themselves. It will tackle long-ignored social problems in our community, including the problem of marriage breakdown. That Government will tackle Ireland's endemic unemployment problem with a coherent set of measures and will be committed to sound fiscal policies which are the inevitable necessity for membership of a single European currency area. They will be a Government who will reform the Dáil and give everybody's representative, including the Opposition Fianna Fáil Deputies, a chance to do a constructive job.\n\nThe Fine Gael Party are ready and willing to take up this challenge whenever it arises. We have the confidence to know that we can do the job and we will do it immeasurably better than the present Government. We will restore stability to public life. Above all we will restore to the Irish people sufficient sense of pride in their country that they will want to live and work here.","First, the Minister, in a long contribution failed to answer any  of the key questions involved in this dispute. She has already left the House. It muxt be realised that the Minister has not answered the questions raised about this deal. She did not explain why no independent valuation was undertaken. She did not explain why others could buy it cheaper than she could, and make a substantial killing. Neither did she explain how the Higher Education Authority, whose statutory authority should have been involved in this whole process, were omitted. The questions raised by Deputies remain to be answered.\n\nI should like to address some remarks to a contribution of Deputy Roche yesterday. I reject emphatically the insinuations made by that Deputy. Deputy Roche's contribution was yet another pathetic attempt to distract attention from the real issue, the Government's inability to properly fulfil their functions. The land to which Deputy Roche referred has been in the Bruton family for 90 years. My parents are the principal owners of that land. I have a minority interest in those lands. Deputy John Bruton has no beneficial ownership in those lands. Some years ago an extension of Dunboyne Village boundary rezoned part of the lands. Later my father was approached by developers who wished to develop that land. Neither Deputy John Bruton nor I made any representations to Meath County Council regarding the zoning or the laying on of services to this land. Neither of us was involved in any way in the negotiations for its purchase. The developers alone were involved in seeking planning permission for the land. Neither Deputy John Bruton nor I made any representations to Meath County Council, to an Bord Pleanála or to any other agency in connection with the planning application. Subsequently, the developer, for his own reasons, failed to proceed with the purchase and, in accordance with the contract to which he had agreed, forfeited both his deposit and a subsequent payment made for an extension of time to complete the purchase. The tax content of these payments is  entirely a matter for decision by the Revenue Commissioners who will have full access to all the facts.\n\nDeputy Roche earlier today on radio suggested he did not think there was any wrong-doing in this. Yet he used the privilege of the House yesterday to cast a slur on my character. I feel more sad than angry about this. It shows how far some people in Fianna Fáil have descended from their proud traditions. I reiterate that the deal involved is entirely transparent; I have nothing to hide. Fine Gael are an open party. We are fully committed to full declaration of interests by office holders. We will not be deflected in any way from pursuing vigorously abuse of public office for personal gain. That, let Deputy Roche take note, will continue to be our position as a party in this House.\n\nThis debate should end in a general election. A general election would ensure that we had a decent code of practice to uphold scrupulous integrity in public affairs. The public would demand that; Fine Gael would insist on it. The cost of a general election, about which many people complain in the media, in the long run would be a cheap price to pay for that code of practice to be introduced into public affairs here, restoring confidence from the level to which it has now fallen.\n\nThe debate of the past few days has demonstrated the vicious, argumentative and agressive behaviour of a Government who have lost all sense of direction, are being carried along only by the tide of events, buffeted and bruised as they go. All through the summer various Ministers endeavoured to put out their own life rafts. We had the Minister for Agriculture and Food on the family planning issue; the Minister for Justice on the Shannon stop-over issue; the Minister for Finance on public pay, all of them hoping to salvage something for themselves from the wreck in which they were involved. Yet the Taoiseach clings tenaciously to the wheel hanging on for dear life but caring little where he is heading.\n\nThe Progressive Democrats remain unsure whether to cut off the engines. Now only at the twelfth hour do we hear  that they have decided to let the thing go on. The rest of the crew of this boat are fuming and scheming about the role of the Taoiseach of the day. Everyone in this House knows that the majority no longer have confidence in the Taoiseach's Government.\n\nThe real issues raised by Deputy John Bruton in his opening remarks have not been answered. The Government are no longer in control, they are reacting and refusing to reform. Failure to reform is the tangible cause of a catalogue of failings that exist in Ireland today. In any measure that begins from the value of the individual the record of achievement on the part of the Government is a sorry one.\n\nThere is the enforced idleness of 260,000 people. We know now that unemployment is the single largest cause of disadvantage and poverty in Ireland. Then there are the 5,000 children who drop out of school each year with no qualifications whatsoever to end up unemployed, or in the back streets of London. There are the 25,000 people with a mental handicap and their carers, who have no services to turn to, with their carers struggling to cope, with no sleep, no break and little or no help. Then there are the 800 young homeless people roaming our streets today prey to being sucked into a life of crime. There are also the 30,000 families in substandard accommodation with no hope of being adequately housed and the 30,000 on public waiting lists excluded from any opportunity of receiving attention.\n\nThose are the failings we must overcome, the failings of the existing policies, leaving so many of our people trapped in wastelands, marginalised, kept out. The failure of this Government to reform has been tragic in the last few years before European integration, affording us the last chance to achieve the standards that will allow us compete four-square in Europe. Our President rightly pointed out that there is a danger we will be left struggling in the backwash as other European countries stride ahead. That is the price we pay for the unwillingness of  the Government to reform. They are a Government no longer capable of producing sustainable strategies for development. Having taken the summer off they are now engaged in trying frantically to cobble together a package, one that will inspire no confidence but which will once again keep the Taoiseach hanging on to power. In their hearts the Progressive Democrats must recognise that the Government are doomed.\n\nPerhaps we all like to put off elections. Nobody wants to go out in the cold weather to meet angry, frustrated voters. As citizens we must see that this is the time for this Government to stand aside. The nation wants to move on.","I welcome the opportunity to put before this House the reasons that a vote of confidence in this Government should be unequivocally carried by the Dáil at this time. As Minister for Justice with the safety and security of our citizens as my chief concern, I am determined that this country should be guided into a new age where all may feel secure and where the law serves as a protection and a support for our people rather than a burden which diminishes their lives. To this end, since I became Minister for Justice in 1989, an unprecedented legislative programme has been put in place which will only be surpassed by the programme which I shall introduce in the next two years of Government.\n\nTo give examples, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989, makes it an offence to incite hatred against persons on account of their membership of certain minority or vulnerable groups. The Larceny Act, 1990, replaces the existing offence of receiving stolen property with a new offence of handling stolen property.\n\nThe Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990, has greatly strengthened the Garda in dealing with those who carry weapons such as stun guns, crossbows and knives on our streets or for use for some criminal purpose. It was my privilege, in the Criminal Justice Act, 1990, to finally remove the death penalty from our Statue Book while ensuring that what were previously capital offences would incur a penalty of life imprisonment with a minimum mandatory term of 40 years to be served.\n\nThe Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990, provided for radical reform of the law on rape and indecent assault. It made marital rape a crime and extended the definition of rape to provide the maximum psychological as well as legal protection for victims. The Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act, 1990, provides the Garda with power to obtain bodily samples from persons suspected of serious crimes for the purpose of forensic testing. The Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991, is designed to deal with the problems that arise when a child is abducted across international frontiers in defiance of a court order or against the wishes of the other parent.\n\nThe Contractual Obligations (Applicable Law) Act, 1991, enabled Ireland to ratify the Rome Convention in the law applicable to international contacts which is complementary to the EC Judgments Convention. The Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991, amends the law on the limitation of actions in personal injury cases and provides for new and better rules on when the limitation period for the commencement of legal proceedings begins to run in cases of latent personal injuries.\n\nThe Courts Act, 1991, increased the civil jurisdiction of the Circuit and District Courts and increased the number of High and Circuit Court judges and justices of the District Court. It also provides for the service of District Court summons by post. The Courts (No. 2) Act, 1991, amends the law relating to the execution of District Court warrants for arrest and imprisonment for non-payment of fines. The Criminal Damage Bill, 1990, which is at Committee Stage in this House, simplifies and modernises the whole law of malicious damage to property. It also makes it an offence to get access to a computer system without authority - what is usually called \"hacking\".\n\nBy any reckoning this is an impressive and substantial catalogue of legislative achievement over the past two years. However, there are a number of very  important legislative proposals being prepared which I am committed to seeing enacted into law over the next two years including a Bill to provide for the confiscation of the proceeds of crime to which I am giving urgent priority to provide for the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking and other crimes and the prevention of \"money-laundering\". The Bill is currently being drafted and I hope to circulate it during the current session. The Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulations) Bill will regulate on a statutory basis interception of communications for the purposes of criminal investigation and State security. The Solicitors (Amendment) Bill will be circulated to Deputies very shortly. It will take account of many of the recommendations made by the Fair Trade Commission in their report on the legal profession, including complaints machinery, multi-disciplinary and multi-national practices involving solicitors, fee advertising, easier interchange between the professions and consumer protection through indemnity insurance.\n\nThe Criminal Law Bill will modernise the underlying basis of our criminal law by abolishing the distinctions between offences known as felonies and misdemeanours and by abolishing penal servitude and hard labour. The Criminal Evidence Bill will be published in the next few weeks. It will make business and administrative documents, including computerised records, admissible in evidence. It will make it easier for children and persons with mental handicap to give evidence in cases of physical or sexual abuse. It will also set out clearly the circumstances in which the spouse of an accused person is competent and compellable to give evidence for the prosecution, the accused person or a co-accused.\n\nThe Courts and Courts Officers Bill provides for the establishment of a Court of Civil Appeal which will help to reduce the workload of the Supreme Court and thus reduce delays in that court. In the family law areas, The Family Home Bill is being prepared to give each spouse  equal rights of ownership in the family home and contents.\n\nThe Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill is under preparation to amend the law on criminal insanity. Certain issues are being examined in the context of the legislation. These include fitness to plead, verdicts of \"guilty but insane\" the right of appeal and the introduction of a concept of \"diminished responsibility.\"\n\nThe Law Reform Commission's report on receiving stolen property which led to the drafting of the Larceny Act, 1990, was the first stage in the commission's overall examination of the law in relation to dishonesty generally. The commission are currently putting the finishing touches to the proposals for reform of the law on that subject and the report is expected soon. The commission's examination includes consideration of offences of larceny, false pretences, fraudulent conversion as well as false accounting, other fraud offences, offences relating to computers, conspiracy to defraud, forgery, counterfeiting and related matters. The thrust of these proposals is to tackle the problem of so-called white collar crime and computer fraud.\n\nIt is the Government's intention to make whatever changes are necessary in the criminal law in this area to modernise it and make it as effective as possible.\n\nThere are a number of further legislative proposals being prepared in my Department at present. Work is under way on the preparation of a Juvenile Justice Bill to replace the Children's Act, 1908.\n\nThere are also proposals to achieve savings in costs and in Garda time through changes in procedure in criminal cases, to change the law on homosexual offences, to comply with the judgment of the Court of Human Rights, to place the civil legal aid scheme on a statutory basis, to make changes in the statutory criminal legal aid scheme, and to convert the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds into a semi-State body.\n\nIn relation to family law, an interdepartmental review of developments in the area of marital breakdown is nearing completion. The outcome of that review  will be reflected in a White Paper which will be published shortly by the Government. The issues which arise in endeavouring to determine the most appropriate response to marital breakdown are clearly wide-ranging and complex; inevitably they are matters which can give rise to strongly held and often opposing views. Nevertheless, I am confident that the proposed White Paper will make a very significant contribution in the effort to ensure that effective policies exist to assist in the preservation of stable marriages and that appropriate responses are available where marriages break down.\n\nIt must be agreed that this is a substantial programme of legislative reform. However, the area of law enforcement is not one which has been neglected by the current Government.\n\nThis Government have always listed the fight against crime among our top priorities. We realise that crime is an issue which gives rise to public concern and the record of the Government in providing resources to the Garda to enable them to meet the challenge of the criminal head-on is second to none.\n\nOver the past few years I have secured the Government's agreement to a number of packages of measures which greatly increased the Garda Síochána's capacity to fight crime. I will remind Deputies of some of these measures: by December 1,000 Garda trainees will have been recruited to the force since 1989; a new competition to recruit a further 1,000 Garda trainees over the next few years is now under way; 350 experienced gardaí and sergeants have been retained in the force for an additional year by reason of the Government's decision to raise the retirement age of these ranks; civilian recruitment to the Garda has been introduced on a scale unknown since the establishment of the force seventy years ago. Two hundred and fifty civilian clerical staff are being recruited for the purpose of releasing desk-bound gardaí for outdoor duties; the management of the Force has been greatly strengthened by over 660 promotions in its ranks in the  past two years; this year alone, £10 million is being provided to purchase the most modern and effective equipment available for the Garda; and by December, £40 million will have been spent on the current Garda building programme to upgrade the accommodation in Garda stations throughout the State, and since the commencement of the programme, some 55 large stations, mainly of divisional and district headquarters size, will have been completed and occupied by the Garda.\n\nWith regard to policing systems, I have over the past few years approved a number of important initiatives. These include: the total reform of the juvenile liaison service and the establishment of a national office to oversee its countrywide operation; the implementation of a number of community-based initiatives, in areas which have seen repeated occurrences of crime, designed to win over the support of the community in stamping out petty crime and vandalism; the establishment of a Garda schools programme where community gardaí visit schools on a regular basis; and the introduction of the new community policing initiative in rural areas.\n\nThe introduction of the new community policing scheme represents a watershed in the organisation and delivery of police services in this country. For the first time in the history of the State, the Garda authorities have been given the go-ahead to move away from a policing system rooted in the 1800's to one which addresses the more complex policing needs of modern society and the infinitely more demanding crime problems which now confront us.\n\nThe aims of the community policing scheme are to provide a more efficient Garda service, to ensure greater availability of gardaí to the public and to give the community a more personalised and caring service.\n\nCritics of the new scheme have labelled it a cost-saving exercise which is intended to reduce Garda manpower and resources in rural areas. Others have accused both myself and the Garda authorities of introducing the new scheme as  a front for the closure and downgrading of rural Garda stations. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Already the people residing in those districts where the first phase of the scheme has been introduced are seeing additional resources. Communities are experiencing the influx of new Garda cars, witnessing the arrival of additional Garda personnel and seeing more of the gardaí who are being released from outdated record-keeping in favour of active outdoor duty.\n\nThe Garda authorities inform me that the introduction of the scheme has gone very smoothly. The scheme will be formally reviewed three times in the coming six months by Garda management to resolve any teething problems which arise during implementation.\n\nAs I indicated in my outline of our future legislative programme, the Government are determined that all appropriate measures will be taken to combat serious financial fraud.\n\nOur approach to the challenge posed by large scale fraud has and will continue to be directed towards enhancing the capacity of the criminal justice system as a whole to deal with the problem. That will involve improving our capacity to detect and investigate those offences. Likewise, it will involve measures to improve our capacity to successfully prosecute those offences which come to light. Much work has already been done to this end. I have already initiated the first comprehensive review in recent years of the operation of the Garda Fraud Squad. This was undertaken by Garda management who have now completed a detailed report on the matter.\n\nThat report is now with me and the House may be assured that its recommendations will be given effect. The recommendations which the report contains extend over a wide area and will involve a significant strengthening of the fraud squad itself through restructuring, the allocation of additional resources and  improvements in training. Moreover, the report contains recommendations - which I particularly welcome - to strengthen the links between the fraud squad and other professional bodies and agencies, such as the professional accountancy bodies, which have the ability to make significant contributions to the success of Garda investigations.\n\nThe Government, as I have already indicated, are determined to ensure that our criminal justice system has the capacity to deal with fraud in all its guises. It will be clear from what I have just outlined that the groundwork, which will ensure that our approach will be comprehensive, has already been done.\n\nThis Government are not concerned with reform which only amounts to a mere tinkering with the existing approach, but are preparing fundamental changes which will significantly alter the balance against those who are guilty of perpetrating fraud in our society.\n\nAs part of that approach, a variety of options are and will be considered. One such initiative which has already been mentioned by the Taoiseach is the establishment of a serious fraud office which would be responsible for both the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud offences along the lines of the serious fraud office in the UK. I understand that the establishment of this office represented a major and quite successful approach towards tackling this very complex area of crime and it is entirely appropriate that we should give very serious thought here also to the establishment of something on these lines.\n\nMany references have been made, a Cheann Comhairle, to the irregularities which have received prominence of late in our media. It would, of course, be entirely inappropriate for me to make any comment on these matters on which certain investigations and inquiries are presently under way. Indeed, I want to emphasise that my references to fraud generally and the capacity of the criminal justice system should not be taken as carrying any implication that the occurrence of fraudulent practice has been established in any of these cases. That is  simply not so, and I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not suggest otherwise.\n\nMy comments are of a general nature and my message simply is that the Government are prepared to tackle the problem of fraud head-on. The reaction by the Government in seeking the truth behind any recent allegation made has been swift, determined and fair; always with concern for the national interest being the primary and basic consideration behind any action taken.\n\nThe Government have dealt resolutely and determinedly with all these controversies and will not be deflected from their course, which is to get to the bottom of each of them. It is this determination and the action which has arisen from it which should give the Irish public the assurance they expect and demand. All questions will be answered, all doubts about the propriety of dealings will be dealt with and all allegations will be investigated. This Government are determined that this will be so and all may take comfort and confidence from this commitment.\n\nOf course, that is not to say that all allegations will be borne out. This brings me to a question which I feel must be posed. Do any of the parties sitting opposite me actually propose that they could offer a Government in which this House can express any sense of confidence?\n\nI have little doubt that my other colleagues will speak at great length about the role of Fine Gael and the Labour Party in the events of the past few weeks. I, however, would like to consider the role of The Workers' Party. Last Sunday we heard the leader of that party speak to us on RTE radio station about the ethical standards in Irish politics and business.\n\nSurely there is no greater ethic than that which protects and guards the sanctity of human life, yet he was strangely silent when a recently produced British  television programme, the BBC's \"Spotlight\" programme, was broadcast.\n\nAmong the questions raised in the \"Spotlight\" programme on BBC which were never answered by The Workers' Party were: the position of the Official IRA; its continued existence and its role as the protector, enforcer and provider of and for, The Workers' Party; the position of the sophisticated weaponry which has never been given up and which is alleged to be hidden in cachès throughout the country; the bombing of Aldershot and the reaction to it of leading members of The Workers' Party; the role of the Official IRA in the shooting of John Taylor, MP, and the murder of Ranger Best, an off-duty soldier in Derry; the role of a Workers' Party activist in persuading a woman to conceal arms in her home; the position of a man convicted of possessing weapons with intent to endanger life who was a signatory to the nomination papers of a prominent Workers' Party candidate in the 1986 Lagan Valley by-election; the role of the Official IRA in providing funding for The Workers' Party from activities which include robbery, illegal operation of a tax exemption scam, building site racketeering and other forms of organised crime; the participation in racketeering and robbery of Workers' Party activists who have signed Northern Ireland election papers for The Workers' Party candidates and involved themselves in The Workers' Party meetings and ceremonies; whether millions of pounds have been realised for the benefit of The Workers' Party from those activists; the position of The Workers' Party when in 1985 printing plates for their documentation were found in a Dublin warehouse along with £1.5 million worth of counterfeit £5 notes; and the relationship of The Workers' Party to a Belfast man who was arrested in London for the possession of counterfeit $100 bills.\n\nThese are among the many serious questions posed by the BBC-made  \"Spotlight\" programme that have never been answered by The Workers' Party.\n\nOn the same \"Spotlight\" programme, recalling his days as Minister for Justice, Deputy Jim Mitchell said, \"I was never in any doubt that the political party called Official Sinn Féin, later Sinn Féin, the Workers Party, later the Workers' Party, was merely the political expression of the Official IRA.\". The continued existence of the Official IRA was attested to by Dr. Brian Mawhinney, Northern Ireland's Minister, when on 11 December last in the House of Commons in reply to a question by John Taylor,  he said, \"I believe the Official IRA still exists\".\n\nThe Workers' Party Leader is very concerned about contacts at the highest level of politics and has suggested there is something behind the old truism which declares that by their friends you shall know them.\n\nWell, who are the contacts; who are the natural allies of The Workers' Party? It is true that some are no longer in a position to reciprocate their comradery, but, by their own admission, they have included the Governments of North Korea, East Germany and the Ceausescu regime of Communist Romania.\n\nOf course, in relation to North Korea, in particular, that country appeared to feature prominently in the travel arrangements of the top brass of The Workers' Party, Messrs Mac Giolla, Garland and others. And Ireland, in turn, at various Ard Fheiseanna of The Workers' Party, has been honoured by the visits of various foreign delegations who, no doubt, made contributions of great intelligence.\n\nThe Workers' Party have never explained the exact nature of their contacts with the North Koreans and others. What agencies in these countries concerned were they in contact with?\n\nThey never explained what the purpose of this contact was or whether any funding or other material assistance was derived from these contacts. More fundamentally, The Workers' Party have never indicated in what way the national interest was, is, or could have been served by these contacts.\n\nWe have heard Deputy De Rossa call for a full, frank and open debate on the scandals which came to light since August and that came from the leader of a party who in less than two decades have changed their name four times. It was Sinn Féin; then it was Official Sinn Féin;  then Sinn Fein the Workers Party and today we have The Workers' Party. They have out Windscaled Sellafield.\n\nWhat purpose do The Workers' Party hope to achieve with their role in the current spate of so-called revelations? Perhaps they are conscious that the dogma of socialism, for which they are champions, has been rejected by virtually every nation that has practised it, willingly or unwillingly, over the last 70 years. Surely they recognise that they will be unable now to sell this failed ideology to the Irish people.\n\nThey obviously understand that the only means they have of participating in government is by undermining the faith and hopes of the Irish people, bringing into question the integrity of every Irish institution and cynically using the Irish media to sell themselves as a high-minded alternative.\n\nIs that an alternative to a Government who over the past two years have proved themselves to be imaginative, efficient, effective and dedicated to the beneficial development of all the people of all of Ireland? I have no hesitation in urging this House to declare its confidence in this Government.","I urge the importance for all of us in this debate to keep in mind its wider context, and nowhere is this more vital than in relation to Northern Ireland. It would indeed be unfortunate if anything said in the heat of this debate sent mistaken signals or gave rise to misunderstandings elsewhere about our underlying positions on a problem which is so grave for all of us. For my part I acknowledge very readily that concern at the appalling suffering and loss caused by the conflict is not the monopoly of any one side in his House. I recognise freely that we all share the urgent desire to see progress towards a solution and this reflects the wishes of the great mass of our people.\n\nThe Government for their part have faced the manifold aspects of the problem with one simple and consistent policy - that is to take advantage of each and every opportunity to secure progress, wherever such opportunity can be found and to the fullest extent that can be realised. We overlooked no existing instrument that might serve this consistent objective. We showed ourselves open and flexible on new approaches wherever they promised to be of help. One major strand in our policy has been to ensure that as far as is in our power the practical operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement fulfils its stated aims, particularly with regard to the plight of the  Nationalist community in Northern Ireland.\n\nWe have maintained a very intensive pattern of meetings. Yesterday's conference was I believe the 33rd I have taken part in - leaving aside the numerous ministerial meetings between conferences. We have persevered, sometimes in tense and difficult circumstances, in our efforts to advance all aspects of the conference aganda. There are many areas where I am satisfied that our endeavours were rewarded with significant results. I would instance new legislation on fair employment, which at least provides the means, if properly availed of, to eradicate a very notorious form of discrimination. We have ensured a new and much needed emphasis on deprived areas in Northern Ireland, both on the part of the British Government and through the work of the International Fund for Ireland. We have widened the remit and the scope of the conference to achieve a more coherent and structured approach to cross-Border economic co-operation, which will I believe prove of great benefit to both parts of Ireland. These and other areas have shown encouraging progress.\n\nEqually, however, I must acknowledge there are some areas where in spite of our most determined efforts, and notwithstanding some improvements, serious problems still persist. This is particularly true of issues relating to confidence in the security forces and relations between these forces and the community. I can assure Members that the Government will, as heretofore, spare no effort to secure the changes in this area we all recognise as necessary.\n\nIn the review of the working of the conference in 1989 both Governments reaffirmed their full commitment to all the provisions of the agreement and to its shared understandings and purposes. It is of course important for the process of co-operation between the two Governments that there should be no doubts or misunderstandings on this issue. It is important also that this joint commitment should be clearly seen to be to  the agreement as a whole, with full regard for its overall context.\n\nIt would not be a balanced treatment of the agreement, in my opinion, to confine Article 1 to the affirmation that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of a majority of the people there, and to neglect the joint commitment in the same Article, to give legislative effect to the alternative of a united Ireland, if a majority in Northern Ireland wish for and consent to it. In the agreement the two Governments recognise the need for continuing efforts to reconcile and to acknowledge the rights of the two major traditions that exist in Ireland. I would stress that relates to these two traditions in their integrity and as they define themselves, with the presumption that there are deep convictions involved on both sides.\n\nThat is I believe the only realistic basis on which to address the problem, however much it is tempting to simplify it by wishing away one factor or another. The Government have also consistently stressed the need to ensure a balance in the operation of the agreement between its theoretical and practical aspects.\n\nNationalists in Northern Ireland will not accept an application of the agreement where the acknowledgment of their rights exists only on the level of abstraction. They see the need, as we do, for a process which gives real and effective expression to the aspirations of both traditions.\n\nI think it worth spelling out these points, because the process of co-operation between the two Governments is an asset which it is vital to sustain and develop, and is best served by a clear understanding of the basis on which it rests.\n\nI am very conscious of recent concern that changes might have occurred in this regard, and considered it right for me to seek clarification at yesterday's meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference. I am glad to report to the Dáil that I received the most explicit assurances that speculation about policy changes by the British Government in this area was entirely  without foundation, and that the basis of our co-operation remains that of the fullest commitment to the agreement in all its aspects.\n\nFaced with the appalling record of tragedy and destruction in Northern Ireland it is important for all of us to focus on one overriding objective: we must spare no effort to find a solution. We must never become resigned to a view that this terrible situation is in some way inevitable, or that nothing can be done about it. We believe the key to progress lies through political dialogue. We believe both Governments have particular obligations of leadership and initiative in this regard. For our part we have done everything in our power to ensure that this dialogue can take place and come to fruition.\n\nWe have said that it should cover the totality of relations involved, that it should be a genuine and open attempt to address the core of the problem, and that it should be on a basis which does not prejudge or pre-empt the position of either tradition, or destroy assets that are there unless something better has been created to put in their place. We put forward these criteria not because of any selfish concerns of our own, but because we believe that to ignore them would make success more difficult, and failure can only add to a sense of despair, and give encouragement to the evil forces which seek to exploit it.\n\nI believe dialogue on the basis I have outlined, carried out with determination, imagination and goodwill, could transform relationships on this island. This Government for their part will spare no effort to launch and sustain this overdue and necessary process.\n\nThe past years have been years of great activity and enormous challenge in international life. On every continent and on every issue we are witnessing profound and dramatic changes which test the capacity of the international community and individual states. I believe this Government's response to these events has been credible and coherent, advancing Ireland's interests, contributing to the  development of the European Community and promoting a more stable and just international order.\n\nWe have acquitted ourselves well. We have shown ourselves to be a deeply committed and loyal member of the European Community, prepared to work for its future. We have contributed in a very direct way to the Community through our successful Presidency and active membership of the Troika of Ministers. We have engaged intensively with the British Government in an effort to achieve progress in relationships on and between these islands. We have worked constructively and effectively in promoting the United Nations and in upholding its Charter. We have been active in other bodies which make an important contribution to European stability, such as the CSCE.\n\nWe have continued to work for international peace and security, particularly through the involvement of Irish military personnel on UN peacekeeping missions and, more recently through our contribution to the Monitor Mission in Yugoslavia. We have been very active in the conduct of our bilateral relations with a large number of countries on a broad range of issues. We have been steadfast and determined in the protection of the interests of Irish citizens abroad, in the Gulf War for example. And securing the freedom of Brian Keenan was a considerable achievement.\n\nWe have been deeply mindful of the plight of our emigrants and achieved good results on their behalf in Britain, the US and elsewhere. We have steadily promoted our economic interests, helped stimulate trade and promoted investment and tourism in Ireland.\n\nWithin the limits of our resources, we have shown commitment to and solidarity with the developing countries. In these and in other areas we have addressed the many challenges that have arisen. And we are well positioned to continue our efforts in promoting Ireland's interests in the period ahead.\n\nThe process of European integration has been a major preoccupation of the  Government over the past years. Membership is of central importance for our political and economic wellbeing and in our approach to international affairs. The success of the single market programme has encouraged the movement towards closer unity. And the events in Eastern Europe have emphasised the need to reinforce the Community's structures and to widen its scope for action. These questions have been taken up in the two Intergovernmental Conferences on Political Union and on Economic and Monetary Union which are scheduled to conclude at the Maastricht Summit in December.\n\nThe Government have been actively and wholeheartedly involved in the negotiations. We took the initiative in four areas of particular interest to us - economic and social cohesion, health, education and culture. We were the first delegation to table proposals in the area of cohesion, and the text under negotiation in the Conference, which was agreed in Luxembourg in June as the basis for our work, reflects very considerably the ideas which we put forward. Incidentally, I might point out that copies of our proposals were placed in the Dáil Library and after the June European Council copies of the negotiating texts were also made available to Members of this House.\n\nIn coming weeks our particular concerns will centre on the following main issues: First, we are concerned to ensure that the Conferences are a success. A failure at Maastricht is something we would not contemplate. Second, we feel that the results will have to be substantial and represent real progress on the road to European unity. This will involve both new competences and the reinforcement of existing competences in areas such as the environment and research. Third, the new treaty must ensure that the process of the development of regions such as Ireland, to which the Community has already contributed substantially, will continue. In this context we are emphasising the particular importance of economic and social cohesion. Fourth, the Community's institutions must be  strengthened to ensure that they can respond effectively to the needs of the citizen. For example, we accept the need to reinforce the powers of the European Parliament.\n\nFifth, we want to see the capacity of the Community to reflect a coherent and effective common foreign and security policy strengthened. While some progress has been made on this, the Twelve are still far from agreement on such key questions as the eventual defence policy, and the new union's security role. Sixth, we cannot accept a two-speed or variable approach to the new Union. Recently we successfully opposed attempts to create a two-tier approach with regard to the move to the final stages of economic and monetary union.\n\nFinally, the treaty which will result from the Conference will be of considerable significance to the future development of the Community. It will be important, therefore, that it be matched by substantive measures to ensure that the Community has the capacity to give effect to its provisions. We have now entered the final stage of the negotiations in the run-up to the European Council in Maastricht on 10 and 11 December. The Government are conscious of the need to reach agreement and will do all that we can to ensure success.\n\nThe Common Agricultural Policy has been a key Community policy for Ireland and will remain so. The Commission has responded to increasing pressures on the policy by putting forward proposals for reform. Ireland cannot ignore the problems for the Common Agricultural Policy and for the Community budget by the increasing problem of surplus production. In principle, we would not be opposed to the idea of moving to a limited extent from the present price system to greater direct income support. However, the basic Treaty principles of the Common Agricultural Policy must remain. And the compensation in direct income support must be adequate for all sections of the farming community.\n\nI shall supply copies, with pleasure. They should be on their way.\n\nWe are playing an active part in the development of the Community's external relations. Particular attention focuses on the establishment of co-operative relations with our European neighbours. The euphoria of the first days of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe has given way to a realisation of the difficulty of the task of transforming their economies. Economic assistance from the Community will continue to be of vital importance, and I am glad that Irish expertise is being utilised under the Community's programmes.\n\nNegotiations on association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia are well advanced and similar arrangements are envisaged with Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic States when conditions are right.\n\nIn the sensitive area of agricultural imports I argued in the Council for an approach which would take account of the depressed state of the market and the existing oversupply of product. This was accepted. New imports of beef and sheepmeat will not take place to the extent that exports from Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia can be sent to the Soviet Union with Community financial assistance.\n\nThe Community's negotiations with our closest neighbours, the EFTA group, to create a European Economic Area are close to a conclusion. On Monday next the Council of Ministers will meet the EFTA Ministers in Luxembourg to seek solutions to the outstanding issues in negotiation. We will continue to seek a balanced agreement, one which takes  account of the interests of disadvantaged regions.\n\nSome of our negotiating partners have already decided to go further than the Economic Area Agreement and have applied for accession to the Community. The Commission opinion on the Austrian application has now been produced and we look forward to its early consideration by the Council. Sweden's application, made last July, has been referred in the normal way to the Commission. We can anticipate the question of enlargement and its implications coming to the fore once again when the Inter-Governmental Conferences have completed their work.\n\nThe Community is not neglecting its responsibilities and interests beyond the European continent. The strengthening of the international trading system is an important objective. In Community discussions we have emphasised the need for a global and balanced agreement to the Uruguay Round. We have resisted an undue focus on agriculture and have stressed that forced concessions should not be made in that sector. We will continue to stress the value of the offer already made by the EC in the area of agriculture. It is vital that the outcome of the Round be coherent and balanced and preserve the fundamental principles of the Common Agricultural Policy.\n\nWe have also been active in other issues of European and international concern. The European Community has been to the forefront of international efforts to end the fighting and to reach a peaceful solution acceptable to all in Yugoslavia. Ireland is participating in these efforts and has given, and will continue to give, full support to the Community.\n\nIn July the Community established a monitor mission at the invitation of the Yugoslav authorities and with the consent of the parties on the ground. Originally established primarily to oversee the cease-fire in Slovenia, the role of the mission has evolved to take account of developments. Its primary function continues to be to stabilise the various cease-fires and to investigate violations. Its activities also include the mediation of  local cease-fires, the monitoring of the relocation of the Yugoslav Army from Slovenia, the exchange of prisoners, and other activities designed to alleviate tension.\n\nSeven members of the monitor mission are provided by Ireland. I salute their courage and dedication. Agreement has recently been reached with the parties in Yugoslavia that the monitors should continue their activities until the successful outcome of the Conference on Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, the issue of their personal safety continues to be a primary concern. Foreign Ministers have made clear that the monitors will continue to perform their duties only as long as their security can be assured.\n\nFaced with the repeated failure of the Yugoslav parties to start negotiations, the Community convened a conference on Yugoslavia under the chairmanship of Lord Carrington which opened in The Hague on 7 September. The parties have agreed to formulate a political solution on the basis of the perspective of recognition of the independence of the those republics wishing it, at the end of a negotiating process conducted in good faith.\n\nI will not pretend that these negotiations will be easy or that there is not a considerable way to go. However, I believe that the conference on Yugoslavia represents the best hope for a solution. I share the determination of the Community to bring it to a successful outcome.\n\nRecent months have also seen major upheavals in the Soviet Union. In August, the world heard with shock that an attempt was being made to overthrow the constitutional order in the Soviet Union and to repudiate the political and economic reforms introduced under the leadership of President Gorbachev. Thankfully, the courage of the citizens of cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg and the steadfastness of leaders like Boris Yeltsin and Anatoliy Sobchak ensured that democracy prevailed. I believe too that the strong support of the international community was an important factor in bringing the coup leaders to  the realisation that they were doomed to failure.\n\nThe failure of the attempted coup has brought with it a dramatic acceleration of the process of political and economic reform. At the same time, it has led to a fundamental transformation of the nature of the Soviet Union. The monolithic state where all power was wielded by the Communist Party and Moscow is no more.\n\nThere is, as a result, a considerable degree of uncertainty which will not be ended until the precise nature of the links between the republics and the new union is finally decided. At the same time, it is clear that the new union, whatever its final shape, will be committed to democracy and human rights which will be welcomed within the European family of nations.\n\nThe Community is already offering assistance to the reform process through its technical assistance programme and food aid. A decision in principle to supply a further 1.25 billion ECU worth of food aid was taken recently. The United States, Canada and Japan would also be expected to contribute on a similar scale.\n\nIn July, on my official visit to the Soviet Union, I was able to meet many of the leaders whose firm stand later ensured the survival of democracy there. These included Vice-President Rutskoi of the Russian Federation, Mayor Anatoliy Sobchak of St. Petersburg and Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze.\n\nI signed a number of agreements dealing with political, economic and cultural relations between Ireland and the Soviet Union. I am confident that these will form the basis for even warmer and more profitable relations between our two countries in the future.\n\nAn important and welcome result of the failure of the August coup was the fact that, after more than 50 years, the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia recovered the full exercise of their sovereignty and independence. They now face the tremendous challenge of developing their economies.\n\nWestern and Community aid will be extended to them in this endeavour as  well as trade concessions already made available to other Eastern European States under the generalised scheme of preferences. Ireland announced that it recognised the three states on 27 August last.\n\nI have recently returned from a visit there, the purpose of which was to convey the support of Ireland for the restoration of their independence, to establish a basis for the development of future bilateral relations and to identify areas in which there was a common interest in promoting co-operation. The delegation was accompaned by a business group to explore the potential for co-operation in specific areas.\n\nI believe that the visits establish a sound foundation on which new and fruitful relationships can be built.\n\nIn Africa the end of the Cold War has altered old equations and opened up the way to the resolution of long-enduring conflicts. In March last year we saw the successful advent of Namibia to independence. The civil war in Angola has ended and the process of national reconciliation is firmly launched. On the other hand, progress towards the peaceful resolution of the conflict in Mozambique is proving much more difficult.\n\nIn South Africa we have witnessed dramatic changes over the past two years, from a society closed in on itself, relying on intimidation and persecution to govern, to a country open to dialogue with the majority with a view to the establishment of a society in which all South Africans, in freedom and equality, can play a role in their own development. During my visit to South Africa last year, as leader of the ministerial troika delegation, I had the opportunity to see the situation at first hand and talk, openly and frankly, with all the major players involved. Since then two key individuals, Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk,  have been welcome visitors to Ireland. The Government remain fully supportive of the process under way and will continue to play a constructive role in promoting it.\n\nI have been active since coming to office in deepening our relations with the countries of Asia and the Pacific. At Community level, the signing of the EC-Japan Declaration in July this year was a significant development resulting from a process which I took forward during the Irish Presidency last year. Bilateral relations with Japan have been strengthened by recent reciprocal visits which have done much to enhance our economic relations, notably in the tourism field. We have also been building our relations with India, South Korea and the ASEAN countries. The admission of South Korea to UN membership last month is something to which I gave my active support.\n\nThe simultaneous admission to United Nations membership of North Korea is a very significant development, made possible by the end of the Cold War and brings the UN closer to its goal of universality.\n\nI have taken a particular interest in the tragic plight of the Cambodian people and have lent my active support to international efforts to bring peace to that country. I look forward to the resumption later this month of the Paris Conference on Cambodia and the signature there of the necessary agreements giving effect to a comprehensive political settlement to be implemented under United Nations supervision. The goal must be to ensure for the Cambodian people a future in which they enjoy true peace and security, free from any threat of a return to past policies and practices.\n\nIreland has important relations with the countries of the Middle East. During our Presidency of the European Community the Twelve reiterated their commitment to a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the framework of an international peace conference.\n\nAll progress in the Middle East was brought to a halt abruptly and dangerously in August last year when Iraq invaded and attempted, unsuccessfully, to annex Kuwait. Ireland played its full part in applying the sanctions against Iraq introduced by the Security Council and supported the efforts of the international community to bring an end to the most flagrant violation of international law since the end of the Second World War.\n\nI made clear to this House on 18 January last that it was necessary to keep in mind what we wanted to see happen in the Middle East once the Gulf crisis was eventually brought to an end. For these reasons we and our partners in the European Community particularly welcomed the initiative taken by the United States and the series of tours embarked on by Secretary of State, Mr. James Baker, in order to get the Middle East peace process under way.\n\nI expect the date of the opening conference to be announced shortly. It is expected that it will take place before the end of this month. The Twelve, including Ireland, are strongly supportive of this initiative and are committed to playing an active role in the peace process to help ensure its success. It offers an unprecedented opportunity to bring the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the negotiating table. It is an opportunity that must not be lost.\n\nThe problem of hostages in Lebanon is prominent once again in the news. Brian Keenan was held hostage for over four years and it was necessary to make intensive and protracted efforts to secure his realease. I appreciate the assistance given to us by the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria in bringing this about. I am very glad that Brian Keenan's fellow prisoners, John McCarthy and Jack Mann have since been released and I am hopeful that the current round of international negotiations will succeed in bringing to an end this dreadful episode in Lebanon's tragic history.\n\nI believe I have given a very positive and satisfactory report on the work of the  Department of Foreign Affairs and my involvement in same. It has been quite successful, as has the work of the Government in all other areas. I have the greatest pleasure in recommending the motion of confidence in this Government.","This Government remind me of the life cycle of the banana which in its early stage is green but straight and later becoming crooked and yellow.\n\nIf Ireland was a private company it would be declared bankrupt. Why would it go bankrupt? A private company with a  chief executive like the Taoiseach would ensure that a few senior executives and himself would dominate the entire business. There would be no information shared with anybody and certainly excessive profits would be neither publicised nor shared with the ordinary employees. The company would be heavy on publicity, very light on research and development and after years of domination in the market place would find that their code of business ethics and products were no longer acceptable or required.\n\nIreland as a nation has now reached that low level of standards. The way we do things and the way we expect others to act is conditional on the way governments lead by example. Try telling the parents of an 11 year old girl who has been waiting for a life saving operation in the UK for over four months that it is all in a good cause because there are insufficient funds available. Ask a 60 year old man who can hardly sit to meals at home or get two hours sleep at night because of arthritis to make the supreme sacrifice and wait three years for an operation and in the same breath tell him it is possible for a few manipulators to make £8 million in 11 months on what can only be described as a shady deal.\n\nFianna Fáil have had a long history of single party Government and for considerable periods of time. Anybody who can remember their 16 years uninterrupted period up to 1973 will remember the outright arrogance of Ministers during that period. Fianna Fáil always tried to dominate people and pressure them into submission.\n\nUntil quite recently many people believed that one could not get a job, renew one's medical card or get into or out of hospital unless one hitched one's wagon to the Fianna Fáil convoy. How they milked that system. Part of this history is coming back to haunt them now.\n\nThe present golden circle syndrome is repugnant to real democracy and is an insult to every man and woman who works hard for a living. The golden circle is in fact a type of protection racket similar to the activities of the paramilitaries  in the North. If one is in the inner circle one knows everything, controls everything, manipulates everything and one's chances of making a financial killing is increased at least a hundredfold.\n\nIreland's image has suffered untold damage in the past three months. Every morning the financial papers of Europe carried stories of financial scandals, deceit and intrigue that would leave Sherlock Holmes bewildered. Imagine the job that Córas Tráchtála and the IDA will have in trying to get investment into our country after this.\n\nDeep down Fianna Fáil backbenchers are sick to the teeth of the goings on but there is a price on that concern. They believe a heave against the Taoiseach will not work unless Ministers and Ministers of State join forces with them. Present Fianna Fáil Ministers and Ministers of State like their perks. To remove the boss might cause them to drive themselves around the country for an indefinite period. The backbenchers also know that if the Taoiseach sees the balance of power tilt against him he will run to the Park and if that happens there will be at least 15 Fianna Fáil Deputies checking on their pension entitlements and speaking kindly to county councillors.\n\nFor many people the current upheavals are no surprise given the Fianna Fáil record, but there is a complication this time that was never there before. The Progressive Democrats said on their foundation that they should break the mould in Irish politics, that there would be no shady dealings, no \"cute hoor\" activities; there would be reward for hard work. The list goes on and on. I believe they meant that at the time. The vast majority of the present Progressive Democrats Deputies broke from Fianna Fáil for activities several times less serious than the present scandals. What are they doing now? Are they able to get the leopard to change his spots or will they hang on in there for the trappings of power? They appeared to have the conscience of the nation draped around their shoulders only about two years ago or maybe they are returning to the code of conduct they were trained into in Fianna  Fáil before they departed from that fold. One way or another the Progressive Democrats now find themselves locked into a Government who have disgraced themselves.\n\nThis Government operate on two levels. On the fast lane there is the insider dealing, relationships carefully developed with big business interests, membership of exclusive clubs, a \"scratch me and I'll scratch you\" attitude and above all the creation of structures that allow deals to be done in secret.\n\nOn the slow lane we have 265,000 people unemployed, the vast majority of whom believe they will never work again. We have 20,000 people who have no house to call their own and who live in frightful conditions, and we have thousands of parents living on the breadline trying to give their children third level education. We have farmers living on £40 per week.\n\nThe Minister for Social Welfare told me yesterday that £1 million earmarked in the budget of this year will not now go to farmers but back into the Department of Finance. Medical cards are being taken up at an alarming rate and countless thousands of women are caring for their loved ones 24 hours a day without any financial recognition despite the famous carer's allowance. How could there be money for these worthy causes when a handful of grab alls take the lot?\n\nOne of the worst performances ever put up by an Irish Minister in Europe is that by Deputy O'Kennedy, Minister for Agriculture and Food. I can only refer to him as the office boy of Europe. I believe he has no say in things. I believe he has never put before the European Community a detailed plan of where Ireland would like to go. He has never put together a programme to put before his colleagues in Europe or told them the bottom line below which Irish agricultural families will not go. He merely reacts to everything. It is now at the stage where other Ministers take it for granted that they will have no problems from Michael O'Kennedy. When the dust settles and all the important conferences that are about to take place are over Irish  farmers will find themselves on the deck with nobody to protect them despite what the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, said a few minutes ago. As far as Irish agriculture is concerned we are definitely in the slow lane.\n\nThe Government have no credibility, no matter what they patch up between them today. They should do the decent thing and allow people who have the ability and credibility to take over to do so. I ask the Government to do the proper thing and get out of office so that somebody can do the job properly.","Any objective comparison based on the performance of this Government and previous Administrations of which Opposition parties were members, with the exception of The Workers' Party, will show quite clearly on any of the economic criteria that the performance of Fianna Fáil led Administrations has been far superior to the performance of those Administrations in which Opposition parties have participated. For that reason alone it is quite clear that the best available Government is on this side of the House.\n\nI should like to direct a few points to my junior partners in Government, the Progressive Democrats. This Government are proceeding on the basis of the Programme for Government, 1989-1993, called In the National Interest. Deputy Spring this morning and yesterday sought to give an impression that there is no programme available to this Government on which to do the nation's business. This is the programme. The programme provides for a review mechanism after two years and thereafter annually. Under all the headings there has been substantial progress. There has been progress in terms of competition law, commercial State enterprises, tax reform, public finances, the needs of the lower paid, indirect tax harmonisation, the health services and great improvements under the social welfare heading which are in excess of inflation, special measures for the unemployed in urban disadvantaged areas, and in education.\n\nThere has been the setting up of the Environment Protection Agency, and we have started on local government reform.  We have brought in legislation on planning compensation. Environmental impact assessments are essential before permission is given for mining. The sum of £3 billion is being distributed from the European Structural Funds under various headings. In agriculture there is a review of the disadvantaged areas scheme. We have increased headage grants and there are new appeals systems. Off-farm income limits in disadvantaged areas are no longer taken into account. There are major developments in the forestry programme and in fisheries. Tourist numbers have doubled since 1987. We have brought in air transport liberalisation, and regional airports have been developed. There are new rural tourism schemes. We have seen energy proposals and new transport legislation has been promised. Substantial progress has been made in relation to the agreed Programme for Government. It is within that overall framework that the review mechanism operates. It is also in line with the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which has to be reviewed now in view of the fact that the growth rates which were assumed have to be reviewed due to the international trading position.\n\nThis is the way politics are carried on in this country. Agreed programmes are drawn up, in this instance by two individual parties who form the Government and implement policy. It is expecting a little too much of me as a member of the major Government party to expect that we are going to change the framework in any way. We are interested in doing business on the basis of this programme. If they are not interested, frankly we are not interested. There is no way in which a junior partner in Government will dictate fundamental fiscal policy. They can contribute and make an input but anyone who thinks that this party, the biggest party in the State, is to be dictated to - \n\nI want to make it clear that the Fianna Fáil programme, most of which is contained in the Programme for  Government, will be implemented, if they are interested in doing so. If they are not interested, we can have a general election.\n\nI am very disappointed that not one of the Progressive Democrats in the backbenchers has come in to say what contribution they have made to the implementation of this programme. I understand the Ministers are coming in tomorrow. That is a major disappointment to us on the Government side. For the past two years I have listened with interest to Progressive Democrat Ministers and backbenchers stating how much they have been contributing to the successful implementation of this programme. When it comes to confidence motions there seems to be a very strange reticence on the part of our junior partners. I do not find that acceptable. We are here in good faith to provide a Government for this country. We are not in a game playing exercise. We are not going up to the wire for the sake of the media circus that has been going on for the past ten weeks. We are here to do business and we are entitled to expect our junior partners in Government to come in and express confidence in this Government in terms of the implementation of the programme thus far. If they wish no longer to remain in Government, that is totally a matter for them. We are not here to be dictated to inside or outside this House. We are here in good faith. We respect our partners in Government once that respect is reciprocated.\n\nThis party will not be kicked about by anyone. Those who bluster and make unfounded allegations, who seek to politicise financial scandals, will find it will not work in terms of how we approach our programme as long as this Government continue. As the programme states, it is in the national interest that we have a continuation of the present Government. We are anxious to continue and to re-establish the good terms necessary for any Government to function effectively. We are willing to do so. We are not in the business of playing economic poker with the interests of the Irish people. Let us make some decisions and let us  proceed. I look forward to some Progressive Democrat backbenchers coming into this House and standing up for the Government they supported. We supported them in Government and we are entitled to some reciprocal support. Their reticence here is, frankly, disappointing.\n\nWe have to listen to right wing economic Rasputins outside the Four Courts and elsewhere dictating to us about dishonour in the implementation of our programme. We are discharging our collective responsibility.\n\nIn regard to the scandals that have taken place in the last few weeks, I want to put it on the record of this House that every decision that was taken in relation to those matters was a Government decision. The Government are committed to full disclosure, full investigation and full follow through in regard to those who have committed any wrongdoing. There is a constitutional obligation of collective responsibility and we must meet that responsibility when a charge is made. All the decisions that were made were Government decisions. We are anxious and willing to bring transparency into this aspect of our Government dealings so that the wrong-doing, if any, in relation to these matters will not happen again. We need no lectures from anybody in this House about our morality, our uprightness, our steadfastness or our integrity. We need no lectures from anybody about what is right. Our performance in Government over the years shows where this party stand and why we have the support we commanded through successive elections. We will re-establish and reaffirm the fundamental basis upon which this party was built. We need no lectures from anybody inside or outside this House on that matter. It is very difficult to take from some quarters and I am looking at a particular party in that respect.\n\nWe heard Deputy Spring say that the question was how the fruits of economic growth would be distributed. He did not have that option when he was in Government because growth was stagnant over that five year period. He spoke about building success on the backs of the unemployed. The unemployed of this country are doing far better under this Administration in terms of improvement to their standard of pay over and above inflation than was ever available under Deputy Barry Desmond or any of his acolytes.\n\nIn regard to emigration, we have emigration. Deputy Garret FitzGerald on \"Questions and Answers\" last Monday, at least had the honesty to put it up to every politician not to be dishonest on this issue. It is a symptom of a problem that arose under their Administration as well as ours. The bottom line in regard to the success or otherwise of a Government in terms of job creation is how many more people are at work in this country under this Administration than was the case before. The one indicator that Deputy FitzGerald did not mention here this evening was that under his Administration there were 66,000 fewer working in 1987 than in 1982. That is a fact. More people are working under this Administration than worked in 1987, and that is a fact.\n\nIt is an incontrovertible fact. We have had to put up with assertions here for the past two days about the integrity of the Government and the personnel who support the Government. I need no lectures from anyone in the media, in this House or outside about my integrity or the integrity of my party. We have had enough of it.  I would like to see collective responsibility in the physical presence of the junior partners in this Government, particularly their backbenchers, supporting this programme. They have much to be proud of in implementing this programme. We are entitled to expect reciprocal respect. This party will no longer be shoved around by anybody.","One of the amazing side issues to this motion of confidence in the Government is the reluctance of the junior partner in Government to participate in the debate. Indeed, they are threatening to withhold support for a Government in which they have participated for the past two years and four months.\n\nThe purpose of this debate is not to gaze into a crystal ball to see what this Government will do in the future but rather to measure their performance during the past two years and four months. It is clear that the Progressive Democrats, four Fianna Fáil back benchers and the Opposition parties in this House do not have confidence in the Government. Judas like behaviour is apparent in the activities of the Progressive Democrats. Even though collective responsibility has been vested in the nation's interest in the Government two Cabinet Ministers are withholding their confidence while negotiations are taking place.\n\nOn this side of the House we do not have confidence in the Government because of what they presided over in the past. The Government should be alarmed about the fact that not only has this House lost confidence in them but that the public have. All the barometers and indicators used to measure the performance of the Government point to abysmal failure. Emigration reached record levels during the term of office of the Government. Unemployment has reached its highest level in the history of the State, the public finances are in disarray while farmers are fearful for their future. The scandals of recent weeks have only crystalised what was already a high level of dissatisfaction with the performance of the Government.\n\nWhat is unfortunate is that the level of apathy and cynicism among the public towards politics and politicians has increased and they no longer tend to distinguish between those politicians who behave in a correct and honourable  manner and those who callously disregard procedures and long accepted standards in public life. It is for that reason that I put down a clear marker that not all politicians are the same. If they were, we would not need to have this debate as we would all be in agreement and applauding ourselves for presiding over record levels of unemployment and emigration, for the fact that the public finances are in disarray and that all the other indicators point to an inadequate Government performance.\n\nFine Gael are not a party of strokers and dealers. They have a proud record in administration. One of the interesting things which emerged from the recent scandals was that the CII considered it necessary to implement a code of conduct and lay down procedures to be followed in the business world. However, the Government do not seem to have learned any lessons or recognise that the time is now opportune to introduce a code of ethics and standards to be followed by politicians in discharging their duties. The public will draw their own conclusions from the Government's failure to announce that it is their intention to introduce a code of ethics.\n\nThere has been too much emphasis in the debate so far on the scandals of recent weeks. I do not need to base my arguments on those issues but I should like to refer to one of them, the Telecom Éireann affair. The following point is indicative of the creeping bureaucracy and centralisation evident during the term of office of the Government. Why did Telecom Éireann who have the most technologically advanced communications system in the world consider it necessary to purchase a headquarters in the hub of the capital city given that EEXCO, the financial exchange company based in Killorglin, can compete with the best financial exchange companies in the world from that location? How come Telecom Éireann saw fit to pay in excess of £9 million for a site on which to build their headquarters in Ballsbridge? That scandal has not been  tackled or commented upon by any commentator. One could buy a serviced green field site in any rural town, build an office block which would meet the requirements of Telecom Éireann, and operate with a very advanced telecommunications system a very efficient headquarters for the price they paid for the Ballsbridge site. That did not happen and it is evidence of the creeping centralisation and bureaucracy which pervades every element of the Government and decision makers at national level at present. I want to move on from that but it was the one point that really got my back up in regard to the scandal.\n\nSo many other things happened that the scandals really only crystallised the level of dissatisfaction with the Government. I want to dwell on four points. I want to refer to unemployment because many of the people with whom I went to school and college are now eking out a living in London, America and Australia, indeed in the four corners of the earth. I am not saying that Fine Gael have all the answers to the problem of unemployment. However, when this party made an offer to depoliticise the whole unemployment issue, to take it out of the realm of point scoring on the backs of our emigrants, the Government refused to entertain that suggestion, to their eternal shame.\n\nThe unemployment crisis is the single gravest issue confronting this country. I saw \"Newstime\" on RTE a week or ten days ago at the height of the clamouring by our young people for Morrison visas. The programme came from Galway and I was struck by a girl with a law degree seeking an apprenticeship. She had spent two years in employment other than the field in which she was qualified and she had now had enough. It behoves all of us to put the political point scoring on the unemployment issue on the back burner. The Government should no longer close the doors on all Members of this House who want to contribute in a meaningful way to resolving the problem.\n\nThe second point with which I should like to deal is the whole area of agriculture. It is very relevant in the context  of unemployment because the Government seem to fail to realise the potential in the agricultural industry to contribute to a significant reduction in our unemployment levels. I come from the Cork North West constituency which is a microcosm of life in rural Ireland. It is largely an agricultural community with a PAYE workforce, much of which is a spin-off directly from agriculture, including food processing, and the service industry, which are also dependent on agriculture.\n\nThere is an appalling lack of confidence among the agricultural community regarding their future. The Government's failure to respond in any meaningful manner to the Common Agricultural Policy reforms proposed by Commissioner MacSharry has alarmed them. When you consider that 16,000 jobs are estimated to be lost in the PAYE sector alone as a result of the Common Agricultural Policy reforms, one can appreciate the level of despair which exists. We have not presented any alternatives to Common Agricultural Policy reform and if we are to be taken seriously at European level we cannot be merely reactionary at that forum, we must come up with viable alternatives. That we have not done so is to the eternal shame of the Minister for Agriculture and Food who has spent the last six months in the bunker avoiding the public gaze and refusing to answer questions in relation to where he stands on a number of important issues which at present afflict the agricultural community.\n\nERAD, the great white hope for TB eradication, is in disarray. The level of grant payments to farmers is nothing short of criminal. I had occasion to contact the Department of Agriculture and Food in Cavan recently about installation aid payments, I was told that 25 would be paid between now and Christmas but that they could not give any assurance that any would be paid in 1992, which is an appalling statement.\n\nThe third point with which I wish to deal is the attitude of the country and the Government to the EC in general.\n\n Ireland's future is intransically bound up with the EC; we have gained immeasurably from our membership. Fianna Fáil's attitude to EC membership is inconsistent and reactionary. Cast your mind back to the Single European Act which paved the way for many of the benefits we have received since it was passed and which Fianna Fáil opposed in Opposition. When the going got tough Commissioner MacSharry, when he was an MEP, advocated that perhaps Ireland should reconsider its membership. If there was a time when our citizens questioned whether membership of the EC was beneficial it was when Commissioner MacSharry announced his reform proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy.\n\nThere is no long term vision in relation to EC membership from the Government, there is no public awareness about the importance of the EC to our economy, simply because the Government have not led the debate. A whole series of important issues are now coming to the fore in Europe, including monetary and political union. The Government will go to Maastricht in December and will not present an Irish standpoint on any of these issues. They will merely react to the proposals of other Governments for our future. Surely, if we had our interests at heart, we should be in there presenting our vision of a new Europe rather than merely reacting to other peoples opinions as to how a new Europe should develop?\n\nMy final point is in relation to the whole question of Dáil reform. The Progressive Democrats raised public expectations like no other party had ever done in the formation of the Programme for Government in regard to their vision of Dáil reform. However, to date, there has not been any Dáil reform under the Government. There are 166 Deputies in this Chamber, 95 per cent of whom, because of the way the structures of parliament operate, are nothing more than glorified messenger boys for their constituents. The present system alienates the vast majority of TDs from making any meaningful contribution towards a resolution of all the problems which  afflict this country. There is a cosy Cabinet club which assumes a monopoly of wisdom on all our problems. Is it any wonder that we are in a quagmire with all the problems of unemployment, emigration and public finances? This is because 14 wise men assume this monopoly of wisdom and exclude from any meaningful contribution the rest of the Members of this House.\n\nWe need a proper committee system. There are proposals reported in today's newspapers from France and Germany regarding a European army. We do not have a foreign affairs committee where we could discuss that matter and take a stand on it If we had a good committee system we could reduce the level of bickering in this Chamber because much of the common ground would have been previously ascertained and only matters of dispute would emerge on the floor of this House. At present everything is in dispute in the House because there is no forum where areas of common ground can be determined. It is very regrettable that we do not have a committee system for debating budgetary provisions as they are adopted without consideration of their implications after one question is put and one vote taken. It is an appalling system when you consider the amount of money involved and the difficulties in collecting it.\n\nThe Programme for Economic and Social Progress has further diminished contributions which elected Members can make to policies in a meaningful manner. All decisions are now taken by the Government in consultation with the social partners. The process of consultation with the social partners is good but it is not a substitute for real parliamentary democracy where all the Members in this Chamber would be involved. It is another indication of the contempt with which this Government treat this Chamber.\n\nAs I said at the outset I have four points on which I wish to comment with regard to the confidence motion in this House.\n\nIn conclusion, I did not need to hear of the scandals to vote no confidence in this Administration. I had lost confidence in them long before any of these issues emerged, but they have only served to reinforce and redouble my efforts to ensure that the lifetime of this Administration is short.","I welcome this opportunity to support the motion of confidence in the Government. In the best interests of the country, I do so without hesitation.\n\nUnlike the Opposition I am not obsessed with personalities. I am more concerned with solving the serious economic problems confronting our country rather than engaging in the kind of old-fashioned point-scoring emphatically rejected by Deputy Dukes. How can Deputies John Bruton and Dick Spring question this House about mismanagement when, during their period in office in a previous Coalition Government, there were record levels of inflation, interest rates and emigration? Do they forget that, during their period in office, they doubled the national debt? Since I entered this House in 1989 I have been constantly amazed at the short memories of those on the Opposition benches. It should be pointed out that it was the present Government who finally confronted the economic mess they inherited in 1987, who devised a series of policies and initiatives putting us on the road to national recovery. As important as are those policies, of equal importance was the perception in the country at that time that some Government was about to grapple with the terrible economic position they had inherited. It was that realisation that brought together the social partners. It is that realisation that keeps the social partners together. The Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress did not fall from the sky. They reflect a sense of realism, confidence and pragmatism, demonstrating that we can succeed only by working together.\n\nAnother aspect of the Government's resolve to succeed was their decision to involve men and women of experience, men and women with ideas from outside as well as inside the Civil Service. These men and women were recruited on the basis of their expertise, on the basis of what they could contribute to national recovery, not on the basis of party political affiliations. The Government gave  these people a brief and, regardless of recent allegations, the Government can do no more than trust such appointees to public bodies. Any employers, be they Government or a private company, must be able to trust their officers. I understand from recent allegations that this trust may have been abused in a small number of areas. When questions were raised the Government responded immediately by setting up an independent inquiry to investigate the allegations made. To move from this to question the competence of this Government is absurd. If the Opposition have no confidence in the Government, let them argue their case in terms of Government policy. While I agree with some other speakers that some changes have to be made in the area of Dáil reform, for example, placing greater emphasis on job creation, the broad strategy of Government is correct.\n\nSince he took over as Taoiseach in 1987, Deputy Charles Haughey has brought a sense of direction to Government policy. The Government quickly moved on the PNR and adopted a new sectoral approach to certain areas of the economy which until then had been handled by broader Government Departments. Specific offices for food, horticulture and science and technology were established, which have proved to be very successful. The focus on sectoral areas should be extended to other areas of public policy as well.\n\nThe Government's decentralisation policy is another aspect. I welcome the fact that the Department of Social Welfare decided last August to regionalise the management of their services. Instead of unemployment offices dealing exclusively with payments, these offices will offer the widest possible range of services for their customers. Such initiatives indicate a fresh approach. Employment creation is just as much a community experience as anything else. Side by side with the activities of the IDA, we must involve the communities. Jobs can be created from the bottom up as from the top down. I have every  confidence in this Government formulating and implementing policies which the community need, and I support the motion without hesitation.","The Minister need have no fear that anything I say on the subject of Northern Ireland would cause difficulty. I will refer to two matters which the Minister raised relating to Northern Ireland. I welcome the balance which he has put on recent emphasis in Britain on the Unionist dimension to the Northern Ireland problem. I hope and believe he has made it clear that the Irish dimension is equally important and equally valid. I suspect that some of the soundings are for the purpose of horse trading in the event of certain things happening in the next British election.\n\nThe Minister did not refer to what I described yesterday as the horrible, incipient sectarian civil war on the streets of Belfast. I hope he stressed the importance of taking urgent action to nip this in the bud. Belfast is bad enough but experience in the mid-seventies indicates that when it spreads out to the rural areas it is much worse and much more brutal. I say this from personal experience having lived in the middle of the notorious murder triangle. I hope he emphasised to the British authorities that as an initial move, the organisation called the UDA, masquerading as the UFF, are responsible for so many of these murders, should be banned. I hope the Minister made that point strongly.\n\nDeputy McCreevy was kind enough to quote me with approval last Monday night. He reminded his television audience of comments I had made during the last general election campaign when I said how appalled I was at the cynicism I  had experienced on the canvass. I made the following observation:\n\nIn the North we know the enemy of democracy and democratic institutions. It is those who use the gun and the bullet. But here, the greatest enemy of our democratic institutions is more insidious. The cynicism I have found about politics and politicians is an even greater threat to our democratic institutions than the murderous activity of the men of violence.\n\nThe Taoiseach in the course of this debate referred to allegations being made for the purpose of subverting the Government - that was his phrase. It is not the allegations but the reality which has been exposed that is the problem. The way in which many Members have conducted themselves in this House during this debate has not helped. We are playing into the hands of those who are practitioners of the art of the politics of envy, cynicism, distrust and suspicion. I do not agree with D'Alembert, who made a certain contribution to history by remarking that political office is like a high mountain - only eagles and reptiles reach the top. Unfortunately on too many occasions in recent times the public perception of those in high office in the political and business world has been that the eagle is fast becoming an endangered species.\n\nMost of the scandals now exposed would not have occurred if we had a system of Government properly accountable to Dáil Éireann. In this House we took over practices and procedures from the British and we have persisted with some of their worst practices, even when the British themselves have changed or modified them. This House is supposed to be the focal point of our nation. This is where our nation's affairs are supposed to be discussed, yet this Government and other Governments have on many occasions given the impression that they would prefer to do without this House, that this House is a nuisance, that it is a diversion and that it is too much trouble to come in here to explain to Members what they are trying to do.\n\n Time and again important announcements are made outside this House, usually on a Friday when the House is not sitting. That used to be the British practice but they have modified it. Most Members prefer to watch their monitors in their rooms. I understand why that is the case. There is too much reliance on scripts and I even have one myself. I used not use a script. We rely on the scripts so that we make it easier for the press. We do not make speeches any longer; we read. That is not good enough. We require a \"give way\" procedure. When the former Taoiseach wished to intervene yesterday on what turned out to be a very valuable point while a Minister was speaking, he was ruled out of order.\n\nThere is no debate in this House. Ministers can get away with anything and it is not surprising that they make every effort to do so. Topical events cannot be raised, even when the whole country is talking about them. The Dáil is becoming a cipher. We do not hold Ministers to account and in these circumstances Ministers have become accustomed to getting off the hook with little or no difficulty. It is part of our problem that Ministers are not truly accountable to this House and we should make the changes which will ensure that they are.\n\nNortherners have a reputation for saying what they mean and meaning what they say. That is not always a desirable attribute. Even when it is, it is often not merited. Mary Holland once publicly explained to me the difference between this so-called Northern attribute and the `nod and wink\" so prevalent here. The Taoiseach has become for me, and I believe a large number of others, the very personification of \"nod and wink\". He has contributed very substantially to creating an environment, a way of thinking, a value system which others not only in politics but in business and other walks of life have shared. This is part of the reason we now have forced upon us the necessity for a code of ethics for Members of this House and in particular for members of the Government.\n\n Over a year ago Fine Gael proposed a parliamentary ethics commission composed of the Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General and a High Court Judge before whom declarations of interest would be made during the lifetime of the Government and for five years after leaving Government. The public disclosure of financial backing to political parties is also a necessity. This is the price we have to pay for the honour and privilege of serving in this House. The public funding of political parties and the rigorous control of election spending has reached the stage where, if it is allowed to continue, one would need to be a millionaire to stand for election to this House. It is an absolute scandal that at election time political party candidates can spend as much as they can get. In the interest of our democratic system there ought to be rigorous control in that respect. The Taoiseach in opening this debate told us of his pride in his contribution to the wellbeing of this country and unbelievably made reference to the health services, small farmers, the old, the infirm and the homeless. The real symbol of Charlie Haughey's Ireland is the queue, the queue of those looking for jobs, the longest in the history of the State: the queue of those looking for houses: the queue of farmers being forced off the land; and the queue to get into schools and colleges.\n\nMost symbolic of all, is the queue of young people at the GPO for Morrison visas, our brightest and our best, queuing up in their thousands and in doing so giving their own verdict on Charlie Haughey's Ireland.\n\nWe join with those young people today in expressing our lack of confidence in his Government.","I intend to circulate a script on the main features of my responsibility in the Defence area. I will use some speaking notes to refer to some other issues that have arisen in the course of this debate. I welcome the change of attitude by the two previous speakers. It would be a welcome sign if Deputy Creed and Deputy Kenny got back on a path of constructive opposition, which is what I believe the younger people in Fine Gael would like to see.\n\nI have been involved in politics for a long time - I have been a Member of this House for 18 years - but I have never heard more dishonest and unpatriotic propaganda than emanated from the Opposition in the past few weeks. They may feel that it will enhance their position in the polls, and that they may move up a point or two as a result, but the constructive approach just taken by Deputy Creed would be far more advantageous to Fine Gael, as was the Tallaght strategy, than the type of campaign that has been waged in the past few weeks. It is destructive not only to the country at large but also in a very personal way to Members of the House and to politicians in general. It is doing no service to the country or to the Opposition. I have never heard such sanctimonious propaganda as came from The  Workers' Party in the last few weeks. Talk about foxes taking care of chickens; The Workers' Party should not come in here to lecture us about how we should run our affairs.\n\nThey are the very people who pay lip service to democracy, freedom and human rights but deny those who have been accused of wrong-doing their very basic legal and human right to defend themselves and have a fair hearing. It is very improper for anybody in the privileged position of this House to make the kind of unprecedented attacks that have been made in recent times. The financial position of The Workers' Party and the fact that they are sacking their own employees does not give much confidence to the people that they would be able to manage the affairs of the country. However, I do not want to go into that in any more detail.\n\nThe decent people in Fine Gael - and there are many of them in my constituency - are appalled with the attitude taken by Fine Gael since Deputy John Bruton took over leadership of that party. They do not believe he is representing the views of the ordinary rank and file members of the Fine Gael Party. However, it is a matter for themselves to decide whether they want to continue along that line or to take the line of constructive opposition.\n\nWhen Fianna Fáil took office a couple of years ago this country was on the brink of financial collapse. It was in an economic morass and there was no prospect under the Coalition Government in office at the time that the position would ever change. It is well known that there was widespread disagreement in that Coalition Government for almost a year and a half before that Government were finally dissolved. We saw the spectacle of members of the Government walking up and down Leinster Lawn while some issue of Government dragged on for two or three days. The Government could not come to grips with the issues because there was no inherent stability in the Coalition arrangement at the time.\n\nWhen we hear public attacks on the present state of the country we must look at the position as it is at present. This and the previous Government have a record of courage and leadership. They are probably the two best Governments since the foundation of the State. We have inflation rates and our balance of payments under control. There have been  some difficulties in the financial area and we are endeavouring to deal with them effectively, although it is not easy. In spite of that, we now find that when the Opposition have no complaint about the economic performance of the Government a performance that was supported for quite a long time by Deputy Dukes with his Tallaght strategy, and, which was welcomed by the community at large - when they cannot find a reason to attack policies and issues that affect us, they resort to the tactics of singling out individual Ministers, and the Taoiseach in particular for attack. The sustained and vindictive campaign of vilification has raged unabated for months. I know what that is like because I put up with it for nearly a year and a half when a personalised campaign of vilification was waged against me, with 3 a.m. phone calls of intimidation.\n\nWe have a job to do here and we have a responsibility to the people who elected us to see this job through. The constituents who are watching very carefully what is going on will be able to gauge whether their interests are best served in having people of courage and leadership who are prepared to tackle the economic problems or people who will yield to every pressure that comes their way. In my case the constituents of Clare realised that a campaign was being waged against me, and I would not be here today were it not for the fact that they voted confidence in me. That was a most vicious personalised campaign and it lasted for nearly two years.\n\nAs I said, we have to deal with the present economic position in an effective manner. It is vitally important for the economic success of the nation that a firm grip of the economic affairs of State be maintained by the Government. To do otherwise would be to put back the development of this country for ten to 15 years. We must put aside all the talk and comment about scandals and the vilification of personalities and get down to the basic task on hand. The Government need the support of the Opposition in dealing effectively with the very serious economic problems facing us.\n\n I want to mention some important aspects of the Department of Defence. Since taking up office in February last it has been my prime concern to ensure that despite the economic constraints within which we must all operate, the Defence Forces should have the resources to undertake their various tasks in aid of the civil power at home and to continue to support in a practical way the ideals of the United Nations and the peace keeping missions we are involved in overseas.\n\nPerhaps the most significant development in relation to the Defence Forces was the publication of the Gleeson report which set out in a clear way the policy framework for the future development of the Defence Forces for a number of years.\n\nThis year's Defence Vote makes provision for substantial increases in pay and allowances for members of the Permanent Defence Forces awarded by the Government following consideration of the recommendations of the Gleeson Commission. Since January 1989 the average pay of Defence Forces personnel, including military service allowance but excluding other allowances, has increased by approximately 29 per cent while the average pay of officers has increased by 22 per cent. In all the report of the Gleeson Commission contained 170 recommendations in regard to a wide range of areas from adjustment of allowances to organisation, management and personnel policy generally in the Defence Forces. Most of the recommendations in relation to pay have been implemented. Other recommendations many of which are complex, relate, for example, to organisation, manpower and personnel policy. Certain conditions of service and superannuation are being considered at present. The time scale for their implementation is dependent on a process of consultation especially in co-operation with the elected representatives of the military personnel. We have set up committees and we are in discussion with the representative  associations and personnel to bring about these most desirable changes.\n\nOne of the major recommendations of the Gleeson Commission was in the area of representation for Permanent Defence Forces personnel, officers and other ranks. I was very glad earlier this year to establish in a formal way organisations representative of the Permanent Defence Forces for officers and other ranks. We have also had some very full and constructive discussion with the members of the reserve forces, the FCA and Slua Muiri. We believe it is possible to put in place a permanent association which will represent members of the Reserve Defence Forces so that we can have worthwhile and constructive dialogue to ensure we provide a better all round service.\n\nIn the present climate it is regrettable that we should be obliged to commit substantial scarce resources in the area of aid to the civil power. However, the Government recognise that the maintenance of law and order and the preservation of our democratic institutions are of paramount importance and are vital to the economic advancement of the State. The Government, therefore, will continue to ensure that the Defence Forces are adequately provided for so that they may continue to afford whatever assistance is needed to ensure our citizens can go on with their daily lives in peace and security.\n\nWe remain firmly committed to the peacekeeping effort overseas. The Government remain fully committed to supporting United Nations peacekeeping missions. In addition to making significant contributions to the cause of international peace by supplying personnel to missions in the Lebanon, Cyprus, the Middle East, Afghanistan-Pakistan and Central America over the years, early this year we responded to further requests to supply personnel for a new United Nations observer mission in Iraq-Kuwait, in Angola and in Western Sahara. In all we have a total of 840 personnel serving overseas. All of the requests for help impose considerable strains on our resources. Nevertheless, the  Government feel that practical support must be given to the United Nations in so far as we can. As Deputies are aware all military personnel involved volunteer to serve overseas and I wish to place on record my own and the Government's continuing appreciation of the vital contribution to world peace made by the Defence Forces.\n\nI had the opportunity to visit the United Nations' peacekeeping mission in the Lebanon earlier this year and I was impressed most of all by the numerous representatives of the communities in the Lebanon who expressed on behalf of the people of the Lebanon their deep appreciation to the Irish people for the magnificent support they are getting in their difficult times. Thousands of people have died there over the past ten or 15 years in an area the size of County Tipperary. They value and appreciate the skill, dedication and, above all, the diplomacy of the Irish personnel serving overseas who have brought credit to this nation. This puts Ireland into the forefront of the nations of the world today who have been contributing in a positive and real way to the maintainance of peace and tranquility in many of the troubled areas across the world.\n\nQuestions have been raised about European security. It has been the policy of successive administrations for Ireland to play its part internationally in efforts to promote international peace and promote disarmament and arms control. We have played a full and practical role in the United Nations peacekeeping measures. We have participated in the work of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which has helped improve East-West relations culminating in the signing of the Paris Charter. In reply to a parliamentary question the Taoiseach indicated to the House on 17 April our position on the matter as reported at column 87 of the Official Report:\n\nIf in the fullness of time the European Community brought forward its own defence arrangement, it would naturally be our position that we would  favourably consider taking part in such an arrangement. That was my position a long time ago and it has not changed; I believe that would be the position of most parties in this House. If the Community were to develop its own defence arrangement for its own security then we, in Ireland, would certainly consider participating in that. Nothing has changed in that regard.\n\nThat sets out clearly our commitment in that regard.\n\nAt home we have embarked on an accelerated programme particularly in the search and rescue service. A cause of concern to many Members was the absence of adequate search and rescue facilities, especially on the west coast. Important developments have taken place in the area of search and rescue services. An Air Corps Dauphin helicopter was deployed to Shannon in 1989. A contract for a new search and rescue service has now been put in place in Shannon and the Dauphin helicopter has been deployed to Finner, County Donegal, thus increasing the service in the northwest. It is planned to relocate a second Dauphin helicopter in Cork which will operate with the LE Eithne and provide a very effective search and rescue service. I wish to avail of this opportunity to compliment all those involved in that service. It is a very dangerous and at times hazardous occupation. We are glad to have people in the service who have the skill and ability to provide that service which has been an outstanding success. It has been demonstrated clearly that in all kinds of weather conditions whether day or night an effective service can be put in place. That is a credit to the members who operate that service.\n\nArrangements have been put in place for fishery protection. I do not have time to go into this in detail but information on our fisheries surveillance service is contained in my script. We now have a fully manned fisheries surveillance service which has proved very successful in the control especially of foreign illegal boats in our territorial areas. This will be more than important especially in view  of the fact that Community policies have been revised. We are likely to get additional resources from the realignment of the Common Fisheries Policy. It is vital that we have an effective fisheries surveillance protection service working to ensure that we preserve a vital national interest, our fisheries.\n\nAs well as that, we have been constantly revising our information technology and investing a sizeable amount into that area. With a budget this year of about £368 million or £370 million and a payroll of almost 14,500 personnel including some civilian employees, it is essential to have a major reorganisation of the whole information technology service which could lead to modernisation of our service and enable us to have a better hand in the management of the Department's affairs and the service generally. The first phase, which is almost completed, will give better control over our financing, management and service generally. A fairly large investment has been made in that regard.\n\nFollowing on the policy of advancement of women in the Defence Forces, this year for the first time we have recruited women into the FCA. Two hundred places in the FCA have been set aside for women, and it is hoped to expand that number further during the remainder of this year. As well, of course, we have for the first time ever provided for female apprenticeships in both the Air Corps and the Army apprentice schools. Some cadetships will also be reserved for women this year. We have a progressive and forward policy for the advancement of women in every section of the Defence Forces to provide for increased participation by women in the Defence Forces generally.\n\nThe Government can generally boast of a successful record in identifying the vital issues affecting the country and in adopting effective policies to address those issues. By contrast, the Opposition parties have been collectively ineffective even in their commentaries on the major issues. Opposition Deputies have been bereft of ideas and have resorted to inept and feeble attempts at criticism of the  Government's handling of matters. In relation to my own Department if the Government were to go ahead and implement demands coming mainly from Opposition spokespeople on Defence then there would be additional expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds. Opposition Deputies had no regard whatsoever to the costing of their demands or to where the extra money would come from. It is fine to adopt such an attitude while in Opposition, but the Government live in the real world, and if demands are to be met then they have to be paid for.\n\nThe Taoiseach and other Ministers have outlined the difficult economic circumstances that the Government are confronting head on. Many of these circumstances are outside the control and the influence of the Government. One has only to consider some of the effects of the Gulf crisis earlier this year to realise that not only did that crisis create economic difficulties for us, it also created economic difficulties in the United Kingdom, in the United States and across the whole international business arena. While we had a very bad time for the first quarter of this year, all the indications are that the position has stabilised. The recession that was biting especially hard in the United Kingdom, affecting us here in a very real way, and also in the United States, resulting in a huge fall-off in the number of visitors from the United States, created certain difficulties that were not anticipated earlier this year but we have to contend with them.\n\nOne of the most objectionable features of the recent controversies has been the headlong rush to condemn with no regard to the consequences either at the personal level or in relation to the best interests of the country, at home or abroad. Outrageous statements have been made in the past few weeks, and they have been made without any reasonable basis. In my view, the real motivation for those statements seems to be an attempt to undermine the Government - blatant political opportunism has been the order of the day. It has been nauseating to put up with that.\n\n I am glad that in the past few minutes the House has observed the realisation of the younger Fine Gael Deputies that the carry-on in which they have been engaged in the past few weeks is not going down well with the general public who will not tolerate it. Those Deputies are beginning to see that their best way forward would be to adopt the constructive stance taken by Deputy Creed, who spoke just before me. That will be a welcome change. At present the House needs constructive opposition, not destructive comments and personal snide remarks that do not really affect the day-to-day management of the affairs of this country. From the financial point of view, this country has not been in a better state in the past ten or 20 years than it is now.\n\nThe basic fabric of the economy is sound. The prospects for the success of the Irish economy in the next few years are very good. What the Government need to do is to tackle effectively some of our basic underlying problems We need the co-operation of all sides of the House to do that. If there is a sign of change in Fine Gael now, it is a welcome sign and one that I hope will continue.","I am saddened by the vindictiveness and viciousness on all sides of the House. I came in here in 1969 when Deputy Taylor's father was a Member and he never reverted to that sort of language she used today. I certainly do not need Deputy Taylor to tell me what standards apply to me. If the measure of decency the Deputy is talking about is the length of the knife in Alan Dukes back then we have a fair long measure to judge by. I think the Deputy knows what I am talking about.\n\nThe Deputy has set the standards in that area. The level of invective that people have felt necessary to bring to this debate has frightened me. It is not that the financial scandals have not occurred. They have occurred and the Government have taken quick action on them. In fact, we are not fully qualified to speak on them until we see the results of the full and independent inquiry. I  emphasise they are financial scandals. The insinuation has been that the Ministers are involved in them. The Opposition are doing this for their own political gain but it is a reflection on all politicians.\n\nIn regard to Greencore, a full investigation is being carried out and the Revenue Commissioners are involved. It is expected that the Minister will be blamed in this situation but no mention has been made by Fine Gael of the chairman of that group whom they appointed - not that I believe the chairman is guilty either but he was sitting in at meetings. There was no mention by the Labour Party of the worker directors who were involved in the union and who agreed after the people were suspended to pay a £350,000 bonus and to leave the Mercedes as well which is one-third of that amount again. There was no mention of that either by the Labour Party or Fine Gael. As for The Workers' Party, they are beneath contempt in this House. I will refer to them in a moment. Conveniently, no mention has been made of any of these matters by the Opposition. The efforts of the Opposition to pin a Minister when the people concerned are three or four tiers away from him does damage not alone to themselves and this House but is a grave disservice to the country.\n\nThe public image abroad is fairly poor. With high unemployment and people trying to survive in business no mention has been made of what efforts should be made by all of us together to try to solve the unemployment problem. People have just got up and thrown dirt at each other across the House. I received a letter from, I presume, a well-meaning person three days ago telling me that a certain Fine Gael politician had bought a premises and that that premises was taken up by the VHI within weeks on a 35-year lease. I will not mention the name of the person in this House. That letter was torn up and thrown in the waste paper basket. If someone has a complaint to make or wants something looked at, let him be honourable about it and put his name to it.\n\nWhat really annoys me is people, for their own political gain and in an effort  to gain power, saying: \"Throw every piece of dirt you can because these things are true\". It is not that they are true but they want them to be true. The same can be said about the press who have printed allegations. I hope that the Irish Press have some funds left for the libel suits which will follow in some cases. If I have any influence with Ministers I will urge them to sue because they will have the support of the courts in that regard.\n\nUnfortunately unsubstantiated and unproven allegations stick. During my 21 years as a Member of this House I have only once, in 1972, used the privilege of this House to name a builder who acted fraudulently under the company name Trad-Built. The owner of this company was later exposed and has been sought by the fraud squad ever since. I used that privilege having consulted with a Minister at the time, Mr. James Tully, so that the press people could name him afterwards.\n\nToday the privilege of the House is being used far too much to the detriment of people outside against whom unproven allegations are made. I would ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, as Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to look at the European system where this privilege may be withdrawn when wrongful accusations are made. Unless people have hard facts which they can prove they should not be allowed, at the expense of a person's life or their family's life, to come in here and make unfounded and untrue allegations. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges should examine this whole area because this privilege has been abused during the past few days, particularly by Deputy Spring who read into his speech what somebody else had written in an article which would not be published. It is frightening to think that he would take somebody else's word for something. He did not research the matter but read what somebody else had written into the record of the House. That is a serious abuse of privilege.\n\nEfforts will have to be made in the coming weeks and months to solve our serious unemployment problem. I want  to put it on the record that if anyone is guilty of financial misdemeanours, all of us on all sides of the House want to see them punished. This debate should not be regarded by The Workers' Party and the Labour Party as a licence to present a picture to the public that everyone in private industry or business is a chancer, a con man and that they do not contribute to society. I am afraid that what has been said here will frighten people with business acumen and people who invest money in an effort to make this country work better. Just because a few are guilty there is no need to write off the entire business community. Unfortunately the perception people have been given is that everyone involved in business today is dishonest. This information is released regularly by The Workers' Party who mention figures when people do not pay their tax. It is frightening to think that this is the purpose for which that party were set up and financed by people outside the State. The absolutely undemocratic form of socialism which they promote and support has been destroyed throughout Europe but they have tried neatly to change that about. Many people in Fine Gael see the danger in the witch-hunt that is being undertaken and the real dangers facing the business community. They are like a pack of hounds - once they see blood they all want to rush to be involved. Unfortunately this will have destructive consequences.\n\nI am glad to see Deputy Byrne taking his place so that he can hear my next statement. I despise The Workers' Party and everything they stand for. I hold them beneath my contempt. They have denied any connection with the Official IRA or violence. They have on their staff at the moment in this House a man who is guilty of knee-capping and attempted murder.\n\nDo not deny, Deputy Byrne, that you were part of it then and that you are part of it now. You know what you have been guilty of. It is good enough to have the fivers, the $100 notes,  but on the staff of this House some one who has been guilty - \n\nBefore I said that, a Cheann Comhairle - I do not wish to cross you in any fashion - I referred to the abuse of privilege. I was conscious of that before I made the allegation. I know my facts and I am certain of them. In those circumstances I cannot withdraw what I have said. I have already clarified that the abuse of privilege in this House is a serious matter.\n\nI accept your advice in that regard. Thank you for your intervention.\n\nI hope that out of all of this a climate will be created where people who have made money the hard way and worked hard will be regarded and where profit will not be regarded as a sin or a dirty word. We should remember that if there are no profits there are no workers or business acumen. The alternative to the present system which people want to destroy really worries me. I accept that  some members of the business community have been wrong but equally some members in other sections of our community have been wrong. We need to assure business people, people with acumen and with patriotism that we are not trying to get at them but rather are trying to ensure that they are given a lead in bringing about our economic recovery which I believe is only a short time away. I wish to share my time with Deputy John Browne.","I should like to start by pointing out to the House that Deputy Roche was best known as Martin O'Donoghue's adviser in the late seventies.\n\nIt would be the basis for a separate public inquiry to find out how many billions of pounds of the debt we now have to carry here was due to Deputy  Roche's incompetence and advice, if one could call it that.\n\nHe mentioned me in regard to some company whose name I have seen in recent times. I do not mind any examination being carried out into my role as Minister in relation to any company. I have let it be known publicly that I want to go before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies. I am volunteering to do so. Contrast this with the position adopted by the Minister for Agriculture and Food who has ducked and weaved better than Barry McGuigan ever did in his attempts to avoid going before that Committee. Many matters could be cleared up if Ministers were above board, addressed the Committee and told them what they know. We might then not need to have High Court investigations or inquiries. Obviously, the order came down from the Taoiseach to Deputy O'Kennedy not to attend, to hide and postpone everything and avoid saying anything. In any event he would not let him attend as he was afraid he would make an idiot of himself as he has done repeatedly during the past four or five weeks.\n\nThe Fianna Fáil Party, and to a lesser extent the Progressive Democrats, complain that there is no need to have a vote of no confidence in the Government. The marker was put down by four Fianna Fáil Deputies two weeks ago who voted no confidence in the Government. As Deputy David Andrews said at the time of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party meeting, they were four brave individuals. By their actions, they voted no confidence in the Leader of the Government and the Cabinet. There is little point in saying that we have instigated a witch hunt. Public events in recent times clearly illustrate that the Government are unfit to continue to rule the country. The Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Seamus Brennan, in his contribution yesterday made allegations against the previous Coalition Government of Fine Gael and Labour.\n\n He referred to the PMPA, ICI and the Irish Shipping Company but there was no scandal involving any politician of that Government.\n\nThe person who owned the PMPA, the late Mr. Joe Moore, was a well-known Fianna Fáil supporter, a good friend of the Taoiseach and a big financial supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party. It was not a State company, it was a public company, money was misappropriated and it was very badly and secretly run. It did not impinge one iota on the Government of the day. Indeed, the people responsible got off very lightly.\n\nThe débacle of the ICI, the subsidiary of the Allied Irish Banks, had nothing to do with the State or semi-State sector; it concerned a private company and we had the job of bailing it out. In retrospect - indeed even at the time - I was one of the people who felt that the senior management of the AIB and the ICI companies should have been brought up on criminal charges. How dare Minister Brennan or anybody else suggest that the Government of the day had anything to do with that collapse or were at fault? The people running the company were at fault, to save the banking system the Government had to bail them out, which was our public duty.\n\nI should also like to point out that the money lost in Irish Shipping was lost within the company by a middle to higher executive who spent money without reference to the board or the Minister. No blame can be attached to anybody in Government at the time. Again there probably should have been criminal charges. We are too soft in relation to wrongdoers and I hope, in the series of present scandals, that if there is enough evidence criminal charges will be preferred and that those concerned will not get off scot-free as happened in the case of a certain individual, a friend and associate of the Leader of the Government, who was imprisoned in Northern Ireland for a much lesser offence than he committed in  this State. Those are the facts. Minister Brennan, for whom I previously had some regard, should be ashamed of himself; I thought he was a decent, straightforward individual but he has shown himself to be petty, miserable and cowardly in his attack yesterday.\n\nMr. Ferris\n\nYesterday the Taoiseach and Deputy Dermot Ahern said that there was not a scintilla of evidence to indict the Taoiseach or the Government. Maybe these inquiries will disclose some evidence. However, the incompetence shown by the Minister for Agriculture in relation to the Greencore affair certainly is an indictment in itself. It is a great pity that Deputy Lenihan or former President Hillery have not told us exactly what happened on the night of the telephone calls to Áras an Uachtaráin. I wonder where the Taoiseach would be if they told us what had happened, he would not be partially covered in muck, he would be completely covered in it. Those two gentlemen have a public duty to tell us what happened because we all know in our hearts and souls that it was the Taoiseach who threatened the Army officer in Áras an Uachtaráin on that night.\n\nI want to refer to the present dire situation of agriculture and the total collapse of confidence in the agricultural sector. That lack of confidence is largely due to the performance  of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, together with the overall performance of the Government. Their indiffrence has been scandalous. Their regard for the farming community, the workers in the ancillary industries and the business community which supply that industry, borders on the criminal; they just do not care. There has been a collapse in prices in the cattle and sheep sectors in recent times and there has not been any remedial action by the Minister responsible.\n\nProposals from Brussels, which, if implemented, will decimate our agricultural industry, are being treated as if they are run-of-the-mill events. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, is reported in The Cork Examiner of last Monday in some detail following a meeting of Ministers of Trade and Industry in Holland. He said that the position in regard to the GATT negotiations and reform of the Common Agricultural Policy was very grave indeed. His reason for saying that was that the Germans have abandoned their position with regard to agriculture and the French have weakened their position in relation to opposing the measures proposed by Commissioner MacSharry. If a small country like Ireland is to achieve a reasonable result in Europe it must have the backing of at least two of the major states. To date we could rely on the support of the Germans and the French but now, apparently the German Government have made a very definite decision that they will not oppose the tough measures proposed by Commissioner MacSharry. They will endeavour to see that the proposals are pushed through and that the GATT round of negotiations is concluded by the end of this year, in other words, they are giving in to the USA lobby on this issue.\n\nThe French are not as definite as they were in this regard and it looks as if they may also agree to abandon their stance in opposition to these measures. It is disastrous from the point of view of this country. We will be on our own and  we do not have the clout to oppose the measures as they should be opposed. Minister O'Kennedy is not fit to carry out negotiations of this magnitude, he has shown no ability in that regard over the last four and a half years. There is no reason to believe that there will be a transformation on the eve of the most momentous decision ever taken in regard to agriculture in this country.\n\nThe Taoiseach has been seriously at fault in not touring the capitals of the EC to lobby his fellow Heads of State in regard to this issue. When Deputy Garret FitzGerald was Taoiseach he lobbied in 1983-84 with considerable success. These proposals, if implemented, will be much more devastating and the Taoiseach has not seen fit to have the matter debated at the meeting of Heads of State. Apparently he referred to it when we goaded him into doing so six months ago but he has not done any lobbying. We are particularly annoyed at his failure to do so.\n\nIt looks as if the Government are indifferent to what is proposed in Europe, events at home are per-occupying their minds. The whole issue has been clouded by events at home and the Government are not paying attention to events in Europe. I do not hear any demands nowadays from the Fianna Fáil backbenchers for assistance for Irish farmers in financial difficulties. When we were in Government we devised a whole series of schemes to help people in difficulties, such as farmers are at present. The most valuable of these schemes was the introduction of Euroloans where farmers could get money at considerably reduced rates of interest. The Government at present do not want to know about any form of relief for farmers in difficulty. Every day farmers are going to the wall in increasing numbers. It is inconceivable that the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Government have not devised a strategy  to offset the difficulties confronting the industry at the moment.\n\nThis affects not only farmers but also workers in the agri-industry, the rural economy, in fact the economy as a whole. Unless some concerted action is taken by the Taoiseach, the Minister and the Government, matters will get considerably worse. Whether people wish to face up to the fact, the reform of the CAP as proposed is an integral part of the GATT negotiations. To find out that the Germans are not prepared to go along with cuts in subsidies as high as 30 per cent is frightening; it seems they are now willing to entertain cuts which could be as high as 70 or 75 per cent. If anything like that was to be entertained in this country, our farming sector would fall asunder and the whole economy would suffer gravely. Farming would become a non-profitable activity, except for a few hundred very large farmers.\n\nOur markets and competitiveness in Europe are being daily eroded by decisions which should not be allowed within the framework of the EC. How can the EC allow continued and increasing amounts of beef and milk products into the Community from Eastern Europe while there is overproduction of these commodities in the Community itself? An agreement was reached three or four weeks ago which allows Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to put more products into the Community, as if they had not been sending in enough already. That defies logic. We are the principal victims of such an irrational policy and we should be compensated accordingly.\n\nThe loss of our lucrative markets in the Middle East and North Africa is causing considerable difficulty for our farmers and processors. A huge proportion of our beef was exported to Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Libya, but none of those countries appears to be open to us for the sale of beef, or if they are, it amounts to only a pittance. They cite the BSE disease - \"mad cow\" disease - as a reason for not taking our produce but I do not believe that can be true because that disease is not a factor in this country; it is much more prevalent in other countries. An  initiative should be taken at the highest Government level to reopen these markets. The people in these countries are particularly partial to a visit from a senior Government Minister, or better still from a Prime Minister or Taoiseach. The Taoiseach should be prepared to go to these countries to try to salvage those markets. People may say the Iraqis cannot pay us. Of course they can; they can pay us in kind, with oil shipments. Every effort should be made to reopen these markets, and the Taoiseach would have the clout to do so.\n\nThere is a massive problem with cattle which are unsuitable for grading in factories and which would normally be shipped to Libya at this time of the year, but that market is closed at present. The Minister in recent times has not gone to Libya in an attempt to reopen these markets. I suggest that the Taoiseach, whose relationship with Colonel Gadaffi is well known, should go to Libya and ask Colonel Gadaffi to see to it that that market is reopened. While he is there he could tell him that we do not want his guns or explosives for the Provisional IRA. Let it be a dual visit. Let the Taoiseach put it on line that we want to sell our beef at a fair price but we do not want the murder machine in Northern Ireland to be generated and sustained by Colonel Gadaffi and his aides. That message should be made very clear.\n\nI wish to give five minutes of my time to Deputy Gerry Reynolds. In conclusion, everything that has happened in recent times is of serious concern for the future of agriculture in this country. The agricultural sector has no confidence in the Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy. I do not wish to be personal but that is a fact. We get the distinct impression that his ministerial colleagues have no confidence in him; it was rumoured in the press recently that they told him to keep quiet, that every time he appeared on television regarding the Greencore issue he was making a bigger ass of himself. We need to instil confidence in the agricultural sector. We are not getting the type of leadership the farming community deserve. If the Minister cannot do that  job, the Taoiseach and the Government will have to take the matter in hand.","The public perception of politicians is rapidly reaching an all time low and the rancour and bitterness of this debate is likely to exacerbate matters. Groundless accusations of a most scurrilous nature have been made without a shred of evidence to back them up in many cases. This has been a gross abuse of the privileges of this House. Deputy Roche has thrown enough muck in this debate to fertilise all the gardens of his native county of Wicklow. Deputy Roche will always be remembered, of course, as one of the architects of the infamous Fianna Fáil manifesto of 1977 which was the greatest confidence trick  played on this nation since the Act of Union.\n\nPoliticians are elected as representatives to serve the people, and consequently politics should be seen as a vocation rather than a profession. Yet on recent evidence nobody could be blamed for concluding that some Irish politicians serve only themselves and their friends. A particularly disturbing feature of the recent spate of scandals is the inability of some people in Fianna Fáil to see anything wrong in the scurrilous manner in which the public has been ripped off for the private gain of a few individuals. There has been no greater indication of failure than the pathetic scenes at post offices throughout the country in the past fortnight as thousands of young people queued to mail applications to the US for Morrison visas. They see no future in this country. It should be a source of national shame to all Deputies that Ireland led the nations of the world in the visa frenzy in Virginia. Is this all we can offer our young people today - a future based on a lottery? This is an indictment of our whole political system about which no-one can feel complacent.\n\nDeputy Haughey spent years describing our young people as our greatest asset, but this Government seem quite content to see that asset squandered just as so many of the State's assets have been squandered in recent years. Our young people have looked on in anger and amazement at the level of dishonesty as revealed in the various financial scandals that have taken place. While all this is going on youth unemployment is at a record 27 per cent, the highest in Europe. The Government, since taking office, have come up with no proposal whatsoever to face up to this crisis. Their only solution is emigration, and indeed the greatest wave of emigration from this country since the famine has taken place since Fianna Fáil took office in 1987.\n\nThe youth service is being savaged by ongoing cutbacks. Many jobs have been lost this year and many more are threatened. It costs an estimated £200 a week to employ one youth worker who can serve about 3,000 young people. It costs  an estimated £500 a week to keep one juvenile offender in custody. The Government have attempted a juggling act with the youth service and failed. On the one hand they claimed in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that they were committed to the development of the youth service but on the other they have severely curtailed funding. Ireland has become a nation of haves and have nots. Our young people are becoming increasingly disillusioned and cynical about our system.\n\nI would like to refer briefly to the area of sport. It is rather ironic that the Irish Olympic Council threatened in the past few weeks to boycott the national lottery because of the failure of the Government to make any commitment to sport. In 1987 the national lottery was initiated and since then it has proven to be a financial bonanza, but we have nothing of national importance to show in the sporting world for this bonanza. For the past five years the Government have promised a national indoor stadium, they have promised regional centres and a national outdoor stadium, but none of those has been provided. Indeed the greatest irony is that we have not provided a 50 metre swimming pool. A proposal was made to build such a swimming pool in Newpark but it was refused by the Government on the grounds that they were going to build one on the dock site. So far as I am concerned we are talking of a phantom swimming pool.\n\nThe public in general are becoming increasingly disillusioned as they hear about individuals with so-called connections making millions of pounds at the public's expense. It is up to the Government to provide leadership and to demonstrate that inefficiency will not be tolerated and that duplicity will result in prosecution. It seems that our laws are designed to protect the guilty. Anyone with money seems to be able to get away with just about anything. This is further eroding confidence in our whole system of justice. The Government should be providing leadership, but how can they when they do not even know what it is?  They obviously do not know the first thing about leadership.\n\nThis debate is about integrity, about standards in high places. It is also about the crisis in farming, in relation to unemployment, to health and to local authority funding. The Government have failed miserably in all these areas. They cannot justify their present position with regard to those matters. The people are sending loud messages which should be heeded by all sides of this House. They are fed up with what is happening. They want a decent Government who will clean up the appalling mess and tackle the problems. It is time to shout stop, no more, and let the people decide.","For the second year in succession the opening of the Dáil year is dominated by a confidence motion in the Government. Last year the issue was the standards people could expect from those in Government. The issue again this year is about standards - of those in Government, those in semi-State companies and in private business. However, the difference is that this year the debate takes place against a background of a deteriorating economic situation, record unemployment levels and television pictures of tens of thousands of young Irish people battling for visas to give them hope of a new life and a job in the United States.\n\nPeople have been stunned, shocked and sickened by the revelations of sharp practice, malpractice, downright dishonesty and corruption which have emerged. Day after day we have had more disclosures which have thrown new light on the operation of what has been referred to as the \"golden circle\". The operation of such a group had been well  known. Certainly, The Workers' Party had pointed to it repeatedly. However, what has emerged for the first time in the past two months has revealed in all its ugliness the level of their greed and the ruthless nature of their activities. We have seen a world in which greed is God, where the pursuit of even greater profits seems to justify the use of virtually any means, in which this small elite - and it is a small elite - appeared to believe that they had the political connections necessary to render themselves immune from the normal regulatory and supervisory procedures to protect the public interest.\n\nGreencore, Telecom, Celtic Helicopters, Carysfort, NCB - the list of questions is virtually endless, the answers from Government virtually non-existent. The Government and responsible Ministers have failed utterly to respond to questions about what they knew, about the manner in which they supervised semi-State companies for which they were responsible. They have withdrawn into their Ministerial bunkers and refused to answer the people. As head of Government the Taoiseach has a particular responsibility to the public for all of these scandals but he, too, has gone to ground. His decision to transfer to other Ministers virtually all questions relating to these scandals, where they relate specifically to statements made or actions carried out by him, is the latest indication that he is determined that if the buck is to stop anywhere certainly it will not stop with him.\n\nThese scandals are a sad reflection of the value system of some of those at the top of business and politics in this country. Nobody who knew what was going on in Irish society will have been surprised at the improper activities of some of those who were involved in the Greencore and other affairs. Perhaps the most surprising thing is that the improper activities have become public knowledge. To date those involved normally have managed to successfully hide their trail. I predict that what we have seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg of corruption  and improper activities now prevalent in some sectors of private business which, unfortunately is also eating into the public sector.\n\nAfter 70 years of independence it is time to examine our values and priorities as a society. Despite the high-sounding principles of the 1916 Proclamation and the fine aspirations of the democratic programme of the First Dáil we live in a Republic in which an individual's rank and status in society is determined by the amount of personal wealth he or she can accumulate. Indeed in Ireland the greatest prestige seems to attach to wealth accumulated in the least socially valuable way. Land rezonings, property speculation, asset stripping, offshore companies, the use of inside information, access to political pull, the \"stroke\", tax avoidance schemes, these seem to be the favourite routes to financial success rather than the creation of jobs or added value products which could be of benefit to the wider community. It is a culture that ensures that job creation is at the bottom of the list, a culture which ensures that we have a parasitic economy, denying the rights of thousands of our people to a job, ensuring that investment will be in asset stripping rather than in the protection and creation of jobs. The dominant political parties in this country have bestowed their blessing on wealth accumulated in this way. This is especially so in the case of Fianna Fáil, who have encouraged and benefited from the stroke culture. We are now paying the price for this attitude, with the reputation of Ireland abroad being badly damaged and political confidence at home eroded.\n\nIt is not acceptable that those who blew the whistle are blamed for the damage to our reputation. Those to blame are the ones who engage in these activities. What we need, perhaps, as well as a code for politicians and for business is a code for the protection of whistle blowers. They have done this country a favour by dragging into the light of day the activities we have heard about in the past few weeks.\n\n The first of the recent scandals to come to the attention of the public was the Greencore affair. Greencore is particularly significant, not just because it opened the floodgates in regard to the other affairs but because many of the elements at the centre of it also feature in the other affairs - issues of honesty, of what is or is not an acceptable level of profit, the adequacy of company law, the use of devices such as offshore companies to disguise the real ownership of companies, the role of semi-State companies and the adequacy of ministerial supervision of the semi-State sector.\n\nWe are of course aware that various inquiries have been set up into the Greencore affair, but there are many questions which could and should have been answered by the Government and especially by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, without having to await the outcome of any inquiry by any Inspector. When did the Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, first become aware that a number of Irish Sugar executives had acquired a 49 per cent minority shareholding in Sugar Distributors (Holdings) Limited? When did he first become aware that this purchase had been partly funded by a soft loan given to the executives by the company? When did he first become aware of the subsequent resale of the shareholding to the Irish Sugar Company at a six-fold profit to the executives involved? Was Deputy O'Kennedy, as the Minister with overall responsibility for the Sugar Company, consulted regarding the purchase of the Sugar Distributors shareholding, and did he approve of it? When did he first become aware of a claim by Mr. Chris Comerford to beneficial ownership of a substantial shareholding in Talmino Limited?\n\nAs my colleague, Deputy Sherlock, pointed out at the time, only days before the Greencore affair broke, the Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, was only too glad to make himself available to the press to lecture the public about his views on morality, and particularly about the age at which condoms should be made available to young people - an issue which had nothing to do with his Department at  all. But when the questions arose about Greencore, the Minister was suddenly unavailable, declining all invitations to appear on radio or television programmes, and refusing to answer all questions, even when cornered by journalists at the public functions he could not avoid.\n\nThe Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, had plenty to say about the morality of making condoms available to 16 year olds, but he had nothing to say about the morality of a group of senior semi-State executives acquiring a shareholding in Sugar Distributors, and then selling it back to their employers at a six-fold profit. The Minister had nothing to say about the propriety of executives of State companies setting up covert companies in tax havens like Jersey. The Minister, like many of his colleagues, seems to relate to sexual matters only.\n\nIn a Cabinet where mediocrity is the norm, with a few honorable exceptions, and incompetence taken for granted, the Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, stands head and shoulders below the rest. His handling of the Agriculture portfolio has been characterised by bungling and evasion. He is probably the most evasive of Government Ministers when it comes to replying to Dáil questions. Even when he has nothing to hide, he sounds as if he has. He persistently refused to acknowledge any allegations of irregularities in the beef industry - even as he announced the setting up of the Tribunal of Inquiry - yet only two weeks ago he was forced to send his inspectors, accompanied by armed gardaí, into a number of Goodman owned plants.\n\nHe criticised Deputies who raised legitimate questions about the use of substances like angel dust and tried to downplay the whole problem, before eventually being forced to admit the dangers involved and take some remedial action. He insisted on ramming the Bill to privatise the Irish Sugar Company through the Dáil, using the guillotine to curtail the debate at every Stage, and we are now paying the price for this.\n\n I do not intend to deal in detail with the other scandals, which my colleagues will be speaking of during the course of this debate. However, I would like to make a few points about Telecom and the Ballsbridge site, because it symbolises much of what is rotten in Irish society and especially much of what is rotten in Irish business. It is an episode which proves that business strokes kill jobs. I would remind the House of the 500 Johnston, Mooney and O'Brien workers, who lost their jobs with the closure of the bakery in 1989 and who are, in many respects, the forgotten victims of the scandal surrounding the sale of the Ballsbridge site. This whole episode illustrates once again the ruthless nature of some of those at the top of Irish business who are quite prepared to destroy jobs and livelihoods in the pursuit of huge profits.\n\nThe bakery was put into liquidation in February 1989 although its parent company, Odlums, was making substantial profits at the time. When the sale was originally announced it was supposed to be part of a plan by the company to move to a new custom built premises. This was never proceeded with and a liquidator was appointed by the company only months later. There must now be serious doubts as to whether the new premises was ever a serious proposal, as the parent company declined an offer of a management buy-out to keep it in operation. It seems far more likely that the parent company simply decided that its most valuable asset was the site, which was put up for grabs to the highest bidder.\n\nWhile there are many questions remaining to be answered about the progress of the site from ownership by Johnston, Mooney and O'Brien, through the various deals to its eventual purchase by Telecom Éireann, what is very clear is that substantial profits were made along the way by a number of individuals. A small group of wealthy people have got even wealthier. A profit of more than £4 million, probably tax free, was made in just 18 months. But what has happened to the 500 bakery workers? How many are still unemployed? How many have been  forced to emigrate? How many families have been broken and lives destroyed by the resulting stress? These are the real casualties of these scandals.\n\nUnfortunately the experience of the Johnston, Mooney and O'Brien workers is not unusual in Irish society. Too often we have seen the asset strippers move in and dispose of premises, plant and equipment without any consideration for the workers involved. What is more, as I said earlier, the dominant political parties in this country have bestowed their blessing on wealth accumulated in this way.\n\nOne common element in most of the recent controversies has been the firm of National City Brokers. NCB is no stranger to controversy - there was considerable disquiet in 1989 over the manner in which it was awarded the contract for handling the privatisation of the Government's shareholding in Tara Mines. The contract was not put out to tender and many people believe that what NCB was paid for their work was about three times the going rate for the job.\n\nBut it is really because of their role in the affairs which have come to light in the past few weeks that NCB have come under close scrutiny. It was, of course, NCB which advised the Irish Sugar Company on privatisation, and which either failed to notice the Sugar Distributors deal or else did it not consider it important enough to bring it to anyone's attention. It was NCB which one of the firms commissioned to carry out a study of the prospects of privatisation of Telecom Éireann - Mr. Smurfit said that the Government had requested the study, the Minister, Deputy Brennan, said he knew nothing about it. It was NCB which established the firm of United Property Holdings, which played a central role in the various deals involving the Johnston, Mooney and O'Brien site - a site which eventually cost Telecom Éireann more than twice the price it had been sold for 18 months earlier. It was NCB which, according to Mr. Smurfit, failed to  advise him that UPH once owned the Ballsbridge site and it was NCB which was involved in the leaking of confidential commercial and financial information about Irish Helicopters to a rival helicopter firm in which the Taoiseach's son was a partner, in circumstances that still have to be adequately explained. Certainly the claims of a postal misdelivery are unconvincing and the full story has still to be established. It is not good enough for Aer Lingus to claim that a briefcase was not involved \"as is alleged\". What we want to know is whether a briefcase was involved.\n\nIt was against this background that I decided to make public details of a document which came into my possession which provides startling new evidence of the special relationship between National City Brokers and Fianna Fáil in government. In the document, NCB cite \"intervention at the highest level\", \"the use of personal contacts at the highest level, including the Minister for Finance and the Secretaries of the Departments of the Taoiseach and Industry and Commerce\", and the use of favours from \"political contacts\" to justify a huge fee of £2 million charged to one of its commercial clients.\n\nAs Deputies will now know the document in question is a letter written to Pernod Ricard in France (for whom NCB acted in the takeover of Irish Distillers) dated 6 January 1989 and signed by Mr. Dermot Desmond. It raises very serious questions about the relationship between NCB and the Government and political figures. I will read this letter on to the record of the House so that there is no ambiguity about its contents.\n\nIt is on NCB notepaper and it is addressed to Thierry Jacquillat, Director General, Societe Pernod Ricard. It reads:\n\nDear Thierry,\n\nIt was a pleasure to see you again yesterday.\n\nAs you wish to give some further consideration to NCB's fees, I thought it might be helpful if I summarised the factors which we reviewed both during our meeting and over a most enjoyable  lunch.\n\nThe first point I would reiterate is that our fee estimate of IR£2 million is put forward in the spirit of honesty and openness in which we acted for Pernod-Ricard throughout the takeover battle. It was not conceived as an exaggerated opening position with a view to bargaining, but as a very basic and modest estimate of the value of our contribution to the success of Pernod-Ricard's acquisition of IDG. I honestly expected you to accept it as such, giving you the opportunity to offer more.\n\nFrom the outset our sole intention was to create value for Pernod-Ricard and our fee structure was based on this principle. If Pernod-Ricard had not succeeded in acquiring IDG, we would not have made any charge. I enclose a copy of a Memo sent to Robert Woodroffe of Societe Generale dated 13th September indicating this.\n\nYou are in a better position to judge our value in relation to:\n\n(a) Strategy.\n\n(b) Negotiating with FII and Irish Life.\n\n(c) Obtaining irrevocables in excess of 50%.\n\n(d) Our Interaction with the Irish Media.\n\nWe made sure that the Irish media started and finished as supporters of the Pernod-Ricard bid and added greatly to its credibility as far as the media and the public were concerned.\n\n(e) Our involvement in the High Court proceedings and similarly in the Supreme Court.\n\n(f) Our contribution in relation to the Takeover Panel proceedings.\n\n(g) Our Passion for Victory.\n\nThroughout the whole process we bullied and policed every other party involved, from lawyers to tax experts and ensured that we either got a high quality service from them, or else effectively supplied it ourselves.\n\nWe feel that our fee is justified on the basis of the contributions listed above, but I think that there is further justification if you look at the following,  which is specific to NCB.\n\n1. At the outset, our conception of the share purchase alternative and our success in backing it with a strong tax counsel's opinion had a major strategic importance in getting the bid price set as low as £4.50.\n\n2. But for our intervention at the highest levels in connection with the Monopolies and Mergers decision, it is certain that Pernod-Ricard would have been constrained to dispose of one or more brands and that GC & C would have been allowed to acquire in excess of 30%.\n\n3. We orchestrated entirely the successful campaign to get a positive tax opinion from the Revenue Commissioners which involved using personal contacts at the highest level, including the Minister for Finance and the Secretaries of the Department of the Taoiseach and Department of Industry and Commerce. Our success had a major impact in undermining FII's credibility in Court.\n\nIn relation to 2 we consider that the impact of the decision which would not have been obtained without our involvement is at least worth a fee of £2 million.\n\nFinally, there were indirect costs to NCB because of our total commitment to Pernod-Ricard and yourself. I as Chief Executive was responsible for taking this decision.\n\nAt a more fundamental level, we put NCB's reputation and position in the Irish markets at risk throughout the campaign, yet we did not draw back at any stage. Nor did we put a cash price on our continued involvement in the battle at any stage even though we were putting our entire business at risk.\n\nOver a three month period the entire commitment of NCB's top management team was solely devoted to ensuring the success of the Pernod-Ricard bid. As a result, in that period other major business opportunities were let go. I will give just one example - although advisers to GPA we lost the opportunity to do a £167 million private placing of GPA shares with  Irish institutions. This cost us almost £1 million in commissions.\n\nWe used up a large proportion of the favours we can call upon from our political contacts - and no doubt will pay a price on the other side.\n\nWe believe that without NCB's involvement Pernod-Ricard would have found it difficult to succeed in capturing IDG; nor would it have succeeded in winning at a price as low as IR£4.50. I believe that it is possible quite coldly and objectively to measure our overall contribution as greater than the combined contribution of Schroders and Societe Generale and, on the defensive side, as greater than that of IBI and County.\n\nAs I said to you at our meeting, you must also, however, weigh heavily the spirit of total commitment in which we made our contribution. I know that you appreciate the value of that aspect personally and I am sure that Pernod-Ricard will respond to us in the matter of fees in a manner which will reflect the same values.\n\nWith kindest personal regards,\n\nYours sincerely,\n\nDERMOT F. DESMOND\n\nThat letter throws light on an area which up to now has been murky, to say the least. It was in the context of NCB's involvement in virtually every other affair that has been revealed in the last few months which ensured that I would have to make that public.\n\nIn my statement on Sunday I said that there was now an obligation on both NCB and the Government to spell out exactly the basis of their relationship, to explain the nature of the political favours referred to, and to identify those who were involved in these contacts, and especially the references to \"the highest level\". I am still waiting for a satisfactory response to these points.\n\nIt is entirely a matter for NCB what fees it charges its clients for commercial work undertaken on their behalf, and it is entirely appropriate for them to make  representations on their behalf. However, it is a matter of very serious public concern when the company appears to be suggesting that it has some unique special relationship or some sort of inside track with those in power and that it can call upon political favours to serve the interest of its clients. This letter must greatly add to the public concern arising from the recent allegations of political favouritism involving NCB.\n\nPerhaps the most serious passage in Mr. Desmond's letter is where he tells his client:\n\nWe used up a large proportion of the favours we can call upon from our political contacts - and no doubt will pay a price on the other side.\n\nThe common sense implication of this would appear to be that, having extracted the favours from the political contacts, NCB was, in some way, going to have to repay the favour to those who obliged their client. Equally alarming is the passage in which Mr. Desmond says:\n\nWe orchestrated entirely the successful campaigns to get a positive tax opinion from the Revenue Commissioners, which involved using personal contacts at the highest level, including the Minister for Finance and the Secretaries of the Department of the Taoiseach and Department of Industry and Commerce.\n\nHow is it appropriate for NCB to use personal contacts with the Minister for Finance and senior civil servants to extract \"a positive tax opinion\"? Was pressure exerted on the Revenue Commissioners to deliver this \"positive tax opinion\" and what was the cost to other taxpayers of Mr. Desmond's ability to extract this \"positive tax opinion\"?\n\nIn another part of the letter, Mr. Desmond writes of NCB's \"intervention at the highest levels\" in connection with a monopolies and mergers decision. Does this mean the Taoiseach's office or some other Government Department?\n\nThis letter raises questions of the most profound importance about the nature of the relationship between business and  commercial interests and the Government. It is one of the most revealing documents to have emerged in the past few weeks and casts some light on the operations of the golden circle about which the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley recently expressed some concern. Presumably the records available in Deputy O'Malley's Department will be able to shed further light on the claim of \"personal contact\" with the then Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and in the interests of open and honest government to which he subscribes he will make the records available to the House. Indeed the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance must produce their departmental records to this House in order to establish once and for all, the veracity or otherwise of Mr. Desmond's claims.\n\nThe claim for £2 million in fees shows just how high the stakes are for companies like NCB. Huge fortunes can be made on single deals. This cannot, however, justify any element of political favouritism or the provision of any special facilities or concessions to those in business who claim some sort of special relationship with those in Government.\n\nThere is a particular obligation on the Taoiseach to spell out exactly what is the nature of his relationship with Mr. Dermot Desmond. In various media interviews Mr. Haughey referred to Mr. Desmond as a personal friend. In a briefing given to political correspondents following the meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party on 2 October, the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Vincent Brady, quoted Mr. Haughey as saying that Mr. Desmond was not a \"personal friend\" but a \"business friend\".\n\nAs I said earlier, there have been no satisfactory responses by either the Government or NCB to the issue raised by Mr. Desmond's letter to Pernod. The recent \"personal friend\" of the Taoiseach has been disowned by all in Fianna Fáil in an attempt to save their own political skins. The Government Press Officer is quoted as saying that they cannot be held responsible for the exaggerated boasts of  a businessman. This is a polite way of accusing Mr. Desmond of being a liar.\n\nMr. Desmond, on the other hand, now confirms the authenticity of the letter but says it is being misinterpreted. Mr. Desmond is stretching credibility to the limit by suggesting that the only reason for the seeking by NCB of favours from \"political contacts\", the \"intervention at the highest levels\", and the use of \"personal contacts including the Minister for Finance and the Secretaries of the Departments of the Taoiseach and Industry and Commerce\" was to ensure that the Irish financial and political authorities acted in a \"comprehensive manner\".\n\nWhile it is understandable that people are very correctly angry and indignant at the disclosures of shady practices which came to light in the past weeks, the public should not lose sight of the fact that the Government's record on unemployment represents what is perhaps the greatest scandal. The unemployment figures published on the first Friday of this month represented an increase of more than 40,000 over the same month last year. Each month during this summer we have seen unemployment climb to levels never experienced before in the history of the State. For this reason alone, Mr. Haughey and his colleagues have lost all moral right to govern and should be hounded out of office at the earliest opportunity.\n\nOur lack of confidence in this Government long pre-dates the disclosures of the past few weeks. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, in the Programme for Government negotiated in July 1989, promised to make job creation their number one priority. Instead, to use Mr. Haughey's favourite phrase, they \"stood aside\" and allowed the dole queues to lengthen and the human misery that comes with unemployment to increase proportionately. We knew all along that we had a Government who were spectacularly incompetent and who had failed to honour the commitments given in the Programme for Government to make employment creation \"the major priority\".\n\n There is, in fact, a direct link between the scandals of the past few weeks and the failure of the Government to make any impact on the unemployment problem. The Greencore, Telecom and Carysfort scandals all represented attempts by what were already some of the richest people in Ireland to increase their wealth by \"strokes\" - property speculation, cute deals and offshore companies.\n\nCharles Haughey's Fianna Fáil have shamelessly encouraged and benefited from this parasitic culture. They have always seemed to consider the stroke or the inside deal to be a far preferable route to wealth creation than the slow, hard, risky slog involved in setting up a manufacturing industry which might add to the wealth of society in general and create badly needed jobs. Until we have a Government who treat these parasitic deals and strokes as the anti-social activities they are and who set about encouraging and promoting wealth creation through manufacturing industry or useful services, we are, unfortunately, going to have to face continued unemployment at this shocking level.\n\nIrrespective of the outcome of this week's vote of confidence here in the Dáil the massive level of applications for Morrison visas is a huge vote of no confidence in the Government on the part of hundreds of thousands of young Irish people. Young people are voting with their feet by trying desperately to get out of the country. The massive level of applications for these visas is a reflection of the sense of despair felt by so many young people. Young men and women, many of whom have spent long years in college and university have not been able to get even menial jobs. They feel betrayed and let down by a Government who came into power in 1989 promising to make job creation their number one priority and who have since stood aside and allowed unemployment to climb to record levels.\n\nIt is clear that Mr. Haughey and his  colleagues have totally abdicated their responsibilities and see renewed emigration - \n\nIt is clear that the Taoiseach and his colleagues have totally abdicated their responsibilities and see renewed emigration as the only hope of reducing unemployment. He said as much in his recent RTE interview. Is it not a sad reflection on this country that after 70 years of self-government all the stops can be pulled out to facilitate the mass exodus of young people out of the country, while the Government plead that nothing can be done to give them jobs at home? What is even more pathetic is the spectacle of Fianna Fáil politicians, such as Senator Dan Kiely, shamelessly exploiting for political purposes the desperate desire of people to emigrate. What a proud record Senator Kiely will be able to look back on at the end of his career. When he is asked what he did for his people, he will be able to say proudly that he helped 5,000 people to emigrate.\n\nWe do not blame these people for trying to emigrate, but we regret their loss to the country. Many of those who get Morrison visas will return only for holidays. The loss of their energy and enthusiasm will be incalculable. Ireland simply cannot afford to endure a haemorrhage of our young people at this level. There must be a change in emphasis in  national economic policy away from the sort of strokes and speculation which we have seen exposed in the past few weeks to investment in productive jobs.\n\nDeputies on all sides of this House would be making a grave mistake in underestimating the damage that has been done to the political system by the failure of the Government to address our economic problems, and especially by the endless stream of scandals.\n\nMonday's The Irish Times MRBI opinion poll which showed that three-quarters of the people believe that political standards have fallen should provide food for thought for all Members of the Oireachtas. While the Government have, quite rightly, suffered a major loss in support because of their handling of the recent scandals, it is very clear that a large section of the public is becoming increasingly cynical about and disillusioned with the entire political system.\n\nAction must be taken by all parties in the House to re-establish public confidence in the political system. The aim should be to ensure that if an opinion poll is taken 12 months from now three-quarters of the people will believe that political standards are rising. A major source of public cynicism is the close relationship between those at the top in business and those at the top in politics. A little light has been thrown on this area in the past few weeks, but many among the public believe that what has emerged so far is only the tip of the iceberg. I share their concern.\n\nIf, as many of the businessmen and politicians involved have protested, they have nothing to hide, then there should surely be no objections to a clear statutory requirement for politicians to declare all their interests, direct or indirect, in all business and commercial activities. This would have to be accompanied by a requirement for full disclosure of all contributions to political parties from commercial or business interests. Given what has emerged in the past few weeks and the comments of people like the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Harney, and Mr. Michael McDowell, it is hard to see how the Progressive  Democrats could retain any shred of credibility if they remain in Government without ensuring that watertight guarantees are given on legislation in this area at least.\n\nWe must take steps to ensure that the law is applied equally to all citizens. We have an impressive body of company law but we must ensure that it is implemented and tightened up, if found to be inadequate. We must ensure that those who are charged with running semi-State companies on behalf of the people are adequately paid, but are harshly dealt with if they break the people's trust. We must end the situation whereby wrongdoing at the top of industry is rewarded by golden handshakes and early retirement while wrongdoing on the factory floor is punished by dismissal without compensation. We must end any trace of corruption and abuse in both the public and the private sectors. We must ensure that anti-social activities are treated with the contempt they deserve.\n\nWe must ensure that there is proper political accountability and that no Government is allowed to run away from their responsibilities. This is at the kernel of this confidence motion. Can the Dáil have any confidence in the Government after what has come to light in the past few weeks? Semi-State company after semi-State company has been rocked by scandal. The chairmen of three semi-State bodies, appointed or re-appointed by this Government, have been forced to resign in various degrees of disgrace. Ministers have failed utterly to exercise any degree of supervision of semi-State companies, have allowed the taxpayers to be taken advantage of in an outrageous way and have run away from the consequences of their neglect.\n\nThis Government have now passed their \"sell by\" date. The odour of decay grows stronger each day. Whatever agreement is cobbled together between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats may provide a temporary stay of execution but it will not sustain this Government for the next two years or save it from the ultimate verdict of the people.\n\n Before I sit down I wish to address one final point. The Taoiseach - and I am giving him his correct title - in the sly manner which has become his hallmark, tried to blacken the names of Deputy Rabbitte and myself through the use of innuendo this morning in the House when he said: \"I would now like to ask him here in this House to tell us about some of the people not so well known he\" - referring to Pat Rabbitte - \"and his Leader have been meeting\". He then departed from his prepared script and said \"the chief of staff of the Official IRA\". It was not entirely clear whether this was uttered as a statement of fact or as a question.\n\nIn either event I want to state categorically that neither I nor Deputy Rabbitte have anything whatsoever to do with any group styling itself the Official IRA, the Provisional IRA, or any other paramilitary group. I have dedicated my time in politics to opposing para-militarism and will continue to oppose political violence with all the vigour at my disposal.\n\nIf the Taoiseach believes that I or any other Member of this party in this House have met any person which he describes as \"the chief of staff of the Official IRA\" then he has an obligation to the people of this country and to this House to give that information to the Garda. I promise him he will receive every co-operation from me and Deputy Rabbitte and any other Deputy in this House in any inquiries the Garda may pursue as a result. Unless he is prepared to give that information to this House and to the Garda, he should withdraw that innuendo. We have not engaged in innuendo or false accusations inside or outside this House. We have put the evidence we received on the record of this House. I do not know who the chief of staff of the Official IRA is, if indeed, such a person exists, but then the Taoiseach has always seemed to know more about who is in the IRA than I ever have, and he seemed to have a particular interest in this area in 1969 and 1970 when the Provisional IRA was being established - the Provisional IRA which has slaughtered so  many men, women and children in both parts of Ireland, in Britain and on the Continent. When he is on the subject of meetings, perhaps he could fill us in on some of the interesting persons, well known and not so well known, whom he met in 1969 and 1970.","On this motion of confidence put down by the Government, which arose directly as a result of Fine Gael putting down a motion of no confidence in the Government, one would have to have regard to the manner in which the Government addressed the issue. Over the last few days one could not but be surprised at the manner in which some Government spokespersons addressed the issue in hand and, far from enhancing any public confidence in Government, they went the other way. Speaker after speaker seemed to have decided to dig down deep in the hope of eventually striking something which was akin to oil but not of the same texture and have repeatedly attempted to throw mud across the House in the hope that the whole purpose of the exercise on the motion of confidence in the Government would be lost.\n\nThis was capped entirely this morning by Deputy Roche who probably saw himself as a latter day Sherlock Holmes, having spent a considerable amount of time, laboriously digging into the archives to find something which he could hurl across the floor in the hope that somebody somewhere might decide that it was in some way unethical. He probably landed himself with the tag, not of Sherlock Holmes but of Inspector Closeau, who used to be portrayed by the late Peter Sellers and who did not necessarily always come up with the result he desired. I think he also resembled the boy at school whom the teacher had ignored for some time and who hoped if, perhaps, he was able to bring in sufficient apples or goodies he would be noticed when the next round  of promotions came up. I am sorry to say he failed miserably and only exposed himself as a very small minded, bitter and disappointed person.\n\nThe motion we are now discussing stems from more than the issues that have been debated publicly over the last number of weeks. It stems also from public confidence, the confidence of the people in Government and the confidence of business in Government. The question has already been referred to by my colleague Deputy Garret FitzGerald, that in a recent poll public confidence in Government is waning, and is waning fast for a number of reasons. It would appear that Government are told what to do on a regular basis by some people who are actually outside of this House. That is not something that would enhance public confidence. The other thing that has occurred again and again over the last couple of years in the life of this Government is that at every sign of a crisis there has been a meeting within the two camps of Government and there has been a crisis within a crisis where one has said they will, they will not, maybe, perhaps. That is the story of this Administration over the last couple of years. There is no indication that they will continue in any different fashion from that which has prevailed for the last couple of years. The suggestion of no confidence is well founded, as there has been an abysmal failure from that side of the House to engender any kind of confidence into the debate or to encourage pubic following of their particular parties.\n\nIn the short time available to me I would like to refer to one issue which is of major importance in ensuring that State and semi-State companies and business generally are accountable so far as they can be to this House but with particular reference to the State and semi-State companies. How often have we put down parliamentary questions in this House to be told, on the one hand, that they are to be transferred from one Minister or  another or, on the other, that the Minister has no official responsibily to the House? This is not a reference to the Ceann Comhairle's office, it is an accepted practice and a wrong practice in my view. How else can public representatives be answerable to our constituents unless we have the right to put down parliamentary questions asking about any issue under the sun which is pertinent to a particular Minister's responsibility? A Minister may consider himself - or herself, as the case may be - glib and smart, though I wish to state emphatically that this does not apply to all Ministers. There are some Ministers who are particularly good and forthright in answering questions. There are others, unfortunately, who will use that escape clause again and again to get away from answering directly. The one thing that always happens to such people is that they get caught themselves. If they do not seek the information in order to accommodate the Opposition, the particular individuals in the Departments concerned fully recognise that they will never be questioned anywhere.\n\nIn my opinion the fault is with the inability or the unwillingness of some Ministers to give clear answers to specific questions in this House. If they could mend their ways in that direction it would be a great help to this House and would be of greater assistance to themselves and of far greater assistance in encouraging public confidence in Government.","Listening to the spirited defence of the Government by the Tánaiste who berated Opposition Members for having the cheek to talk about confidence in the Government, one would think that not any member of the Fianna Fáil Party had uttered a word in recent weeks. Much of what is being said about the Government came from Fianna Fáil backbenchers and most people were grateful for that. Certainly the polls indicate that their view was not too far off the mark.\n\nOur decision to oppose this motion of confidence is a positive assertion of the disapproval of the ordinary people of the actions of this discredited Government. The people have watched with amazement the unfolding of scandals which have tainted this Government. The Government cannot now be said to deserve the confidence of the people. To date the Government have mismanaged the country's finances and have been  embroiled in scandals which have bedevilled the political system here in recent weeks. They have failed also to provide the leadership the people deserve. This Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Coalition Government for however long they will last, promised the people this economic miracle, but the only people who seem to have benefited from this alleged miracle are the close friends and associates of the Government. Political nepotism appears to be one of their core values. Individual Ministers and indeed the Taoiseach himself still face serious questions concerning their roles in the various scandals which have been uncovered. I hope the answers to some of those questions will unfold during this debate over the next few days. It needs to be said that this debate is a charade, a ritualistic debate and vote, but confidence in the Dáil in political life and the system we adhere to is urgently required. That is a mission in which the Members of this House and the people we represent have a common stake. By their actions this Government have proved to be blatantly unequal in their treatment of the Irish people, favouring the old boys network and in the process the vast majority of ordinary people are forgotten. Unemployment has increased, health care has suffered in spite of our warnings and free education is merely an illusion of yesterday.\n\nThe people the Labour Party represent are struggling to survive in the unequal Ireland of the nineties. The electorate have delivered their warning, a warning that is reflected not only in the latest opinion polls, but in the local elections and the presidential election. The Labour Party unequivocally adhere to the fundamental belief that health care in particular is a basic human right, so basic a right that there is an explicit obligation on the community to discriminate positively in favour of the poor and those in need. However, this Government's policy has been to discriminate against the less well off in our community making it increasingly difficult for people on low incomes to secure any access, let alone equality of access.\n\nHaving listened to the Minister for Health today, it is clear that we will never be able to describe health care as a basic human right. He referred to the Fox report, the Kennedy report and the legislation enacted in 1990, including the Nursing Homes Bill which cannot be brought into operation because he has not signed the ministerial order as my colleague has just said, he has no money. In other words, because he has not signed the order, health boards are not in a position to pay subsistence to old people who need accommodation in nursing homes which cannot be provided by the State. Is this what society expects our senior citizens to suffer under this Minister for Health and the Government in whom we are asked to have confidence?\n\nThe Minister went on to outline various changes he had made in schemes, including the drug refund scheme - another three card trick. Under this scheme a person who spent in excess of £32 on drugs in any one month received a refund, but as a result of the unequal system he introduced on 1 July, people who spend £90 in the final week of a quarter or in the first week of the following quarter, will receive no refund. That is some trick and people will suffer. Those changes were introduced as a cost cutting exercise. The effects of other health cuts are visible all around us. The Minister said the same level of service will be maintained in 1991 as obtained throughout 1990, but we know that this is not the case. The health boards at the end of July - and I have documentation to prove this - were millions of pounds in the red because of this Minister's failure to structure health funding. The Minister promised the health boards that he would recoup their costs in demand led schemes, which he has not done, and today he intimated that he may refund only 50 per cent of the  costs which would increase their deficit of almost £20 million even further.\n\nMental handicap services are in a crisis. It is a scandal that the parents of children with mental handicap had to picket in cold and wind in O'Connell Street yesterday while today others picketed this House because they do not have a hospital in County Clare. Last night in Tallaght hundreds of people, in the presence of Deputies Harney and Flood, both Ministers of State, complained that this Government have reneged on their promise to build a hospital in Tallaght, despite the fact that £9 million has been spent since a former Minister for Health, the then Deputy Desmond, left office. What we have been left with is a £9 million hole in the ground in Tallaght and 150,000 people are without a hospital service. One cannot have confidence in a Government who continue in that vein.\n\nWhy should we not bring these discrepancies to the attention of the public?\n\nWe know in our hearts that everything that has been uttered by Ministers in this debate so far cannot be proved to be correct. All the documentation coming off the Government production machine seems to imply that things have happened, but nothing we have heard today from Ministers on their performance in their Departments could lead us to have confidence in them.\n\nIt is my contention that this Government have presided over the destruction of the health services. The concept of a comprehensive health service, free at the point of access, is a decision of principle. No final decision can be made by any Government or any Dáil about the allocation of funding for health services unless it is agreed in advance that access to the health services is a basic human right. It is clear that this Government do not accept that principle. It is for that reason alone that I, on behalf of the Labour Party, cannot support this motion of confidence in the Government and I am quite sure that no member of the Labour Party could concede that there is any confidence in this Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Coalition Government.","I am delighted to see a significant number of Deputies from the Progressive Democrats in the House. When one considers the level of brinkmanship engaged in during the past week one would be inclined to wonder what happened during the 16 weeks of the summer recess in relation to the deliberations on the programme they are now discussing.\n\nI think that most politicians were ashamed to be politicians during the summer. There has been much talk in this House about Dáil reform. I think most Deputies can appreciate the cynicism of the electorate when we consider that we were in recess for 16 weeks. There was a feeling among people that the country was almost rudderless during that period. It was not the Government who dominated the media during that time. The media was dominated during the summer recess by people who have become household names at this stage, for example, Desmond, Tully, Smurfit, etc. and a whole succession of reputed scandals. I do not intend to dwell on those aspects as they have been more than adequately discussed during the course of this debate. There appears to be almost a purging of guilt by all sides - probably trying to purge the sins of the past.\n\nHowever, we have to analyse how this  situation evolved and developed. One has to go back almost to 1930 to understand this. Except for brief intervals when other parties took over power, we have had almost uninterrupted Fianna Fáil rule since 1930. What was almost a mantra of business people during that time was \"what is good for Fianna Fáil is good for you - you support Fianna Fáil and we will look after you\". We need to go back to the times of TACA, which was an embarrassment to the Government, when builders seemed to have undoubted confidence that Fianna Fáil would look after them well. Therefore, what we have to look at is the underlying characteristic of many of these business scandals. How did they evolve? They evolved almost by definition because of the intrinsic arrangement between business people and Fianna Fáil. Politicians and Ministers would be very quick to say that we cannot taint them with the sins of these people, but I think they are bound intrinsically into much of what happened, especially in view of the fact that Fianna Fáil have been in power for so long.\n\nPeople have become cynical and have a lack of confidence in the Government. They are beginning to ask questions. Indeed, recent opinion polls reflect the questioning nature of people who are unhappy with the performance of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. What will happen? We will know at 4 p.m. today what will happen.\n\nI wish to refer to some of the problems facing this country at present. During the 1987 elections Fianna Fáil put up giant hoardings with pictures of passports which said that if people supported Fine Gael and Labour this is what they would get. We never tacitly supported emigration in the same way as this Government have. If one wants evidence of this one has only to remember the Fianna Fáil Senator who almost condoned emigration and who, encouraged by fellow Members of this House, hitched a ride on a Russian jet in order to visit the United States. That is symptomatic of the attitude of the Government to the unemployment crisis. What imaginative  proposals did the Government put forward during the summer months to convince people that they intend to do something positive about this problem? I can assure the House that they have done very little in this respect.\n\nOne could elaborate on the crisis in agriculture and the concern among farmers that their position is not being protected by the Government in the Common Agricultural Policy and GATT negotiations. We all know about the health problems in our constituencies. People visit us who have all kinds of problems. We still talk about the two-tier health system which has evolved. People believe that the Government are not trying to combat these problems. Instead of dealing with the serious business of running the country, over the past few days we have been debating the issues which arose during the summer months. How, therefore, can Members of this House vote confidence in the Government?","I had the good fortune by chance this morning to hear Nell McCafferty speaking about this debate on radio. In the course of her remarks, which, as ever, were both entertaining and astringent, she asked whether, if I  intended to speak in the debate, I would spend my time defending the record of my Governments against attacks from the other side of the House or address the subject of morality and politics. I will not spend much time on the first issue. A procession of Fianna Fáil Ministers and backbenchers have sought to detract attention from the real issue before us in this debate by trotting out their favourite myths about the Governments I led, myths that are half truths at best, some of them, however, departing so far from any semblance of the truth as to deserve an epithet that I am not permitted to employ by you, Sir, in this House.\n\nThe simple and incontrovertible facts are that when I came into Government in June 1981 I found that the volume of public spending had been increased by almost half in the previous four years, the public pay bill had arisen by 35 per cent in the single year 1980, inflation was in excess of 20 per cent, the external trade deficit was at the horrifying level of 16.5 per cent of GNP and the Exchequer borrowing level facing us for the year ahead, had we not tackled it instantly and vigorously, would have amounted to 21.5 per cent of GNP.\n\nWhen I left office less than six years later, and despite the appalling damage done in the interval by the extravagant and dishonest MacSharry budget of March 1982, the growth in the volume of public spending had been reduced to 0.5 per cent, the public pay increase was down to 5.5 per cent, inflation was down to 3.9 per cent, there was a surplus of 4.5 per cent in our external trade and the Exchequer borrowing level that Fine Gael presented to the country in the 1987 election had been halved from 21.5 per cent in 1981 to 10.75 per cent. That was the budget which Fianna Fáil adopted almost unchanged.\n\nMoreover the conditions for an expansion of our economy had been so well established that before Fianna Fáil were able to take any action of their own which, in fairness, they did effectively by cutting spending in the 1988 budget, the economy was growing at a rate that yielded an  increase of 4.8 per cent in 1987. That is quite enough economics.\n\nI will turn now to the question of morality and politics. The key issue we have to face is the kind of relationship that should exist between politics and business and whether the relationship that has actually prevailed in the last couple of years has conformed to the needs of a healthy, democratic society in Ireland.\n\nBecause centralised planning does not work, because the market system is essential for economic success and therefore for social progress, and because only a certain range of activities can appropriately or successfully be undertaken by the State itself - and in saying that I do not for one moment diminish the importance and value of the public enterprise activities in question - the modern world has to face the issue of the role of politics in what is necessarily a largely capitalist economic system. Some might like matters to be otherwise, but the reality, which I, like many others who would prefer a more egalitarian society, have had to face, is that in this matter we have no choice.\n\nMoreover, given the fact that we are an intergral part of an intensely competitive world, we in Ireland have no choice but to accept and fall broadly in line with neighbouring countries in certain key respects, for example, in relation to tax rates. While I regard as totally unsatisfactory our current marginal tax rate of 56 per cent for a worker at or under the aveage industrial wage - and I deplore the priority given by both parties in the present Government to lowering tax rates for the benefit of their better off supporters instead of raising tax bands to relieve PAYE workers of this excessive tax rate - I see nothing whatever wrong with a top tax rate of 65 per cent for really wealthy people. But when the top rate in neighbouring Britain falls to 40 per cent, we in Ireland have no choice, if we are to retain entrepreneurs and enterprise in this country, but to go a long way towards the British figure, however much we may wish it could be otherwise. That is why the Labour Party have now realistically  accepted a top tax rate of 50 per cent in Ireland.\n\nWe cannot afford to ignore this question of incentives. While it is true that in an emergency a whole nation can be got to work together in a common cause without seeking individual reward, and while it is also true that there are still many people - though fewer, I fear, than in the past - who are happy to work for their country in the Civil Service or in running State enterprises without seeking any personal gain beyond their salaries, the fact is that a very large number of people who have entrepreneurial capacity want to see a relationship of some kind between the fruits of their efforts and the financial reward they receive - whether by way of bonuses, shares or otherwise.\n\nThey seek this not just for themselves but because they have the ambition to leave to their children by way of inheritance a claim on current resources in future years. It is very difficult to provide a moral justification for transmuting a current claim on 1991 resources by X arising from his work in this year into a claim by X's son or daughter on resources produced in, say, 2010. Indeed, so far in my life I have yet to find anyone who has been able to explain the moral basis of such a postponed claim on resources. We may, however, also doubt the real benefit to members of a future generation of being provided with a substantial claim on current resources in their lifetime because of a parent's past achievement, for such inheritance, as we call it, can, if substantial, sometimes be a disincentive to effort and even a source of moral deterioration among those who acquire it.\n\nBut the fact remains that the capitalist system, including most specifically this power to transfer a claim on resources to a future generation by way of inheritance, works by providing what is clearly a strong incentive to entrepreneurs to achieve a continual growth in total resources, and such a growth in resources provides the only solid and secure means of improving, through transfers effected by politicians, improved social conditions  for the population as a whole. Those who will not face that fact are living in cloud cuckoo land.\n\nThose who accept and support for practical reasons this economic system have an absolute duty to ensure that the accumulation of resources in fewer and fewer hands, to which it tends to lead, is brought and kept under control. That means that those in charge of political affairs must be willing and able to distance themselves from the system sufficiently to carry out their duty of securing a redistribution of resources and a structuring of society that will secure equality of opportunity to the maximum extent possible within what is an inherently morally problematic, capitalist structure.\n\nIf politicians get too close to the enterprise sector and become too emotionally or financially involved with it, they will not be able to perform this, their morally compelling duty to society. Let us never forget that the achievement of social justice is the only true objective of politics. The advancement of economic growth is and can only be a means towards that end and not an end in itself, as it has been elevated not merely here but in other countries like Britain in the past decade.\n\nThe relationship between politics and business is thus bound to be an uneasy one. On the one hand, if politicians are too unfamiliar with business and its legitimate needs they may perhaps unintentionally undermine the climate necessary for genuine enterprise. They may, indeed, have to pay some attention to balancing a certain inherent insensitivity to the world of enterprise on the part of the civil servants who advise them - who themselves are and should remain very properly distanced from this world of enterprise - but the opposite danger is the commoner one, the danger that politicians may not keep themselves sufficiently distanced from business. Where that happens great damage can be done both to politics and to business.\n\nIt is clear to almost everyone that this precisely has happened in this country in the past few years. The MRBI poll published a few days ago demonstrates  in the most emphatic way public sentiment on this point. Curiously this aspect of the poll has attracted little attention. It shows that 74 per cent of those asked if there had been a drop in standards in Irish politics replied in the affirmative and when those who gave this answer were further asked to what extent they thought the leadership of the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and his Government had been responsible for a drop in standards, no fewer than 89 per cent replied that in varying degrees they were so responsible; and the replies to a similar question about a drop in business standards yielded an almost identical answer about the responsibility of this Government and their leader.\n\nA Taoiseach and a Government who are thus judged by two-thirds of our people to have been responsible, either wholly or in some measure, for a decline in standards in both politics and business should be replaced to give Members an opportunity to purge themselves of whatever has led them to this position.\n\nThese events have raised other issues. Given the appalling damage done to the public view of politicians' relationships with business, it is clear to me that the system under which political parties at present finance general elections in particular by means of contributions raised from private individuals and from business is no longer appropriate. In the past this arrangement has stood the country in good stead. Certainly so far as my party are concerned, under my predecessor - who warned me always to be on the qui vive for and to return instantly any contribution that might seem to have any kind of strings attached - and under myself and my two successors, the public interest has been protected against any influence being exercised over our decisions on issues that might affect such contributors. But the issue is no longer whether justice is being done to the public interest but whether is it being seen to be done.\n\nIt is now clear that to restore public confidence in politicians and politics, Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas must in future, like members of local  authorities, declare their interest and that members of Governments - and, in the light of recent events, unhappily, perhaps, also their spouses and children - be required to furnish details of their assets, liabilities and income when in office and for some years thereafter to, I would suggest and our party suggested last November, an ethics commission comprising such figures as the Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General and a High Court Judge. There should be a provision that this commission would have a duty to investigate any allegations of non-disclosure or incomplete disclosure and when a Minister is found to have failed in his or her duty of disclosure, to publicise the result of such inquiry with a penalty of loss of office for any intentional or conscious breach of this obligation.\n\nAs someone who has served in the office of Taoiseach, I want formally to ask the Minister for Finance, who will be concluding this debate, whether this Government are prepared forthwith to implement such a structure and to provide finance from public sources for political parties in order to eliminate the need for them to seek and to accept support from private sources. I expect him to respond unequivocally to these questions.","It has just added to the whole sad melée that is still going on throughout this House and whose outcome is still uncertain.\n\nI do not intend to muck rake. Indeed, I had a rare experience today to do with two people in my constituency to whom I spoke about an article that is being done about the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I think I surprised them by describing him as an honest, co-operative, old-fashioned, honourable gentleman. I would say the same of my other constituency colleague, Deputy De Rossa, whose party has come in for extraordinary attack in this debate. It is only by the way I say that, but I have shared a constituency with Deputy De Rossa for the 12 years I have been in politics and I must say, in the context of the accusations, there is no doubt about his origins, there is no doubt about his period in prison, there is no doubt about where he started from as there is no doubt about  where Fianna Fáil and our party started from. Certainly in my experience Deputy De Rossa has been consistent and honourable in his opposition to provisional violence on the ground.\n\nAt public meetings where we have seen the Provisionals, Sinn Féin and other groups trying to get a hold on our community, he has fought it on every level. As far as I am concerned, if ever asked, I take this opportunity to say that because the allegations being made seem to be part of the smokescreen from the other side throwing as much dirt around as they can. It is seen for what it is, a smokescreen. They have tried to cast dirt in every direction.\n\nThis is a two sided debate. The issues are confidence in the Government, in their performance, and the question of the scandals. I intend to concentrate most of my contribution on the scandals, what they have meant to this country and what we need to do in relation to them. The issue of confidence has been dealt with substantially by our party leader and the substance of his contribution I would endorse 100 per cent.\n\nDeputy Cowen said that the performance of all Fianna Fáil Governments was far superior to any other. The performance of Fianna Fáil Governments, the ones I have watched, have left a number of questions and can be criticised on many fronts. Remember the GUBU period? I would also point out the problem we inherited in 1983 when inflation was over 20 per cent and I was briefly in the Department of Social Welfare. In that year we had to increase social welfare payments by 25 per cent so that people could have a 2 to 3 per cent increase in real terms because inflation was rampant. Interest rates were at an all time high. At the end of our period in Government they were both down to the levels they are currently at. The huge juggernaut of increasing debt and increasing expenditure had been halted  and the stage was set for further improvements with the continuation of the policies we had established. A great deal of work was done. More would have been done, too, had we had a more obliging Coalition partner, and Fianna Fáil know the problem with that. There was difficulty there but a great deal was achieved.\n\nThe Taoiseach's speech yesterday was an extraordinary analysis of the situation.\n\nI am sure it was honest. It may have been honest. I really cannot analyse the Taoiseach's mind. I never could, I cannot now. The Taoiseach's speech yesterday was extraordinary in the extent to which it was out of touch. He effectively said there was no problem and that this was all due to Deputy John Bruton, in particular, stirring up things. We all know that that simply is not the case. Anyone who moves outside the four walls of this House and circulates in society knows there is a remarkable level of shock and disillusionment among the public in reports to our semi-State sector and our politicians. The public have been steadily losing confidence in politicians over the past two decades but this disillusionment has spread much wider and people have now lost faith in public institutions. These issues have still not been resolved. I should say at this point that I would like to share my time with my colleague. Deputy Durkan.\n\nThe Taoiseach's response to restoring public confidence is to simply say that this lack of confidence is not warranted, there is no crisis and the Opposition are simply playing games. The Taoiseach is seriously out of touch with reality and someone should have a chat with him. He is out of touch on his  island, his palace and country estate with what people are saying.\n\nFine Gael, the Labour Party and The Workers' Party did not invent the events of the past few weeks. I remember when these issues first arose. They started on 1 September when the Sunday newspapers reported that Chris Comerford was taking a legal action to recover millions of pounds which he believed were his arising out of various deals in which he was involved during the period he was chief of a semi-State company. In one fell swoop that revelation said 100 things to me and the average Irish person, for example, that semi-State companies were not what we thought they were, semi-State company employees - \n\nAn Leas-Cheann Comhairle Jim Tunney \n\nMiss Flaherty: That is the extent of my reference to it. That revelation simply indicated to me that semi-State companies and semi-State company employees were not what we had generally thought and expected them to be.\n\nIt also made me wonder if I was something of a fool trying to live on a Dáil salary of £27,000 which, in Irish terms, is quite generous but which, when compared to the figures which were mentioned and not contested - I accept that certain legal elements have to be decided - seems like peanuts. Within a week of that revelation we had the revelation in relation to Telecom Éireann. To somebody of my background - a politician for 12 years and before that a school teacher who had a modest north side upbringing these revelations  disclosed unheard of possibilities in the creation of companies, avoidance of tax, shelf companies and foreign bank accounts. The week those revelations were made housekeeping work was being carried out in this House - workmen were laying carpets after cleaning them and painting the walls. I felt ashamed to walk by these people who probably earn £120 to £200 per week. The people who are being asked to live on these amounts and who have to support families need to have these issues aired and resolved. I accept that these issues can never be resolved totally, we will never live in a perfect society. I am not saying all the good is on this side and all the wrong is on the other side.\n\nHowever, we must all acknowledge that there is a very serious problem. By pretending that there is not a serious problem, the Government are doing a disservice to themselves, a serious disservice to society and failing to act as proper public representatives. The public are appalled and shocked at these revelations. They still do not fully understand them and they cannot see them being taken on hand and resolved.\n\nFollowing those revelations there were further allegations in relation to Bord Gáis Éireann, Irish Helicopters and Carysfort College. Very little has been done to put these issues right. There is an interesting definition in The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought of the word \"elite\". I think some of our problems stem from something associated with this concept. It states that the word \"elite\" is a \"collective noun for those who occupy a position (or positions) of superiority within a society or group by virtue of qualities - \n\nIt refers to the elite as distinguished from the non-elite groups within a social order and the divisions within the elite as between a governing elite and non-governing elite. It also states that one of the interesting things about an elite is their relationship to the ruling classes. I believe an elite group have grown up in our society. One of the good things to have come from this is an elitism based only on the capacity to make money. We tolerated its growing arrogance and exclusiveness because we thought (1) that there were no questions about its legality and (2) it would be of benefit to all our society. Indeed, we recruited - I say \"we\" because we accept some of the responsibility - some of these captains of industry because we thought, as we all did in relation to the Taoiseach, that a man who could make money for himself could make money for the country. One of the lessons we have learned from these revelations is that the ethics of private business and the ethics of public life are very different and that it is at great risk to many things that we merge the two. I should like to welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Harney, to the House. Is this a sign of agreement, white smoke?\n\nThese issues will be of great importance for whatever Government are in power in the weeks ahead. If we get the changes we are looking for, hopefully these issues will be addressed more urgently. We must seriously consider returning to our traditional view of the public service. We must also consider the appropriateness of the personnel appointed and the ethics, standards and attitudes to which we are giving lip service.\n\n As I said there has been a growth of arrogant, ostentatious wealth and exclusivity. The Taoiseach spoke of guilt by association. I do not wish to be personal, but the Taoiseach's lifestyle - his palace, island, helicopter - \n\nThere is yachting in Ringsend so I will allow him reasonable liberty. Serious questions need to be answered. Because there is no requirement for a register of interests for public servants or the source of the wealth of somebody who has been in public life for a number of decades many questions now need to be answered. Even the dogs in the street are saying that these scandals go to the top. This is the public perception and people need to be reassured if we want to restore their confidence in public life.\n\nI want to refer to another point which niggles me - the development of the K Club, whose affiliation fees are kept as high as is possible so that the club can be more exclusive. This is something new in Irish society. We always had wealth, but we had people who knew how to carry it and did not parade it, and who did not have to find new ways of making themselves more distinguished, different and separate. I think some good could come out of this if we called a halt to all these excesses and said that as public representatives we have different standards which must be maintained. Much of what Deputy G. FitzGerald said was extremely important, that business and politics can get too close, resulting in serious damage to both.\n\nThe ethos of private business carried into public life does not mix easily and it is an experiment we should seriously question on all sides of this House. All of us - left, right and centre - were involved in developing too close a relationship with the best of motives in mind. That is nothing new in the world.  A very serious credibility gap exists. I gather that that term was first used in the United States in the period of President Johnson where both during his campaign and later on there was growing doubt and cynicism. An aide said the credibility gap was getting so wide that they could not believe their own leaks. The most serious problem, they said, was that there was widespread doubt in the public mind about their major leaders and institutions. Regrettably, without pointing the finger, that is where we are now and what is required is that confidence should be restored. It is important that we as politicians state some idealism because what is being hit most in Irish society is any confidence in ideals or in idealistic aspirations in public life.\n\nIn 1807 Thomas Jefferson said that when a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself as a public property. It is clear that those who took on public trust recently have not operated in that fashion. A man who has the confidence of the public, has a public trust not to abuse that confidence for any ends, let alone his own.\n\nIt is important that if we are to restore public confidence there should be action. The action should include rigorous pursuit of the matters under investigation, reform of the Companies Act, which is already seen to be inadequate; establishment of a code of conduct for all members of Government, Members of this House and for workers in semi-State bodies who are senior employees and board members; committee structures of the House should be established to supervise and monitor adequately every area - we are a wasted resource in that way - and the issue of funding political parties should be considered. I try to avoid demagoguery here or the hitting at soft targets. The final approval of the people is given not to demagogues and, as was said by another American leader, slavishly pandering to their selfishness, merchanising for the clamour of the hour but to statesmen administering to their  welfare, representing their deep silent abiding convictions. What the Irish people wish is some restoration of confidence because none of us is happy living in a society that we believe to be crooked and corrupt. Action is needed; I believe a change in Government is needed to achieve that.","This motion has been put down by the Government to provide an opportunity for the Opposition to substantiate in this House, and before the community as a whole, the series of allegations and innuendoes about members of this Government that they have been orchestrating for the last few weeks. The fact is, of course, that the Opposition cannot justify the rash and reckless claims they have been making. The longer this debate goes on, the more puerile and asinine are their tactics made to appear and the more feeble and flimsy do their claims become. The contribution of the Leader of the main Opposition party was pathetic and the other Opposition contributions have involved no more than slavishly putting on the record some of the revelations and allegations already well reported on in the media over the past number of weeks.\n\nBut then on reflection, why should we expect any better from the Fine Gael and Labour parties? Are these not the same people who failed so miserably to deal with the problems of this country when they had their chance in Government? Are they not the same people who ran  the finances of this State into the biggest mess of all time and then ran away themselves, leaving it to us to pick up the pieces? In short, are they not the very last people who should come in here to lecture us about conduct in Government, or responsibility in Government, or the need for effective management of the nation's affairs?\n\nThe Government's record of solid achievement in fiscal and economic management is in sharp contrast to that of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties who now have an instant solution for every problem but could find none in Government, in spite of the interminable Government meetings that their memoirs are now telling us about.\n\nThe remarkable feature of the last four and a half years is the fact that severe cutbacks and strict controls over public expenditure have been accompanied by the development of new policies and programmes in many areas. Prudent use of the available resources and effective management have seen to this. Here are some examples from my own area of responsibility.\n\nIn housing we have launched the Plan for Social Housing, the most comprehensive response to social housing needs ever presented by a Government in this country and it is working. The plan has the right mix of measures to deal effectively with the needs of those seeking social housing. Housing has always been a top priority with Fianna Fáil but we are not locked into old style and outmoded thinking that takes no notice of changes in population, family make-up, and other demographic matters. If the Opposition have nothing to offer but the same old tired and failed methods of dealing with housing, well Fianna Fáil have, it is in our plan and it will succeed. The housing plan sought by Deputy Quinn yesterday will be published in the near future.\n\nOn roads, State expenditure on maintenance and improvement has been increased from £166 million in 1986 to nearly £240 million in 1991. Discretionary grants for county and regional  roads have been increased from £23 million in 1986 to £68 million in 1991 bringing the three year total to £182.4 million.\n\nOur concern for the environment is shown in the comprehensive Environment Action Programme - the first by any Irish Government - published in January 1990 and being implemented on schedule. Under Fianna Fáil, the environment is no longer seen as a peripheral issue or even as a burden or constraint. The environment and its protection is a major part of the Government's programme. We take the balanced approach to enable economic and social development to take place while, at the same time, ensuring that such development does not have an unacceptable impact on the environment.\n\nIn sanitary services, a major programme of investment over the present decade is going ahead, with a price-tag of nearly £1 billion.\n\nWe fulfilled our commitment to enact major local government reform legislation in time for the June local elections and and we are committed to taking further steps in the years ahead.\n\nWe have actively promoted and developed the urban renewal programme and have expanded the scheme substantially into provincial centres and additional areas in the five county boroughs. Our urban renewal programme has been an outstanding success, removing dereliction from our cities and towns, creating jobs and investment opportunities. The success is there for all to see. It is permanent and has been acclaimed by all sections of the community and especially by our visitors and tourists.\n\nMy Department's legislative programme is an impressive one. The Roads Bill, the Environmental Protection Agency Bill and the Electoral Bill are already on the Order Paper, and drafting of other very important Bills on planning and housing, to mention only two, is nearing finality. This shows just how determined we are to press ahead with reforms, and the great regret is that consideration of these very important matters is held up by Opposition tactics of posturing and simple headline seeking.\n\n All of this is just the beginning. We need time to build on our achievements and to break out into a situation in which our country can enter a new phase of self-sustaining growth. We cannot afford to be diverted by recent difficulties in the semi-State sector or elsewhere, or by the antics of the Opposition.\n\nMy colleagues who have general responsibility for the semi-State bodies in question have already explained clearly the resolute action being taken to deal with the specific matters at issue. Their statements demonstrate that the Government response has been swift and effective and the House can be confident that, when the various inquiries are completed, the Government will take whatever further action is called for.\n\nIt is important, however, to recognise the need for a measured, responsible and considered response. We must not overreact and deprive the semi-State bodies of the very freedom which has been crucial for their success. Neither do we want to create an atmosphere where people of real calibre will not wish to give their services to these bodies as directors.\n\nLet me come now to the case of the Custom House Docks Development Authority whose mandate is to secure the redevelopment of the Custom House Docks area. It goes without saying that the chairman and ordinary members of the Authority must be persons of the highest calibre, people of experience and with particular and relevant expertise. My predecessor, John Boland, appreciated this when he appointed the first members. They included a prominent hotelier, a partner in a financial services practice, a consulting engineer and an estate agent. I am not in any way critical of these appointments but I want to draw attention to the fact that the people involved had, quite legitimately, a variety of business and other interests. My predecessor obviously found it impossible to avoid this, if people with relevant experience and expertise were to be appointed.\n\nIt is inevitable, of course, in such circumstances that conflicts of interest can arise. When this happens, it is incumbent on the person involved to take no part  in the relevant decision nor to seek to influence it. This is the normal code of ethics, well understood, and not really needing to be spelt out. Nevertheless, to copperfasten matters, my Department wrote to the docks authority in March 1987 stressing that they should regulate their affairs in accordance with the principles and standards appropriate to a public body accountable for the expenditure of public funds; that they should be able to demonstrate, either generally or in any particular case, that appropriate standards and procedures are being applied; and that conflict of interest does not arise on the part of any member or employee in the discharge of the business of the Authority.\n\nI appointed Mr. Séamus Páircéir as chairman of the Authority with effect from 1 July 1990. Mr. Páircéir had been chairman of the Revenue Commissioners from 1983 until his retirement in 1987. He had experience of administration and management at the highest levels in a complex area, and had an intimate knowledge of taxation practice and taxation law. I therefore regarded him as a person eminently suitable to chair the Authority. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Páircéir had served as consultant tax adviser to the Authority and had been appointed by the Government to a representative group who were set up to promote interest internationally in the Financial Services Centre.\n\nBefore his appointment as chairman of the Authority, Mr. Páircéir informed me, through the appropriate Assistant Secretary in my Department, of his chairmanship of UPH. In his earlier role as consultant, he had similarly informed the former chairman and relevant executives of the Authority of his position with UPH. Having regard to Mr. Páircéir's reputation, track record, experience and expertise, I took the view that his involvement in this company should not disqualify him from serving as chairman of the Authority. I am happy to say that I stand over that decision. It was made on the understanding that the usual obligations with regard to disclosure of  interests would apply, where these interests were material, and that Mr. Páircéir would, in line with accepted practice, take no part in, nor seek to influence, any decision of the Authority which might have a bearing on any interest of his.\n\nThe Custom House Docks project is perhaps the single most important construction project to have been undertaken in Ireland this century. It goes without saying that a development as important as this must be run on proper lines and that no one involved in it is seen to be associated, however remotely, with unresolved controversy even in other unconnected areas. In his radio interview on 22 September, the Taoiseach suggested that Mr. Páircéir should temporarily stand aside from participation in the Authority while investigations were being carried out into the Telecom site controversy. That suggestion was made without any implication whatsoever that Mr. Páircéir was involved in anything improper - indeed, the Taoiseach was at pains to stress that Mr. Páircéir was \"an impeccable man with a good, fine record in the public service.\" It was important, nevertheless, to ensure that the work of the Custom House Docks Development Authority was not adversely affected by controversy focused on particular individuals. That is why Mr. Páircéir was asked temporarily to stand aside; he was not asked to resign. That was his own decision and it was with regret that I accepted it.\n\nThe whole issue is now closed as far as I am concerned. Tremendous results have already been achieved at the Custom House Docks and a simple viewing of the extent and quality of the development so far will confirm that. Investment is being attracted to Dublin, jobs are being created, training schemes are being run for local people, a once derelict site is being transformed. The docks project can only be built on confidence and the Government are playing their part in generating that confidence. But the Opposition parties have equal responsibility for ensuring that nothing is done to erode confidence. Petty small  minded muck-raking is the last thing we need - the same kind of muck-raking that Opposition Deputies have indulged in by reviving baseless allegations about the Feltrim/Kinsealy sewerage scheme.\n\nOver two years ago, in response to a Dáil question from Deputy Owen, I gave a full and detailed account of all the considerations involved in my approval to this scheme - Official Report, Volume 391, Columns 282 to 284. Deputy Owen and her colleagues had many months in which to follow up on this reply, to seek clarification of it, or indeed to challenge it. I have seen no evidence that they did this in 1989; or that they did it in 1990; or that they did it during the first eight months of 1991. They only decided to challenge my explanation - over two years after it had been given - because the Fine Gael leadership cynically decided to escalate the atmosphere of controversy which had arisen over other unrelated issues.\n\nApart from being blatantly opportunistic, the allegations by Deputy Owen and others are quite without foundation. The history of the Baskin cottages and the Feltrim/Kinsealy sewerage schemes will bear this out.\n\nDublin County Council originally conceived a proposal to provide sewerage facilities for Baskin cottages in late 1973. This scheme was actually completed in the late seventies and was financed from the council's own resources. Sewage treatment was provided by a mechanical so-called \"package\" plant, and the effluent was discharged directly into the nearby Sluice river. In view of allegations now being made, it is important to note that the main pipes leading in to this treatment plant were of 225 mm diameter.\n\nSmall treatment plants of this kind are recognised as a low cost and reasonably serviceable method of providing sanitary facilities in rural situations. They do not, however, represent an optimum solution and it makes good engineering sense, where possible, to integrate them with larger and more serviceable treatment  facilities, which also offer operational savings.\n\nFrom 1979, Dublin Council began the planning of a much wider sewerage scheme generally covering an area to the north and east of Baskin cottages. Originally, this scheme was known as the Feltrim/Kinsealy cottage scheme, and it was designed to serve some 50 houses. The scope of the scheme was revised by Dublin County Council in 1981 to cover some 78 houses. It was revised again in 1985 to cover 90 houses, local farm requirements, Kinsealy national school and the nearby Agricultural Institute. At this stage, the scheme had an estimated cost of over £1 million and it was also intended by the county council to cater for infill development estimated at 250 houses. I mention these details to underline that the scheme was added to over time and that it covered rural settlements scattered over a fairly wide area.\n\nThe Feltrim/Kinsealy sewerage scheme, as it had then become known, was still awaiting approval in 1987. In that year, the basis of capital financing for sanitary services schemes was changed from loans, partially subsidised, to full State grants. While financial and technical supervision by my Department of sanitary services schemes has always been a feature, the Department have had to develop a more active and hands-on management of the programme following these changes.\n\nAs I have fully explained in my 1989 statement to the Dáil, my Department wrote to Dublin County Council in July 1987 as part of their assessment of the Feltrim/Kinsealy proposals. The county council were asked to have the proposals re-examined with a view to having the scheme extended to provide for the disposal of sewage from the Baskin Cottages and, possibly, other existing houses in the area. This request was based on a number of objective considerations: capacity was then available in the Malahide treatment works to which the  Feltrim/Kinsealy scheme was to be connected; the proposed new sewer would pass very close to the outfall from the Baskin Cottages scheme; the Sluice river, the stream to which the Baskin Cottages effluent was discharged, was reported, as far back as 1974, to have very small dilutions; the discharge to the Sluice river, at times of minimum flows, would be just tolerable; and it was the general practice of the county council, where possible, to connect to a main sewer and thereby eliminate small treatment works, communal septic tanks, etc., when the opportunity arises.\n\nIn relation to this last point, it is relevant to note the formal statement of drainage objectives set out in Dublin County Council's 1983 Development Plan. These objectives were as follows:\n\nto provide or improve main drainage facilities for existing settlements where such is absent or deficient; to complete the programme of drainage for isolated clusters of council cottages...\n\nThe suggestion is now being put that the 1989 request on my Department's part represented a direction to Dublin County Council to include the Baskin Cottages in the scheme, but it was nothing of the sort. Dublin County Council were free to consider the request at technical, administrative level and political level and to  react as they thought fit. Having considered the question of extending the scheme at both levels, the county council decided to include in their scheme an extension to the Baskin Cottages at a cost of an additional £78,000.\n\nThe allegations now being made fall into two parts: that it is unprecedented for the Department to take an initiative regarding the design of a sanitary services scheme and that in this case the initiative was designed improperly to secure major benefit in terms of development capacity to the lands over which the new sewer pipe passed. Both allegations are absurd and wholly at odds with the facts.\n\n It has never been unusual for the Department to suggest improvements, whether by way of addition, modification or deletion, to local authority proposals for water and sewerage schemes. One could cite numerous examples of interventions of this kind - the request to most major coastal local authorities to prepare proposals for secondary treatment and the request to Cavan County Council to develop tertiary treatment to help clear up Lough Sheelin are well known examples. At the level of smaller schemes, one can instance the Department's initiative further north in County Dublin to review the separate Blackhills-Barnageeragh and Darcystown schemes with a view to amalgamation and economies of scale. This practice applies also to water supply schemes: smaller community based schemes are frequently encouraged to connect to large regional schemes where supplies are guaranteed in terms of quantity and quality.\n\nThe second element of the allegations is that the extension to Baskin Cottages could somehow confer major development potential on certain lands. This allegation is totally unsustainable. First, the overall Feltrim-Kinsealy sewerage scheme was never designed by Dublin County Council to provide major development capacity. The council's sanitary services department stated from the outset that the pumps in this scheme have been designed to cater for the existing houses, plus a small amount of infill. There is no way, therefore, in which the small extension to take in the effluent from Baskin Cottages can confer a major development capacity which the overall scheme was never designed to embody.\n\nIt has recently been argued that the 225 mm pipes used in the extension of themselves confer major development capacity, but this is not so. Apart from the fact that these pipe sizes merely match those already installed during the seventies to serve the Baskin scheme, one cannot gauge capacity from pipe sizes alone. Pump and rising main capacities, gradient and, above all, the limited capacity of Malahide treatment works,  all fundamentally limit the capacity of the overall Feltrim-Kinsealy scheme.\n\nFinally, there are legal reasons deriving largely from the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1990, which I initiated, why land cannot be assumed to have development potential merely because of the physical proximity of sewerage services. The 1990 Act deliberately removed the right of connection to a nearby public sewer, and it provided that non-development zoning should normally be in itself a non-compensatable reason for refusal of planning permission. The lands crossed by the Baskin sewer are zoned for agriculture and there is no proposal to change that.\n\nDeputy Nora Owen has continued her snooping around the Kinsealy area, ignoring the fact that everything has been done above board and in accordance with proper technical and administrative standards. She was a persistent advocate of the Feltrim-Kinsealy scheme since 1980.\n\nDeputy Owen was always a persistent advocate of the scheme, pressing to have it approved, even badgering her Fine Gael former Minister friend, John Boland, to help out, but he could not do so for financial reasons. Now she wants to deny the benefits of the  scheme to the community she claims to represent.\n\nDeputy Owen's attitude shows scant regard for environmental protection or pollution control. Contrast that to the attitude of the Taoiseach who, through personal generosity and concern for the needs of his neighbours, and at no cost to the public, allowed his property to be used for the provision of sanitary services to the Baskin Cottages. Deputy Owen should desist. Her attitude is unworthy and not in keeping with the fine traditions of public representation in the north Dublin area. The conspiracy theory which has been concocted around this case is simply absurd. In no way does it square with the detailed facts which I disclosed to the Dáil in 1989 and have again set out here today, to do the job and to provide good government. They have demonstrated their willingness, more so their demand, that our State-sponsored bodies operate with greater transparency and appropriate controls. The Government have demonstrated that they have nothing, and nobody, to hide. They simply want to get on with the job they were elected to do, and that we are determined to do.","If we examine the Taoiseach's speech we find that it falls in to three sections, first, a review of the  economy, second, a report on the European Community and the third deals with the many scandals which have beset the Government. What do we find on the environment? Only six words: \"Our environment policies are working well\". What policies I could ask. The scandalous delay in setting up the Environmental Protection Agency which was promised nearly two years ago is a terrible indictment both of the Government and the way business is dealt with in the House. This Bill is a vital component in our fight against pollution. There was not one word about Sellafield, surely the most dangerous threat overhanging the country. The Taoiseach must realise that in the event of a major leak at Sellafield, which is by no means impossible, it would require the evacuation of the entire country. To where? Perhaps to the island of Atlantis, if it can be found.\n\nI now come to another major problem - the continuing violence in Northern Ireland. There was not one single word about that matter in his speech nor is there any mention of any clear vision of the Ireland the Taoiseach sees in the future. I suspect he does not have any vision. During the past few years - and this applies to all the political parties in the House - the entire emphasis has been on the attainment of narrow economic achievements, the worship of GNP; it has not always been so. I suggest that there are other considerations, such as quality of life, which cannot be defined in purely monetary terms.\n\nIf we look at the economy we find that the Government have made no progress in solving the unemployment problem, which now stands at over 260,000 unemployed, the highest on record and much higher than when they took office in 1989. It is fair to say that none of the Opposition parties have any viable propositions to put forward either. I suggest that the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, are the only party who have a practical and viable solution to the unemployment problem. The main plank in this programme would be a solemn commitment by the Government to provide paid work  for all who require it. This can be achieved by sharing the available work, by reduced working hours, job sharing, career breaks and early retirement. Such a system would be greatly facilitated by the simultaneous introduction of a guaranteed basic income for all our citizens in substitution for existing social welfare and pension payments. I challenge the Government, or indeed the Opposition parties, to say where the 260,000 jobs are going to come from.\n\nIt is absolute nonsense for the Government parties and Fine Gael to state that if we get the taxation system and the business environment right the jobs will follow. This is arrant nonsense. It is equally facile for the parties of the Left to talk about more State interference and State boards to create jobs. This is manifestly untrue. This is not to say that the present tax system is not in need of reform to create more jobs. Certainly radical tax reform, while it would not solve the unemployment crisis totally, would go some way towards this objective.\n\nThe Green Party propose a land tax and a resource tax mostly on non-renewable energy in substitution for income tax, PRSI and most indirect taxes. Such a change in the tax system would undoubtedly create a vast number of extra jobs. This would be real tax reform, not the miserable half measures which the Progressive Democrats pretentiously call tax reform. Their supposed radical proposals only tinker with the system which clearly does not work.\n\nI would like to refer briefly to our party's proposal for an energy tax on fossil fuels. This is a key proposal in our economic policy but it has ramifications far beyond economics. An energy tax at a sufficiently high rate would solve a number of problems simultaneously. By substantially increasing energy costs to industry it would inhibit over-mechanisation and encourage job creation. By increasing transport costs it would  encourage local production for local needs. It would also encourage the immediate development of our renewable energy resources. A major shift from non-renewable to renewable energy would improve the environment immensely by reducing acid rain and in addition halting the build-up of greenhouse gases. It would also stretch the life of our fossil fuel reserves by decades, or perhaps centuries. It is incredible that, when independent experts foretell the virtual exhaustion of our fossil fuel resources within the lifetime of many of us here, virtually no thought has been given to this major problem by successive Governments. At present there is before the EC Commission a proposal to impose an energy tax on fossil fuels. This is another example of the Green Party being ahead of their time.\n\nTo turn to Sellafield I must once again put on record my complete dissatisfaction with the performance of the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, who has failed to initiate legal action against Britain to shut down Sellafield. His continued failure to do so in the face of considerable evidence produced by Greenpeace and other environmental organisations that a case before the International Court of Justice or the European Court would stand a reasonable chance of success, is quite incredible. I call on the Minister to state whether it is his decision or a Cabinet decision, and if it is a Cabinet decision, if he agrees with it. I suspect there is a hidden agenda here. I suspect the Government are afraid to move lest they interfere with the trading relations with the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister or the Taoiseach to categorically state that this is not a factor; or was there a secret deal done by the FitzGerald Administration in return for setting up the Anglo-Irish Conference? This is also a credible scenario.\n\nI call on Fine Gael and the Labour Party to comment on this. The Northern Ireland problem must  never take precedence over Sellafield. Of course, it is possible that the Progressive Democrats are still somewhat enamoured of nuclear power. It should not be forgotten that the previous speaker, the Leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy O'Malley, was the instigator of the proposed Carnsore Point nuclear plant.\n\nLet me now turn to deal with the national toxic waste incinerator. The Government are committed to providing this facility but are having considerable difficulty in finding a community willing to accept this lethal method of disposal. What do we find? The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, has made secret visits to Northern Ireland, to DuPont, dealing in taxpayers' money, to provide a so-called national toxic waste incinerator in Northern Ireland. This is unprecedented behaviour. What right does Deputy Flynn have to ship our toxic waste problem across the Border to Northern Ireland? What right does Deputy Flynn have to spend taxpayers' money in this way?\n\nI beg your pardon. What right does the Minister for the Environment have to ignore the wishes of the people of Donegal?\n\nLet me now turn to the financial scandals which have beset the Government recently. We are constrained by the sub judice rule but nevertheless I feel some conclusions can be drawn from the overall picture that has emerged. The first is that there is extensive use of offshore companies in tax avoidance. It would be quite simple to enact legislation to prohibit, under pain of imprisonment, the holding of shares in offshore companies by Irish nationals. I suspect that the Minister for Finance would not do this because such stringent regulations would hinder the machinations of his friends in big business.\n\nA small number of our citizens during the past 40 years have become extremely  wealthy. Apart from the scandal of enormous wealth existing alongside poverty both in this country and in the Third World, there is the question of the immense power which such income and wealth undoubtedly draws. Of course contributions are made to the funds of some political parties. As well as minimum living standards for each person, there is a good case to be made against maximum possession of wealth given that the existence of very rich individuals is clearly a danger to democracy. We are a long way - \n\nI am about to conclude. I would like to make the point that we are a long way from what a former Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, Éamon de Valera, said, \"no man is worth more than £1,000 a year\".","This debate so far has been characterised by a reluctance on the part of the Government to answer straight questions. The Government's strategy seems to be attack, attack and attack, as being the best form of defence.\n\nThe thrust of the attack has been directed at The Workers' Party, which is a measure of the extent to which questions we put have been relevant and caused embarrassment to the Government. I should like to thank the Labour Party for the generous support which was given here this morning by Deputy Stagg. It is good to know that we have allies.\n\nThis morning Deputy McDaid moaned about media bias but he then went on to quote from the same media a statement that members of The Workers' Party were not pursuing a libel action against the BBC. I should like to inform the pious Deputy McDaid, who appears to have more experience in court matters than I do, that in fact letters of claim have been issued by four members of The Workers' Party, including their leader, against the BBC - \n\nSince last August and they have been acknowledged by the BBC. We then heard the lily-white Minister for Social Welfare following the example of his party leader and his discredited colleague, the Minister for Justice, launching yet another attempt to smear The Workers' Party. The Minister for Social Welfare knows a little about upstairs-downstairs activity and he would be far better off doing the job for which he is so generously paid by the taxpayer and attending to the affairs of his Department.\n\nIn the course of his speech to the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis last March the Minister for Social Welfare said that an extra £20 million of taxpayers money would be saved in a new crackdown on PRSI-related fraud and that he would be ensuring employers complied with their PRSI obligations. I would like to ask the Minister to respond to very serious allegations which have already been drawn to his attention by my colleague, Deputy Eric Byrne, about the failure to initiate proceedings as recommended against an employer in County Leitrim. I particularly want to ask him if the failure to take action was due to the political connections of the employer concerned  who, I am informed, is a brother of the general secretary of Fianna Fáil. I understand that the employer in question who is based in Carrick-on-Shannon, County Leitrim, was under observation by the Department of Social Welfare for two years for suspected false accounting and making false returns of PRSI. Last November the employer and his employees were interviewed and as a result of the information received, both the Revenue Commissioners and the social welfare officers involved pressed for prosecutions under four separate headings dealing with various breaches of social welfare legislation and regulations. I am informed however that no such action was taken.\n\nI have in my possession a copy of the report of the investigating officer which was submitted to the supervisor of the special investigations unit of the Department of Social Welfare. The report gives details of the activities of the employer in question.\n\nThe document I have here gives details of the employer concerned. It talks of employees being paid £15 per day into their hands, no prescribed records being kept in respect of certain employees, incomplete records being kept in respect of others and wage details in respect of others being greatly understated. It also reports that the employer stated that his staff were paid by cash - employees subsequently admitted under questioning that they were actually paid by cheque, the significance of this being, of course, that there is a record of cheque payments.\n\nThe report recommended that prosecutions should be considered under four separate headings dealing with various breaches of social welfare legislation and regulations. Yet no action has been taken against Mr. Farrell, and certainly up to recently not one penny has been paid in respect of the outstanding under-payment. This House is entitled to an explanation from the Minister, Deputy Woods, why no action has been taken. I know that staff in the Department of Social Welfare and the Revenue Commissioners are furious at the way their work has been undermined, that having painstakingly built up a case against Mr. Farrell no action was taken. They are particularly angry that political pull has  been used to protect this employer from prosecution. Why has no action been taken against Mr. Farrell? Social welfare recipients existing on £40 per week who might try to make a few extra pounds cleaning windows and who are not lucky enough to have a brother as general secretary of Fianna Fáil are dealt with very harshly by the Department of Social Welfare.\n\nWe have heard much in recent weeks about the operation of the golden business circle, but there is another similar golden circle operating in the political arena which, it seems, can provide immunity from prosecution. The Minister, Deputy Woods, would be better off applying himself to answering these questions than to taking part in the kind of attack he launched on my party here this morning. Indeed, the time of this House might well be used if, instead of avoiding questions and transferring questions put to them in this House, the Minister and the Taoiseach were to answer those questions directly.\n\nI recall, for example, that last February I put questions to the Taoiseach on the Carysfort issue but they were transferred to the Minister for Education, and then ruled out of order. I put another five questions to the Taoiseach in the last week and they too have been transferred to the Minister for Education. I certainly hope they will not be ruled out of order on this occasion.","I move: That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government.\n\nI believe this Government merit the confidence of Dáil Éireann on the basis of our record in managing the nation's affairs and our programme for the future.\n\nI propose to outline the Government's record and performance and our plans for the future within the general framework of economic and social policy, European affairs and the competence and quality of our Administration. My colleagues during the course of the debate will outline their performance and plans in more detail in respect of their particular areas of responsibility.\n\nIn order to assess our management of the economy and the public finances it is necessary to look back to the situation that confronted this nation when we took office early in 1987.\n\nLet me remind everyone in this House - and there are many on those benches over there who want to forget it - of the perilous state of the economy and the public finances at the  end of 1986. The national economy was in decline with negative growth in the previous four years, the public finances had deteriorated to the extent that the current budget deficit was the highest ever recorded at 8.3 per cent of GNP, the national debt had been virtually doubled in four years.\n\nThe enormous burden of taxation had become intolerable. Taxes had been increased in real terms by nearly £600 million between 1982 and 1986. Confidence in the economy at the end of 1986 had vanished and real interest rates were at an exorbitant level. Industrial investment had collapsed. There was a chronic balance of payments deficit. Our external reserves, at the end of 1986, had fallen to a dangerous level.\n\nThe effect of this massive deterioration in our economy, its stability and competitiveness, was most clearly marked in an enormous loss of employment. Between 1982 and 1986, total employment fell by 66,000 one of the largest such losses of employment ever experienced in our recent history. That was the disastrous record of the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition of which Deputy Bruton, Deputy Barry, Deputy Deasy, Deputy Noonan and Deputy Spring were all members.\n\nDeputy John Bruton as Minister for Finance ended up with the highest current budget deficit on record in this country. He unilaterally devalued our currency in 1986 only three months afer an EMS realignment. Deputy Bruton as Minister for Finance brought us as near to third-world status as we have ever been. The situation was so bad in 1986 that many believed it was beyond redemption.\n\nThe Deputies opposite have some audacity after the way they devastated the Irish economy and our public finances even to participate in this debate.\n\nIt was a depressing, intimidating and almost hopeless scene that confronted us in 1987. But we took firm control of the situation. We set about the tough task of putting the public finances in order and generating economic growth.\n\nThe extent to which we succeeded can be judged from the fact that by 1990 the economy had been transformed. Our achievements since 1987 have received wide praise from objective external commentators and are regarded as something of a model of non-inflationary growth, which others could well imitate. No other Community country achieved the same degree of improvement in the fundamentals of its economy as we did in the period since 1986.\n\nMost fundamental of all, growth was restored to the economy. We have had, since 1986, a sustained period of growth  averaging 4.5 per cent a year, as confidence was restored and investment and production increased. By 1990 the public finances were fundamentally transformed. The Exchequer borrowing requirement fell from 12.8 per cent to 2 per cent of GNP in 1990. The current budget deficit was brought down from the record 8.3 per cent of GNP to 0.7 per cent. Total Government expenditure was reduced from 55 per cent of GNP in 1986 to 41 per cent in 1990. Revenue was reduced from 40 per cent of GNP in 1984-86 to 36.6 per cent in 1990.\n\nThese dramatic improvements in the fundamental structure of the Exchequer finances were brought about by firm, skilled and courageous management of the public finances. Many difficult and unpopular decisions had to be made. We made them. Many sacrifices had to be demanded from various sections of our community. They responded generously in the national interest.\n\nIt is necessary to remind Deputies opposite that this economy was hauled back by Fianna Fáil from the brink of the bankruptcy to which it had been brought in December 1986 by Deputy Bruton of Fine Gael and Deputy Spring of Labour. Under this Government, and their predecessors, the turn-around was dramatic. We have now had a current balance of payments surplus since 1987, giving unprecedented stability to our exchange rate. Our competitive position has vastly improved. Irish firms throughout the country can now compete in a way they never knew before.\n\nThe effect of the improvement in the economy was a rise in employment of 40,000 between 1987 and 1990, and we have every reason to believe that those additional jobs are being maintained even in today's most difficult circumstances. Yet Deputies Bruton, Barry, Deasy, Noonan and Spring want this House to express no confidence in a Government who have transformed the Irish economy from the near-bankrupt state in which they left it.\n\nThe practical results of our good management of the public finances are, one of the lowest inflation rates now in the  Community; a real relief to household budgets; lower interest and mortgage rates; a reduction in the standard rate of income tax from 35 per cent to 29 per cent and in the top rate of tax from 58 per cent to 52 per cent with many improvements in income tax allowances and exemptions, especially for the low-paid with families.\n\nThe achievements and progress made in all aspects of the economy and the public finances since 1987 must convince any impartial observer that the affairs of the State are best left in the hands of those who achieved these dramatic improvements I have outlined. What cannot be contemplated is the return of the economy and our public finances to the irresponsible and incompetent care of those who from 1982 to 1986 created economic and social havoc here.\n\nThe great departure in Irish affairs made by this Government and their predecessors has been in the radical new way of managing our economic and social affairs that we have established. When we came into office in 1987, we invited the trade unions, the employers, and the farmers to join us in formulating the Programme for National Recovery. We were determined to replace confrontation by consensus. A small society, like ours, living on a peripheral island and dependent, for our living standards, on international markets, can succeed only if all major economic and social interests are prepared to combine with the Government in an agreed programme of economic and social development. That is a self-evident truth which, I hope, now that it has been established will never again be forgotten or ignored.\n\nThe approach we have adopted is now the envy of the social partners in other Community countries, particularly when they see the results it has achieved in transforming the economy here since 1986. It has made us into a low inflation country, and brought a truly remarkable period of industrial peace.\n\nThese achievements have only been possible because of the willingness of the social partners, in the national interest, to combine together with the Government  and accept the sacrifices and disciplines that were necessary to bring about the changes that were made.\n\nThis year has brought major difficulties. For the first time since 1987 the international economy has suffered a setback and entered a period of difficulty and recession. Two of our most important trading partners, the US and the UK went into outright recession with output and employment falling. This had a serious effect on our economic performance and prospects, though not to the same extent as others have suffered. In our own case, we had, in common with other Community countries, based our budget on a higher growth rate than can now be achieved. The growth forecast of 2.25 per cent on which the budget was based, was in line with forecasts for Ireland by the EC Commission last December. Other published forecasts were broadly in line.\n\nDeputies will recall however that both I and the Minister for Finance stressed at budget-time the difficult and uncertain international background against which this year's economic and budgetary policies had to be framed. Since January virtually all the major forecasters have scaled back their forecasts for growth. The OECD scaled back its forecast for world growth in 1991 from 2 per cent to 1 per cent; the Commission scaled back its forecast of growth in the Community from 2.2 per cent to 1.4 per cent. Everyone should understand that we are not alone in having to take action to adapt to circumstances which have changed for the worse. All the Community countries are having to do the same. That our hopes and projections of last January will not be realised cannot be grounds for blame. What we could be blamed for would be if we did not quickly identify our problems and take strong corrective action. That is exactly what we are doing.\n\nLet me give an outline of what has been happening and what we are doing about it. Growth in our economy fell away bringing a corresponding decline in Government revenues. Because of conditions in the US and the UK emigration  ceased and many of our emigrants returned. Their welcome return increased greatly the number of unemployed on the Live Register giving rise to a major increase in expenditure for social welfare.\n\nAs early as last July we took action to curb the deterioration in the public finances by cutting Government expenditure by £100 million this year. Even though we did so, the Government's borrowing this year will rise to 2.5 per cent of GNP instead of the 1.9 per cent we had hoped for.\n\nWhile this is disappointing, it is not disastrous. In no way does it reflect on the authenticity of this year's budget, and any suggestions to that effect are simply not valid. The combination of factors that caused the deterioration in this year's finances have been clearly identified for all to see and understand. They are the result of the realities we have to face.\n\nDespite this deterioration this year, we still have one of the lowest Exchequer deficits in the Community, and our national debt/GNP ratio will decline again this year. Let me remind Deputies Bruton, Deasy, Barry, Noonan and Spring that the national debt/GNP ratio, when they were in office, rose from 94 per cent to 129 per cent. For them to attempt to lecture anyone on the management of the public finances is like listening to a lecture by the Emperor Nero to the ancient Romans on fire-fighting.\n\nFortunately, despite lower growth this year all the indications and estimates from commentators are that employment has remained stable this year. This is a clear indicator of the basically sound underlying state our economy has now achieved. Due to this firm foundation our inflation rate, our interest rates and our balance of payments have all been kept under control, and we are  ready to benefit from the growth in international trade now forecast generally to occur next year. Our present assessment is, however, that growth next year will be less than we had been looking forward to. For the immediate future, we must accept that economic growth is likely to be modest rather than spectacular. International agencies now predict that growth will return slowly but steadily in the UK and the US in the second half of 1991 and will accelerate in 1992. On balance, international developments should assist some pick-up in our economy in the months ahead. We can therefore hope for a more satisfactory growth rate next year, particularly for consumer spending.\n\nThis has special implications for the Exchequer finances. The lower than expected growth next year coming on top of lower than expected growth this year will mean less Exchequer revenue next year than was planned when the Programme for Economic and Social Progress was agreed. That programme was based on official estimates of average growth of 3 per cent over the years 1991-1994 which were presented to all involved in the negotiations. Those rates unfortunately will not now be achieved.\n\nWe discussed last week with our partners in the programme the difficulties the Exchequer faces. We agreed as partners to discuss over the coming weeks the problems we face and seek to solve them. All sectors will have to contribute to this solution, and I have every confidence that, given the genuine commitment to the national interest that brought us together in the first place, we will resolve the immediate and essentially short-term problems we now face.\n\nWhat would be an historic tragedy and what the economy cannot afford is that we should relapse into the old confrontational approach to the management of the economy, in which each sector fights for its own sectional interest regardless of the national interest, and where vital issues are settled on the picket lines or in other equally confrontational ways.\n\n The Exchequer Borrowing Requirement for 1992 that is emerging would be greater than the already disappointing outturn for 1991. That is not consistent with our stated policy objective and cannot be contemplated.\n\nThat situation must and will be addressed. We have made too much progress since 1987 to start sliding backward now. We must continue to improve the Exchequer finances in line with the objectives set in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. These objectives include reducing the debt/GNP ratio to about 100 per cent and achieving broad balance in the current budget by 1993. These must be reached for our own domestic reasons, but also to enable us to meet the new disciplines that will be imposed in the second stage of Economic and Monetary Union. This will require us to look at all the options open to us in both the expenditure and the revenue areas of the public finances. As part of that process, we are now entering into bilateral discussions with the social partners. The Government are also engaged in a detailed examination of all areas of Exchequer expenditure. These efforts are still at an early stage. However, the Government are determined that the necessary steps will be taken to protect the public finances.\n\nI can therefore assure the House that the fiscal discipline which has characterised this Government's dealing with the public finances will be maintained. We have all learned from the mistakes that were made in the past, and for which we are still paying today, when servicing the public debt takes more than three-quarters of the entire income tax yield. Having gained so much ground over the past few years, we do not now propose to throw those gains away, which have been hard earned.\n\nProvided we do what is needed now, however, there is great hope for the future. Given the improvement in our economy in recent years, we are now in a good position to take advantage of the world upswing in economic activity, when it gets under way. In the context of the Single European Market after 1992  and the opening up of markets in Eastern Europe, which should promote a substantial increase in European trade, we can benefit significantly.\n\nOver the past few years, we have been developing the potential of the economy as rapidly as possible and in every area, neglecting no opportunity for growth. There is a new financial services industry; many provincial towns now have international data-processing industries. Many new industrial projects are coming before the Government or the IDA for grant approval. We have had dynamic growth in our tourist industry, with a doubling of tourist numbers since 1986. There has been an unprecedented level of investment in new tourist amenities and facilities. The establishment of Coillte and the more than doubling of the level of forestry planting since 1986 have been a resounding success. Our marine industries are also expanding. We have given a new impetus to science and technology in the service of development.\n\nUnder the National Development Plan there has been sustained investment in our infrastructure, especially roads, ports and airports, with corresponding benefit to activity in the construction industry. Every area of this worthwhile, developmental work will be continued, intensified and expanded, all with the overall guiding objective of providing the jobs we desperately need.\n\nThe last few years have also been a period of significant social advice. Economic growth has made it possible for us to do far more than was feasible in the stagnation of the mid-1980s. Major improvements have been made in the level of welfare payments, especially to the long-term unemployed with families. Education has been given special priority, with an increase in the provision of third level places, including the new Business School at Carysfort. We have established a new Commission on the Status of Women, and taken action on their initial recommendations. We are also implementing a major programme of legal reform, which includes many enlightened social measures.\n\n We have been effective in bringing about social change, social reform and social improvement. Putting forward popular, high-sounding policies is easy. What counts however is the ability to implement; to take the hard practical decisions, to decide difficult priorities. That is where this Government show their mettle.\n\nThe cultural life of our nation is flourishing, contributing to a new vibrant sense of national identity. Our environment policies are working well and there is a completely new national profile and public awareness in this important field. We are sensitive in our approach to issues, small in themselves, but nonetheless of great symbolic significance for our self-esteem as a nation. Our cities, towns and our countryside show many notable signs of an improved appearance.\n\nAt EC level, we have been effective in the protection and promotion of Irish interest while contributing fully to the further integration of the Community. We believe that our full membership of an increasingly integrated and developing Community will enable us to exploit to the full our potential as a nation.\n\nThe past years have been ones of fundamental change in European politics and present great challenges for the European Community and its member states. Rarely in the recent history of our continent has there been such an opportunity to overcome the legacy of the past and build a stable, secure and prosperous Europe.\n\nThe European Community is at the centre of these efforts. It is faced with the tasks of strengthening its own internal cohesion, building new relations with its neighbours, and promoting a more secure European order. Issues are now coming up for decision which are of enormous significance for Europe, for the European Community, and for this country. Developments since we joined have shown conclusively how closely Ireland's political and economic interests are intertwined with those of our European partners. We share common interests and must build a common future. That is why the Government are now involved in a  series of complex and far-reaching negotiations - the most complex and far-reaching since we joined the Community - the outcome of which will certainly have profound effects on the future of our people and the welfare of future generations.\n\nThe two Intergovernmental Conferences on Political Union and on Economic and Monetary Union are at the heart of the Community's efforts to move forward on the path to closer integration. Their general scope and objectives were settled during the Irish Presidency last year, and negotiations have been proceeding since then. I have kept the House fully informed of those developments throughout the negotiations, and I gave a comprehensive account of all the issues involved, and of Ireland's position on them, in July, after the Luxembourg Summit.\n\nThe Treaty on Political Union will establish new forms of co-operation on foreign and security policy and on home and judicial affairs. Progress has been made, but the most difficult part of the negotiations still lie ahead on such essential matters as foreign policy and security, voting, the role of the European Parliament, and in particular and of very great interest to us, economic and social cohesion. Ireland's position on several of these issues has been recognised at successive European Councils and incorporated in their conclusions. There is agreement that the definition of a defence policy is something for the future, and the recognition that any defence identity for the union must take account of our traditional position. The task now will be to translate these political agreements into concrete measures in the negotiations ahead.\n\nRecently, we successfully opposed attempts to create a two tier approach with regard to the move of the final stage of EMU. This is a matter of fundamental importance for the Community and for Ireland. The strength of the Community lies in its ideals of unity and coherence; a two tier approach to either Economic and Monetary Union or to Political Union would be the antithesis of everything  the Community stands for and is simply unacceptable.\n\nAll these negotiations will reach their crucial stages in the coming months. They will require the most careful and expert handling if we are to achieve our dual aims of advancing the process of European integration and protecting and promoting Ireland's best interests in all areas. This Government have the political skills, experience, the confidence based on past successes and the respect of our partners, to enable us to handle these crucially important negotiations in the period immediately ahead in Ireland's very best long-term interests.\n\nCan anyone seriously contemplate entrusting such a task to a disparate collection of Deputies opposite with their fundamental diagreements on practically every aspect of Community affairs?\n\nIrish political life is going through a traumatic period with many disturbing features. The fall-out from what has been happening can only be damaging to the best interests of our country. First, we had the disclosure of the reprehensible behaviour of a small number of individuals in the business and financial sector. That by itself was deeply disturbing and seriously detrimental to the good name of this country, but it was added to, hyped up and exaggerated by  a massive campaign of vilification and character assassination of unprecedented intensity without regard to evidence, proof of justification.\n\nA totally unjustified attempt was made to put the blame for business scandals on to the Government when clearly there was no ministerial involvement of any kind. The business and financial scandals in the semi-State sector in which the Government were in no way involved were seized upon, embellished and twisted in a totally dishonest manner to smear those who had no connection of any kind with them. Normal legitimate political debate was discarded and in its place we have had a campaign of personalised attacks by way of unfounded allegations, innuendo, accusations of guilt by association and all the other traditional, despicable weapons of such a campaign.\n\nThe object of the campaign was nothing less than to undermine and destabilise this Government and to damage the credibility of individual members, particularly myself. Each time there is some new so-called sensational revelation, members of the public could well ask themselves the simple question: where is there any evidence of wrong doing by any member of this Government?\n\nIn the nature of things it is always easy to raise doubts, questions and suspicions about the motives for even the most laudable actions. I believe all fair minded responsible citizens should ask why such a campaign was undertaken at this stage and what can be the real motives of those who have participated in this truly extraordinary campaign, this  concentrated barrage, covering the entire media, as one sided as it was unremitting.\n\nI stated at the outset of these events that these were business and financial scandals not political, and that there was no ministerial or political involvement, and I repeat that.\n\nI now wish firmly to reiterate that statement. Nothing has emerged or been revealed since to affect in any way the truth of that statement.\n\nI warmly welcome this debate and the opportunity it gives me to state categorically that neither I nor any of the Ministers of this Government had any connection of even the remotest kind with any of the events and transactions now being investigated in regard to Irish Sugar and Telecom Éireann. I and my colleagues eagerly await the outcome of all the investigations now under way so that the truth can be fully established and revealed and our position vindicated. It will then be shown that neither I nor any Minister of this Government was in any way involved in or connected with these events or transactions.\n\nThe House is well used to false allegations by a number of Deputies from what is called the Left, but on this occasion the new peddler of this kind of stuff, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy John Bruton, decided apparently to take his ignoble part. He threw himself into the disreputable campaign with a kind of erratic frenzy, popping up all over the place, making unfounded allegations and demanding contradictory courses of action. Perhaps this is not as surprising as it might seem when we recall that it was the new Leader of Fine Gael who devoted the main thrust of his vaudeville Ard Fheis to a vulgar coarse attack on one single Fianna Fáil Deputy.\n\nDeputy Bruton is largely responsible for bringing the practice of politics in this country to a new low. He seems to be running Fine Gael as some sort of private detective agency, hunting every latest rumour, phoning around, inquiring about Ministers' activities, their families and friends. It might be Deputy Bruton's style but it is not the Fine Gael tradition.\n\nThe Deputies opposite have had unrestrained access to all the media for three weeks to a month to make all these allegations but now they are not prepared to give me one hour to reply.\n\nThe present campaign has brought business and professional life to a state of hysteria. There now exists an unhealthy aura of suspicion and distrust bordering on paranoia.\n\nBecause it was clear beyond doubt that I was not in even the remotest way personally involved in any of the events or transactions under investigation, nor connected with them in any way, the tactic was resorted to of attempting to attribute to me some kind of guilt by association. I would like to remind this House and all those involved in this attempt that civilized societies have always rejected the concept of guilt by association. The McCarthy era in the US should be a clear and salutary warning to them that society ultimately rejects those who engage in this ignominious trade.\n\nI would, nevertheless, like to deal with the attempts which have been made in this area.\n\nWith regard to Dr. Michael Smurfit and Bernard Cahill, Chairman of Greencore, my relationship with them was almost exclusively of an official nature.\n\nYes, almost; I did meet them otherwise but my relationship with them was almost exclusively of an official nature. With regard to Mr. Comerford, Mr. Tully, Mr. Garavan, Mr. Keleghan and Mr. Lyons, I had no association of any kind with them. The political allegiances of the first two in particular are far removed from mine.\n\nI have known Dermot Desmond personally for a number of years. I first came in contact with him when he put forward the idea of the establishment of an international financial services centre in Dublin. Fianna Fáil were in Opposition at that time; we adopted the idea and on return to Government set about establishing it.\n\nIt has since been developed successfully to the point where  180 projects are setting up there with employment already in excess of 2,800. Later I was in contact with Mr. Desmond about the \"Sail Ireland\" project which involved entering an Irish boat for the Whitbread Round the World Yacht race. That brave venture which involved building a yacht of international status in Ballyfermot had widespread support throughout the business community and among the general public. I make no apologies for fully supporting it. It was a great national enterprise involving thousands of fine people and was up-front, open and above board. I had no relationship or association with Dermot Desmond in regard to any other matter in either the area of public administration or the private sector.\n\nIn the last few days, we have much play being made of what was on the face of it an extraordinary letter written by Mr. Desmond to the Chairman of Pernod-Ricard. The claims it seemed to make were patently absurd. The Government were careful to remain totally objective and maintain complete neutrality in the rival bidding for control of Irish Distillers. The whole take-over transaction and its implications, has already been fully dealt with and examined by the courts. There was no impropriety or irregularity. If there had been, this would have become evident in the court proceedings. The Revenue Commissioners simply made a statement, helpful to all the parties, clarifying the tax implications in question, provided - and only provided - the statutory requirements were observed. Such a statement is normal practice in taxation matters when it is desired to clarify tax liabilities.\n\nI regard the purchase of Carysfort by UCD to provide a premises for a graduate business school as an entirely praiseworthy and progressive step.\n\nThe transaction was carried out in a perfectly straightforward manner and I was not involved in it. I gave it my full support because it fitted  in perfectly with our commitment to the universities and in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to facilitate the provision of a large number of extra places for those seeking admission to third level education.\n\nI gave it my full support, because it fitted in perfectly with our commitment to the universities and in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to facilitate the provision of a large number of extra places for those seeking admission to third level education.\n\nI have already made clear, and I repeat here again categorically, that no person or company ever received any favourable  treatment or consideration in their dealings with Government because of personal friendships or associations. In fact, they could not. The position with regard to the awarding of Government contracts for consultancies and services of that nature has already been clearly outlined. In the Civil Service the principle of competitive tendering and of seeking a minimum of three tenders is required under current Government contract procedures, contained in a code of practice laid down by the Department of Finance. Firm procedures will be put in place to ensure that the same principle applies in State companies.\n\nThis is a Government of absolute integrity. I reject totally any allegations to the contrary, and, when all the investigations have been completed, it will be established that there was no Government or ministerial involvement of any kind in any of the transactions or events being investigated. Those who have engaged in this disreputable campaign of rumours, allegations and innuendoes have done a grievous disservice to our parliamentary democracy. They should be thoroughly ashamed of their efforts because despite what has happened, taking it all fully into account I assert that the standards of Government and public administration in this country are as high as those prevailing anywhere in the world.\n\nFurthermore, I think it is equally important that I should at this stage make clear my belief that while these totally unacceptable events have undoubtedly occurred their extent has been hyped up and exaggerated out of all proportion, because it is my belief that the overwhelming majority of business and professional people in this country are people of integrity whose standards of conduct are above reproach.\n\nI have now been under personal character attack for 12 years, from the very day I first became Taoiseach. I have endured these personal attacks in the knowledge that I had nothing to fear or conceal. In all those 12 years, my detractors have failed to substantiate one single accusation against me, but this has  not deterred them. These attacks on me personally have had the basic objective also of damaging the Fianna Fáil Party. But they have failed in their principal aim, to deter me from applying myself to the best of my ability to the better welfare of my fellow citizens, which should be the aim of everyone in political life.\n\nMy party and I are proud of what we have contributed to the well-being of this country. We have not succeeded in all we would like to do but all over Ireland, there are people who have benefited from ideas and policies of ours whether they be the old and infirm; those on social welfare; the lower-paid, those in need of better health services; small farmers; those in need of housing, and many others.\n\nIn this Government and in Fianna Fáil we have no concern, we hold no brief, for that comparatively small group of persons in our society who behave dishonourably, who break the rules, who abuse the trust and confidence placed in them by the rest of us. Any illegalities, malpractice or unprofessional behaviour will be uncovered and disclosed, and all appropriate action will be taken. Nobody will be protected from the consequences of their actions. It is only in this way that public trust and confidence in our financial and business systems can be fully restored.\n\nThis Government and Fianna Fáil's concern is not for the dishonest few but for the decent majority. It is our responsibility to protect the interests of the taxpayers, the poorer, weaker sections of our community, the good name of our Irish business financial and professional sectors, to work constantly with legitimate business interests for economic progress and to promote projects which will provide jobs, to establish and maintain standards and safeguards in Government administration in the semi-State sector and in business and financial affairs. We will discharge that responsibility, and we will not be deterred by this current massive, unscrupulous campaign of vilification.\n\nIt is very detrimental to the legitimate work and purpose of Government that  either politicians or the media should seek without any justification whatever to misconstrue and misrepresent the normal activities of Government Ministers in a way that has been attempted in recent weeks. It is both legitimate and necessary for industrialists and commercial leaders to have access to Ministers in matters of common concern in economic and social policy areas.\n\nMinisters must not disregard any opportunity to secure investment and advance valuable economic projects. Similarly, leaders of professional bodies and trade unions, community leaders and representatives of all kinds of organisations frequently meet with Ministers on matters of concern to them. To suggest, as has now become the practice with a number of Deputies in this House, that there is something wrong with such contacts or something improper about them is completely irresponsible. It is an entirely new malicious practice in our political life largely orchestrated by The Workers' Party for their own sinister reasons, which seeks by innuendo to cast some sort of suspicion over meetings which are in themselves entirely appropriate and legitimate. For the first time also members of the Government have been personally attacked as being responsible for decisions and events within semi-State bodies.\n\nDeputy Rabbitte has played a leading role in the more pernicious aspects of the campaign. He has been the RTE anchorman appearing daily with some new false allegation or innuendo\n\nto pursue and uncover every aspect of the truth and to take whatever remedial action is appropriate. There has been no favouritism,  no protection afforded to anyone from the legitimate pursuit of these inquiries.\n\nThere is one matter of public policy, which I would like to place on record. The normal practice, as regards the relations between a commercial State-sponsored body and the relevant Minister is that the Government appoint boards of directors, who are then given a large measure of commercial freedom in the management of the company. The level of autonomy enjoyed has been consistent with the legislation and considered appropriate for the job to be done. This practice has been followed by successive Governments in relation to the commercial affairs of State companies. State-sponsored bodies, therefore, would not normally consult with or obtain the approval of Government Departments for individual commercial decisions, unless there were specific Exchequer or major strategic implications.\n\nI wish to make it clear to this House and to the country that the current attempts to destabilise and undermine this Government have not succeeded and will not succeed. This Government are fully in charge of the nation's affairs. We are clear about the nature and extent of the problems which confront the Government and the country. We are equally clear about what must be done to see the country safely through these difficulties and resume the pattern of progress which this Government and their Fianna Fáil predecessor have so firmly established. I assure this House and the country that we have the capacity and determination to guide this nation safely through this difficult period as we have done on so many occasions in the past.\n\nThe Opposition parties may think that policies do not matter any more, that they are better employed searching for new scandals or attending tribunals, but this Government intend to concentrate on the real problems facing the country. This Government have formulated and are implementing a comprehensive complement of policies covering every area of administration. Our contribution  to the debate in the European Community on political, economic and monetary union is strong and coherent and in the best interests of the Community and of Ireland.\n\nThe implementation of the National Development Plan, using £3 billion of Structural Funds aid, is steadily improving the national infrastructure, roads, harbours, airports and transport. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress has both created the climate for progress and outlined a major programme of specific measures for economic and social advance. In my Ard-Fheis speech this year I outlined a major programme of social reform and advance. Our careful control of the public finances and our clear intention of pursuing the objectives set out in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress of reductions in borrowing and achieving a broad balance on current account, are an essential part of our strategy for good Government.\n\nThe newly revised programme for government between the two Government parties will update our range of policies and take our plans forward a further stage.\n\nWe intend to implement our programme over the next two-and-a-half years and then go before the people for their decision. We have an important job to do. We must provide the Irish people with an effective, capable Government for the next two-and-a-half years. We know from our own experience since 1987 that maintaining a level of popularity at any particular stage is not what is important. Providing good  government is our task; we will provide it, and public support will follow.\n\nI am seeking the support of this House for the Government on the basis of our programme for government and on the certainty that this Government are infinitely better than any other combination of parties in this House; that we are capable of maintaining the progress of recent years, of tackling the difficulties and bringing the country safely through the present difficulties and on to a better future.","Few controversies in 1986 received as much publicity as the decision by the then Minister for Education, former Deputy Gemma Hussey, to close Carysfort College as a primary teacher training institution. We all recall the very vigorous campaign led by the then principal of the college, Sister Regina Durkan, who was fully supported by the then Opposition spokesperson on Education, Deputy O'Rourke. We recall the considerable hysteria whipped up by the controversy, the large crowds, the public protests outside the gates of this building. We vividly recall the very clear unequivocal commitment given in 1986 by Deputy O'Rourke delivered very forcibly both inside and outside this House that if and when she became Minister for Education she would keep Carysfort College open as a teacher training college.\n\nHistory records that Deputy O'Rourke became Minister for Education in March 1987 and far from keeping Carysfort College open she presided over its closure. It was fair to assume that Carysfort College as a controversy had firmly been put to bed. It certainly seemed so when a property development company purchased Carysfort College and its 90 acres of land in October 1989. As its primary interest was in the area of housing development, Davmac sold the college and the 20 acres immediately surrounding it to a company known as JHA Exports whose two directors were William Harris and his brother, the well known businessman and motor  car and truck importer, Mr. Pino Harris. The price was £6.5 million.\n\nIt is well known that Mr. Harris intended initially to use Carysfort College as a multi-private educational institution and entered detailed negotiations with various interested parties with a view to putting this type of operation in place. Plans and costings were commissioned and drawn up. However, within one month Mr. Harris changed his mind and wanted out of the deal. Mr. Harris is a man of means and it is quite obvious he was confronted with the sudden realisation that his private third level education complex was not such a good idea after all and was not going to yield the type of short term dividend and profits he would have wished and expected. The problem in such a situation is to get a buyer for the property and make a profit.\n\nIt is well known that when the Sisters of Mercy decided to put Carysfort on the market, University College Dublin displayed an interest in acquiring it in view of its proximity to the college. However, UCD were given no encouragement by the Department of Education. In April 1989 UCD decided therefore to go ahead with their own plans to build the Smurfit Graduate Business School on their 300 acre Belfield campus. The cost of the project was to be £5 million and it was to be self-financing with £1.5 million coming from Mr. Smurfit, £1 million by way of a repayable loan from the college development fund, a further £2 million from private resources and £1.5 million by way of grants. It was to be self-financing and was not to cost the taxpayer anything.\n\nIn March 1990 the architects' plans for a new building were approved by the college building committee. According to Dr. Masterson, President of UCD, last Tuesday, \"by April-May, as detailed costings emerged, it became clear that the cost of the proposed new building was going to be a serious problem\". Dr. Masterson went on to say that they then began to scale down the building with a view to keeping it within the £5 million budget projection. However, there are  no details of how much it would be scaled down or how much over budget it would go.\n\nAccording to Dr. Masterson the estate agents, Gunne, acting for Harris Brothers approached UCD in July 1990 with a view to considering the possibility of purchasing Carysfort College. UCD looked at the property but decided not to go ahead because of the cost factor. It is worth recalling that when the Sisters of Mercy decided initially to sell Carysfort, UCD - as I said before - were given no encouragement by the Department of Education to buy the property. When Davmac put the property on the market in June 1990 and when it was available for £6.5 million UCD were not approached or did not receive any contact or encouragement from the Department of Education. Nothing happened by way of advice to them to go ahead and purchase the property. Yet, suddenly in September 1990, a mere three months after Mr. Harris purchased the property for £6.5 million and a mere two months after his agents approached UCD to buy the property, the Minister for Education entered the scene.\n\nI want to thank Dr. Masterson for clarifying once and for all last Tuesday, despite repeated attempts by the Minister for Education to evade the issue, that these major initiatives in relation to the purchase of Carysfort College by UCD were taken by the Minister for Education in September 1990. As Dr. Masterson put it, \"an initiative by the Minister for Education inaugurated a new phase in the college's interest in Carysfort\". Dr. Masterson went to say that the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, held a meeting with the registrar, the secretary of the college and the Chairman of the Graduate Business School to discuss the possibilities of a graduate business school. Suddenly the Belfield plans, which were very far advanced, were abandoned and intensive \"hands on\" and urgent negotiations began in relation to the purchase of the college by UCD. It is quite clear that there was a considerable conflict within UCD as to the wisdom of going ahead and as to whether they  should depart from their long-standing core policy of campus consolidation, of locating all their faculties and facilities on their more than adequate 300 acres in Belfield.\n\nDr. Masterson's statement also makes it clear that the commerce faculty refused to allow their undergraduates to be transferred to Carysfort. However, in view of the new spirit of openness and the positive promptings of the Minister for Education, a purchase price of £8 million was agreed between UCD and Gunne in November 1990. There was, of course, the other little factor that it would take a mere £3.5 million to convert the building and make it suitable for a graduate business school. At the end of November 1990 UCD told the Government quite bluntly that the most they were prepared to pay was £2 million towards the overall cost; in other words, there was a clear ultimatum to the Government that if they wanted UCD to buy this facility they had better come up with the money.\n\nOn 12 December the Taoiseach, the Minister for Education, the President of UCD and Mr. Laurence Crowley, chairman of the Graduate Business School, met to discuss the funding of the project. According to Dr. Masterson the Taoiseach tried to persuade UCD to raise a greater proportion of the overall cost of the project. Dr. Masterson couched his refusal to do so in the diplomatic language, that \"this suggestion the President declined for various reasons\". The UCD President went on to explain that \"the Taoiseach indicated that he would recommend that the Government support the purchase along the lines of the college proposal\". Lo and behold, University College, Dublin, ended up purchasing Carysfort Training College for £8 million from the Harris Brothers, thereby giving them a grand profit of £1.5 million for a mere seven months' investment. Not bad when you consider that at the time because of the impending Gulf crisis, a slump in the property market and an over-abundance of commercial property, there was a considerable reduction in property value.\n\n The Smurfit Graduate Business School which is going ahead in Belfield as a self-financing project costing approximately £5 million in April 1990 has now been transferred en bloc to Carysfort Training College for a total purchase price of £8 million, plus £3.7 million refurbishment costs, of which the taxpayer has to fork out £9.7 million, with UCD and Mr. Smurfit paying the balance - £2 million - between them. I am afraid, from the point of view of the taxpayers, this is not the end of the story because the Taoiseach again became involved. On 21 December 1990, Dr. Masterson returned the Taoiseach's telephone call during which, in his own words, \"an issue concerning operational costs was satisfactorily clarified\". It now transpires that John Citizen, the taxpayer, is again stuck for the operating costs as well as for the capital cost of purchasing this graduate business school to honour the contribution of Dr. Michael Smurfit to Irish business, as a result of the personal intervention of the Taoiseach.\n\nThe Department of Education are one of the big spending Departments and have a budget of £1.3 billion. They operate, like other Departments, very rigorous accounting procedures; yet, on this occasion, virtually all the rules, regulations and accounting safeguards were dispensed with. Carysfort could have been purchased by UCD in June 1990 for £6.5 million, yet it ended up costing the taxpayer £8 million plus an additional £1.7 million a mere seven months later. No independent valuation was carried out by the Valuation Office or any independent agency which must be the case when public money is involved.\n\nAccording to Dr. Masterson - and indeed the Minister - \"the competent college experts judged this to be good value\". I wonder whether this is the same expert opinion which underestimated the cost of the graduate business school which was to be built initially in UCD. Was this the same team of experts which looked at Carysfort in July, a few months beforehand, and thought it was too expensive at that stage? Suddenly in  December it became excellent value. Of course, from their point of view it was good value in that they were getting an asset valued at several million pounds without any contribution from their own coffers as well as having the running costs underwritten by the Taoiseach.\n\nIt is worth noting - and this has not come out before - that in April 1989 the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education, Mr. Finbarr O'Callaghan, wrote to the Sisters of Mercy, Carysfort, stating that the Department of Education had no interest in and no plans for Carysfort. In other words, they were given the nod to go ahead and sell it. Yet, the following year the Minister for Education and the Taoiseach became intimately involved in a series of meetings and telephone calls in order to ensure that the property was bought by UCD.\n\nThe Higher Education Authority are the statutory agency for supervising and monitoring all third level education and yet, in this case, they were ignored and by-passed. The Minister acted illegally in doing so. Section 5 of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, states that the Higher Education Authority \"shall advise the Minister on the need or otherwise for the establishment of new institutions of higher education, on the nature and form of those institutions and on the legislative measures required in relation to their establishment or in relation to any existing institution of higher education\". The section is quite clear. It states that the Higher Education Authority \"shall advise the Minister on the need for new institutions of higher education\", yet, here we had a new graduate business school costing £11.7 million in the process of establishment and the statutory obligation of the Minister to be advised by the Higher Education Authority is not complied with. Not alone was it not complied with, not alone was there no consultation or dialogue with the Higher Education Authority, but the members of the Higher Education Authority actually wrote to the Minister for Education expressing their annoyance at their exclusion from any involvement in  the project. It is quite clear that the Minister acted illegally by not consulting the Higher Education Authority, by not seeking their advice and by not being advised by them.\n\nSection 8 (1) of the same Act states \"Any request by an institution of higher education for State subvention shall be submitted by the institution to An tÚdarás\" - in this case the Higher Education Authority - \"in such manner as An tÚdarás may require\". Yet, here we had a situation where UCD needed £9.7 million of State subvention and yet no submission or request was made by them to the Higher Education Authority as specified in this Act. Furthermore, the Minister for Education, being fully aware of the facts, again decided to conspire with UCD in order to totally bypass and sideline the Higher Education Authority, thereby flouting one of the key requirements of this Act.\n\nSection 10 (1) of the same Act states that the Higher Education Authority \"shall assess amounts of State financial provision, both current and capital, which it recommends for higher education and research or for any part thereof, either in relation to current or future periods\". Here we have a State financial provision of £11.7 million being made for capital expenditure and yet the Higher Education Authority which have been vested with the power and, indeed, the obligation because it states \"shall assess the amounts of State financial provision\", are totally precluded from any involvement in carrying out such an assessment and indeed get the proverbial back-hand from the Minister when they try to protest at being prohibited and obstructed from carrying out their statutory functions.\n\nIt is quite clear that the statutory supervisory, monitoring and regulatory role of the Higher Education Authority was totally flouted as a result of the direct intervention by the Minister for Education. It is quite clear that the Minister for Education, probably acting on the Taoiseach's instructions, conducted direct negotiations with University College Dublin completely above the head of  the Higher Education Authority. Apart from the gross insult offered to the Higher Education Authority, there is the deliberate undermining of the Higher Education Authority's statutory position. By her actions in the Carysfort project the Minister has acted in a highly irregular manner. She has arbitrarily dispensed with all the normal procedures and guidelines. What she did is illegal in that she flouted the specific and binding requirements of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971.\n\nI put it to the Minister that at a time when we have the highest primary class sizes in Europe with over 607 classes having more than 45 pupils, when parents are being asked to dig deep into their own pockets to fund primary and second level education, which is supposed to be free but is not free any longer, when the same school bus breaks down three times within a fortnight leaving children stranded on the side of the road, when teachers have to count the number of sticks of chalk they use in the classrooms, when school managers are heavily overdrawn in the bank because the Department have left them stuck for cheques for repairs, maintenance, heating and electrical work, and when the primary school system in inner city Dublin in particular is in danger of imminent collapse because of lack of resources, she acted in a highly irresponsible manner by wasting £9.7 million of taxpayers' money.\n\nThe Minister may make the point that the Dáil voted through a Supplementary Estimate on 18 December 1990 for the purchase of Carysfort College, but the Opposition voted against it. What the Minister did not tell the House however at that time was the background and details leading up to the purchase of Carysfort. What she did not tell the House was the entire sequence of events leading up to the finalisation of the transaction. What she did not tell the House was that it took the personal and unwarranted intrusion of the Taoiseach and herself to clinch the deal. Finally, what she did not tell the House was that every single rule and guideline put in place over  the years to safeguard the public interest was flouted in this case.\n\nUndoubtedly, the most serious breach of regulations was the shoddy treatment of the Higher Education Authority. One may well ask why the Higher Education Authority were relegated to the role of a mere frustrated sideline spectator. I will tell you why they were left out of the action - the Government knew full well that the Higher Education Authority would give the thumbs down to the proposal. The Government knew full well that in pursuit of their statutory oligations the Higher Education Authority, being fully au fait with all third level requirements, would advise that the £9.7 million was badly needed and could be better spent elsewhere.\n\nThe Government knew full well that the Higher Education Authority would not go along with the proposals and therefore they took the extraordinary personal intervention of the Taoiseach, with personal meetings and phone calls, and the Minister for Education to rescue and bail out their friend, Mr. Harris and his ill-judged £6.5 million investment. I would put it to the Minister for Education that if any school principal anywhere in the country, any chief executive officer, any clerk in a vocational education office or any caretaker of a school had acted in breach of the basic rules and regulations governing the spending of public money, they would have been booted unceremoniously from office on the spot.\n\nI wish to thank the President of UCD, Dr. Masterson, for clarifying the sequence of events, albeit belatedly. It took many hours of skilful drafting by a public relations company in order to hone, refine and produce the eventual text. However, his statement last Tuesday is clear, unequivocal confirmation of the involvement of the Minister for Education and the Taoiseach and an indictment of their roles in the whole sordid affair. I am happy that in making a statement Dr. Masterson adhered to the principle of his predecessor, John Henry Cardinal Newman who said \"As  far as we are not on the side of truth, we shall shiver to death\". Would that the people at the highest level of political life in this country, the people who have direct involvement in this issue, namely, the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, would even have the slightest glimpse of the implications of such a statement. Unfortunately, they have not. Week in, week out, both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education, since the controversy broke afresh, have refused to answer any of the specific questions relating to what was and is essentially a shady deal.\n\nToday in this House the Taoiseach did as he did on several occasions recently - he simply walked away from the questions by merely stating again that it was a good deal. Yes, indeed, it was a very good deal for Mr. Harris, but we are entitled to know who exactly the Taoiseach met besides Dr. Masterson. We are entitled to know whether he met Mr. Harris or Mr. Dermot Desmond who, coincidentally, happens to be on the board of the Smurfit Graduate Business School.\n\nThe Minister in her usual fashion has sought to confuse the issues by her usual convoluted package of conundrums. When asked by Shane Kenny on \"Today at One\" on 1 October if the Taoiseach had any meetings with Dr. Masterson in relation to the purchase of Carysfort Training College she ducked, bobbed, weaved and eventually when pressed said: \"I would have no doubt that he would have met him on many occasions, on several occasions at various events to which they were both invited\". It then transpired that, far from a casual meeting, the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, as confirmed by Dr. Masterson's statement last week, actually sat down with the Taoiseach, Dr. Masterson and the chairman of the new college to discuss indepth at a full business meeting all the arrangements surrounding the Carysfort deal.\n\nI do not want the Minister to come into this House and again recite the argument  that she was making more places available for third level education. It is quite clear that the places for third level would have been provided in UCD at no cost to the taxpayer. That argument simply does not wash. No money was available to UCD when they first became interested in the project. Lots of money was available to UCD in order to enable Mr. Harris to get the monkey off his back. No independent valuation was carried out as even the humblest urban district council must do if they are disposing of a labourer's cottage.\n\nThe Higher Education Authority had their statutory function and role totally undermined. If one trawled round for a good example of a bad deal, a wrong deal, a crooked and a rotten deal, one need look no further than the Carysfort saga. It smells of croneyism. It smells of TACA. It smells of the golden circle, the golden aura that surrounds this Government. Would the Minister not seriously consider, in the light of her proven involvement in this issue, and in the light of her highly irregular and illegal actions, doing as any decent Minister would do in any other jurisdiction, resign her office?","At this stage we have  listened to the Taoiseach's opening contribution and to the contributions of four members of the Cabinet to this debate. They have structured their contributions in two parts, the first part seeks to devalue the concern being expressed nationally and in this Chamber as mere gossip or mischief, and in the second part of every contribution, they give a report on what they suggest is good, better or adequate management of their particular areas and the economy in general. However, there is nobody in this country, among the public or in any specialist role, who is in any doubt but that these two sets of events are inextricably linked, and they are linked as follows.\n\nIn recent times, particularly in the eighties, a culture of financial thinking and economic activity has grown in this country. For ease of reference that should be called a speculative culture. It differs from what was old fashioned in the Right, or in the traditional business sector of Irish economic history. It is not a culture of production; it is not about starting a factory; it is not about producing a commodity which is sold on the domestic market or abroad. The culture of speculation is about making money in an unaccountable fashion and, if possible, doing so in a way which will not yield one penny to the economy or to the revenues. The culture of production, on the other hand, might have caused the Labour Party and the parties of the Left traditionally to have arguments in relation to it but it made something, it was caught, if you like, within the economy.\n\nWhere the two sections of the speeches made by the Taoiseach and members of the Cabinet cannot be seen as easily divisible one from the other is that the Government and the parties of the Right are seen more and more as the political expression of a culture of speculation. There are many other elements attached to it. When people speak about a declaration of interest and so forth they are not talking about a person who might call  into a factory at election time and pick up a cheque. The fact is that the parties of the Right know that the old visits to the factory have given way to the nice, manila envelopes which arrive from the financial sector. The culture of speculation has been good to the Right in this House and it is because of the incredible dilatory and hopeless nature of financial journalism, economics and formal scholarship, that it has been unable to draw a distinction between a culture of speculation and a culture of production.\n\nThe culture of speculation created a certain kind of an élite in this country, a new class and, whether we like it or not, the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, is seen as part of the circle which goes around the golden circle. There is a group of élite drones who do not produce, who are proud of not paying their taxes and who are proud to serve - as they would put it - on semi-State bodies. We are supposed to set up an ochón after their leaving and wonder whether we will get their likes again to serve. They come to their positions at the board meetings with offshore registered companies.\n\nWhen I was learning economics a long time ago, we were taught about the relationship of capital, labour and enterprise and about the distribution of wealth. I remember people in this House who were not anxious to do business with somebody who came waving an offshore tax dodge mechanism. Let me be blunt about it, I have some sympathy with the Taoiseach when he said pathetically that they were not all his friends, that some of them were friends of others. The Taoiseach said he was proud to have got someone to produce a boat to go round the world, of which we could all be proud. There is a querulousness and bad temper in the Taoiseach's speech which tells us a lot about his character. In the beginning, for example, he said in relation to the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition: \"they have some audacity after the way they devastated the Irish economy and our public finances even to participate in this debate\".\n\nLater in his speech the Taoiseach referred to Deputy Rabbitte as the  anchor man of RTE. I am glad the Minister for Justice is present as he is closely associated with vindictive attacks on public broadcasting and on RTE. It is an insult to RTE - and to Deputy Rabbitte - to refer to him as an anchor man of RTE. The Taoiseach is really saying he does not like Deputy Rabbitte being interviewed again and again about matters that discomfit the Taoiseach. Why does he not have the courage to say so? Of course what we will see are the side-shafts thrown into RTE through the Broadcasting Bill.\n\nA seedy group of people, who are not associated with producing or selling anything, constituted themselves as a new group. Through the adulation of certain sections of the public who, in the absence of a royal family, wanted to know who was spending £1,000 on a meal, wasting their money and behaving in a fashion that would have put Caligula to shame, this class were uncomfortably around the Government. There is no point in the Taoiseach saying he has not spoken to them lately and that he met them only casually. What were the consequences of putting our trust in that kind of person, in such a group of people? What were the consequences for the country?\n\nThe public were told that these people have a genius for making money. They play golf which costs several thousand pounds per hour and the public thought that because they could do that they might be able to do it for everyone. That is dangerous nonsense. They engage in speculation, evasion of taxes and are not ashamed of enjoying wealth which has not been produced. That is the type who were glorified and the result has been the present economic difficulties. The public are now asking questions and I ask them to think long and hard about the matter.\n\nWhen the Mitterrand Government were elected in France a propaganda point was made that international financial business communities would lose confidence in France. Did the threat to financial propriety and to economic management come in this country from the Left? The Taoiseach made an arrogant  point in his speech when he talked about \"stuff that comes from what is called the Left\". However, the public would love to know what the Taoiseach calls himself. We know that the people he will not disown are the people who have dragged this country's financial and economic reputation into the gutter. The questions must be answered. People who need jobs want a sensible and rational economic approach, they do not want this nonsense that is trotted out insultingly at the beginning of every Dáil term. There is talk about creating an economic environment, a climate for investment and that the jobs will automatically come.\n\nI remember being mocked in this House when I said that you could have economic growth, a low interest rate, good trade figures, a good balance of payment figures and still have an absence of investment which gave the required jobs. I spoke bluntly about the difference between market economies that regard the social results as a residuum of market forces and of social economy drawn from the old-fashioned version of political economy in which the economy was used as an instrument to pursue job creation based on international traded commodities. There was an ideological opposition to such a view and now the public might well ask if it would not have been better to have had confidence in people like their sons and daughters who worked in the State and semi-State sectors. Would it not have been better to have capitalised the semi-State sector properly instead of taking people from the speculative end of financial services and planking them on the semi-State bodies? I mean bringing the capital side of the semi-State bodies into correctness and enabling them, because of their scale - they could hire marketing, research and development - to trade abroad. That strategy was available to us.\n\nWhat was the role of the credit institutions in all this? How moral and serious a commitment have they to anything in this country as they report losses made outside this economy? It would appear that when you put up rather dubious  loans you can turn to the credit institutions and get money; effectively, to go to the races for a short term scam.\n\nAt the same time the doors of factories are being closed, workers are losing their jobs and owners of small businesses have to sign in blood for small loans.\n\nSomething good must come from what we are debating, and whether one is of the Left or the Right that is important. It is important that we recognise that the culture of speculative gambling in economic terms is not productive and is not in the national interest. It will never create jobs. It is time that some people realised that their deadly anti-State ideology and their blindness in asserting that we must take people from the most dubious kind of fiscal activities in the private sector and move them to the State sector is a prejudiced nonsense.\n\nBord Telecom are a marvellous company, even on a world scale, because we borrowed money in the seventies to invest in the telephone system. That belongs to the public; why should it be stolen from them. It is not something of wires and exchanges that had magic worked upon it by one individual. That is the kind of nonsense we have had to put up with, people saying that they performed miracles like striking rocks when describing their performance in the semi-State sector. There was a public investment in this company. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are proud to work honestly and give of their intelligence in using the capital being provided by the Irish taxpayer. There are more than one million, I am sure, who despise those who will not work or create wealth, who do not want what they do to create jobs for their fellow citizens but want to take their little bit of gain, put it in a company outside this jurisdiction and avoid paying tax. The people are weary of the kind of moral turpitude that is at the basis of our present economic structures. They hear such a phrase as \"a mezzanine company\", that lovely piece of language, which means yet another intermediate device to avoid the obligation of paying tax of one form or another.\n\n The crowds came out against a wealth tax, which was very small here, one of the smallest in Europe. It yielded very little but it yielded information on the structure and nature of wealth. That was information we badly needed. It was not intended to take something from people that was unreasonable; it was simply to distinguish between productive wealth and speculative wealth. If we knew what was productive wealth we would have a better idea of how to structure an economic incentive system that would extend its productive capacity, create jobs and, in turn, create revenue. It was of course the people who were making the quick speculative money who were able to organise political opposition to the wealth tax. That was killed off not for what it yielded in its very short time but for what it was making known. This present crisis is a crisis of that kind of thinking. I advise those who are fortunate enough to be able to make academic commentaries on the way we run things to think of this distinction.\n\nWhen I was studying economics, when one looked at the share quotation of a company, it had something to do with its assets, its materials, its trading patterns, its future policies - \n\nI have not had an opportunity of saying much about other matters. I am simply saying one cannot break one's speech into two to say: \"These are all rumours and I am now going to talk about what my Department are doing\". That is pathetic. The way a Department is run is affected by the kind of Government we have, and that is affected by the kind of political culture we support. I could have been specific about my area, the Gaeltacht. What has the Minister for the Gaeltacht done to encourage my confidence, be it in terms of Telefís na Gaeltachta, labhairt na Gaeilge or school textbooks in Irish? I could have spoken about foreign affairs. What  has been done in that area? There has been a pathetic retreat from a moral responsibility at a time of death in Africa. The Government have retreated from their overseas development aid commitments. They have insulted the House in terms of a foreign affairs committee. It would be wrong to say that this gives one pleasure, but it is certainly appropriate that this House expresses its lack of confidence in the Government.","First, I should like to make a few general observations about the current controversies, then focus specifically and, of necessity, briefly on aspects of the semi-State bodies.\n\nIn every democracy the electorate must have confidence in the organs of the State, in their elected representatives, in the courts and in the administration of justice. If that confidence is eroded people lose faith in democracy and can quickly become apathetic or cynical, which we must always be vigilant to prevent.\n\nThere is no doubt that recent events have occurred in both the public and private sectors which give us reason to worry about standards in Irish business. In relation to the semi-State bodies it is the specific responsibility of Government, and the relevant Ministers, to act swiftly and decisively to allay such worries. They have done so in establishing the various investigations and inquiries. The inquiries now under way must ensure that any illegalities or malpractices will be uncovered, disclosed and dealt with decisively and fairly. Where wrong-doing occurs it has to be uprooted and tackled on the spot. That is the only way trust and confidence in the financial and business field can be restored. It does seem that sufficient things have happened in the recent past to increase our concern and determination to put things right. However, we must not get caught up, wittingly or unwittingly, in the process of character assassination. It is particularly incumbent on public representatives to  back up whatever they say and not say things merely for political gain.\n\nTurning to the semi-State bodies, I want to comment on the composition of boards and on the issue of control and regulation. I commend the Minister for Finance on setting up the study under the Secretary of his Department on the principles governing the relationship between the Departments of State and State bodies. That is especially timely at present. Likewise, I commend the promptness with which the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications responded to the troubling disclosures in bodies under his control.\n\nWhile acknowledging and indeed condemning the recent scandals it must be said that the great majority of State-sponsored bodies have done a very good job in recent years in very difficult trading conditions nationally and internationally. It should be remembered that these bodies are among the most significant employers in the country, employing almost 100,000 people. Most of them are employed in commercial State-sponsored bodies and have made a vital contribution to the life of our economy over the years. From my contact with these boards, as a member of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies for several years, I have the greatest confidence in the great majority of the management and workers in those enterprises. I emphasise that we should not tarnish either the State bodies or their employees because of the improprieties committed by a few people in them.\n\nThe scandals are harmful; there is no getting away from that. They damage the very fabric of our society and, in particular, affect our commercial credibility in the international marketplace. However, for the time being, in all fairness, we must await the outcome of the various investigations that are under way. The normal practice, based on many years experience of successive Governments as regards the relations between commercial State-sponsored bodies and the relevant Ministers, is that the Government appoint boards of directors who are  given a considerable measure of freedom in the management of the relevant companies. The level of independence enjoyed by these companies, of course, has to be consistent with legislation and considered appropriate to the task to be undertaken. In practice this means that commercial semi-State bodies would not normally need to consult with or obtain the approval of Government Departments for individual commercial decisions unless there were major strategic implications or specific Exchequer requirements. Therefore, Government Departments should not, except in very exceptional circumstances, be involved in any day-to-day decisions of semi-State companies.\n\nTurning to the directors of these semi-State boards, there is a clear obligation on any relevant Minister, and the Government, to ensure that qualified and experienced boards of directors are appointed. The boards of commercial State-sponsored bodies operate in varying degrees in the open market. Obviously, to compete effectively, the boards of such companies must be allowed freedom, within policy guidelines, to manage their companies. However, the crucial issue is to have people appointed to boards with the appropriate qualifications and experience. Normally, executive directors have these characteristics and fulfil those requirements.\n\nI specifically want to address the question of the non-executive director, whom I suggest must have the same qualifications and experience if such people are to make the necessary and relevant contribution to board deliberations. Therefore, there is a real need to review the quality of appointments in relation to non-executive directors of State enterprises. Properly qualified non-executive directors can greatly assist a company. They can also provide an element of control on behalf of the shareholder, in this case, the Irish public and taxpayer, over a company's management. If we are to have effective boards of directors these appointments should be based on the qualifications and experience of the individuals concerned.\n\nMembership of a State board is, and should be, for many a form of practical patriotism. However, the directors' fees for such board membership generally are derisory, ridiculously low. Indeed, I suggest there is an urgent need to review these fees to bring them even slightly closer to directors' fees obtaining in the private sector. This remuneration argument applies to full-time executives as well as non-executive directors. There are many examples of senior, full-time executives in the semi-State sector whose remuneration - where it follows the recommendations of the Gleeson Commission - does not realistically compare wih the going rate in the private sector. Furthermore, we cannot reasonably expect senior and experienced businessmen to take on the onerous duties, if they are to play a full role, of the non-executive director especially since the enactment of the Companies Act, 1990, places considerable controls on their behaviour and performance. We cannot realistically expect people of this stature to give sufficient time to the State body concerned if they continue to receive the nominal payments made to non-executive directors at present.\n\nWe must not be naive. By and large these are very substantial commercial enterprises, big businesses. We must have men and women appointed to boards with wide experience of the tough and practical side of business. We must trust these people to do the right thing. In a country as small as ours there is an absolute need to be frank, forthcoming and open as conflicts of interest must be resolved almost on a daily basis. However, if any wilful wrong-doing occurs in a State company then action must be taken after calm and realistic examination. There should be no preemptive public hangings. However strongly we may feel about a matter we must examine it fairly and equitably.\n\nThere have been calls for a code of ethics for board members and guidelines on proper conduct. As somebody involved in business education for many years, I fully support the inclusion of courses on ethics - they are there already -  in the course of business education. As experience has shown many of those who go through the educational system will progress to board membership. Such codes of ethics, desirable as they are, do not entirely tackle the issue of morality. The bottom line in relation to morality will stand or fall on individual honesty. Therefore, we can have codes and guidelines but, at the end of the day, we are back to the integrity of individuals on such boards and elsewhere. The crucial thing is to have people serving on boards, to put is simply, who can distinguish between right and wrong and be of high probity and wide experience.\n\nThere is the further vexed question of whether additional legislation and/or regulation is desirable in the case of semi-State bodies. In posing this question we must be mindful that controls are already in place. Commercial State-sponsored bodies are subject to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1963, and the recently enacted Companies, Act, 1990, with some exceptions. These Acts, in particular the Companies Act, 1990, have very stringent provisions for controlling and regulating the activities of companies and, in particular, their directors. Specifically, there are stringent requirements on directors to declare their interests in transactions, including property transactions. It should be said that the transactions which are currently the subject of investigations occurred prior to the enactment of the 1990 Act.\n\nThe balance which has to be struck between protecting the interests of the State shareholders, the public, while at the same time providing legislative changes and/or intervention that will allow a strong commercial State sector to develop is a key question and it requires careful focus and attention to get the balance right. There is and must be - and this is practical patriotism - a very close working relationship between business and politics in the common interest of the development of economic activity which will benefit people in terms of jobs, etc. It is a fact that in Ireland Government and Government bodies are commercially and socially involved in an  enormous range of activities that touch on all our lives. One of the more recent examples of this contact, this joint approach between Government and business, was the leading by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of a trade delegation to the Baltic countries to develop trade with this country, which in turn should lead to jobs we so badly need.\n\nIn terms of the review of legislation, I am aware that the Minister for Finance's group is already deliberating. I want to make a few suggestions in this regard. There could be a requirement on boards of directors to demand and to ascertain, in so far as possible, the beneficial ownership of the vendor or purchaser of an asset to or from the company. The second point is that the requirement on directors to provide details of any beneficial interest in contracts, including in particular the acquisition or sale of property or shares in another company, could be extended to the requirement that the directors make a declaration, whether it be positive or negative.\n\nI welcome the current review of guidelines on public procurement, which will identify whether any improvements need to be put in place so that any further guidelines established do not inhibit the efficiency and cost effectiveness of commercial operations. We must certainly improve the guidelines in relation to public procurement but not in a way that would stultify commercial operations.\n\nAgainst the background of policy guidelines laid down by relevant Government Departments, the boards of these companies must be allowed to manage their businesses without undue interference. The directors of semi-State companies must be properly qualified and realistically remunerated. The Companies Act, 1990, significantly enhances the regulatory environment and in particular the controls over directors. This applies to many of our commercial semi-State companies. Further consideration could be given, however, to providing legislation and/or guidelines, particularly in relation to disclosure of directors'  interests, of parties in sales or acquisitions, and penalties for non-disclosure. Any malpractices which are uncovered or disclosed following investigations must be followed by appropriate and decisive Government action. We in the Oireachtas must do all we can to support in a positive way the development and management of the commercial State sector so that it is in a position to compete in the open market and create the jobs we so badly need.","This debate has gone on for three days and there are probably 1,000 reasons for any Member of this House to declare lack of confidence in the Government. What is confidence? Basically it is trust, and it is now quite clear that the vast majority of the people, in opinion polls and by assessment over the last number of days, clearly do not have confidence in this Administration. Not only do they not have confidence in the Government but they have almost none either in the political and economic  system. The foundation of our economy has been rocked by scandals in recent weeks. I had hoped that at least the Progressive Democrats, whose core value initially was to restore public confidence, to be mould breakers, would have tried to give a sense of honour and would have supported the ethics of good government. However, that has not happened. We had that opportunity six months ago when the Labour Party produced an ethics Bill which would have made it mandatory for Members to make a disclosure of interests, which would require gifts to individual Ministers to be public property if they were valued at over £200 and which would require disclosure of all political funding of political parties, but the Bill was voted down by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. I see in the agreement which they cobbled together in the last couple of days, adding to the crisis facing the country in economic terms and mass unemployment, that there is a reference to a declaration of material interests. Apparently this will come into effect in September 1992, to give adequate time for anybody to divest himself of anything they might not like to come to light. Fundamentally, the people are fed up with politics and politicians - \n\nThe people are sick of the machinations of Government. The political profession has been sullied in recent weeks.\n\nI now want to talk about my own area of responsibility. There was talk about local government reform. The Local Government Act which was passed in this House is a sham as it tightens central control. Apparently the Barrington report on the sub-county structures will be implemented if we can pay for the recommendations. Many local councillors, especially in urban areas, will have a lot to say about that. There is still a crisis in housing and there is no material relief for those on the endless housing  queues up and down the country. County roads are also in a disastrous state.\n\nThe Government have now grasped a few principles. They will now look at the issue of voting rights for emigrants, a measure they voted down in the last 12 months when the Labour Party produced a Bill in the House. There is a token comment about health care in the new agreement. The Minister knows the effort that went into the Child Care Bill which has yet to be implemented. There are no resources in any health board area to implement it. There is no provision for care or accommodation for the mentally handicapped; acute services are in a disastrous condition. The elderly are still waiting for the implementation of the provisions of the Health (Nursing Homes) Act to allow them to live the latter years of their lives in dignity. It is laughable to read in the agreed programme that the Government are committed to developing the health services to ensure equality of access, irrespective of means. That is patently the opposite of what they did for the last two years.\n\nI hope that some good can come out of the fiasco of the last few days and that a system of democratic accountability will be brought into place in this House.","This motion gives Members the opportunity to put to the test the activities of the Government composed of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in terms of their ability to do the job they were elected to do. It also gives politicians the opportunity to avail of a verbal blood letting and a political blood letting to release the pent up fury and outrage felt by many people reflected in the words of politicians as a  result of various activities of the Government.\n\nThere are other people in the country who should now have the courage to speak out. There are still loose ends to be tied up with regard to many of the allegations and activities with which the Government are concerned. Arising from discussions yesterday and this morning a deal will probably be cobbled together by Friday and the Taoiseach will not be forced to seek a dissolution of the House. The fact that that will happen indicates the shortsightedness of the Government in their collective responsibility in that the decision to carry on merely reflects their stumbling from crisis to crisis.\n\nWe will go on from this crisis to the preparation of the budgetary estimates and the attempt to implement the budget next January or February with all the consequent difficulties for any Government. Those difficulties coupled with attempts by Fianna Fáil members to change leadership mid-stream arising from a naked fear of going into a general election with Deputy Haughey as leader adds to the difficulties, the lack of confidence, the cynicism and the frustration of thousands of people. I am surprised that the matter of collective responsibility is not to the forefront in this debate. I have not heard a member of the Progressive Democrats express confidence in the activities of the Government or talk about the responsibility placed upon them by the electorate. They appear to be unable to defend the confidence motion and their Government in terms of what they have done.\n\nThe Taoiseach in his speech yesterday said that under the national development plan there had been sustained investment in our infrastructure, roads, ports and airports with corresponding benefit to activity in the construction industry. The Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Coalition Government have let this House, our young people, the middle aged and the elderly down. As one person quite rightly put it: the only difference between this place and the Titanic is that it had a band.\n\nThe economic crucifixion and wreckage which have been brought about by the Minister for Finance and his colleagues in Government are obvious to everyone on the streets of Ireland. The CII report on unemployment indicates that at the end of August 265,300 people or 20.4 per cent of the labour force were out of work. This represents an increase of 35,000 since the same period last year despite the fact that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance in their concluding remarks on the national plan said there was no question ever again of allowing Government expenditure to increase as a proportion of GNP. We have seen nothing but abject failures since the introduction of the fraudulent budget by the Minister for Finance earlier this year.\n\nThe national debt hangs around the neck of each man, woman and child in this country. Not alone has the country borrowed in dollars and Deutsche Marks but it has deprived young children in over crowded classrooms of opportunities to avail of the right type of education which would enable them to cope with the difficulties they will face in their lives. It has forced those who have left our much esteemed education system with qualifications to go abroad to find employment and gain experience. Elderly people who wake up each morning crippled with pain must wait for hip replacement and orthopaedic operations because of the inability of the Government to provide a decent health service. Thousands of people are deprived of the opportunity to gain some comfort in the remaining years of their lives.\n\nIt is for those reasons principally that I wish to speak to this motion of confidence as a Deputy representing the west which has been cast aside completely by the Government. No matter what happens now or what temporary arrangements are arrived at there is nothing which will restore the confidence of the people in the Government's ability to run their affairs. The Government have lost that confidence and they cannot regain  it. The soldiers may well march on but I wonder where their destiny lies.","This motion of confidence comes at mid-term, halfway through the present Government's period of office. It comes at a time when the Government are facing serious economic and social problems. It is precisely at this time and in this sort of situation that the Government need to be given a mandate by the House to get on with the job - that is what is important.\n\nI am voting for them very strongly here and I am speaking in favour of a motion of confidence in the Government on that account. Nobody wants a general election at this stage. So far as any of us can gauge the pulse of public opinion, it is quite evident that what the public want is for this Government to stay and deal with the problems. The problems are there. I share with others from all parties who have spoken with concern about a series of economic and social problems facing Irish society at present. Those problems are a matter for the Government to tackle as expeditiously as possible; they are not a reason for a general election. In my view, this is precisely the time we should not have a general election. It is a period in which we must gather the forces in our community together and tackle the problems that are there and that have certainly come upon us in a substantial way, particularly in the past 12 months.\n\nThe problems are there for us all to see. There is the jobs crisis - and it should be called a crisis - and there is the related problem of stimulating investment to cope with that. There is the further problem on the agricultural front of negotiating the whole Common Agricultural Policy with a view to meeting reforms in that policy that are essential if the nations of the world are to get together into what is required, a new trading relationship under the auspices of GATT. It is quite certain the Common Agricultural Policy, as devised at present, giving rise to the surpluses that have arisen, is inadequate to deal in a rational way with agricultural policies within the European Community or with the trading policies of the Community with the rest of the world. That is a major task now facing the Government. On the three important aspects of jobs, investment and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy what we need is to have the present Government in place, directed by this House, to pursue this course vigorously.\n\nThen, of course, there is the overriding problem of the public finances facing into a serious budgetary position, one that will have to be dealt with no matter who is in Government. A general election will not solve that. Whatever Government is put in place will have to face up to that problem, of getting the nation's finances in order and presenting a budget to this House at the end of January next, that will create the necessary climate of confidence in our capacity to handle our financial affairs. Unless that climate of confidence is there - and seen by the world at large to be there - we will not get the investment required to deal with the jobs crisis. All of these problems are interlinked and can be dealt with only by a Government in power backed by a mandate of this House. All that a general election can ensure, or all that any divisive approach to the Government of this country can ensure at present is a degeneration into further chaos, chaos in regard to all the problem areas I have just mentioned. That is something the  general public do not want. We can keep the matter in perspective if we take that national approach to it: there must be a Government in place to handle these serious problems that have arisen. This Government is in mid-term and has another two to two-and-a-half years to deal with them.\n\nOf course, part of that problem is the very important matter of confidence in Government administration. Government administration must be seen to be competent, must be seen to be clear and fair. In brief, we must have good government, there must be seen to be good government, transparently there must be good government. That is why these recent financial scandals - and they are financial scandals - have clouded the atmosphere in this respect. In order to ensure that the climate of confidence we require is maintained and enhanced the Government's paramount duty is to clear the air in regard to these financial scandals. These financial scandals are not of a political making. Politicians of all parties in this House do this democratic institution a grave disservice in throwing about political allegations - and this applies to all parties in the House - when what we are dealing with here is a number of financial scandals, particularly in regard to executives in the State-sponsored service. These financial scandals will have to be dealt with expeditiously, blame apportioned and action taken by the Government to deal with the people responsible. What we are dealing with there is a new form of greed culture not just endemic here but in many other parts of the world. We have seen similar type scandals occur in New York, Tokyo and in London, all within the past few months. There has been also a major financial banking scandal involving the BCCI.\n\nThis sort of financial or what one might describe as greed culture that has developed here and in other parts of the world is part of the new growth of speculation surrounding money markets made possible by easy computerised communications and the new technological capacity to make a fast buck. This must  be controlled in the social interest. Indeed it is the duty of every Government to introduce the social controls required to deal with the vicissitudes of the marketplace and of the money market. That is a paramount social obligation lying on the shoulders of every Government in the democracies of the world, to ensure that financial matters governing the marketplace are under social control and management, to ensure that if there is to be a free market, it really is a free and fair one. I predict that it will be in that area that the new politics of the social market will prevail, involving the marketplace, in regard to the competitive exchange of goods and services while, at the same time, ensuring that the marketplace is a really fair and equitable one, supervised by ethical rules and regulations. In addition, if people disobey those ethical rules and regulations they must suffer penalties by way of fines or imprisonment, penalties of whatever kind are deemed to be proper.\n\nThe main thrust of what the Government should do at present is pursue to the utmost degree the various investigative inquiries that have been set afoot in regard to the four financial scandals there have been within our community in recent times. Such an approach has been adopted and inspectors appointed to ascertain the facts in regard to the Sugar Company-Greencore affair, in regard to the Telecom affair, in regard to the Aer Lingus Holdings involving a scandal amongst executives of their own travel subsidiary. The Director of Public Prosecutions has a file in regard to that matter. In regard to the Goodman affair a tribunal is now sitting and the courts are interacting with that tribunal.\n\nI should like to deal with what is in my view the grossest of those scandals, that is the one involving the Sugar Company and Greencore, involving the privatisation of the Sugar Company and the transactions that took place within the Sugar Company within a few months in 1989-90 when a profit of some £7 million to £8 million was made by four or five - depending on who owned Talmino, the offshore company - executives of the  Sugar Company and of its subsidiary, Irish Sugar Distributors. That profit of £7 million to £8 million involved an appreciation of 500 per cent in value over a few months in 1989-90. That 500 per cent profit of £7 million to £8 million went into the pockets of those executives of the Irish Sugar Company and its subsidiary, Irish Sugar Distributors. They were facilitated in that respect by an interest-free loan of £1 million, made available for the purpose of that transition, enabling Gladebrook Limited to acquire a 49 per cent share subsequently taken over by the Sugar Company proper.\n\nThose are the facts of the matter. What is even more serious than that - and that is serious enough - is the fact that that appreciation of 500 per cent, involving that profit of £7 million to £8 million was approved by the chief executive of the Investment Bank of Ireland, Mr. Richard Hooper. Therefore, that particular profit made within a few months on a product that did not change in value or volume, that is sugar, in a captive market called the Republic of Ireland, was approved by the Investment Bank of Ireland as being a legitimate appreciation in value of those particular shares within that short period of a few months. That is intolerable; that is criminality, nothing more, nothing less, on the part of the people involved, on the part of all the advisers involved, financial consultants, accountants, lawyers and also the chairman and chief executive of what was then the Irish Sugar Company, now Greencore Limited. The chief executive and secretary of Greencore Limited have already parted company with Greencore. The chairman remains. In my view he should follow suit.\n\nThat is a financial scandal. It has nothing to do with politics, politicians or Government. In my view all political parties in this House do a disservice to democracy by implying that there is anything political whatever in that. Yes, it is symptomatic of a type of greed culture, a sort of behavioural phenomenon occurring so blatantly with the co-operation of so many professional people. It is outside  the arena of politics but something with which politicians must deal.\n\nIt is the challenge of this Government - and I am glad to see they are facing up to it - to fully investigate this matter to ensure that these investigations are concluded as expeditiously as possible, so that when those conclusions come to hand Government action will be taken, be seen to be taken by them, in order to allay public disquiet, thereby ensuring there is not a repetition of such action in the future. There have been similar instances of malpractice of a financial kind in the Telecom affair, in the Aer Lingus Holiday's affair and in the Goodman affair. They are all being properly investigated and when conclusions are reached I hope action will be taken.\n\nOne further aspect should be seriously considered by the Government and by the House in the interests of establishing permanent confidence among the public at home and abroad in our financial institutions and in our administration generally. We must ensure so far as is humanly possible that matters of the kind I have mentioned do not happen again. We will not be able to prevent fraud or malpractice but we can ensure as far as possible that there is transparency in these matters and that the Government of the day are seen to be setting up the requisite procedures.\n\nThe Government should examine as a matter of urgency the establishment of a watchdog commission on the lines of a similar commission in the United States which supervises the Stock Exchange and financial dealings by the Government and the public. We have ample precedents here of efficient and effective commissions. The Civil Service Commissioners supervise the area of Civil Service appointments. Local appointments are dealt with by the Local Appointment Commissioners. There are also the Revenue Commissioners. For over 100 years the Land Commissioners performed a fantastic task in transferring  land from the landlord class to the tenantry and in the process providing for compensation right across the board.\n\nIndeed they did, but we remedied them from time to time. We have a tradition of commissions of this kind. We have commissioners who are independent of the Government of the day in performing their duties. We need such a commission to supervise the allocation of contracts and consultancies, be they legal or financial, on the part of Government Departments, Government Agencies and semi-State agencies. Fees for estate agents, accountants, stockbrokers and lawyers should be set on a statutory basis when they are employed by a public body. We need a panel of such people which will be scrutinised and reviewed from time to time by the commissioners. All State and semi-State contracts and consultancies over a certain level should be allocated by these commissioners on statutory criteria which are above and beyond reproach.\n\nIn view of the involvement of State-sponsored companies, a similar body should be appointed to supervise appointments to State boards. This should include the appointment of chairmen of such boards. There are plenty of able people in the professional and commercial life of this country who are fitted to take on these jobs. I do not accept that there is a scarcity of such people. A panel should be established by the Government from which selections should be made for appointments to State boards in an ordinary capacity and as chairmen. Such a system of fair allocation of contracts and consultancies would be supervised by independent commissioners, free from Government control and interference. That would establish confidence in the Administration. Such confidence is as important as confidence in financial matters. All this promotes confidence in investment, which helps to deal with the job problem.\n\n No one Government are to blame for what has happened over the last couple of years. The chairman of Greencore was appointed in 1985 by the then Fine Gael/Labour Government. I do not want to make a point about that. Over a number of years appointments and the allocation of contracts and consultancies have been made on a rather casual basis. Certain people have got on to the inside track in regard to these appointments. The same names and the same firms tend to come up, whether it is NCB or Investment Bank of Ireland. It appears there is an incestuous ring of people who, on the nod, get these various positions and contracts.\n\nThe only defence I have heard - and I do not accept it - is that we are a small country and only a limited number of people are capable of doing these jobs. I do not accept that. There is ample talent, particularly young talent, in the business and professional world who can take on the privatisation of Telecom Éireann or of any other State body if that is decided upon by the Government. I cannot understand why, in the midst of the investigation following the Greencore matter, we had the prospect of Telecom Éireann taking on NCB and the Investment Bank of Ireland to advise them on privatisation. One wonders at the attitude of mind that dictated that decision within a few weeks of the Greencore affair. The Minister for Communications stepped into that matter quickly after the Taoiseach had rightly spoken on the radio. The two parties concerned properly withdrew from the Telecom Éireann contract - I refer to NCB and Investment Bank of Ireland.\n\nWe know what happened in regard to Mr. Desmond and other people who rightly resigned or stepped aside depending on the phraseology one uses. Justice must be seen to be done on a non-selective basis. The chairman of Greencore should follow that example, as well as any other people who  were involved in practices not appropriate to their position. That is the only possible approach. Everything must be transparent and above board so that justice is seen to be done. We must establish for the future a system which is fair and open, run by a permanent commission who will deal with these matters so that malpractices are at least less likely to arise.\n\nI will conclude on a point which has arisen out of the discussions which have taken place throughout the country and in this House during the past two days, that is, the need to strengthen the institutions of this country. Let the media examine their own conscience. We will examine our situation and whatever Government is there will do the same. We are in a working democracy and we do not want to create a mood of hysteria or start a witch hunt when problems arise. Problems arise and when they arise they should be dealt with in a rational way and a permanent arrangement established to deal with them. We should not be engaging in the sort of vindictive debate we have seen in this House in the past two days. There should not be the kind of vindictive comment we have seen in the media and have heard from various politicians and commentators. I do not want to start apportioning blame. All I am saying is that all of this does not do any of us any good. If I am in Opposition it does not do any good to start this sort of campaign against whoever is in Government at the time. It does not do the Opposition parties any good to take up the cudgels in this way. Nor does it do the media any good. It does not do any good for the morale of the public. It does nobody any good to get into this sewer of political exchanges when the sensible thing is to acknowledge that there are problems and that these problems should be tackled in as rational a way as possible.\n\nAt another level of public debate we have seen what has been happening in the US where undoubtedly politicians and political leaders have brought the whole system into total disrepute. There is a witch hunt in regard to judicial appointments. God forbid that we will ever have  a system of judicial appointments here where one's past can be looked into to that extent. That is not the way to go about business. It has caused massive hysteria in the United States. It has appealed to everything that is banal, trivial, prurient. It has been a titillating exercise in which the whole of the United States has been involved trying to out-Dallas the worst in \"Dallas\".\n\nWe have been at a little bit of this ourselves in recent weeks. The less of it we have now the better. Let us get down to business. This House should, tomorrow, vote confidence in the Government as an indicator from us that the Government are getting on with the business of dealing with the serious economic and social problems and of restoring confidence in the financial management of our affairs through a budget that is transparently honest next January; that in regard to the overall administration of our society here this Government are taking measures to finally bring to a conclusion the current investigations, deal immediately with the conclusions of those investigations and set up some sort of structure or structures along the lines I have mentioned to ensure that there is seen to be clear and clean Government and a certain degree of confidence in the administration for the future.","I  must first say that I deplore the very low standard of debate which is creeping into this confidence motion. When I think of the history of The Workers' Party and how they were born into Irish politics it ill-behoves them to make the statements and allegations which they have freely made both inside and outside the House, with friends in different areas of responsibility - \n\nPeople should declare their political allegiance in every area of Irish life. The information which is regularly given to The Workers' Party seeks to undermine the institutions of this State. They are prepared to do that on a regular basis.\n\nI note in particular the contribution by Deputy Rabbitte. We are debating a motion of confidence in this  Government who have provided good government over the past two and a half years. During his contribution to this debate Deputy Rabbitte never put forward any proposals for an alternative government to that in office now. He did not put forward any proposals in relation to the serious level of unemployment, which the Government want to resolve as a matter of priority. Does the Deputy really think that the contribution he has made in this House today - digging up papers going back to 1970 and 1974 will contribute to a reduction in the level of unemployment or the creation of jobs? The main purpose of the innuendo and the slurs they have cast over the past number of months is simply to destabilise the Government, bring them down, cause a general election and create a situation where The Workers' Party will be in a position to influence the composition of the next Government.\n\nWe know their links with Ceausescu in Romania, with eastern Europe and the Official IRA. We are still not satisfied that they did not know where the guns were hidden. They know that the guns were never handed up by the Official IRA. You were a member of the Official IRA. Let us be clear about it. Let them purge their contempt.\n\nDeputy Proinsias De  Rossa is very sensitive so far as his background is concerned. However, he is not as concerned about throwing out allegations in relation to the Minister for Justice and the Taoiseach as he is about any possible allegations in relation to his involvement with different organisations in the past. He is very sensitive and I am rather surprised at his sensitivity.\n\nI want to get back to the main purpose of this debate. I would appreciate if every Member of the House concentrated on the main issue of the economy which is before us and desist from making allegations across the House, which has been happening for the past two days. The allegations being made give rise to counter-allegations but they are not in the national interest. This House should concentrate on its main function, the introduction of legislation  to alleviate the problems facing the country.\n\nIt is also up to The Workers' Party to refute the allegations made on the \"Today Tonight\" programme in relation to the illegal printing of Irish money. All those allegations were made on RTE and as far as I know they were never refuted. They should refute those allegations while they are at it. I am sure it would be appropriate for them to refute those allegations in another forum, on radio or television.\n\nI am very pleased, as Minister for Trade and Marketing, to have this opportunity to speak in support of the motion before the House. Before dealing with my specific area of responsibility, namely Ireland's marketing and export performance in recent years and the prospects for the future, it is worth reiterating some facts about the performance of this Government and its predecessor since 1987. I will also deal with how the marketing and export promotion policy of both Governments has played a vital role in the recovery which has taken place in the economy since 1987.\n\nWhen Fianna Fáil came to power in 1987 we found the country in the most perilous state. The national debt had been doubled over the term of office of the previous Government. The budget deficit at over 8 per cent of GNP was at the highest level ever. Income taxes were at a level where many considered it not worth their while to earn an income. Investment in the economy was non-existent. Employment had fallen by over 60,000 during the previous Government's reign. Confidence was at an all time low.  Indeed, it would probably be truer to say that despair was at an all-time high. This was the mess the incoming Government were faced with in 1987. To many it appeared a hopeless case.\n\nImmediately on taking power in 1987 we set about rectifying this disastrous situation. We faced up to the tough decisions which had to be taken. I must place on record the responsible attitude of Deputy Dukes and the Fine Gael Party at the time. Unfortunately, he suffered the consequences of his responsibility when he was removed and replaced by Deputy Bruton as Leader of the party.\n\nNevertheless, the record will show that Deputy Dukes played a very important role in supporting the policies pursued by our Government at that time; many of us suffered electorally in 1989 as a result of the action taken in the national interest. We were prepared to stand up and make very tough decisions. We should place on record our appreciation to the person who was Taoiseach then, is Taoiseach now and the Taoiseach of the future, for his commitment and dedication to this policy.\n\nBy 1990 the despair which had existed had been changed to a new confidence. This confidence was well founded. The basic economic indicators showed just how successful this Government and the previous one had been in the transformation of the economy.\n\nThe current budget deficit had been cut from the record level of 8.3 per cent of GNP to just 2 per cent by 1990. The economy had been transformed from one of stagnation to positive growth averaging 4.5 per cent per annum. The balance of payments moved into surplus aided by record export levels and trade surpluses and Ireland became an attractive location for investment. We have one of the lowest inflation rates in world.  Personal tax rates fell from 58 per cent to 52 per cent at the higher band and the standard rate fell from 35 per cent to 29 per cent, a major achievement in a short number of years. We built a strong economy which was crucial to weather the effects of the latest severe international recession; a recession which of course has impacted on us just as it has on even the world's strongest economies.\n\nHad we not been successful in transforming our economy since 1987 we can only speculate on the disaster which would now be facing us in the light of current international difficulties.\n\nI would like to turn now to my own area of responsibility, namely, trade and marketing and more specifically export performance. Since 1987, this Government and their predecessor can be justly proud of their record in promoting Irish exports. We have had continuing trade surpluses every year. Overall export growth and the export performance of our indigenous exporters have been most impressive even in the face of extremely harsh worldwide economic conditions.\n\nIrish export performance has still been most impressive in 1991, despite the level of international recession, war in the Gulf and general economic uncertainty. Up to the end of July, exports showed a remarkably solid performance. Exports in value terms for the first seven months of the year amounted to £8.6 billion, almost at parity with their 1990 levels. This performance is characterised by steady growth in the indigenous sectors such as textiles, furniture, clothing and footwear. However, the international  recession has had a particularly adverse affect on exports of computer related equipment with exports in this sector down by some 17 per cent.\n\nThe real success of exports for the first half of 1991 lies in the volume increase, with overseas sales of manufactured goods up to 7.6 per cent over the same period last year. When one considers that this volume increase was achieved against a disimproving world trading climate, the export performance so far this year is to be commended. Even though downward price pressures in the international marketplace are causing our export values to be static, given the strong volume growth which we are experiencing, I am confident that 1991 will see an increase in export values from £14.3 billion last year to at least £14.8 billion in 1991, truly a great performance for our country, truly a great performance for the Government, truly a great performance for our manufacturers and our exporters.\n\nOf particular importance is the success of our indigenous exporters. Preliminary surveys by An Bord Tráchtála - the Irish Trade Board - indicate that their 1,200 indigenous companies are showing particularly strong growth in their exports in 1991. The sectors performing best are clothing, footwear, textiles and added value food products. This performance continues a trend which can be traced back to 1987. Over the three years from 1987 to 1990, indigenous exports increased by 44 per cent in value while total exports increased by 33 per cent. Before 1987, indigenous export growth had consistently trailed that of overall exports with an average annual growth of just 5 per cent. Since 1987, indigenous exports have outpaced overall export growth at an average of 13 per cent growth per annum.\n\nThe ultimate objective of all trade and marketing policy is employment creation. I am confident that the efforts made to develop the marketing capabilities of our firms is now bearing fruit and will continue to do so. I would like to give a practical example of a company which has benefited from yet another  Government inspired scheme to assist exports, namely the special trading house scheme.\n\nIn a letter to my office recently, a manufacturer explained how his company increased production through the use of a trading house to do his overseas marketing. Prior to dealing with the trading house, export sales for the company were zero. After making arrangements with the trading house, exports now account for 80 per cent of sales. Employment in the company has increased from 13 to 48 people. This is an example of how export led growth can impact on employment and how crucial exports are to our economy overall. We will continue to develop policies which produce results such as these.\n\nIn the midst of all these Government efforts and the individual efforts of firms we must never ignore the extent to which our destinies are controlled by outside factors. There is no point in pretending that we are immune from economic conditions which prevail in the rest of the world. The economies of our major trading partners have experienced severe recession. Although some are showing signs of re-emerging, many are still clouded by enormous difficulties. In the US, for example, the weakness of the banking system is still affecting confidence; efforts by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are being hindered by old technology, the lack of an infrastructure to support a market economy and lack of entrepreneurial spirit. A recent estimate by UNCTAD predicts that aggregate world growth is likely to advance by less than 1 per cent in 1991 compared with almost 2 per cent in 1990. The difficulties of trading in a tight economic situation such as this with intensified competition as firms compete for market share must always be recognised.\n\nThere are two factors in particular which have contributed to our export success in the past and which will undoubtedly continue to contribute in the future. The first is the Government's achievement in creating a favourable business environment which I have already outlined. The second element concerns the  specific supports which the Government put in place for our exporters over those years to help them build market share. The efficiency and effectiveness of these supports are continuously under review and are adjusted to suit the particular demands of our exporters from time to time. What length of time remains for me?\n\nI would like now to concentrate on the substantial efforts which went into developing marketing programmes to assist Irish business prepare for the threats and opportunities of the Single European Market.\n\nThere has been general agreement in this country that, historically, too high a proportion of State expenditure on industrial development has gone towards investment in equipment and fixed assets. It is acknowledged that the balance needed to be shifted towards \"softer assets\" and particularly towards areas of perceived weakness like marketing, management development and technology. This policy was adopted in the White Paper on Industry Policy in 1984 and the two reviews of that policy which have been published, the last one in December 1990, bear out that a significant shift within the industry budget from support of fixed assets to non-fixed assets has taken place.\n\nWe are quite confident we can meet the challenges and the opportunities which will present themselves in the Single Market. Indeed the Government during the Presidency of the EC in the first six months of 1990 played a very significant role in ensuring we had much greater opportunities in the Single European Market after 1992. Generally speaking this debate which is taking place is certainly unhelpful to the economic wellbeing of our country. It is in the national interest that Ministers, Ministers  of State and Members of this House should assist the business community in every way possible to develop markets and increase production. I make no apologies for working with industries throughout the country to assist them in developing and in increasing employment. Nothing said in this debate will deter me from my responsibility as a Minister. I will work with companies in my constituency and beyond to obtain new markets at home and abroad. In pursuit of that I will be delighted to continue my contacts at all levels.\n\nAs a Member of this House I am concerned about media coverage of events over the last few weeks. I favour, without question, a free media, subject only to the prevailing laws of libel and whatever constraints the Dáil may decide to impose in relation, for instance, to incitement to hatred or violence. In fact, one of the distinguishing features of free societies is a media which is free to report and comment on all the issues. The media has a big contribution to make to the maintenace of democracy and, of course, one of the hall-marks of an anti-democratic society is a media which is muzzled.\n\nThat said, I would like to take a look at another quality which the media must possess - a sense of responsibility. As far as I am concerned, freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.\n\nBecause the media business is so competitive, it is natural that each newspaper or radio station or whatever should try to make its product as attractive as possible. Sometimes, this may result in over-simplification of complex issues, but it is to be expected that the media will try to make these issues as stimulating and attractive as possible, without distorting the facts. There has to be a middle way and, usually, the media get it right.\n\nHowever, in recent weeks, I have been disappointed to see a lowering of standards in some of the media in the headlong pursuit of better and more sensational stories. Some media people have lost sight of certain things which are essential if they are to carry out their jobs in a professional and objective manner.  A particularly worrying development has been the presumption of guilt by association which has crept into some coverage.\n\nWe should all be very grateful to a vigilant media which exposes and reports on corruption wherever it exists. I do not want dirt to be swept under the carpet. People and institutions, up to the highest level, should be subject to scrutiny and, if they do not measure up, we should know about it. In uncovering stories which, at the very least, raise genuine concerns, the media performs a very useful task and is to be complimented. However, not all coverage in recent weeks has been fair and reasonable and some of it has crossed that line into the presumption of guilt, or certainly, leading the reader/listener/viewer to think that some person or organisation is guilty, in advance of any proven facts, particularly, guilty by association.\n\nAlso, calling for some sense of national responsibility on the media's part is not unreasonable. The media is part of Irish society and should think carefully about damage which it can inflict on the national economy.\n\nFor instance, it might be very tempting to run a sensationalised story on a particular industry, which, by creating seeds of doubt about that industry could lead to lost export orders and, ultimately, lost jobs. That is why I am deeply concerned about coverage in recent weeks. There is an onus on the media not to rush prematurely into print with such a story; it should be thoroughly checked out beforehand.\n\nI know that, by saying this, there will be those who will accuse me of calling for a whitewash approach to journalism, that is that anything, true or false, which damages the country's image should not be made public. I am emphatically not saying that.\n\nIf something or somebody deserves to be exposed, so be it. We do not want companies for instance who damage our efforts to establish a quality image for Irish industry and its exports.\n\nHowever, when there are rumours and unsupported allegations circulating, it is up to media editors to think very carefully  about the presentation of a story before running it. They should give consideration to the potential for causing commercial damage to a company or an industry or, indeed, to the national image.\n\nIt is about time that the media established a press council to ensure that those who would be affected by unproved stories have some remedy without going to the courts. I particularly resented articles by Conor Cruise O'Brien in the Irish Independent which were most offensive to the Taoiseach. The allegations were scurrilous. Dr. Cruise O'Brien talked about people gathering at the crossroads waiting for the grave to be dug and about someone waiting to plunge the knife or the spear into the Taoiseach. That was incitement to hatred by a vicious commentator, a former Member of this House. It reached the lowest standards of any newspaper or publication here. The editor and the proprietors of the Irish Independent should ensure that that type of approach is not repeated. It is an embarrassment and it is an insult to the elected leader of this country. I very much resent that sort of publication and I appeal to the media to set up a self regulatory press council so that people will have a chance to at least put their case. That would do the media a good deal of good.","Any fairminded person would have to agree that certain members of the Opposition have grossly abused their position of privilege in this House in the manner in which they have  hurled accusations against people outside the House without any evidence. That is reprehensible and calls into question the limits to which this privilege can be allowed. As Deputy Dermot Ahern said earlier, the matter must be addressed. It is outrageous and it flies in the face of common justice that accusations of criminal behaviour can be made against people who are not in a position to defend themselves. Too often these Deputies when asked to repeat their allegations outside of the House have refused to do so because they know they are without foundation and would not stand up in a court of law.\n\nThe main culprits in this area have been The Workers' Party. It is unfortunate that The Workers' Party, who apparently stem from the criminal activities of the Official IRA and who have had certain links with the disgraced communists of eastern Europe - \n\nIt is unfortunate that The Workers' Party with this background have been backed up by the Labour Party and Fine Gael. The Workers' Party have thrown numerous accusations against this  side of the House, against innocent people as well.\n\nAccountability was one of the major planks of The Workers' Party. Seeing that the Deputy is in here, I want to have a go at him first. The Workers' Party said that our Ministers should be accountable for certain things that went on in semi-State bodies, things over which Ministers had no control. The Workers' Party call themselves accountable. Can they account for the fact that tens of thousands of pounds of counterfeit money was being printed on their own premises? Account for that, when you talk about accountability.\n\nIt is unfortunate that the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party have aided and abetted The Workers' Party. It is even more unfortunate that sections of the media have leapt in to exploit the situation and to again launch an unjustified attack on the greatest of all political parties in the country, giving the impression that every business in this country is rotten. That is the impression that is being created outside of this House.\n\nDeputy Bruton came in here and asked today what this party were doing about the hundreds of millions of pounds that were going out of the country on a daily basis. Who is responsible for that? The Opposition Deputies are, for creating this unfair impression. It is true that the Opposition parties have done untold damage to our international reputation and to our international image.\n\nThe Opposition leaders must be proud of recent opinion polls. Some leaders have gained a few points and some parties have gained a few points. The Opposition must be proud of that and of the fact that they continue to gain points at the expense of the country. The Opposition parties are gaining popular percentage points at the expense of the country. They must be proud of themselves.\n\nIt is unfortunate that the media have again leapt in to exploit the situation. Last week some of our national newspapers were filled with this type of claptrap. The financial pages stated that damage had been done to investment from abroad by the news from Ireland. Who informed them? Was it the Sunday Tribune, which printed a photograph of the head of Government in the front page and audaciously used words from a Shakespearian play - \"Something Rotten\". If one looked down the rest of  the page there was noting in the article to back up the headline. This is what is going on in this country at the moment. Fianna Fáil have had to endure a violently hostile press from the day they were founded but invariably the public have had the good sense to overcome gutter journalism before making their decision.\n\nWithin the past number of weeks I have severely criticised several commentators and newspaper editors for the manner in which they behaved during these events. One radio interviewer asked me if I was not being paranoid about the media. That could not be further from the truth. I have been very careful to distinguish between good investigative political journalists and those so-called commentators whom I have described as muckrakers. To call them journalists would be a smear on that noble profession. The high priest of these commentators is a man who failed miserably in his political life, after one term failing to get re-elected. This individual has been afforded massive space on the leader page of the Irish Independent for years now to spew out his obvious hatred for Fianna Fáil, and for one person in particular, Deputy Charles Haughey. I quote from his recent piece. It reads as follows:\n\nI shall not believe Mr. Haughey to be politically dead until I see his body buried at midnight at a crossroads, with a stake driven through his heart.\n\nThis is one example of impartial, objective journalism. The Irish Independent actually describes that journalist as one of our top commentators. The other top commentator usually takes up the space immediately below him and he is rapidly learning from his master. Added to this type of venomous article is the use of outrageous headlines. Take, for example, the report on the beef tribunal. The eminent chairman of the tribunal used stronger words than those I used. He said they were an absolute disgrace.  At least I am not alone in my opinion of that section of the media.\n\nLast night I was rudely  interrupted by members of The Workers' Party who claimed, after the Minister for Justice had made certain allegations against them, that the subject in question - \n\nIt was claimed that several matters raised by the Minister for Justice and myself were the subject of libel actions against the BBC. In that regard, I now interrupt the part of my contribution on which I was speaking at the conclusion of the evening to point out that this morning's newspaper states: \"The BBC says that it has to date received no libel writs from The Workers' Party, in an apparent contradiction of statements made by both the party Leader, Proinsias De Rossa, and Pat Rabbitte in Leinster House\" So, there are no libel writs. \"The BBC did receive some letters of disquiet from The Workers' Party after the programme of last summer, but no libel action has started to date, and certainly none lodged with the corporation's lawyers\". Perhaps if members of The Workers' Party have a chance to do so they might try to clarify that matter for the House this morning. Some of the kind of allegations that they have strewn across have obviously been contradicted by no less a corporation than the BBC.\n\nTo continue from where I left off last night, I remind the House that I was saying that I was not paranoid about the media. The Irish Press, within a matter of days was forced to publish unconditional apologies to the Taoiseach, to the Minister for Agriculture and Food and to Commissioner MacSharry. However, readers would have to scrutinise that paper closely to find the apologies since they occupied only a few inches of small print, whereas the original offending material had been printed in banner headlines. It would appear that the principle of affording a similar headline to  apologies is something of the past. Distinguished lawyers at the Goodman Tribunal have highlighted the manner in which a string of unsubstantiated allegations, most of them made in this House, were reported as if they were evidence. These newpapers like to boast of themselves that they are opinion makers. Is it any wonder that the public who have been subjected to this type of yellow journalism respond in the way they do to the pollsters? As I have said before, the not too lamented Dr. Goebbels had a theory that the more muck thrown hopefully the more would stick. I am confident that the public will see clearly through this Nazi-type propaganda and will react appropriately when the time comes. It is somewhat farfetched to suggest that one is being paranoid about the kind of media who deliberately set out to destroy elected Members of this House by lies and innuendoes.","I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate this evening. For the past four weeks the Opposition parties have been preoccupied with attacking various Ministers and individuals without any reference whatever to the major economic problems which are again surfacing in this country. They have made their attacks on a continuing basis and in so doing avoided offering us any glimpse of what proposals they have to reverse the present economic problems which this country faces. I find it incredible that two of the parties opposite, Fine Gael and Labour, are now laying down the law to the Government and chastising them for the manner in which they are running the country but while they were in office they brought this little State of ours to the edge of total economic collapse.\n\nWhen they left office in 1987 the national economy had gone through four successive years of negative growth, the public finances had deteriorated to a state where we had the highest ever current budget deficit at 8.3 per cent of GNP and the national debt had doubled from some £12 billion to over £24 billion. There was a total lack of confidence in the economy,  international bankers were concerned that our economy was fast reaching the stage of almost total failure our internatinal competitiveness had vanished, our external reserves were at a dangerously low level and our interest rates were intolerably high. All of the foregoing had a demoralising effect on our country and its people. Unemployment was increasing at a rate not seen before, emigration was in full swing and the future held out very little opportunity for young people who were coming on to the jobs market.\n\nWhen Fianna Fáil returned to office in 1987 they took firm and decisive action which immediately started to rectify the situation. The firm and decisive action taken by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1987 set in train an overall recovery in the state of our national finances and rebuilt confidence in our economy and country which had been lacking during the previous four years. A testimony to the success of the actions taken in 1987 is the new invigorated economy which we now have. The state of our public finances has been transformed and achievements since 1987 have been commended by many well respected external and national financial commentators. This transformation was brought about by a skilled and courageous management team. The Opposition parties had some audacity to criticise this Government in view of their own record in office and what has been achieved by this Government since 1987.\n\nSince 1987 we have had a period of sustained growth, averaging some 4.5 per cent per year. This growth is a measure of the international and national confidence which has been restored since our party returned to power and which has been assisted by some favourable international considerations. Compare our borrowing requirement which was 12.8 per cent of  GNP in 1986 with the present level of 2 per cent. Our current budget deficit has been brought down from a record 8.3 per cent in 1986 to 0.7 per cent of GNP now. Total Government expenditure has been reduced from 55 per cent of GNP in 1986 to 41 per cent of GNP this year. The Revenue take was reduced from 40 per cent of GNP in 1986 to 36.6 per cent last year, thus leaving more money in the economy in order to prime our recovery.\n\nThis transformation has been the result of good management where difficult decisions were taken and sacrifices demanded in the national interest were made. One of the most striking figures which underline the success of this Government since 1987 compared to the disastrous administration who were in power from 1982-86, when there was the drop of 66,000 in total employment, is the increase of 40,000 in employment - \n\nIt is also worth noting that these additional jobs are being maintained even in today's difficult circumstances. However, a downside to this is that due to the international recession unemployment is still at an unacceptably high level.\n\nA feature of the success of this Government is the successful efforts which have been made in the area of personal taxation. This success was essential to our economic recovery. The previous crucifying high rates of personal taxation were choking enterprise and stifling initiative. We have one of the lowest inflation rates in the European Community and lower interest and mortgage rates. The reduction in the standard rate of income tax from 35 to 29 per cent and the reduction from 58 to 52 per cent in the top rate of income tax have been very welcome. These improvements in income tax allowances and exemptions are of special benefit to PAYE earners.\n\nI should now like to turn my attention to the recent spate of alleged scandals. These allegations, particularly those in relation to Greencore and Telecom Éireann, are doing serious damage by distracting the Government's attention  away from the real economic problems facing this country.\n\nMajor decisions will have to be made within the next few weeks which will affect the future of our country. Yet, the Government are being distracted by events in which they have no direct involvement.\n\nThe rebuilding of public confidence in the political system and in Irish semi-State business will not be an easy task in the aftermath of these recent revelations. There is widespread public cynicism about certain sections of politics and Irish business. I commend the Government for setting in train high-powered investigations into these allegations. The investigations into the allegations concerning Greencore and Telecom Éireann in particular will go  some way towards exposing what exactly went on in these companies. The public have become very alarmed at the spate of irregularities which seem to have been part and parcel of these businesses. I hope the investigations will give speedy results.\n\nThe events of the past few weeks were serious enough to warrant active consideration being given to recalling the Dáil in order to debate them. The public are angered, dismayed and frustrated by these revelations. Irregularities have been exposed in the semi-State commercial area, an area in which public funds are involved. It is most disturbing that as these investigations are continuing it is proving very difficult to obtain answers to some of the questions which have been asked. I regret but must accept the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle in the matter of the Greencore allegations. I hope that at some time in the future we may be permitted to inquire about and comment on the happenings in what was then Irish Sugar.\n\nFinally, I want to say calmly and without any degree of emotion or exaggeration that the public are greatly alarmed at the suggestion that some people appointed by the Government have failed to protect adequately the interests of the taxpayers and that substantial private profits have been made at the expense of the public through a lack of vigilance by board members, some of whom, as I have said, were Government nominees. We should remind the people on the far side of the House - Fine Gael and Labour - that it is absolutely ludicrous that they should suggest there is no confidence in this Government going on the dismal record of both parties between 1982 and 1987.","I have no confidence in this Government. The country is in a shambles: the economy is on the brink of ruin; the budget is scuttled; millions of pounds are leaving the country causing upward pressure on interest rates, and next year's budget is increasingly looking like an instalment from \"Mission Impossible\". The Programme for Economic and Social Progress which was to provide the economic foundation for this country for a decade has been abrogated by both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. Unemployment is at an all time high and our young people queue for American visas in a scramble to leave the country.\n\nThe people have no confidence in this Government. In a recent opinion poll only 29 per cent of the public expressed satisfaction with the performance of the Government. I have no doubt that this 29 per cent spoke from party political loyalty rather than from conviction or satisfaction with the performance of the Government.\n\nThe people are angry and worried. They want a competent, clean Government to get on with the business of running the country, allowing them to get on with the business of running their own lives.\n\nThe people are angry and have every right to be so. They are angry with the Government, because when economic success was within reach they have let it slip through their fingers as a result of incompetence, greed and lack of cohesion. The people are angry because they cannot make ends meet. The burden of income tax on PAYE people is overwhelming. Small business people see their turnover decreasing. The building industry is at a standstill, there is a bus strike, the post is not being delivered and the country is rocked with scandal. These scandals involve what the Minister for Industry and Commerce described as a \"golden circle\" of people in the business world. Now, a circle always has a centre. The people are angry because they believe that the Taoiseach is the centre of that golden circle.\n\nIn passing, I should say that the people are angry not only with the Government, they are angry with the Dáil. Most of what happens here is remote from their day to day concerns. The concerns are of mothers trying to make ends meet, to manage their families, to ensure that their children are well dressed going to school. The concerns are of parents worried about their older children who cannot get jobs, who become increasingly depressed hanging around the house, who have the look of despair in their eyes when their hundredth job application is not even replied to and who feel ashamed when they join the dole queue. Finally there is the sorrow when these young people finally emigrate.\n\nThe debate in this House has been far removed from the concerns of the old - the loneliness of being alone, the inadequacy of the transport system in rural Ireland which prevents old people from  visiting their families, the fear they have of illness, of overcrowded public wards, of delays in being admitted to hospital.\n\nThe debate in this House has been far removed from the concerns of the poor and the homeless, their struggle to survive below the poverty line, the impossibility of being motivated when all around you 80 per cent of your friends and neighbours are unemployed.\n\nThe debate in this House did not reflect the views of the farmers who now have no confidence in the Government to protect their way of life in the Common Agricultural Policy renegotiation. The debate does not express the concern of workers in the food processing industry who will lose their jobs through the same botched renegotiation, nor the views of the rural communities of the west who are on the brink of annihilation.\n\nWhen Cromwell planted the country, the native Irish were banished to Connaught. Is it not ironic that a native Irish Government are now involved in planting Connaught with coniferous trees, in denuding the countryside of people, and out-Cromwelling Cromwell?\n\nWhat is the response of the Government, and in particular of Government Ministers in this House - a barrage of charge and counter charge, the politics of the smear, the allegation, the innuendo, made by those \"willing to wound but yet afraid to strike\".\n\nThat type of politics dominated the House yesterday, but reached its climax in Deputy Dick Roche's contribution. The Deputy spread slurry in all directions and in the process became a \"bawd in the way of good service\" to his Taoiseach. I have no doubt but that he would qualify for one of those anti-pollution grants from the Department of Agriculture to clean up his act.\n\nI have no doubt that the ordinary decent members of the public deplore this type of politics and are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated at the failure of the institutions of State to address their real needs.\n\n There is a social cohesion which is always necessary to underpin parliamentary democracy. The consent of the governed is a prerequisite of Government. The events of the past six weeks have delivered a very serious blow to the foundations of our system of Government. If the rules do not apply to the privileged few, the consent of the many to be ruled, cannot be expected.\n\nWhen ordinary decent people no longer believe that the country is being governed in their interest and in the interests of their children, a Government cannot continue. When ordinary people believe that the Government, the parliament and the courts no longer are capable of responding to their needs, a Government are finished.\n\nThe people no longer have confidence in this Government and that lack of confidence does not arise from their dislike of one aspect of policy or another, but from a fundamental doubt about the ability of this Government to do anything at all now to meet their needs.\n\nThe scandals of recent weeks have contributed in a major way to the erosion of confidence, and the inability of the Government to deal adequately with the scandals has further eroded public confidence.\n\nThere is no evidence available to me that Government Ministers are personally stained by these scandals, but the responsible Ministers are and were guilty of gross negligence in not having proper arrangements in place to ensure the accountability of State agencies under their control. They are also guilty of gross incompetence in not dealing with the scandals when they emerged.\n\nCircular 1 of 1983 issued by the Department of Finance, when Deputy Alan Dukes was Minister for Finance, in March of that year lays down in the most explicit manner the arrangements which should have been in place to ensure the accountability of State bodies to their parent Department and the Department  of Finance. Not the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture and Food nor the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications properly performed their duty under the terms of this circular.\n\nWhen the various scandals became public the first inclination of all Ministers was to distance themselves as far as possible from the events in question and only half-hearted action was taken. Consequently, the Taoiseach impulsively dismissed Mr. Parceir and Mr. Smurfit in the course of a radio interview. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, had to replace Mr. Shields as his inspector within a matter of days of his appointment. The Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Brennan, rushed into a departmental inquiry which failed to establish the key facts. He then appointed an inspector under section 14 of the Companies Act who has no power to follow the money trail of the various transactions rather than appoint an inspector under section 8 of the Act who would have such power. The Minister's inquiry is now stymied through lack of power under the Companies Act and procedures being taken in the courts.\n\nIn respect of the Carysfort College controversy the Minister for Education has consistently failed to answer the key questions. She is running from it in case it damages her reputation. The ball is being passed to her by the Taoiseach but she refuses to field it and runs further away.\n\nThere are questions which must be answered in this House. Was the property offered to the Department of Education for £8 million prior to its sale to Mr. Pino Harris? When the then owners had almost agreed to sell the property to Mr. Harris for £6.5 million, did not the then  owners again offer the property to the Department of Education for £6.5 million? This being so why did the Department refuse to buy it and within six months agree to its purchase for a higher price of £8 million? The Minister who spoke shortly before I got to my feet again failed to answer these precise questions. That is where the issue lies; it is not a question of who told who what six months later.\n\nI would now like to turn briefly to the latest agreement between the Coalition partners. I find the whole charade of renegotiation between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats farcical. The Progressive Democrats in July 1989 signed on for four years. They participated as Ministers in the two budgets which have eroded the economic progress made between 1987 and 1989. They actively participated in all the decisions which during the two years have increased public expenditure by £1.1 billion, an increase of 14 per cent against an inflation rate for the two years of 7 per cent.\n\nOne of the Ministers, the Minister for Industry and Commerce who has specific responsibility for job creation has presided over the highest level of unemployment since the foundation of the State. There is no change in this reheated document today, in this policy, which will deliver a single job. Not only did the Progressive Democrats actively participate in the key decisions which have led to the present economic shambles but they actually boasted of their contribution and frequently upset their Fianna Fáil colleagues by claiming all the credit for the so-called miracle - some miracle. The Progressive Democrats actively supported the unfortunate Programme for Economic and Social Progress. This programme is a policy of great detail for the next three years and purports to lay down the foundations of economic and social policy for a decade.\n\n I welcome the Minister for Finance to the House and I am glad he is still a member of the Government.\n\nThe Progressive Democrats enthusiastically endorsed the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and claimed credit for the agreement and all its details. That was done less than 12 months ago. How in all honesty can they now claim that there is some kind of alternative programme which they always had in their hearts but which they were not allowed to implement by their big brothers in Government?\n\nIs not the whole bogus negotiation process of the last few days simply an attempt by the Progressive Democrats to justify to their supporters their willingness to continue in this failed Government? Is not the posturing about policy simply an attempt to throw sand in the eyes of the public to blind them to the fact that the Progressive Democrats have sold out on every principle they purport to have and are now merely a convenient annex to the Fianna Fáil Party supporting their failures, ethos, leading personalities and narrow mono-cultural vision of Ireland and every policy issue which flows from that vision or lack of it?\n\nThis new whiter than white policy document is a  microwave document, a reheat of yesterday's dinner, a loin cloth to hide the indecent exposure of the Progressive Democrats. It is as dishonest as it is shameful, a policy which reveals all the carrots but none of the sticks, a document which fails to state the specific tax decisions which will be taken to fund the tax promises. A conservative estimate of the tax proposals comes to not less than £600 million and yet not a penny has been identified to pay for this. Commitments to cut expenditure by in excess of £400 million are made to achieve specific fiscal targets. Where will the axe fall and what are the implications for the health services, education, public service pay and social welfare? Do the Fianna Fáil backbenchers realise the pig in the poke they have bought? Paragraph 3 of the tax section states, \"the tax system should not unduly influence choice\". Does this mean mortgage interest relief and VHI relief are gone?\n\nWhen the Taoiseach, and the Minister for Finance, assured the Fianna Fáil backbenchers this morning that this was not so, did they actually believe him? Did they have the confidence to believe him? Did he ever cod you before?\n\nWhere is the £1.1 billion, the total cost of this document, going to come from? Paragraph 7 states that employee PRSI will be restructured to make it more progressive. Does this mean that the PRSI income ceiling is being abolished and can it mean anything other than that? The section on  social welfare makes a commitment to further broaden the scope of social insurance. Can this mean anything other than an extension of the top rate of PRSI to teachers, gardaí, prison officers, public servants of all sorts negativing any progress they might make through lower income tax bands?\n\nWhat magic formula has been discovered to enable the Government to fund a £1 billion package of tax promises and expenditure cuts to achieve the objectives of this programme if the Taoiseach can assure the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party that none of the explicit measures which they fear are going to be taken? Where is the money going to come from?\n\nI would like to have a full debate on this programme but I will confine myself to one further issue today and I ask the Minister for Finance to deal with it when he replies. Minister, are you a man or a mouse?\n\nHow can the Minister diminish his high office and its position which is enshrined in the Constitution by allowing himself to be undermined by two of his Cabinet colleagues and by persons outside of this House.\n\nHow can he sit idly by and agree to a policy which is driven by the political requirements of the Progressive Democrats and not by the needs of the people of this country? How can he agree to the detail of the next budget now when he does not yet know the outturn of the present failed budget, when he has no idea of the level of growth in the economy or of the tax  buoyancy which he can expect on which to base the 1992 budget? Why does he participate in this charade and cede the functions of Government to the strident advocacy of persons outside this House, some of whom failed to be re-elected to this House?\n\nWe now have a Government and Government parties where, to quote W.B. Yeats, \"the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.\" The Government may survive today with this cobbled arrangement but they are finished. The Progressive Democrats are finished and Fianna Fáil are badly in need of a long period on the Opposition benches to recover their soul and restore their heart.","I should like to preface my remarks this morning by pointing out that we are now into the third day of debate on this motion of confidence in the Government following months of allegations, smears and innuendos. It is crucial that it be pointed out that, in the absolute privilege of this House, not one single, solitary shred of evidence has been produced which would suggest in any way impropriety on the part of the Taoiseach or his Ministers. That is a most important point to make because, of course, there is absolute privilege in this House. If people did have even the slightest shred of evidence it is here, in the perfectly safe haven of this House, that such evidence should be produced. In addition, that says much about those who level the charges and allegations. It means that Irish political life has been brought to a new low, something that every politician in this country will have to face. Character assassination became the order of the day; innuendo the way to proceed, and misrepresentation a means of achieving an end. When that stage is reached in any democracy the question one must then pose is: why  would anybody do such a thing? I suggest that those who imply that the Taoiseach himself is absolutely power-crazed would do well now to look into their hearts. There is only one logical conclusion to be reached now. It is that those who are levelling such accusations are guilty of the crime themselves.\n\nIt is my belief that there has been an attempt from the far left and indeed the far right to attack the integrity of Fianna Fáil, their record and standing in Irish life. This unremitting attack, as bitter as it was low, has failed miserably in its central objective which was to demean the party, their objectives, their past, present and future.\n\nI am not going to become involved in innuendo, smears or misrepresentation in relation to any individual. It would be my hope that I would always take that attitude. I must say that no credit has been done to the political process. Those who have levelled the allegations have let nobody down but themselves. When all of the inquiries have been completed, when the dust has settled and the ink is dry on each and every one of these stories I predict it will be ascertained, as a definite fact, that neither the Taoiseach nor any of his Ministers was in any way involved in any of the scandals in Irish business life.\n\nThe broad mass of the Fianna Fáil organisation and membership throughout the country has proven itself to be more concerned about business ethics, about high standards in political life than many of those who have been levelling the allegations in recent weeks and months. It is a downright and unfounded insult to suggest for one moment that the position is otherwise. I know that the great mass of the Fianna Fáil organisation throughout the country take the gravest exception to any suggestion that the position is anything other than that.\n\n We have learned something else also. Perhaps this was one of the most regrettable features of the entire scenario. If the Fine Gael Party can be credited with anything in this country historically they can be credited with this much, that they introduced and helped to establish constitutional democracy here; that much can be said of the then Cumann na nGaedheal Party. It is a very sad day that the tradition of that party should be undermined by theatrics, their leader attempting, by way of allegation, innuendo and smear, to undermine the democratic process of which their predecessors, Cumann na Gaedheal, can be so proud. That is most regrettable. Perhaps another lesson can be learned, which is that the Fine Gael front and backbenchers ran like rats from a ship and deserted their former Leader, Deputy Dukes, who led the party with integrity and with a certain amount of decorum and dignity. The indignity they have now brought on themselves will obtain for the remainder of their existence because they have undermined their own tradition. That has been the most regrettable feature of this debate and of what has been taking place throughout this country in recent weeks and months.\n\nI do not take any notice of The Workers' Party; I do not think anybody does.\n\nI do not think anybody seriously believes that they are a serious alternative. We know that they have very doubtful and sinister origins; everybody knows that; I will leave it at that.\n\nAs for the Labour Party, their Leader, Deputy Spring, is a very nice man, but his entire political career has been blighted and, unfortunately, stunted by a pathological hatred of one man. Incidentally, I might add that that is not the way to proceed either.","I have listened to Deputy Higgins make similar allegations for a number of months and my colleague, the Minister for Education, has answered them on each occasion. I have no doubt that she will come into this House within the next two days and again answer the kind of allegations that have been made here today.\n\nI wish to speak in this confidence motion about the immediate problems giving rise to the motion and about the Government's outstanding record including the record of my Department and our achievements in the health area despite the difficult financial situation.\n\nI, like most Members of this House, am concerned at recent developments in a very small number of companies, both private and State.\n\nThe truth needs to be established and the public informed. Wrongdoing must be dealt with and correct processes put in place where necessary. If there are loopholes, they must be closed. If there has been a slippage in standards, then standards must be reasserted. If there is wrongdoing, it must be appropriately dealt with.\n\nIf we look world wide other countries have their own problems. The world of finance is going through a troubled period. A period where the old rules are no longer effective. Japan, the United States and Britain have been rocked by scandals that did not involve a few million pounds, but hundreds of billions of pounds. Fortunately we have few such problems in Ireland and consequently they are all the more shocking when they occur.\n\nThere is no place for any financial misbehaviour in our society. It must be rooted out. However, the manner in which these issues are pursued is critical to the national interest. As Members of the Oireachtas there is an obligation on  us to do this not just effectively but responsibly.\n\nNational interest demands that all the issues raised and allegations made be dealt with in a proper, fair, just and logical manner. The manner in which these issues are pursued is critical to the national interest. There are allegations being thrown around as if they were proven fact and that is certainly not in anybody's interest.\n\nWhile the wrongdoing of a few must be dealt with, it is important to ensure that confidence is maintained in the overwhelming majority of upright businesses that we have in this country. As politicians we have a responsibility to ensure that we do not damage our people, our country or our image internationally. I am afraid from the behaviour of the Opposition parties at present that this is not very high on their agenda.\n\nThe portrayal of events by the Opposition has created great unease for all the wrong reasons, for short term political gain.\n\nThe Government reacted promptly by using the full power of the courts by ensuring thorough investigations, for example, the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry, the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications Telecom inquiry and the Siúicre Éireann and associated companies inquiry. I am satisfied with the nature of these inquiries. I know that the Government will take whatever action necessary following these investigations. The Dáil can question the methods of investigation and whether they can be improved.\n\nHowever, it is not in anyone's interest and certainly not in the national interest that individuals and companies should be tried by innuendo, convicted and sentenced before these reports are available. The Government will take any action necessary when they receive the reports.\n\nI welcome constructive criticism. The Opposition have their role and that is part and parcel of our democratic system. However if you look at the Opposition at the moment you wonder where the  national interest ends and policial opportunism takes over. This highlights a fundamental difference between Fianna Fáil and the present Opposition parties. Compare the Opposition's behaviour today with that of Fianna Fáil in opposition in 1982-87. We can all recall what happened during that period in Irish Shipping and ICI. ICI was the greatest business scandal of the past ten years, If the Opposition of that time behaved in the same way as the Opposition are behaving today they would have caused the collapse of a major bank involved at the time. Look at the facts in 1985. Fine Gael and Labour were in Government when the ICI scandal occurred. Look at how Fianna Fáil in opposition behaved compared with the parties in opposition today. The situation was so serious then that emergency legislation was necessary. The then Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy John Bruton, now Leader of Fine Gael, introduced the Bill and left many questions unanswered. Let us look at how the Opposition behaved at that time. Speaking on the legislation, as reported at column 708 of the Official Report for 27 March 1985, Deputy Haughey, Leader of the then Opposition said:\n\nAs the principal Opposition party, we immediately took a definite, responsible attitude and indicated that as the Government had said they were acting in the national interest we would, in order to avoid a crisis of conscience, make it clear that we would take the Government at their word and offer whatever parliamentary support was necessary to overcome the difficulty and protect the financial institutions of the State and the country's creditworthiness.\n\nDeputy Haughey continued:\n\nIt is important that the world at large should see whatever else can be said about politics in this country the Oireachtas was prepared, where necessary, to give any support needed when the Government could indicate that  it was taking action in the national interest.\n\nCould anybody say one word in favour of the way the Opposition today have behaved when the Government faced up to their responsibility on these problems?\n\nDeputy John Bruton, the then Minister for Industry Trade, Commerce and Tourism responded as reported at column 1124 of the Official Report for 28 March 1985:\n\nHowever, it must be accepted that there was an endeavour by all sides to find a solution and this is true of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition who is present. All tried to find a solution and to contribute to the best of their knowledge, ability and experience. Although this debate was occasioned by a very regrettable and sad event it was useful in helping to formulate policy.\n\nWill the Taoiseach of the day be able to say that the Opposition gave any assistance in dealing with situations in the business world which were totally outside the control of the Government and, as the Taoiseach has pointed out, no politicians were involved.\n\nFianna Fáil in Opposition could be as tough as the best of them in adversarial debate. When the national interest demanded it we always rose to the occasion. We took a responsible position as I have stated under our present Taoiseach, Deputy Charles Haughey, then Leader of the Opposition. That is not the situation today with the Opposition parties and in my view is one of the reasons they have spent so much time in opposition since 1932.\n\nThey have demonstrated over the past two years that they have no alternative policies whatsoever and perhaps they believe that rhetoric and irresponsible  behaviour will hide these facts from the public. Not alone are they irresponsible in opposition but the Fine Gael and Labour Parties were irresponsible when in Government. I dealt at length before with their behaviour in the area of the health services and when they allowed health boards to overspend £55 million which they never provided. That was something that caused major problems for us when we came into Government.\n\nBefore going on to deal with my own particular area of responsibility where enormous progress has been made despite our financial difficulties, I want to refer to the overall record of Fianna Fáil since we took office in 1987. At that time the public finances were out of control, growth in the economy was non existent, the national debt had reached crippling proportions and confidence in the economy was at its lowest ever.\n\nWe now have, because of the action taken by the Government, a sound economic base for our future development. The public finances have been brought under control. It is true that we have a short term problem in relation to 1992 but this problem will be tackled by the Government in the same determined way we approached the crisis situation we inherited. The underlying economic position is very strong as a result of the action that has been taken since 1987.\n\nEconomic growth has returned and has been sustained. We have low inflation and a favourable balance of payments and a stable exchange rate ensuring a major improvement in our competitive position. We are well placed to benefit from the upswing in economic activity already forecast worldwide.\n\nIt is no harm to remind this House of the major part played by the Programme for National Recovery in turning our economy around. The programme was negotiated in 1987 and it brought the unions, the employers and the farmers together to forge a consensus to save the country from bankruptcy. We are all aware of the major personal part played by the Taoiseach himself in achieving that agreement and in dealing with the very  serious problems confronting the country.\n\nWe all acknowledge the serious unemployment situation in the country today. Sadly, that is not a problem unique to Ireland. The general global recession is affecting us here, as is the return of many emigrants who cannot get jobs abroad. The economic growth forecast worldwide will no doubt cause this situation here to improve.\n\nAn indication of this was announced only yesterday, with the Director General of the CII reporting that manufacturing industry was showing recent improvement in exports and output. Against fierce competition, we have also succeeded in attracting major high technology investment into this country.\n\nSince 1987 major improvements have been made in tax reliefs and reforms. Income tax rates have come down. VAT has come down. Income tax relief exemption limits were raised to help the people on low pay. We have succeeded in keeping ahead of inflation with social welfare payments. Each year we have given special increases to raise the real standards of living for people who are long term unemployed.\n\nI am very glad to have this opportunity of placing the Government's record in developing our heath services before the House today. It is a record of solid achievement based on carefuly thought out strategies to build on the strengths of the existing system.\n\nLooking directly at health, I believe that the progress we have made in the health area over the past few years is an indication of the Government's determination to establish a proper course of action and to stay with it. We have achieved this despite the severe constraints facing the public finances generally. We have made important progress and have taken a number of key decisions on eligibility and organisational structures this year which will have a very positive impact in the future.\n\nPrior to 1987 there was no cohesive approach to developing our health system in accordance with recognised  needs or to addressing its problems. The Government have set about a consistent, rational process of identifying service needs, examining how best they can be met in the most cost-effective way and planning for their structured implementation.\n\nWe have paid particular attention to the need for medium to long term planning. The restructuring and reorientation of our health system has, of course, been difficult but we have pressed ahead with devising and implementing a streamlined health service which is capable of responding to the enormous demands placed upon it.\n\nI would like to remind Deputies of the practical steps taken by the Government and of the tangible progress made in the past few years. In 1987 I established the Commission on Health Funding, a broadly based body representative of a wide range of interests and expertise in the health services, to advise me on the direction that health policy should take. The Commission reported in late 1989 and provided the first comprehensive analysis of the entire health system since the White Paper of 1966.\n\nThe Commission made recommendations on all of the key issues in health policy, including the approach to funding, eligibility, administrative structures and individual service areas. Its report now forms the basis of a number of important decisions that have been taken by the Government since then.\n\nThe Commission's work has proved invaluable in pointing the overall direction our health service should take. However, I also established a number of other expert groups to advise on individual aspects of the health services, given the complexity and technical nature of many of the issues to be considered. These bodies included the Dublin Hospital Initiative Group chaired by Professor David Kennedy, whose series of splendid reports I launched last month, and the Hospital Efficiency Review Group under Noel Fox.\n\nWe have been criticised frequently for establishing these working parties and other advisory bodies in the health area.  I think this is ironic, given that the reports to which I referred are now providing the foundation of the process of improving the quality and efficiency of our health services.\n\nLet me remind Deputies of the progress made in implementing the report of the Commission on Health Funding.\n\nEarlier this year we streamlined the system of eligibility for health services, in accordance with the Commission's recommendations. Prior to 1 June this year we had a three category system which was acknowledged as being unfair in its assessment of income and as giving rise to potentially serious anomalies in the assessment of eligibility for hospital services.\n\nThe Government therefore accepted the Commission's recommendation that Category III be abolished, and the Oireachtas approved the necessary legislation earlier this year. This decision was also supported by the social partners under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Its positive effects will become obvious over time, particularly since we have combined it with a fair system of access to public hospitals. Under this arrangement, which is being phased in at present, patients in non-emergency situations must opt explicitly for public or private care. The previous practice of combining public ward accommodation with private consultant care will no longer be permitted. This will ensure fairer access for all to public hospitals and will be of greater benefit to public patients.\n\nOne of the most important conclusions reached by the Commission on Health Funding, and echoed strongly by Professor Kennedy's group, was that we would have to address urgently the problems inherent in the administrative structure of our health system. These problems have built up over time and must be resolved quickly so that an adaptable, responsible service can be put in place.\n\nBoth the Commission and the Dublin Hospital Initiative Group pointed to the fragmentation of different services and to the lack of co-ordination between  hospital and community based services. I have been conscious that these difficulties have led to an over-involvement by my Department in the day-to-day management of services, at a time when policy-making on the future direction of services should be to the fore.\n\nIt was against this background that I announced the setting up of a new regional health authority to replace the Eastern Health Board. The new authority will have a more direct relationship with all of the health agencies in its area, thereby ensuring a greater co-ordination of hospital and community based services.\n\nI should point out, however, that the legislation will have important national effects as well as those directed specifically towards the Eastern Health Board area. It will, for example, clarify the roles, relationships and accountability of health board members and their chief executive officers. It will also clarify the functions of the Minister for Health, the Department of Health and agencies involved in service delivery.\n\nIn this way, the legislation will make much clearer who should be doing what in the health system. My Department and I, as Minister, will be able to concentrate on the development of health policy and the overall control of expenditure, rather than becoming over-involved in the detailed day-to-day management of individual services. Operational management must be devolved to the appropriate health agencies if we are to achieve greater efficiency. I am confident that the new organisational arrangements in the Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow areas will have a very positive impact in this regard.\n\nI should emphasise, as I did when announcing the Government's decisions on these matters, that there will be full consultation with all interested parties on the details of these decisions. Indeed, I have already invited agencies to make written submissions on the issues of concern to them, and I look forward to their responses before proceeding further with the preparation of the legislation.\n\n Since taking office the Government have been anxious to identify the most appropriate means of tackling any problems in each area of the health service. In the acute hospital sector Professor Kennedy's reports have proved invaluable. His group's interim report, published in June 1990 made a series of recommendations on the best practices and policies aimed at ensuring a quality service with the maximum of efficiency and effectiveness. Many of the hospitals involved in the study by Professor Kennedy's group have now implemented the recommendations on such areas as: admission and discharge policies, bed and patient management and the operation of Accident and Emergency Departments.\n\nAfter completion of the other reports Professor Kennedy agreed to chair an advisory group which, together with my Department's officials, will oversee the implementation of the group's recommendations on improvement of hospital services. They will also help me to monitor and review progress over time. I am very pleased to say that Mr. Noel Fox, whose efficiency review of Dublin hospitals was of such value, has agreed to become a member of the Kennedy Advisory Group.\n\nIt will be clear to Deputies, therefore, that the Government have a carefully devised, well thought out approach to the improvement of our hospital system. It is based not simply on ploughing countless millions of pounds into the service in the hope that any problems will thereby be solved but instead draws on the recognised objective expertise of eminent professionals who have examined the acute hospital sector in detail and have made sensible, realistic recommendations which can now be implemented systematically. A key point of this process has been the development of the necessary consensus, without which wide-ranging changes cannot be implemented successfully.\n\nThis planned approach to service developments extends also to the community based services. Starting with the  Commission on Health Funding and drawing upon a range of expert reports on individual areas, the Government have a very clear view of the direction which these services should take in the coming years.\n\nThe Commission on Health Funding stressed the need for an analytical approach to identifying service needs, examining alternative options of meeting those needs and of monitoring the implementation process in the light of changing circumstances. I might stress that there is little to be gained from merely pumping moneys into particular services without regard to effectiveness or efficiency. The course which we have charted ensures that money is allocated only after careful assessment of need and of the best method of meeting those needs in each locality.\n\nIt is with this approach in mind that the Programme for Economic and Social Progress committed the Government to a planned expansion of designated community-based services, in accordance with the recommendations of the groups which reported on each area. This is an important element of the Government's policy on the future direction of the health services.\n\nThe Government have made significant progress in a number of areas of health legislation. I have referred already to the recent important improvements in the eligibility system introduced under the Health (Amendment) Act, 1991. We have also passed the Health (Nursing Homes) Act, 1990, which provided amongst other things, for a new system of registration under which all non-health board homes, whether run for profit or on a voluntary basis, will be obliged to operate. It also provides for a fairer approach to subventing nursing homes based on the merits of each individual applicant. This will replace the present unsatisfactory system which did not guarantee that the limited funds available were channelled towards the most appropriate applicants.\n\nThen there is the Child Care Act, 1991. For some time past the Government have been extremely anxious to address a  range of legal issues in the area of child care. Therefore I was glad to see the Oireachtas enact the new Child Care Act 1991, before the summer recess. That Act imposes a statutory duty on health boards to promote the welfare of any child in the community not receiving adequate care and protection. It also gives the boards new powers to provide child care and family support services, introducing a new legal procedure enabling health boards and the Garda to intervene where children are being neglected or abused. The Act takes account of the many practical and cultural developments, such as the need for legal controls on pre-school services and a modernised statutory framework for the regulation of children's residential centres. The new Act updates the grounds on which children may be taken into care and introduces new provisions regarding legal representation to children involved in care proceedings. As in the case of other community-based services the Government have committed themselves to making the necessary resources available for implementation. Indeed that commitment is contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.\n\nThe Adoption Act, 1991, recognising foreign adoptions, was passed by this House.\n\nOther areas in which there has been progress in health services include a patients' charter. The Government have placed special emphasis on ensuring that not only the efficiency but also the quality of services to patients receive close attention. After all, the patient is the central focus of our services. Patients' needs must be to the forefront when planning our services. With that in mind the Programme for Economic and Social Progress reiterates the Government's commitment to introducing a patients' charter. In consultation with hospitals throughout the country we are making good progress in developing that charter which will be based on the fundamental principles of access to service in accordance with need, the right to privacy, to information and to confidentiality of all  medical records along with the right to make a complaint and have that complaint properly dealt with. The charter will also recognise the right to respect for religious and philosophical beliefs and the right to refuse to participate in research projects.\n\nClosely allied to the patients' charter is the need for a formal statutory appeals system for medical cards for those whose applications have been rejected. I undertook some time ago to introduce such a system. I am finalising the preparations for putting this in place. Recently the relevant chief executive officers reviewed their methods of assessing eligibility for medical cards. Hopefully that will improve the system.\n\nA common contract for hospital consultants has been introduced. It reflects the importance of hospital consultants to our hospitals system, providing them with an appropriate role in the management of hospitals. Given their influence over the allocation of resources it is important that the involvement of consultants in the management process be recognised and structured appropriately. I am happy that the revised contract will achieve this objective and that the functioning of hospitals will be the better for it.\n\nThe wide range of initiatives and concrete developments I have outlined to the House clearly demonstrates that the Government have acted consistently and firmly in relation to the health services. We have not depended on pumping money into the health system in the hope that problems will just go away. Instead we have examined problem areas methodically. I and my colleague, the Minister of State, have identified with the help of experts, what needs to be done and set about the implementation process with the same purpose of mind. An increasing amount of money is being provided each year, and we have discussed that matter here on other occasions. We will not be pushed into unwise, impulsive action merely to be seen to be doing something. We have a clear view of the direction our health services should take and will  continue to implement our approach with conviction.\n\nThe Government have an important job to do keeping the finances in order, continuing to maintain and develop the environment for further job creation, in addition to playing an important role in the building of the new Europe.\n\nI believe the House should vote confidence in this Government and let them get on with the job.","While the motion before the House is the issue of confidence in the Government, another issue we should bear in mind is the question of confidence in our democratic procedures and the manner in which each elected representative discharges his responsibility as a democratically elected representative of this Parliament, which was hard fought for and achieved by the sacrifices of the great people who went before us.\n\nAs I came into this Chamber I heard the spokesperson for Agriculture and Food of the main Opposition Party range over a predictable tirade of abuse at a personal level and ranging from terms such as \"ass\", \"idiot\" and \"fool.\"\n\nA Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you will probably be familiar with that learned French writer and philosopher, Voltaire, but I suspect that Deputy Deasy who attributed such qualities to me as those of an ass, an idiot  and a fool would not be so familiar with Voltaire.\n\nLet me commend to Deputy Deasy what Voltaire had to say about people such as those who claim to have the perception of wisdom of Deputy Deasy. He said very simply \"O Heavens, he who thinks himself wise is a great fool indeed.\" To be accused of being a fool by Deputy Deasy who clearly thinks himself wise, but who according to the imortal words of Voltaire can be said to be a great fool indeed, I regard as a great tribute.\n\nIf that is the level of contribution that Deputy Deasy can make to the debate in this House or to discussions on the issue of agriculture, it is not great, no more than was his contribution when he was Minister for Agriculture.\n\nAt the end of 1986 when the great wise Deputy Deasy was Minister for Agriculture the consumer price index showed that total farm incomes were nominally of £1,141 million. Four years later, during the period for which I had responsibility this rose to £1,689 million, a nominal increase of 48 per cent and a real increase of 31 per cent. If I am the disastrous failure that Deputy Deasy accuses me of being, let me say that the accusations he makes against himself are very severe indeed.\n\nIn the spirit of the debate let me turn to the major issues that have to be addressed in the interests  not just of the Irish farmers but of the Irish people generally.\n\nWhen the Council of Agriculture Ministers resumes for a three day session in Brussels next week at stake for Ireland, and not just our farmers, will be issues of vital importance - the Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals and the mandate for the agricultural element in the GATT negotiations. I want to assure the House that my total commitment in these negotiations will be the protection of that vital interest. I will not be distracted by any spurious smears and charges, however unfounded from discharging my constitutional responsibility during the course of those negotiations. The farmers of Ireland are entitled to nothing less. Even before the negotiations start in Brussels next week I will have personal and important discussions in Dublin over the weekend with the Dutch President of the Council, Piet Bukman, whom I invited here to underline to him the unique importance of agriculture in the Irish economy.\n\nIn 1990 agriculture accounted for about 10 per cent of GDP and 15 per cent of employment. Its contribution to foreign earnings is of particular importance. While exports of agricultural and food products and beverages accounted for 22 per cent of total exports in 1990, it is significant that the contribution to net foreign exchange earnings, account being taken of such factors as import content, profit repatriation and receipt transfers, was of the order of 35 per cent.\n\nI acknowledge that the continuing importance of the agricultural sector is vital for our whole economy and not just for farmers. The continuing economic importance of this sector is highlighted by comparisons between Ireland and other EC countries. For the average member state, agriculture contributes about 3 per cent of GDP. I note that Deputy Deasy is leaving. I hope he will not engage in his usual tirade of vulgar abuse as distinct from any kind of rational analysis. It will be seen, then, that the importance of the sector in Ireland is three times that of the Community as a whole. For that reason  we must acknowledge that the current negotiations are the most important undertaken in the agricultural field since we joined the European Community and I can assure the House that these negotiations are being treated as such by the Government. I am certainly treating them in that way.\n\nOur position in these historic negotiations has to be informed by the central importance of agriculture in the Irish economy. As I have indicated, it is of greater relative importance to us than to any other country in the Community with the possible exception of Greece. But for me, of even greater importance than the role of agriculture in the economy is its importance for people who can be forgotten in a welter of statistics. However, the statistics I quoted for Deputy Deasy at the outset come from the Central Statistics Office and give the lie to the spurious charges that he has been spreading around since he gave up responsibility for the Department.\n\nThe farm families of Ireland and the workers in associated industries have legitimate fears and concerns at this time in the face of what is recognised as the most significant overhaul of policy in the agricultural sector since we joined the European Community. I want to put on record that it is their interests which will be formost in my mind, and nothing else, in the coming months and they need have no fear about the Government's commitment to ensuring that they will be safeguarded in the final outcome.\n\nI should like to highlight the negative contribution made by some Members during the course of the former negotiations. Precisely when livestock products were being discussed - livestock products being the most important component for this country - I was made aware by my office of spurious charges being made on radio at home by Deputy Richard Bruton. Those charges were untrue and ill-founded, and I shall come back to them. I was called out from the  vitally important negotiations in order to provide information so that Deputy Richard Bruton could be refuted in the spurious allegations. I shall deal with Deputy Richard Bruton and Deputy Deasy later. If their purpose was to try to undermine the national interest by trying to distract me, they failed.\n\nI made it abundantly clear to this House that the Commission's proposals as presented to date are not acceptable to the Government. Equally, the Government accept that an unreformed Common Agricultural Policy is not a realistic alternative. However, it is imperative that the principles upon which the Common Agricultural Policy is based are not sacrificed but, through the process of adjustment, are given more effective implementation. The Council and the Commission are in no doubt about Ireland's position on these matters. To drive the point home, I have relied on the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Treaty of Rome and the Commission's own objectives to highlight the inconsistencies between their proposals and the stated objectives of the policy, the Treaty of Rome and the Commission. I have used, and will continue to use, every opportunity both in the many bilateral contacts I have had with my fellow agriculture Ministers, with Commissioner MacSharry and in discussions in the Council to set out Ireland's difficulties and Ireland's demands.\n\nI take the view that it is only through the continuation of contacts of this nature that we can lay the foundation for the recognition of Ireland's special case and, where possible facilitate the development of an agreed approach on elements where we share interests with other member states.\n\nThe central plank of our appoach to reform is that there must be balance between the legitimate expectations of our smaller producers for a fair level of income and the need to ensure that the commercial element in our agriculture, which is of crucial importance to the maintenance of a competitive and vibrant industry, is not undermined.\n\n In addition to this general principle of our policy, I have clearly indicated to the Commission and my colleagues in the Council that as far as I am concerned there can be no progress in the negotiations unless the following preconditions at least are met. I shall again set them out. First, the needs of economies critically dependent on agriculture must be properly met; that is a Treaty obligation. Secondly, the mechanisms finally agreed must effectively implement the underlying principles of the Common Agricultural Policy and involve a clear commitment to defend acceptable levels of market prices; that is a social obligation. Thirdly, adequate Community finanical resources must be guaranteed both immediately and in the longer term to underpin the policy; that is a Community obligation, because it is not open to the Commission to transfer responsibility for these financial provisions to the member states where it is a matter of Community competence. Fourthly, adequate support must be given to ensure that the vital commercial element in our agriculture remains viable. Fifthly, support for extensive production must take realistic account of what is required to maintain the economic basis of modern family farms. I shall put that in practical terms. Now that the Government have achieved what Deputy Deasy never even contemplated, the extension of the disadvantaged areas scheme to almost 75 per cent of this country, I shall not leave the table of the Council of Ministers unless I get a change in the present stocking rate proposal of 1.4 livestock units per hectare for disadvantaged areas. Two livestock units and nothing less is what I will require before I shall move to the next stage of the negotiations. If that is not a specific commitment then I suppose the Opposition could never expect one.\n\nThat is more of the old, enlightened vulgar abuse that is  stock and trade of Deputy Deasy. Long may he remain to practise it to prove that this generation are worthy of those who gave us this privilege 70 years ago. May he keep at it.\n\nIt is also vital that the compensatory elements do not discriminate against the grass-based livestock production. That is an essential element. The seventh, and final point on this short list, is that any changes in the Common Agricultural Policy must be dovetailed with, and given full credit in the finalisation of the GATT negotiations. They are crucial and central to the case.\n\nWhile I have clearly set down Ireland's general opposition to these proposals as currently constituted, it has to be said that there are elements that I regard as positive from Ireland's point of view. For example, the proposed promotion programmes for the beef and dairy sectors and the proposed Community campaign to stamp out the use of growth promoting substances are especially welcome. The proposals in the socio-structural package could also be of significant benefit to certain sectors of the agricultural community. There are other elements which could with adjustment be of much interest to us, but only if they are backed by adequate budgetary resources and assured into the future on a permanent basis.\n\nOn the home front I wish to underline my commitment to a continuation of the consultation process with the agricultural interests provided for under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. My officials and I have been involved in regular contacts with the farm organisations over recent months in the context of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. These will continue - in fact, the latest took place as this debate was starting yesterday - in the difficult months ahead when it will be vital to put all of our heads together and ensure a strong and united Irish voice in the reform debate.\n\nIn relation to the GATT Uruguay Round negotiations that are now entering a delicate and decisive stage, they  are, of course, another very important element for the future of the Common Agricultural Policy. While the Common Agricultural Policy reform process is an internal Community action, its outcome will be a major contribution in the European Community's compliance with ultimate GATT commitments. To that extent, it is necessary to have a certain parallelism in the course of both sets of negotiations. In this way, it should be possible to ensure that the reforms are dovetailed with the outcome of the Uruguay Round and so remain compatible with GATT commitments and allow the Community to secure credit for the reforms to be undertaken.\n\nFor my part, I have maintained a strong line in the Agriculture Council to ensure that European and particularly Irish farmers are not disadvantaged by the outcome of the GATT negotiations. I will be availing of the Agriculture Council meeting next week to again stress this point and to warn the Commission against taking any initiatives in Geneva which would put at risk the essential principles of the Common Agricultural Policy. It was during our presidency, when I was President of the Agriculture Council, that it was first agreed by the Council of Agriculture Ministers that the agriculture element in the GATT would be determined by the mandate of the Agriculture Ministers and none other. What I achieved at that stage I intend to protect at every stage of these negotiations.\n\nThat is about a measure of what the Deputy knows. Of course it was not. In the GATT negotiations the mandate was given by the Council of Foreign Ministers.\n\nIt is not a matter of  Tipperary local interest. If it were, that would be all right, but, unfortunately, it is a matter of great international concern. The Deputy should know that the GATT mandate was always given by the Foreign Ministers Council. That is all I say to him. That has changed. Every element of the GATT mandate, if the Deputy will listen, whether it was trade, services or whatever, was always given by the Council of Foreign Ministers. The first change that occurred happened in our time. The Deputy may spoof all he wants after that.\n\nI hate to see ignorance as well as everything else being thrown around the House.\n\nMany people in the farming sector and on the Opposition benches seem to regard the GATT negotiations in an entirely negative way, yet many of those people are telling me in the context of Common Agricultural Policy reform that our international competitors must be asked to accept some disciplines as well. I fully accept the need for balance in the outcome of those negotiations, which is why I have consistently and strongly supported the concepts of rebalancing and reciprocal disciplines on the part of other trading nations. I insist again that that will be an essential component in our demands in the GATT negotiations. It is only in the context of multilateral negotiations that we can get our competitors to do this and the GATT negotiations provide the appropriate forum.\n\n Similarly, people seem to view the opening up of markets as a one-way street, in other words, by way of products coming into the Community. However, given Ireland's need to export, particularly agricultural products, we need to maintain access to our current markets and to gain or increase access to markets from which we are at present excluded or to which we have limited access. Therefore, the result of failure in the Uruguay Round negotiations would be a retreat into trade blocs and a plethora of bilatreal trade disputes. One can see this happening already in the way in which trade groups are developing such as the proposed North American free trade agreement covering the United States, Canada and Mexico.\n\nThere is no doubt that any GATT agreement will have its drawbacks as well as its advantages. Through my efforts in the Agriculture Council, I have received assurances in relation to compensatory actions at European Community level which will offer a viable future to Community farmers, the continuance of Community preference and a guarantee that the total level of assistance to less-favoured regions will not be reduced as a result of the Uruguay Round negotiations. These assurances will be a big help in offsetting any disadvantages, particularly since over 70 per cent of our country now falls into the less-favoured category.\n\nAgriculture and rural development are also vital components of the overall economy in Northern Ireland. That is a matter very dear to my party and, I believe, to every Member of this House. It is a matter in which I have had a firm and constant involvement since I entered politics 26 years ago. The natural features of Ireland are not changed by the Border. For that reason I have been ever conscious in all my negotiations of the need to co-ordinate policy positions in the interests of all farmers, North and South, and have consulted regularly with my British colleague to advance this common interest. Recently I was in Belfast with  the Under-Secretary of State for Agriculture to ensure that, with common purpose, we can advance the common interests of Irish farmers, North and South, hopefully breaking down one more barrier of suspicion and hatred all too much a characteristic of that sad part of our country at this stage.\n\nWhatever the outcome of negotiations one thing is clear - the days of over-reliance on commodity trading and market support mechanisms must be brought to an end in Ireland. The key to maintaining the future viability of our agriculture lies in our ability to adopt a much more market-driven approach to agricultural production. I should like to assure all involved in the agricultural sector and those dependent on it that Government will continue to give top priority to a market-driven strategy based on quality assurance and the highest attainable standards. For that reason since I became Minister - and I might add that Deputy Deasy would not recognise the controls that now obtain; they are so much better and stringent than those that obtained in his time - I have put in place a whole range of additional controls to strengthen the normal controls that have been in place in my Department for many years.\n\nThe Department's control system, like any other policing system, is capable of being breached, of course it is, particularly if avaricious people are determined to breach it and set about doing so systematically. What matters is that that control system is reviewed periodically to check for possible weaknesses that emerge from changing circumstances. It is also important that that system be reviewed after each known breach to identify what action needs to be taken to prevent similar recurrences. Both periodic review and review after a breach has occurred are now standard practice in my Department.\n\nIn the light of the last periodic review I effected two changes of major significance - Deputy Deasy, please note. The first was the establishment towards  the end of last year of a separate intervention unit in my Department. That move brought together for the first time all the European Community intervention functions which, prior to that, had been located in the various commodity divisions of the Department. The benefits from tighter, more uniform procedures across the board, have been considerable.\n\nThe second change to which I refer was the establishment, again at the end of last year, of a control inquiry group which has power to dispatch control inquiry teams to carry out unannounced, on-the-spot, inspections from headquarters of meat and dairy plants.\n\nOver 20 such inspections have taken place since the system was set up less than 12 months ago. On foot of the more recent inspections by these teams documentary evidence was placed in the custody of the Garda and investigations by them have commenced.\n\nIn addition, a complete upgrading of my Department's information technology facilities for intervention is now under way.\n\nI recognise that the very complexity of the regulatory system is a factor that renders effective control more difficult. My Department are currently working, in parallel with similar efforts at EC level, on the simplification of documentation and procedures for intervention control. Of course, such further changes in the control system as may be indicated by the current investigations will be effected. I give the people my solemn commitment in this House that that will be done.\n\nThe abuse of veterinary medicines is a new problem in Irish agriculture. It is practised by an unrepresentative, reckless minority and runs the risk of doing enormous damage to our meat export  industry. Over the past two years I have introduced a range of regulatory controls and I will be bringing proposals before this House to apply considerably increased penalties for offenders. Specific inspection procedures at farm and factory level have been put into operation already. The role of the Garda in this area has been expanded. Particular attention has been devoted to cutting off the supply sources of these products. We have had very considerable success in that connection recently. It is my belief we have made substantial progress in clamping down on these abuses but I am not saying, in this or in any other area, that there will not be outbreaks of individual, shameful breaches of the regulations.\n\nI want to ensure that the controls we have put in place will minimise the number of offences and then punish and impose sanctions on those disgraceful few who damage the interests of this country.\n\nHowever, it should be recognised that whatever problem exists in this area is self-inflicted which can be quickly and easily overcome by the collective will of the industry to ostracise the abusers and to have nothing to do with these substances. Let me add that whatever the source of negligence, collusion or whatever, wherever it occurs I will seek it out and ensure that those responsible are punished, as is required.\n\nIn an ideal world those most stringent regulations should not be necessary but, clearly, some practices at producer and processor level fall a long way short of the ideal. I want to see the good name of Irish producers and processors generally vindicated but I  have never maintained that there are not individual breaches of the relevant controls. I want to ensure particularly that what has become current in this House on the part of Members of this House over the past month will not apply to the good, honest, honourable farmers or processors by way of this new idea of guilt by association of which I particularly have been accused by Members of this House.\n\nMay I say to The Workers Party, in response to Deputy De Rossa's remarks yesterday, that I have had no knowledge, and I am not required to have knowledge, that the sugar Acts concerned do not give me, as Minister, any statutory authority to have any knowledge of any of the events or incidents to which the Deputy referred. Let me put on the record that I have not the statutory power to intervene but if, as a consequence of all we inquire into, it seems that that power should be given to the Minister, let me assure this House and the people generally, I will take it. If that is the reason Deputy De Rossa said yesterday that I should resign - because, as the Deputy himself put it so well, even when I have nothing about which to be guilty it would seem that I have - let me say to Deputy De Rossa and those beside him that it is in sharp contrast with him and his lot because he and they have the capacity - when they have a lot about which to be guilty - to give the impression that they are the guardians of all that is good, holy and moral.\n\nI would prefer to look somewhat uneasy when I have nothing about which to be ashamed, than be like them who, by virtue of their association with the long persecuting authorities of eastern Europe and their totalitarian states, can practise, as they practise so well, the big lie which is no part of democracy here or elsewhere.\n\nSo the members of The Workers' Party can smile and look relaxed despite the guilt which should be eating their innards.\n\nI might say to Deputy Deasy opposite that I should have expected a little more from Fine Gael. They claim to be the ones who constructed the democratic foundations of this State. If Deputy Deasy knows about the sugar Act, he will know that I do not have the authority he says I have. He blamed me for getting rid of an eminent public servant because he had voted against the closure of the sugar factory in Thurles.\n\nThe decision to close Thurles took place ten months after that gentleman retired. That is a measure of the slander which Deputy Deasy has determined to engage in, even in the face of fact. If the Deputy is prepared to use lies to make his case, there is really cause for concern. I am glad Deputy Deasy has now withdrawn, if not directly, the statements of falsehood which have been his stock in trade.","I am glad to be able to commend this motion of confidence to the House today.\n\nI propose, Sir, in the course of what I have to say in the fairly limited time available to try to concentrate on the future which I believe is where this country needs to concentrate  and to express the view that the debate which I heard intermittently in this House over the past two days is, from any point of view, regrettable and deplorable. The manner in which the debate was carried on must cause widespread regret. If there are areas which need to be investigated, and undoubtedly there are, they should be investigated by the relevant tribunals and bodies which have been set up for that purpose. The remarks made in this House about those matters are not going to be particularly helpful in elucidating what the truth might be.\n\nIt is very fortunate that the Companies Act which was passed in December last and which was brought into force during the course of this year gives very substantial powers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the High Court to investigate wrongdoings of one kind or another which may be alleged from time to time. I would like to see all the various tribunals, inspectorates and so on who have been established in recent months being able to get on with their work. While obviously I would be the last to suggest that the citizens of this country should not have recourse to the courts, it is somewhat ominous that there is such systematic recourse to the courts, particularly by those who are in a position to pay for it. It is, of course, a matter for the courts to decide on each and every one of these matters which are brought before then, and I do not wish in any way to influence the conclusions the courts might come to. However, it has been a feature of affairs in this country in recent years that the sheer weight of money seems to allow some people who have it to avail of rights which sometimes those who do not have it seem to be unable to vindicate.\n\nI might say in passing - because it disturbs me somewhat - that questions of conflict of interest and problems arising therefrom which have been extremely and hotly debated in this country over the past couple of months are not confined to the business community or to the semi-State bodies but can also extend to the professions. I find it curious that a professional person who signed, for  example, a pleading on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce a year ago can find himself today acting in an inquiry into essentially the same matter on behalf of the Minister's opponent. I invite those whose job is to monitor such matters to apply their minds to questions of that kind, which might usefully be done.\n\nI believe very fervently that today is a good day for Irish politics and more importantly from the point of view of this country, it is a good day for the Irish people. In the wake of the litany of unacceptable and deplorable business scandals of the past two months or so, which are being resolutely investigated by the Government and by the different tribunals and agencies set up by them, it is very satisfactory and reassuring that this Coalition Government of the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil have been able to draw up and agree a comprehensive, far-reaching and radical set of social and economic objectives which, through their steady implementaion over the next two to two and a half years, will fundamentally address many of the serious ills which are clearly now affecting our society.\n\nI regret it was not possible for the two parties to reach agreement at an earlier stage. That was the earnest wish of the Progressive Democrats, and I believe, too, of the Fianna Fáil Party. However, the sheer duration and intensity of the negotiations certainly testify to the extent of the policy issues which are covered in the programme review; the convictions on various issues of both parties, and ultimately the determination on both sides to finally agree a set of proposals that go to the heart of the various social, economic, fiscal, institutional and law reform issues which have to be addressed if this country is to succeed and if our parliamentary process is to prove its real worth in this country.\n\nAt the outset, therefore, I would like to pay tribute to the tremendous negotiating skills and the tenacious dedication of our two negotiators, the Minister for Energy, Deputy Bobby Molloy, and Mr. Pat Cox,  MEP, and to the small band of party back-up experts and advisers, who were very ably marshalled by our party's Government Press Secretary over the past three months. I think the input of all those people, on behalf of such a small party as the Progressive Democrats, was truly remarkable. Having witnessed, particularly in the last week, at close quarters myself the intensity of the negotiations and the importance of the issues that were at stake, I feel very proud of the dedication and the ability demonstrated by those concerned. I want to thank, too, my parliamentary party colleagues and the party's national executive who at all stages throughout the negotiating process demonstrated total and unanimous support for our party's stance during this vital and prolonged review on the Programme for Government.\n\nIn any Coalition Government it takes two sides to make a pact. On this point I want to pay tribute to the commitment and negotiating skills in the national interest of our Fianna Fáil colleagues in Government - the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour, and also to express gratitude for the work done by civil servants in various Departments, and particularly in the Department of Finance and in the Revenue Commissioners, as part of the exhaustive review process which was so intensively pursued by the two parties.\n\nI, and other members of my party, have repeatedly stated in recent weeks that in light of the unemployment crisis which is besetting our country, the many other social problems that have to be tackled and the series of revelations of alleged wrongdoings in part of the State and private sectors, that even if this was a single party Government it would be entirely appropriate that a mid-term review of the Government's overall programme and objective should be undertaken at this time.\n\nThe built-in review clause, therefore, which the Progressive Democrats sought in July 1989 provided a golden opportunity to the two Government parties to fundamentally review the operation of the July 1989 programme, on which there  has been very satisfactory progress, and to radically revise and renew it in light of the changed circumstances now prevailing two and a quarter years on, while also committing the Government collectively to a fresh set of economic and social objectives.\n\nI believe that the new programme agreed today by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will provide the basis for effective, radical and innovative government in this country over the next two years, and I believe it has been constructed in a spirit of partnership and goodwill between our two parties and will be implemented in a similar vein.\n\nI believe the Irish people will be the beneficiaries of the implementation of these extensive and far-reaching policy objectives agreed after exhaustive examination and negotiation between the two parties. This news programme will advance a comprehensive series of measures to tackle effectively the unemployment crisis, which is this country's number one problem and also to ensure greater equity, social justice and accountability in Irish society.\n\nToday's new Programme for Government sets down a number of vital policy objectives, including the maintenance of strict control of public spending. It also spells out the objectives and the mode of delivery of the most radical, pro-jobs tax reform programme ever undertaken in this State.\n\nI believe this will significantly improve the job creation prospects for our people and allied to the overhaul of this country's industrial policy which I instituted last June and which I hope to have submitted to my office by the end of this year, it will transform our job creation policy and give renewed hope to our unemployed, our school leavers, and the entire community.\n\nThe programme also sets out objectives for the development of out natural resource industries, including especially tourism and agriculture. In the latter case, it commits the Government to the maintenance of the maximum possible number of viable family farms in rural Ireland, and also to upholding the  interests of the commercial farming sector, while also providing an effective appeals framework for farmers excluded from the recent disadvantaged areas scheme extension.\n\nThe agreement between the parties in Government to examine the extension of voting rights to recent emigrants is based on the agreement by the two parties to the principle involved, provided there are no constitutional barriers to so doing.\n\nThe new Government programme also spells out a series of major institutional reform measures affecting how our democracy is run, and in particular seeks to address the undoubted shortcomings in how the Oireachtas itself does business.\n\nWe need to make the Dáil - I think we are all agreed on this - a more businesslike, efficient and accountable national Parliament, and I believe the various proposals agreed between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to that end will dramatically improve the business and the working of the Dáil if they are agreed by the House as a whole. That, in turn, can reverse the undoubted and understandable cynicism which is felt widely throughout the public in relation to the operation of the Oireachtas as of now.\n\nWe also set down a long series of agreed legislative initiatives aimed at updating the legal code in this country and I note especially the commitment in the programme to amend our extradition laws. There is also a wide range of specific proposals brought forward to transform our health and social welfare services and our penal system, to deliver more effective and caring services for every citizen, while at the same time ensuring greater efficiency and value for money in the delivery of these vital social services.\n\nIn conjunction with the new Company's Act, the programme also addresses the shortcomings which have already been identified over recent weeks in the operations and accountability of  State companies in particular, and to whatever extent is found to be so in private companies also.\n\nThe Government are determined to ensure the highest standards of ethical behaviour in the conduct of all State and commercial business transactions. The new programme outlines new legislative initiatives which will be taken to regulate business standards more comprehensively where this is found to be necessary, covering in particular the disclosure of interests, with the imposition of severe penalties for non-disclosure. I would point out that already in company law there are very strict obligations in this regard in respect of private companies. In the course of the lengthy passage through the Oireachtas of what ultimately became the Companies Act, 1990, I did not envisage that the same need might arise in relation to State-owned corporations. There will also be measures to govern membership of State boards, an appropriate code of conduct for employees of State companies and the introduction of full transparency and competitive tendering for all State company contracts. The greater accountability which the Government will institute in the business arena, whether in the State owned or private sectors, will also be extended to the operations of this House, with the Government agreed to the introduction of a register of interests for Members of the Oireachtas which will be lodged in the Library of Leinster House.\n\nWhile obviously the Government are anxious, as I am sure is the Oireachtas, to ensure that a code of ethics would be adhered to, it would be fair to say that so far as activity in State companies and so on is concerned, if the fundamental rule that one should not benefit privately by one's public activities in State companies or State agencies is adhered to, there is little need for detailed rules. However, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today that is obviously advisable.\n\nI wish to refer to the general principles agreed in this programme in relation to our approach to taxation. Since the early eighties when the Commission on Taxation produced the first of their series of reports, and in subsequent reports from other bodies both here and abroad, such as the OECD, there have been consistent suggestions that there should be a different approach to the question of personal taxation in Ireland, that the philosophy should be somewhat different to the way in which we have traditionally approached it up to now. I am glad to be able to say that the programme will reflect the fact that the Government  accept the general principle that from an economic viewpoint the tax system should not unduly influence individual choice, and that any departure from neutrality in pursuit of particular objectives must be clearly justified.\n\nThe cumulative impact and complexity of the tax system with relatively high tax rates together with wide-ranging exemptions and reliefs call for continuing reform and redistribution within the tax code with a view to reducing economic distortions, to improving the climate for employment and to achieving greater social equity. The acceptance for the first time in our history of those principles is a matter of greatest significance. The fact that a very intensive study of what this entails, which is being carried out now for the first time over the past number of months, will hugely benefit this country. It is regrettable that this was not undertaken before.\n\nI am very happy and proud to say that it has now been undertaken and that the philosophy that underlies the statement of principle I have just read out has now been accepted and will form the basis of the approach to personal taxation in the years to come. The result of this can be that we will have a far more sensible taxation system with lower rates of tax and with much wider bands for the standard rate in particular. We will be able to rid ourselves of the economic distortions which have so clouded our tax system for many decades. It will enable people to work harder to increase their incomes in a way in which the marginal tax deducted from them, which is of course the great deterrent, will no longer be anything as penal as it was. We will operate on a basis that is taken for granted in many other countries but which we steadfastly refused to accept over a long period.\n\nIn talking about taxation it is impossible to do so without referring to PRSI. While the theory of PRSI is that it is a separate fund, as we know, in practice PRSI and income tax are the same thing. We cannot look at one without looking at the other if we wish to do anything effective. To that end the Government are committed to restructuring  employees' PRSI with the health and employment levies on an Exchequer neutral basis so as to make it more progressive and to consolidate it into a single main rate close to 6 per cent.\n\nThe question may be asked as to how our reform programme can be implemented at a time when the Exchequer is under enormous pressure. It will be implemented on the basis of no net cost to the Exchequer and by looking at the vast range of allowances, exemptions, shelters and so on which are currently available and which have so heavily distorted the economic aspects of our tax system. The Government are fully agreed on the necessity for a programme of pro-jobs tax reform. That is why the constrained budgetary prospect which we face in the next few years does not take from the urgency of progressing such reform. We have strongly argued that point and I am happy to say that it is a matter of agreement between the parties concerned. The signing of this agreement, and its publication, is in many respects a watershed in Irish public affairs, in economic policy and in social policy particularly. I would like to think that from today on we can go forward in a spirit of determination to solve the problems that so manifestly affect this country and our people, and leave behind us the spirit of recrimination and personalised and petty approaches to things, which, unfortunately, have tended to be the hallmark of this debate so far.","I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I would like to place on record the outstanding achievements of  this Government in meeting educational needs. On taking up office as Minister for Education I set myself a number of targets. First, I wished to bring about change, not by diktat or confrontation but through consultation and collaboration with all concerned.\n\nThe Primary Review Body and Primary Curriculum Review Body, representative of all concerned with education at the primary level, were set up to advise on future developments at that level. Many of the recommendations in their immensely valuable reports are already being implemented; others will be carried forward in the Green Paper on Education. Similarly the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment were set up, again representative of all concerned interests, to advise initially on developments at the second level and more recently to follow on the work of the Primary Curriculum Review Body.\n\nThe process of consultation has been ongoing outside of these formal arrangements - with teachers, managerial bodies and parents. I sought not only consultation but involvement of all in the planning of education and in its management. Illustrative of this are the measures I have taken to involve teachers and parents in the vocational education committees and in the management of schools through the boards of management. I am particularly pleased at the immense strides that have been made in parental involvement, at the school level and in planning at national level.\n\nSecond, I sought to initiate an education system which was more caring, which addressed the needs of all our young people and which was more user-friendly for those who were not participating fully. I want to ensure that each individual is provided with the opportunity of developing her/his potential to the greatest possible extent.\n\nLet me illustrate some of the important measures which have been undertaken to achieve this objective: funding for the special assistance scheme for schools in disadvantaged areas has increased by 300 per cent since 1987. The home school links programme which I launched as a  major part of this scheme is already having encouraging results. This year I have expanded the programme to bring it to a total of 80 schools and arrangements are in hand to extend it to second level schools; within the past three years some 325 additional teachers have been authorised for primary schools in disadvantaged areas and for remedial education; a pilot school psychological service for primary schools has been initiated in the west Tallaght-Clondalkin area and in South Tipperary where there are some 28,000 pupils enrolled. This development is being carefully monitored and evaluated in line with the recommendations of the Psychological Society in Ireland. In the present year 325 teaching posts were authorised in order to reduce class sizes in primary schools; at post-primary level some 120 schools have each been provided with the services of an extra teacher to assist in aspects of disadvantage within those schools; to reduce the PTR in post-primary schools a further 250 teaching posts were sanctioned this year. I should add that, at present there are some 1,000 teachers approved for post-primary schools outside the normal quota provision to meet particular curricula, remedial and other needs; I have continued to expand the free books scheme. More than 250,000 children are now benefiting under the scheme at primary level and post-primary level, with total expenditure now standing at over £4 million annually; I have created a special fund to foster and encourage greater participation in senior cycle and third level education/training programmes for students from disadvantaged areas. At the same time the various curricular initiatives have been aimed at providing courses more effectively planned to meet the needs of all our young people.\n\nThe new junior certificate will come into effect in 1992 and, for the first time, will provide a common curricular framework for all students with different subject options and levels so as to ensure that all needs will be met. Similarly at  senior cycle level, major reforms are proposed, again with the objective of providing for all ability levels. New leaving certificate and senior cycle programmes are being prepared to provide a range of curricular options. A major development for all students starting second level this year is the availability of a six year cycle. This is a major initiative which has been long needed and warmly welcomed.\n\nSome 75 per cent of all students now sit the leaving certificate examination. For those who are successful a range of further educational opportunities are available. I shall be speaking later about the third level sector. Let me mention here the very successful development of the post-secondary vocational preparation and training programmes. Some 13,500 students go into these programmes or more than half again of the number entering third level education. To aid this number of students I have recently announced the establishment of a national certifying body - the National Council for Vocational Awards. This council will include representatives of all interested parties, including the social partners to ensure that courses reflect the needs of industry.\n\nAs a final point, for those who left school prematurely a variety of opportunities are available ranging from literacy and community programmes, through Youthreach and the vocational training opportunities scheme. The latter is geared specifically towards the long term unemployed. Youthreach and the vocational training opportunities scheme were commenced in 1989 and since then have undergone major expansion. The number on the Youthreach progrmme has increased from 600 to 1,600 and on the vocational training opportunities scheme from 60 to 1,060, with plans for further expansion.\n\nLet me turn now to third level education. Here I set upon a path in 1989 to implement a three year plan for completion by 1992. I wanted to simplify the whole process of entry to third level education combined with a major expansion in the number of places. The process  started once again through consultation and dialogue with concerned interests. The Taoiseach and I met with the university authorities in 1989 initially to emphasise Government commitment to third level expansion and to seek their co-operation. This initiative resulted in the setting up of a working group and later in agreement on an undergraduate expansion programme to provide not fewer than 3,600 additional university places.\n\nAt the same time I began broader based consultations to simplify and coordinate entry procedures for all third level colleges. The consultations involved the heads of universities, IVEA, AVEC, the principals of VEC third level colleges, teachers' unions and students' unions. A plan of action was agreed for implementation over the three year period 1990-92 and included:\n\n-a common system of application for third level places, through an expansion of the CAO and which has resulted in the CAO-CAS system covering both universities and VEC third level colleges;\n\n-the inclusion of all other third level colleges, for example teacher training colleges, in the admissions system by 1992;\n\n-the adoption of a common grading system by all institutions for the purpose of points for admission;\n\n-the avoidance of accumulation of points over a number of years by limiting choice to the points gained in one sitting of the leaving certificate;\n\n-the further simplification of the system by eliminating interviews except in exceptional circumstances such as art courses.\n\nThis process of simplification and coordination is virtually complete and will be completed next year, 1992.\n\nAgain in parallel I instituted other discussions to set in train the process which has resulted in the recent legislation,  which was most generously and graciously agreed by all sides of the House, to merge Thomond College with the University of Limerick. It is clear that this will have a beneficial spin-off for all concerned as well as providing 600 additional university places. I should add that I took this action not long after I had brought the long running saga of the upgrading of the NIHEs to university status to a happy conclusion. As the House is aware this was the first instance of the creation of a university since the foundation of the State. I did it on the double for good measure. Again this was achieved through the co-operation and consensus of all parties in this House.\n\nI took also a hard look at the position of the remaining two major primary teacher training colleges in the light of the reduced demand for teacher training places. I considered that appropriate linkage between each college and the university was the correct way forward and I am pleased that the Government agreed with this approach. The discussions which I put in train between the teacher training colleges and the universities are now well advanced. I am hopeful that the talks between Mary Immaculate teacher training college and the University of Limerick and St. Patrick's teacher training college and Dublin City University will have a satisfactory outcome with the potential for providing more than 1,000 further third-level places.\n\nAt the same time I was conscious of the need to expand physical facilities in line with the expansion in third level places. I have already mentioned the additional accommodation available in Thomond College and the primary teacher training colleges. The acquisition of Carysfort offered further potential and as I will point out later resulted in the provision of more than 600 additional places.\n\nIn addition to those efforts I was pleased to receive Government agreement for two additional initiatives. The first related to the university expansion programme to provide 3,600 additional places for which the Government are allocating £15 million over a five year  period. That initiative has been in place for two years. The second is the major capital expansion programme supported by the EC Structural Fund. In current cost terms this amounts to £85 million and is being implemented over the period 1990-93. It includes the new Tallaght RTC which will open in 1992 and which, over a few years will provide more than 1,000 new places. The remainder of the programme includes projects throughout the universities and VEC third level colleges.\n\nI should mention here the collaboration which has developed between our third level institutions and industry in research and development. The importance of this collaboration is reflected in major investment in science and technology projects in the third level sector. Investment amounting to about £20 million comes from my colleagues in the Departments of Industry and Commerce and the Marine.\n\nBefore leaving this topic I wish to refer to the legislation which I hope will be introduced in the House within the next few weeks. I hope the Whips will be able to agree to it. Again like the other legislation on education which we had the honour to participate in, I hope it will be mutually agreeable. This legislation is important in that it will place the colleges on a sound legislative footing for the first time and give them responsibility for their own day to day management. It will also provide them with the authority and the necessary framework to develop their efforts in research and development.\n\nLet me touch on the question of private sector funding for third level projects. I welcome the growing initiatives in this area. The education sector is, as I have mentioned, making a major contribution to industry in research and development. Residential accommodation for students available now on most university campuses is an example of this. I am happy that I was able to give support and encouragement for this initiative particularly without having to pay the bill.\n\nThe various initiatives mentioned earlier were aimed at major expansion in third level places. This year we have  almost 40 per cent of the age group entering third level education by comparison with 20 per cent in 1980 and 25 per cent in 1986. When the programme I have outlined is fully implemented about 45 per cent of that age group will be entering third level education. When I took office in 1987 there were 56,000 students in third-level education. There are now 75,000, an increase of 34 per cent. With the measures already in train this number is likely to increase to 90,000. This is an extraordinary expansion which was brought about, as I have said, by a process of co-operation, dialogue and consensus between all participants. Six hundred of the new places will become available on the Belfield campus as a result of the purchase of Carysfort and the transfer there of the Graduate School of Business. Indeed these 600 places are a minimum and I would hope to see that significantly increased. In addition almost 100 of the 140 residential places there are already in use by students with the remainder being brought into use very quickly. It was in the interest of achieving these additional places that I continued to pursue the question of acquiring Carysfort from 1987 until 1990. Much has been written about all of this. As often happens in these matters there has been speculation, inaccuracies and indeed misrepresentation of the facts. I will not use unparliamentary words in this debate as they are not allowed so I have used the words in my speech.\n\nSince I came to office there have been Adjournment debates in relation to Carysfort on 20 February 1988, on 20 July 1989, and on 17 May 1990. Again it was discussed on the Supplementary Estimate in December 1990 and was warmly welcomed and voted on by Deputies Jimmy Deenihan and Eamon Gilmore. I gave a detailed oral answer to a question on this matter on 12 February 1991 and I have replies to numerous other written parliamentary questions in regard to it. In addition I have participated in two debates in the Dáil and in two radio interviews on this subject. I wish to take this opportunity in the House again to set the record straight on the matter. The real  scandal of Carysfort College was the precipitate manner of its closure in 1986 by the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government. That was done without any warning, consultation or preparation.\n\nI hope that I shall not be interrupted.\n\nNo attempt was made to link Carysfort with a third level college so as to ensure its capacity and facilities would be properly and fully utilised. Those are the types of links, as I mentioned earlier, which I am now seeking to establish for St. Patrick's and Mary Immaculate in Limerick. This Government are determined that the ineptitude displayed by the then Government will not happen again.\n\n The record shows that since the precipitate closure of the college I have always been committed to the retention of Carysfort as a third level institution. Within a week of taking up office I had detailed discussions with the authorities of the Mercy Order in the context of the working group established by the Minister who succeeded Minister Hussey, Deputy Paddy Cooney, to whom I give full respect for his efforts in that regard. It is interesting to note that the principal thrust of the proposals in the report was the use of the Carysfort premises and facilities for the operation of appropriate courses under the aegis of UCD. In the event the proposals in the report of that time proved unacceptable to the authorities of the Mercy Order.\n\nSince that time I have been unrelenting in pursuing every available option and opportunity. On 5 and 12 June 1987 I held further meetings with the authorities of the Mercy Order but, unfortunately, agreement could not be reached.\n\nOn 10 March 1988 a meeting was held between Sister Regina, the then president of Carysfort; the Taoiseach; Deputy James Tunney - your good self - and myself. Following that meeting a working group was established to examine a proposal presented at that meeting by Sister Regina that a National College of Music and Dramatic Arts be established at the college.\n\nThe working group reported on 29 April. Their proposals, while worthy, would not have been sufficient to fully utilise the extensive premises. In the context of that report the Government, on 28 July 1988, decided that I should come forward with more comprehensive proposals, including use for UCD. From then on the concentration of effort was to try to secure the agreement of the Mercy Order for the leasing of the premises with the necessary flexibility to allow them to be used for third level education. Such flexibility would have been required before UCD could be asked to formulate any proposals. I was unable to secure this because the Mercy Order wished, in effect - and they had every right to do so - to retain right of approval over  educational activities carried out in their premises were they so leased. Their reservations would have included such issues as the type of courses offered and approval of staff taken on - all kinds of matters that were not acceptable to UCD. Discussions on this matter were ongoing at the time the property was offered for sale on the open market on 21 June 1989. I wish to state that the Mercy Order had every right, if they so wished, to put their property on the market; they owned it. In fact, a letter as late as 5 May 1989 from my Department continued to seek the agreement of the Mercy Order to the flexible use of the premises.\n\nIn the course of an Adjournment Debate on 20 July 1989 I was urged very strongly by Deputy Barnes, Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Barrett to ensure that the college would be retained for educational purposes. Deputy Gilmore represented that I should enter negotiations in the matter, while Deputy Barrett twice pointed out that if necessary the State should pay £20 million and purchase the whole property.\n\nIn the course of my reply to the debate I reiterated the Government's continued interest in securing the use of Carysfort premises for educational purposes with whatever element of the site would be considered appropriate. In conclusion, at that debate I undertook to reopen discussions between my Department and the Mercy Order, and that we did.\n\nThe discussions were, in fact, reopened and resulted in the premises and 15 acres of land being offered to my Department by the Mercy Order for £8.5 million. An additional £1.5 million was being sought for the additional five acres of land which would be required. The offer price for the building and 20 acres of land was £10 million. This was in the latter part of August 1989.\n\nNegotiations broke down because of the price and the timescale. The property was then sold into private hands.\n\nIn late October 1989 my Department were approached by the agent for the new owner, who, it subsequently transpired, were Davmac Developments Ltd., to  explore our interest in any future use of Carysfort. The approach resulted in an offer for sale on behalf of the new owners of the Carysfort premises and 20 acres for £8.25 million.\n\nAll of the matters which I relate are documented and available. I must at this point refute the allegation made on 11 October 1991 by Deputy Gilmore - and I do not do this in a party political sense. I am just saying that he is a Deputy of the House and I am refuting it in that respect - that the property could have been purchased for £6.5 million. No offer at that price was ever made to my Department.\n\nIn the course of an Adjournment Debate on 17 May Deputy Gilmore appealed to me to purchase not only the premises and 20 acres of land but to consider purchasing as much of the remainder of Carysfort Park as would come back on the market. The latter part of his request, he said, related to local feelings about the undesirability of having houses built on the land - \n\nVery laudable sentiments, Deputy Gilmore. He also referred to the perceived necessity in some quarters to preserve the green space amenity.\n\nSuggestions were made that my Department should itself purchase Carysfort. This suggestion was not feasible since my Department do not directly operate third level colleges. We had tried it with the College of Music, which would be under the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee. I shall go on to that. A further consideration was that unless a definite use for the premises had been established before its acquisition substantial maintenance costs would have arisen. We examined it in detail and a technical study was made to find our whether it would be suitable for a regional college. It was not suitable for this purpose. I emphasise that all of these submissions and letters are available for perusal.\n\nAs the President of UCD noted in his recent statement, the situation changed in 1990 when financial problems arose. I met with representatives of UCD in early September 1990. In a number of meetings over a short period of time it became clear to me and to UCD that up to 600 additional undergraduate student places could be provided at the Belfield campus if UCD could secure Carysfort for its graduate business school.\n\nMy notes now go on to quote the letter, but I know I am coming to the end of my time and as the letter has already been published I think that that can be passed over. It can be read, of course.\n\nThe £8 million purchase price does not accurately reflect the value of securing  this fine facility for public education. When account is taken of the £2 million available from UCD and of the £1.75 million recovered by the State from the Mercy Order for earlier capital investment, the actual cost to the State was £4.25 million.\n\nThe additional moneys made available to UCD for legal fees, adaptation, equipment and maintenance would have been required, no matter for what educational purpose the State had acquired the premises.\n\nThe Government considered this matter on 4 December and decided that the Minister for Finance and I should pursue the matter further. The statement by the president of UCD to which I have already referred confirms that he met the Taoiseach and myself on 12 December. Here I would like to make just one interjection. I consider it very odd that the Taoiseach has been called to book because he spoke with Dr. Masterson. Throughout his four year period in office former Taoiseach, Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, a revered and honoured member of the National University of Ireland Senate, was a very regular attender. Why is it so odd that the Taoiseach of the day should talk to Dr. Patrick Masterson? Dr. Masterson went on to point out that, at that meeting, far from exerting pressure, the Taoiseach expressed the view that the proposal was so benefical that the college should commit itself to raising independently a greater proportion of the cost.\n\nFollowing normal procedures the necessary Supplementary Estimate was agreed between my Department and the Department of Finance.\n\nOn 18 December 1990  this House passed a Supplementary Estimate of £9.7 million.\n\nAs I was urged to do on a number of occasions, I have made every effort to retain Carysfort College as an educational institution which I have achieved.\n\nIt has been established that no pressure was exerted by the Government on UCD. I can assure the House that the premises, and the 20 acres of land, were never on offer to me, or my Department, for less than the £8 million paid subsequently by UCD. Let me reiterate that all requisite policies and procedures were strictly adhered to, which fact was confirmed at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts yesterday.\n\nThe moneys were voted in the normal way by the Dáil and made available, again in the normal way, through the Higher Education Authority.\n\nAs the Secretary of my Department said in his statement to the Committee of Public Accounts yesterday, the purchase was excellent value for money - \n\nThe purchase was excellent value for money.\n\nI reiterate that all requisite policies and procedures were strictly adhered to. The moneys were voted in the normal way by the Dáil and made available in the normal fashion, through the Higher Education Authority, to UCD. The purchase was excellent value for money. Carysfort is now a public asset, as so many Members of this House had long sought. It is now a public educational asset. In the process leading to the purchase - \n\nThere were no meetings, correspondence or agreements of any kind between myself, my officials, the vendors or their agents. All such contacts were between UCD, the vendors or their agents. The saga of Carysfort College is over.\n\nI should like to wish all those who lecture there, who will live and learn there every success and fulfilment.","During the time available to me I intend to deal with the Carysfort issue. This scandal is different from the other scandals which have brought about this confidence debate in that it concerns State money, money provided by way of supplementary estimate in this House last December. The Dáil provided the money and the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility applies here. The Progressive Democrats cannot walk away from this one and take up a position  on the high moral ground. The one-man government-in-exile down in the Four Courts has been notably silent on this issue.\n\nI quote from the reply given to me by the Minister for Education in the Dáil on February 13 last:\n\nAny decision to purchase Carysfort and the allocation of funds for that purpose are matters solely for Government. Naturally I kept the Government fully informed of developments regarding Carysfort at all stages leading eventually to the decision to provide funds to UCD towards the purchase of the college.\n\nThe Coalition Government was informed by the Minister for Education at all stages. The Progressive Democrats knew and they must, therefore, share the responsibility.\n\nWas there anything wrong with the State providing the finance to purchase Carysfort College to retain it in an educational use? The answer is most definitely not - all things being equal and above board. However, this is the problem. The question must be asked. Why was it necessary for the Minister for Education to seriously mislead the Dáil on the issue on 18 December 1990 when I challenged her in relation to the supplementary estimate.\n\nI quote the Minister from the Dáil record:\n\nI had four separate meetings with the College authorities with regard to the proposal they put to me for the purchase of Carysfort.\n\nIt has since then emerged that the proposal from the college was dated 29 November 1990. It has also emerged that at September-October meetings between the College Secretary and Registrar, the Chairman of the Graduate Business School and the Minister for Education the President of UCD stated:\n\nThe Minister indicated that positive consideration would be given to a proposal from UCD to purchase Carysfort for its graduate business school.\n\nThe Minister failed to inform the House that she not alone had invited the proposals but indicated a favourable response. On that occasion and subsequently, she had indicated or stated that the initiative came from the college. The contrary is indeed the case, and the Minister stands indicted of seriously misleading this House.\n\nThe Minister has given two separate dates, 4 and 5 December, in relation to when the Cabinet decision was taken to approve the purchase. I am demanding that the position be clarified. The Minister for Education has stated in September 1991, that she was unaware that it was Mr. Pino Harris who was the vendor of Carysfort College at the time of the sale last December. We must accept the Minister's word on this but I would suggest that there is no way the Taoiseach could make the same statement.\n\nThis brings me to the term \"forced-fed\" which I used in the Dáil last December to describe the role of the Government in bringing about the purchase and refurbishment of Carysfort by UCD, using almost £10 million of taxpayers' money. The President of UCD informed the building committee that his heart was not in the project. The heart of someone who is force-fed is certainly not in it. I unreservedly accept the bona fides of the President of UCD when he says that his decision to recommend the purchase was based on the judgment, formed in the light of consultation with colleagues, that the opportunity which presented itself was the most advantageous one for the college's development of its graduate school of business and allied post-graduate activities.\n\nWith due respect to the President of UCD, when he says that his decision was not based on pressure, he needs to define for us what he means by pressure, and I suggest that the definition most appropriate to this whole episode is \"a compelling influence or force\". In our political system, the paymaster/ Government is an extremely compelling influence or force. To quote a member of his own staff: \"you might blame Haughey  for giving it to us but you can't blame us for taking it.\"\n\nI have already stated outside this House that the statement of the president of UCD of 8 October 1991 raises more questions than it answers. I quote: \"The only meeting with the Taoiseach or Minister for Education which the President had on the matter was on 12 December\". The president does not address the issues of informal conversations, telephone conversations, contacts from the Taoiseach's office and specifically whether there was an \"informal conversation\" on 3 December - the day of the Presidential inauguration - at which the Taoiseach indicated to him that the money to purchase Carysfort would be forthcoming.\n\nThis issue is now firmly back in the political arena and there is an inescapable duty on the Taoiseach, the Minister for Education, the Minister for Finance and, indeed, all members of the Government to give full and frank answers on all the issues raised and not hide behind the type of bland waffle with which the Taoiseach insulted this House and the people of Ireland at the commencement of this debate. I quote:\n\nI regard the purchase of Carysfort by UCD to provide a premises for a graduate business school as an entirely praiseworthy and progressive step. The transaction was carried out in a perfectly straight forward manner.\n\nHow straightforward was it that the Taoiseach's meeting with the president of UCD on 12 December 1990 was not acknowledged until the president of UCD, made that public, and indeed it is still not acknowledged by the Taoiseach?\n\nThe property was purchased in July 1990 by the company of a well-known Fianna Fáil supporter for £6.5 million and was almost immediately put back on the market for £10.5 million. The auctioneers acting for the vendor then approached the Chairman of the Smurfit Graduate Business School, Mr. Laurence Crowley, who initially showed no interest. In September-October, the Minister for Education was inviting a proposal and indicating a favourable  response. On 4 October, UCD approached Mr. Harris through Gunne's and expressed an interest in acquiring Carysfort. A purchase price of £8 million was agreed between Mr. Laurence Crowley and Gunne's on 25 November, subject to the approval of the Minister for Education.\n\nVery serious questions must be asked here about the rigours of the college's negotiations in relation to agreeing the price of £8 million. There was no independent professional valuation and, whereas the unidentified \"competent college experts\" found that if the same area as Carysfort were to be provided on campus, it would cost in excess of £20 million, this does not take market forces into consideration. The college is restricted to an educational use and there was no other known prospective educational buyer. The fact that the agreed price in November, when the property market was in delcine, was £1.5 million dearer than the July price demonstrates very weak powers of negotiation on the part of the college. The question must also be asked whether Mr. Harris was advised to hold out for £8 million and that the State would pay. If he had been so advised, who had advised him?\n\nThe college is open to very great criticism in terms of the negotiated sale price, but how much more criticism must be levelled at the Taoiseach in what can only be described as a scandalous dereliction of his duty to protect Exchequer funds? He directly involved himself in the transaction - however shy he was of admitting this. He sought that UCD would put up more of the money from their own resources but it is apparent that in relation to a transaction which he was obviously in an almighty hurry to conclude, he never suggested that UCD should go back to the well-known Fianna Fáil supporter and negotiate a reduced purchase price. He did not even insist on an independent professional valuation of the property on behalf of the State. Fianna Fáil, clearly with the assistance of the Progressive Democrats, have looked  after one of their own and grossly misused nearly £10 million of taxpayers' money in the process.\n\nThe Minister for Education needs to explain how the president of UCD knew that there was a conflict between Ministers in relation to the provision of this money. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education must inform this House about the nature of this conflict and the Taoiseach's direct personal intervention, in the face of strong opposition, in the expenditure division of the Department of Finance. I challenge the Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, who will reply to the debate this evening, to put on the record of this House exactly what happened when the Taoiseach intervened in his Department in relation to the provision of money which the official side in the Department strongly believed could not and should not be provided. My information is that this money was intended for the regional colleges sector, to be provided by way of Supplementary Estimate towards the end of the year, but that it was hijacked. The Regional Colleges Bill and the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill will come before this House very shortly. The consequences of those Bills will be to reduce the effectiveness of the real public sector of education in the third level area.\n\nThere is a pattern here which we have seen in relation to the two existing training colleges. I have been informed that negotiations are well advanced on the proposal to amalgamate St. Patrick's Training College in Drumcondra with Dublin City University and the authorities of Mary Immaculate Training College in Limerick are involved in discussions on the amalgamation of that college with Limerick City University. Even though there are regional colleges in Munster, the largest county in Munster and the country, Tipperary, has no regional college. Promises have been made to provide a regional technical college at Thurles and we, in the Labour Party, support that proposal absolutely. I challenge the Government to say whether the money used for the purchase  of Carysfort was diverted from providing this very necessary facility in an area which the Government have in so many ways neglected in a most wicked way.\n\nThe Taoiseach must also inform the House of his intervention in the administrative affairs of University College Dublin afer the Supplmentary Estimate had been approved by this House. I understand that the college were looking for £1 million to cover the running costs of the new graduate business school. I submit that the direct involvement of the Taoiseach in this issue to the extent that he rang the president of the college, who later returned his call, is a vote of no confidence in his Minister for Education. What is even more insidious is the fact that the HEA were totally side-lined and not involved in this project and that the Taoiseach interfered in the Civil Service and involved himself in the running of University College Dublin and, if one takes into account the scale of the college, petty cash. It is incumbent on the Taoiseach to tell us why he felt the Minister for Education was not capable or competent to conclude the dotting of i's and the crossing of t's in this escapade.\n\nThe stench surrounding this transaction must be cleared by the full disclosure of the facts. If the credibility of the political system is to be restored those answerable must give answers. The Government, as custodians of the national purse, who allowed the Carysfort scandal to happen have grossly betrayed their mandate of trust from the people. This alone demonstrates why no right thinking Deputy could considier voting confidence in a Government who have totally failed the people in all social areas, particularly in the area of employment.\n\nUnemployment is the largest problem in Ireland. We are debating a motion of confidence in the Government. Yesterday the Labour Party Leader, in his excellent contribution to the House, spoke about the lack of confidence and how people have lost heart. We must all share that sense of shame. People have lost confidence in this House on a massive scale in recent weeks. It may very well be  that the Coalition partners will succeed in cobbling something together to get them over this crisis, but people know that this measure is not about them, it is about holding on to power, to the mercedes and to office. Nothing has been said by any member of the Government during this debate which signifies that the Government are serious about the problem of unemployment. Labour Deputies who have spoken to people at their clinics are aware of the despair among people; people have lost self-respect and self-image and believe we have got to the stage where we can no longer deal with our problems.\n\nIf the Government succeed in cobbling an agreement together to stretch out this charade for another while, it will be incumbent on them to devote all of next week to a debate on unemployment so that they can put forward plans and ideas about the creation of employment and get it across to people that it is not the golden circle but the ordinary people who matter. Many people have the ability and can see opportunities to create small businesses but the banks, the Government and the whole ethos of our society, are shutting them out. If the Government want to succeed in coming to grips with our unemployment problem, everyone who can make a contribution must be brought on board. If we do not do this we will be failing people as the Government have so terribly failed them. It has been said that the Government have no responsibility for what happens in the semi-State sector but investigations will bear out what happened in those companies. However, the issue of Carysfort is different as it involved direct Exchequer money.\n\nThe Carysfort issue relates to collective Government responsibility, misleading this House and the adoption of a role by the Taoiseach  which he would not admit until the President of University College Dublin put it on the record that the Taoiseach had, in fact, met him. This is the sort of politics which can destroy people's confidence. In this issue more than any other Fianna Fáil have done a grave injustice and disservice to democratic Government in this country.","The Taoiseach's nonchalant wave of his hand in the Dáil on Wednesday last when Deputy John Bruton mentioned the sewerage pipe on his land did not convince me or anybody else in this House that he did not have  any personal interest in this famous pipe. The Taoiseach, more than any Member of this House, understands the real significance of a main sewerage pipe going across his land. After all, has he not experienced this before on his land on the outskirts of Dublin in the Donaghmede area in the late sixties?\n\nIn that instance rumours and stories abound of undue pressure put on corporation engineers to extend pipes onto his land. Whether or not these rumours or allegations are true, the facts speak for themselves - the Taoiseach's former land was rezoned, thereby greatly inflating the value of the land and many hundreds of houses are now built on that land. One can be forgiven for sensing a touch of déjá vu. Incidentally, that land also was zoned for agriculture use.\n\nThe history of the approval of the now famous Baskin Cottages pipe is one which smacks of undue political interference by the Minister for the Environment. The Kinsealy-Feltrim sewerage scheme has been planned for a number of years. In 1981, Dublin County Council submitted preliminary drawings for the scheme to the Department of the Environment. It is important to note, however, that neither at that time nor at any time in the intervening years was a pipe to the Baskin Cottages included in this scheme. On the contrary, on 17 September 1984 a motion was proposed by two Fianna Fáil councillors asking the manager to extend the scheme to the cottages. In his reply, the manager said:\n\nThis scheme is independent of the Feltrim-Kinsealy Drainage Scheme proposal and there would be no necessity to connect the two.\n\nThe motion was never voted on or passed by Dublin County Council. Again, on 7 February 1985 in a further Fianna Fáil motion efforts were made to extend the scheme to include the Baskin Cottages.  This time the manager was even more adamant in his reply. He stated:\n\nThe Baskin Cottages scheme is independent of the proposed Feltrim-Kinsealy drainage scheme and there would be no necessity to connect the two. There are no plans, therefore, to extend the Feltrim-Kinsealy scheme to serve the Baskin Cottages.\n\nAs a result of this report from the manager the Fianna Fáil councillors amended this motion to remove this section calling for the extension to serve the Baskin Cottages.\n\nIn 1985, Dublin County Council sent the fully prepared scheme to the Department of the Environment for approval. One will recall that during those years due to severe financial restrictions very few capital programmes such as this were approved. During the following two years I tabled a number of questions to the county manager asking if we had received any approval from the Department for this scheme - the scheme without the Baskin Cottages. Each time I was informed that no approval had been given and the council were not in a position to proceed out of their own resources due to the cost of the project. As one famous Irish seanachaí from Deputy Deenihan's county says, \"things rested so\" until July 1988.\n\nBy way of background let me remind Members that during the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 Fianna Fáil in Government had a Pauline conversion and were for the first time ever responsibly, or so it seemed - perhaps it is not so clear now - tackling the severe financial problems of this country. They were being assisted at that time, again for the first time, by responsible Opposition, by way of the Tallaght Strategy. All over the country county councils and county councillors of all parties were screaming that they were getting no resources from the Department of the Environment for any of their planned schemes, water, sewerage, housing, etc. I say this by way of background in view of what happened in 1988 with regard to the expenditure of money in north County Dublin.\n\n At a Finglas meeting of 5 July 1988 under \"correspondence\" a letter was tabled from the Department of the Environment concerning the Kinsealy/Feltrim scheme. The letter indicated to Dublin County Council that the Department of the Environment had given approval to the working drawings as submitted to the Department and \"to the Council's proposal to extend the scheme to provide for the disposal of sewage from the Baskin Cottage Scheme as outlined in the Council's letter of 9 May 1988\". I was immediately alerted by the wording of this sentence as I had a clear recollection that at no time had the council or their members passed any motion or proposal to extend the scheme to the Baskin Cottages. On the contrary, the manager had advised against taking such action.\n\nI then proceeded to investigate the matter more fully and in September 1988 I tabled a series of questions which outlined the exact history of this proposal. It would appear, and it has been confirmed, that on 7 July 1987 a short time after Fianna Fail's return to power the Department of the Environment on the instructions of the Minister wrote to Dublin County Council after a number of years silence from the Department and asked them \"as a matter of urgency\" to reexamine the Kinsealy-Feltrim scheme with a view to extending the pipe to serve the Baskin Cottages and other houses in the locality of the Baskin Cottages. Normally the Department of the Environment tend to ask councils to remove portions of schemes because of cost etc. and not, as in this case, to add expensive extensions. Following the letter of 7 July 1987 to the council - remember that this was during the summer holiday period when a number of engineers, etc., would have been on holiday - the Department wrote no fewer than twice more in the following two months demanding to know why the county council had not responded to their request for new plans and asking them to proceed with all haste to provide the necessary extension drawings, etc. These two letters were dated 14 August 1987 and 10 September 1987.\n\n In the meantime the council themselves had proceeded to prepare and examine the possibility of extending this scheme to the cottages. I now know, having seen the report on the file which mysteriously turned up again in the last few days, that the council engineer who prepared the report said:\n\nI would recommend that the Kinsealy-Feltrim scheme should not be extended to service the Baskin Cottages as the present treatment works is quite adequate. I have discussed the operation of the treatment works with the maintenance Department and they confirmed that the works can adequately treat the existing sewage from Baskin Cottages.\n\nThis would confirm the earlier reports in 1984 and 1985 as the council engineers responsible for these matters did not feel there was any need to extend the scheme. The county council officials and engineers were now in a difficult position; they were being offered an additional sewage pipe which their own engineers did not feel was necessary. There are certain similarities between the position in which the council found themselves and the position regarding Carysfort College. As one council engineer put it to me at the time: \"we cannot look a gift horse in the mouth\".\n\nIn the event, the report which went back to the Department of the Environment on 20 October 1987 - remember all through this time we, the councillors, elected members, knew nothing of this, it all came to light after 1988 - did not include the council engineer's reservations about extending the scheme. There is an interesting portion in that letter of 20 October 1987 in which the principal officer said: \"following numerous discussions and phone calls\", but there is no evidence of what was discussed and what the nature of those telephone calls was. Instead it indicated in the manager's report to the Department that the most desirable way to instal this pipe was across the valley of the Sluice River through private lands. In the letter  from the Department of the Environment of 7 July 1987 it was made absolutely clear across which land this pipe would go, and I quote:\n\nI am to request the county council to have these (Kinsealy/Feltrim) proposals re-examined, with a view to having the scheme extended to provide for disposal of sewage from Baskin Cottages which at present has an outfall to the stream flowing through Abbeyville.\n\nI would like to stress here that at no stage am I alleging any wrongdoing on the part of any council official. They were in the predicament of being offered something which they felt they should not turn down but I was extremely critical of the proposal in view of the fact that so little money had been made available to Dublin County Council in 1988 for any new capital works and here was an unnecessary £78,000 going to be spent. I indicated publicly over and over again that this money would be better spent on some other schemes in the north county awaiting approval for a long number of years. In September 1988 when I first raised this issue, the Department not only approved the full Kinsealy-Feltrim scheme, at that stage priced at approximately £1 million, but they also approved a further two schemes in north County Dublin, namely the Darcystown drainage scheme in Balbriggan and the Barnageera-Blackhills scheme in Skerries. I am very pleased, for the sake of the people affected by the Darcystown and Blackhills-Barnageera schemes, that they got their main sewerage system but there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that these schemes were released and approved in that year in order literally to shut me up.\n\nThe net result of these approvals is that at a time when the Minister for Finance was demanding tightening of belts all around, Dublin County Council and specifically north County Dublin received in excess of £1.3 million to build these new sewerage schemes. I have  talked to many of my colleagues in councils around the country and they tell me that at that time it was virtually impossible to get even a penny out of the Department.\n\nMuch has been made about the new Development and Planning (Compensation) Act. It is true that the Bill was tabled in November 1988 but it was not passed into law until 1990. In the meantime the council had received the go-ahead to seek tenders and to place contracts. A contract was placed in May 1989 at a cost of £720,786.44. The Minister, Deputy Flynn on a radio programme recently, in his defence, indicated that he was only acting on the instructions of Dublin County Council in granting permission for the contract because they had approved the tender. He neglected to clarify that it was only the Fianna Fáil councillors on 1 May 1989 who accepted the tender, as the minutes of the meeting - which I have here - will show. Fine Gael councillors and one Labour councillor voted against and two Labour councillors abstained.\n\nThere are still crucial questions to be answered about this issue. Who wanted or needed this pipe? Not the cottage owners who in recent times indicated that they were not even aware they were now on a main sewer as opposed to their own drainage scheme; not the council engineers who persisted, even after the Department's request, in saying that the pipe was not needed. Why, as was told to me, did the Taoiseach invite the council's chief engineer to visit him in his home at Abbeyville to discuss the issue if it was a matter of such indifference to him, as he has tried to imply? Why did the Garda planning inquiry request this file which they kept until very recently? What exactly were they looking for in the file? Who asked them to carry out this inquiry and what has been the outcome? Will we ever hear?\n\nBecause of the circumstances surrounding this project, despite the Minister for the Environment's spirited hindsight explanation and justification of his actions, one is left with the serious suspicion that the only person or persons  who stood to benefit, either immediately or in future, were the owners of the land across which the pipe was laid.\n\nPerhaps I would not have these suspicions if, as I said at the beginning, land owned by the Taoiseach in the Donaghmede area in the late sixties, although zoned agriculture, ended up getting a main sewerage system and being rezoned for housing, thus inflating hugely the value of the land.\n\nProfessionals who are used to valuing land, particularly in the Dublin area, have indicated to me that even agriculturally zoned land with a sewerage pipe across it would have its value greatly enhanced by the provision of such a pipe. Certain uses are allowed under agricultural zoning, such as the building of hotels, rural industries, commercial recreation centres etc. However, if there was a possibility of land being rezoned, then the value of land with a main sewerage pipe across it could be increased from £3,000 approximately per acre to a figure as high as £35,000 to £40,000 per acre. It means that two or three hundred acres could be valued at anything from £10 million to £12 million.\n\nThe Taoiseach in a recent statement on 26 September 1991 failed dismally to explain the reasons his Minister got involved in this scheme in the manner I have described and at a time of severe financial restrictions. He attempted to imply that the extension pipe was entirely in keeping with the county council's policy where possible to eliminate small treatment works. Yet, he ignored the fact that consistently the same county council had refused to extend the scheme to the Baskin Cottages because they were satisfied with the operation of the treatment works there.\n\nThere is also a doubt in some legal minds that the 1990 Government and Planning Act actually applies to this particular pipeline as it was already under the ground before the Bill was passed into law. During the debate on that Bill a number of Deputies attempted to force the Minister into applying the terms of the Bill to land purchased before October 1988 but he refused. I believe there is a  possibility that some of the terms of this Act could well be challenged because of their retrospective nature.\n\nThe Taoiseach was given an opportunity, through his Fianna Fáil councillors, to remove any scintilla of doubt or suspicion by requesting them to vote in favour of a motion tabled by me on January 1989 calling for the removal of the Baskin Cottages extension until such time as the Government Planning and Development Act, 1990, became law. He failed to do this.\n\nRecently, it has been revealed in a Sunday newspaper - The Sunday Tribune of 6 October - and not denied, that John Finnegan of Finnegan, Menton Estate Agents and Liam McGonagle, Solicitor, have purchased a large parcel of land, 600 acres approximately, in the vicinity of Baskin/Cloghran.\n\nWhy are two men whose main source of living is not farming buying 600 acres of prime agricultural land in north County Dublin? These two men have been long time associates of the Taoiseach. One again wonders if they know something nobody else knows, or is it another one of these extraordinary coincidences that these two men appear to be members of the recently described golden circle? Can the Taoiseach tell the House if he has ever been involved in land or business transactions with either or both of these men? If we knew that we would have a better idea as to why they are buying the land in question.\n\nFinally, my motivation in raising and investigating the Baskin Cottages pipeline since 1988 has been on behalf of my constituents and the taxpayers. My constituents do not want to see a concrete expanse being built in Kinsealy. The taxpayers are entitled to the assurance that their money is not spent wastefully or because of undue political pressure or favouritism.\n\nI was accused in the Dáil yesterday by Deputy Flynn, Minister for the Environment, of being uncaring about the environment. I challenge him to reread the reports given to me in 1988 by Dublin County Council in which it is clearly  stated that any pollution to the Sluice river was caused by houses and farms other than the Baskin Cottages, yet he refused to extend the scheme to these offending properties. Instead he limited the pipe to the lands of Abbeyville, thereby creating the whole suspicious scenario around this now famous extension pipe. It was within the power of the Minister to remove any suspicion of political interference.\n\nYesterday the Minister used words like \"snooping\" as if somehow I was worse than a worm going around looking for information. I did not have to snoop. The information available to me is widely available on the public record of county council meetings. I have received phone calls about all sorts of extraneous matters which I have not followed up because I do not think they are factual. Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Flynn, would like to know that his name came up as being a landowner in the area, but I have no evidence of that. I have not followed up every bit of information I have received.\n\nThis matter has come to the public attention again because of rumours of intention of disposal of land. The case rests there. It may be some years before it really comes to light as to what the real motivation behind this action was. I believe that the Taoiseach and the Minister still have questions to answer and I hope they will do so before the end of this debate.","The Taoiseach in his speech this afternoon outlined his vision of the country he seemed to perceive from the distance at which he views it. I strongly urge him not to get off the mythical horse of Tír na nÓg for fear that his vision may turn to stone. The country the Taoiseach described is not the country in which I am living. The country the Taoiseach eulogised is not the country which the pickets outside his palatial offices tried to bring to his attention as he drove into work, proclaiming that there are 258,700 people unemployed. The country the Taoiseach eulogised is not the one I recognise in Dublin City Council where there are queues of people looking for housing and money from the Department of the Environment who have resolutely refused them the money to build houses. The same Department, as Deputy Callely will be aware, has not even given us the legislative framework within which to administer the grand sum of 150 housing loans to deal with a queue of 30,000 families. I do not know what country Deputy Haughey thinks he is Taoiseach of but it certainly is not this land. If the speech he made today is a true reflection of his perception of where this country is at, we have more problems than I thought we had when this debate started.\n\nThis Government are a failed political entity. I hope the Taoiseach recognises the phrase. They have already lost the confidence of the farmers, the unemployed, public sector workers and the entire business community. Significantly, the Government have also lost the support of a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies and very few of the Progressive Democrats have a good word to say about them. In short, the Government have lost the confidence of the people and we believe they should now lose the confidence of the Dáil.\n\nThis country needs a new start and a new direction if we are to tackle the social and economic problems which now confront us but we must start with the Government. They simply must go. They are tired, dispirited and divided. The two  parties in Government no longer trust themselves or each other.\n\nBefore I recommence, may I inform the House and seek their  agreement to the fact that I will speak on behalf of the Labour Party but that my colleague, Deputy Spring, will be the main speaker? He will take the 45 minutes tomorrow or the next day and I propose to take the 25 minutes now. Accordingly I calculate that I have approximately 23 minutes left.\n\nAs I was saying before we went into that most illuminating period of questions and answers, this country needs a new beginning and a new direction if it is to tackle the major social and economic problems that confront it. A start must be made with the Government - they simply must go. The Government are tired, dispirited and divided. The two parties in Government no longer trust themselves or each other. The Ministers no longer trust the Taoiseach and the backbenchers no longer trust their Ministers. Instead of a clear and decisive Government led by a Cabinet of energetic and well-moded Ministers, we have a cluster of politicians who are cowering in a Cabinet bunker, unsure of what they will meet outside and incapable of dealing with what they find inside. The Cabinet are clinging to office by their fingernails, desperate to remain in power, yet incapable of governing. The struggle for power within this beleagured coalition has now been superseded by the race for power within Fianna Fáil itself. Indeed, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I gather that that race has now started as and from this afternoon. Already the first blood has been drawn by the four picadors, who have irreparably damaged the credibility and the standing of their party leader, the Taoiseach, by the wounding comments and declarations of no confidence they have proclaimed both in public and in private. It is clear that Fianna Fáil have lost the confidence of their own supporters among the public and that the Taoiseach has lost the confidence of his own backbenchers in the Dáil. If the Taoiseach was depending on the level of applause that greeted the finale of his speech this afternoon then he most certainly has lost their confidence.\n\n[A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for the past four months the nation has experienced the high drama of ongoing discussions, not yet concluded, between the coalition partners concerning their detailed and agonised negotiations about a new Programme for Government, which still remains inconclusive. Perhaps the timing of its finale is related to the Dublin Theatre Festival, for which the Taoiseach, as Minister for culture, has some responsibility. Indeed, properly scripted and carefully choreographed, the events of the past few weeks could have been submitted by the Government press officer - otherwise known as \"Mara\" on certain radio programmes, a fictional character, I hasten to say - as their contribution to Samuel Beckett's Theatre of the Absurd. It would undoubtedly be a drama of high farce if it were not such a tragedy for the rest of the country.\n\nThis country has lost its way simply because the Government leading it no longer know where they are, what they are doing or where they are going. There could be no more savage indictment of the incompetence of the present management of the economy by this Government than the comprehensive results of the survey of business opinion published last Sunday in the Sunday Business Post. Members are now being asked to vote confidence in a Government which itself, even as I speak, has not agreed its own programme for the rest of this session and for the next three years. Confidence in what and for what, that is the question.\n\nThe Government, who repeatedly proclaimed the miracles of their own economic success in the vain hope that they would be sustained if the lie of their so-called success was repeated often enough, have now lost the confidence of the very sector that they claim to lead. In the Taoiseach's own words, we now have \"an appalling economic crisis\". That was some miracle that has now been transformed into \"an appalling economic crisis\". Is it any wonder that dissatisfaction with the Government and their performance has increased among the business community from 18 per cent  in June to 58 per cent in September or that pessimism about the performance of the economy has increased from 65 per cent in June to 81 per cent in September? It should be underlined that those figures represent the views of people who are currently at work.\n\nIt must also be recognised that unemployment has increased to its highest level ever in the history of this State. What has been the Government's response? It has blamed our birth rate. It has come up with the reason that some Irish emigrants had the timidity and the temerity to want to return home. It is perhaps symbolic that a member of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party, as his contribution to the national endeavour, personally flew, courtesy of Aeroflot - that is some irony - across the Atlantic to lodge 2,000 applications for Morrison visas in Virginia in the United States.\n\nThe House should pass a vote of no confidence in the Government because the people who are trying to make our economy work no longer have confidence in the Government's ability to manage the economy and oversee our affairs. The Labour Party have always recognised that economic growth is essential if we are to achieve the targets set out by our own policies and, indeed, the targets set out in the original Programme for Economic and Social Progress.\n\nWe do not blame the Minister for Finance for the continued recession in either the United States or Great Britain. We blame the Minister for Agriculture and Food for many things, but we do not blame him for the continued crisis in relation to the GATT talks or for the current shape of the MacSharry proposals. Nor do we blame the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications for the shortfall in the numbers of tourists coming to this country across the North Atlantic. But we do blame each and every one of them for not reading the signs soon enough and for not listening to the valid criticisms of the Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party and every other party on the Opposition benches in this House and of every economic commentator outside the House. Ireland has  had a deaf and dumb Government that will not listen and cannot speak.\n\nThe figures provided by the Minister for Finance in the January budget were wrong. He rejected criticisms when challenged not only by himself but also by others. When the Minister for Finance introduced the Finance Bill last April to give effect to that January budget the figures he provided then were also wrong. When challenged, he again rejected our criticisms. Despite repeated challenges to restate a new course for economic management in the light of the facts that were then available to him and his Department, the Minister for Finance and his Government resolutely stuck their heads in the sand and refused to listen and refused to speak. However, within days, virtually within hours, of the Dáil going into recess - if not recession - the Department of Finance published their economic review and outlook for 1991. Lo and behold, suddenly they had seen the light. If that is democratic, accountable government, then this is some other place and I am not living here, because we are not in fact dealing in the real world at all, and that is why this Government do not deserve the confidence of this House.\n\nThe Minister announced in July - after the Dáil had gone into recess, after we had adjourned for three months - a package of cuts in Government expenditure amounting to about £100 million. No adequate information was given in relation to the cuts, to where the savings were to be achieved or to how the services that they underpinned could be either replaced or maintained. An impressario's magic wand was waved over the \"temporary little difficulties\" of the budget in the midst of a summer recess.\n\nThe Government in general and the Minister for Finance in particular have frequently lauded the contribution made by the social partners, in the trade unions in particular, through the Programme for National Recovery and its successor the Programme for Economic and Social Progress towards economic stability, wage restraint and industrial harmony.\n\n However, within weeks, in July, a ten-year strategy with its three-year initial programme was arbitrarily abandoned with the dismissive and irresponsible assertion by the Minister for Finance that the Government could not and would not pay a proportion of the public sector pay bill which was to fall due in 1992, notwithstanding its commitments, undertakings and promises.\n\nThe elaborate process of discussion, dialogue and consultation between the social partners, as orchestrated and manipulated by the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil, was exposed for what it is, a sham designed to con the public into thinking that the trade unions had become subservient, that the public sector could be taken for a ride in hard times, by denying them the legitimate pay increases awarded them by the arbitrator, and in good times proclaiming that yet again they must wait until the really good times had finally arrived. The really good times did arrive late this summer for a small specially privileged group of people in our society who had repeatedly told the Government and the rest of us that investment and job creation could not come about until the right climate had been created. Well, ordinary workers did create the right climate as they saw it but the jobs have not materialised. A few very unrepresentative people in the business community have benefited uniquely from their close position to the centres of power and from political influence.\n\nAfter 16 weeks of recess, on our first day back in this democratic Assembly, I want to put on the record of the House that the Irish people feel betrayed and sullied by the way in which our affairs have been managed by this Government over the past 16 weeks. Clearly the Irish people have lost confidence in the ability of this Government to run our nation's affairs. The Minister for Finance should have convened, through the proper channels a comprehensive meeting of the social partners to review the progress of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in the light of new national and  international economic circumstances but he did not. Instead he casually announced - which seems to be the new style of this Coalition Government - in the course of a Sunday radio news programme to thousands of low paid public sector workers throughout the State, that lo and behold, they would not be paid the increases they had been awarded and which they had confidently expected would be paid in January 1992. It was obvious from the concern and panic among his Cabinet colleagues, the Minister for Labour and the Taoiseach's own spokesperson, they realised that irreparable damage had been done and that some rescue operation should be put in place. But no rescue operation has been put in place because this Government no longer have the ability to mount that kind of operation.\n\nIn Brussels in less than eight weeks there will be the finalisation of the two treaties that will determine the future of this nation for the rest of this century but this Assembly does not know what the Irish Government are saying. Neither does anybody in Brussels, Strasbourg or indeed in the European Parliament itself. Because Fianna Fáil are impoverished on the stage of European politics they are frightened at the prospect of more democratic powers being given to that Assembly. We are about to trade a major portion of our sovereignty into two treaties that will determine the ability of this economy to improve the life of every citizen. We simply do not know what the Minister for Finance is saying at the EMU discussions or what the Minister for Foreign Affairs is saying at the EPU discussions. There is no democratic accountability to this Chamber. The Government are simply waiting, cowering in the corridors of Brussels, hoping that at the end of this entire process some extra funds will be put into the Structural Funds basket that will enable Ministers to come scurrying home and announce to all and sundry that they have got a few rich crumbs from the European table.\n\nIf that is what 1916 was about, if that is what 70 years of sovereignty is about, then I want nothing from it from the  soldiers of destiny because that is not what brought the Labour Party into politics or indeed any other party in this democratic Assembly. We can do better than that. We have a view of Europe; we have a view of this nation, of our history and future. It is being sullied, frustrated and betrayed by the Fianna Fáil Coalition Government of all the talents. There is no economic miracle in this country: there is economic impoverishment. There is no democratic accountability: there is Government by secrecy and cabal. There is no European vision. There is a Celtic mist of the past, outlined by a man on a white horse who was afraid to dismount for fear that Tír na nAosta would turn into ashes. I say to the Taoiseach, wherever he is, that it is no longer Tír na nÓg. He no longer represents the people who will grow up and be citizens of his island because he has lost touch - as have his Government - with this nation, with its heart and future. He has lost the confidence of the people. To coin a phrase from another Chamber, in God's name, go.","The Minister for Agriculture and Food has demonstrated the accuracy of Deputy De Rossa's description of him yesterday when he said that in a mediocre Cabinet he is head and shoulders below the rest.\n\nYesterday the Taoiseach, Deputy Charles Haughey, during the weakest, least convincing, most evasive and ambivalent speech I have heard him make in the House decided to single me out for a vicious personal attack and to ascribe to The Workers' Party the orchestration of the campaign of scandals that now besets his Coalition Government. The Taoiseach's bizarre reasoning was followed by the spectacle of his political bully boy, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Ray Burke, trawling a BBC television programme to find a convenient peg on which to hang an old list of allegations against The Workers' Party. It would appear that the Government have decided that by digging up what they claim as The Workers' Party past we will be intimidated from exposing Fianna Fáil's present. The tactics used for so long by the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, to silence his own backbenchers will not silence members of this party.\n\nThe Taoiseach said yesterday:\n\nDeputy Rabbitte has played a leading role in the more pernicious aspects of the campaign. He has been the RTE anchorman appearing daily with some new false allegation or innuendo.\n\nI challenge the Taoiseach to enumerate these so-called false allegations or innuendo. I stand over every comment I have made during this political crisis. If I had time I would repeat every question I have posed because the Taoiseach has left the important questions unanswered.\n\n Indeed, I intend to pose a few questions to the Taoiseach and his Government today. Of course, the Taoiseach does not really believe that I have been making false allegations. As Deputy Michael D. Higgins pointed out in an important contribution yesterday, the real message is in the sub-text. The Taoiseach is really saying to RTE - get Deputy Rabbitte off the airwaves because I do not like what he is saying. Not for the first time his colourful Man Friday, the Government press secretary, will no doubt communicate his master's wishes even more directly to RTE management. This is the ugly authoritarian face of intolerance described so graphically by his own courageous backbencher, Deputy Seán Power.\n\nThe Taoiseach went on to say that my political agenda \"seems to be one of furtive phone calls, clandestine meetings with some disaffected, disloyal employees, passing over stolen documents\". How does the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, know about my \"furtive phone calls\"? Is it a case of the leopard not being able to change his spots? Are some of his old friends back to their old ways, listening in to private phone calls? If the Taoiseach is getting an accurate transcript he must know that even in the golden circle in which he moves, the public spirited people who have spoken to me over recent weeks can hardly be described as disaffected employees. Many of them are business people who are sickened by the manner in which normal business and commerce have been distorted by political favouritism. It is more revealing that the Taoiseach's kitchen cabinet should consider such public spirited people to be disloyal. Disloyal to whom? Disloyal to the public interests, to the taxpayer, to the image and reputation and future of our country, or disloyal to the small elite who have made huge fortunes from inside knowledge and boast in the better restaurants of their off-shore mechanisms to avoid tax? Is the Taoiseach saying that he would prefer to leave public life - as he is now surely destined to do - keeping this information swept under the kind of carpets  that his charming Man Friday will hopefully soon revert to selling?\n\nThe Taoiseach complained that I had put down a series of questions to him demanding to know if he has had meetings with various different people. He seemed entirely unconscious of the irony that all my questions have been transferred to one or other Minister, which defeats the very purpose of these questions. In any event at the rate the various Ministers are steering clear of any questions that lead to the Taoiseach's door, there is no prospect of answers.\n\nThe Taoiseach's speech yesterday does nothing to allay the public disgust that is so manifest about the operation of a golden circle where some elements of business and some elements in politics are hand in glove. It is all a pernicious rumour orchestrated by The Workers' Party, according to the Taoiseach's creative scriptwriters. \"I was not involved in the Carysfort deal,\" he tells the House, and then adds: \"I gave it my full support\". What precisely does this mean? Who is the more grateful to the Taoiseach for his \"full support\" - the taxpayer or Pino Harris? The taxpayer must welcome the opportunity to learn about \"mezzanine finance\", \"positive tax opinions\" and how to make investments without really knowing them in the new Smurfit business school. The Taoiseach noted:\n\nIn the last few days we have much play being made of what was on the face of it an extraordinary letter written by Mr. Desmond to the Chairman of Pernod-Ricard. The claims it seemed to make are patently absurd.\n\nIt is gratifying from a man who apparently never admits anything that the Taoiseach agrees that the letter is \"extraordinary\" but on what basis can he conclude in his next sentence that \"the claims it seemed to make are patently absurd\"? How can the Taoiseach tell this House with a straight face that if there was any impropriety it would have become evident in the court proceedings? The court reached its findings on the facts before it and since Mr. Desmond's letter was not  before the court, nobody can say what the court would have found.\n\nThe Taoiseach avoids the earlier confusion about whether he considers Mr. Desmond a \"personal\" or a \"business\" friend and chooses to put on the record of the House his full support for what he describes as \"a great national enterprise involving thousands of fine people who were up-front, open and above board\". This reference to the Whitbread Round the World yacht race is a curious insertion in the Taoiseach's speech. Nobody asked the Taoiseach to make any \"apologies for fully supporting it\". However, since he raises the matter and since he is so adamant on his lack of contact with the commercial State companies, may I ask him to tell the House what precisely his full support for this great \"national enterprise\" entailed? Did he bring pressure to bear, or have representations been made on his behalf to the State companies to support this \"great national enterprise\"? In particular I invite the Taoiseach to deny that he personally canvassed Irish Life for a donation of £100,000 to this proud endeavour.\n\nContinuing what the Taoiseach and his Ministers would have us believe is the doctrine of separation of State from semi-States, I would like to ask the Taoiseach to reconcile the statement by Mr. Smurfit that he was requested to bring in consultants to prepare Telecom Éireann for privatisation with the Government's own statement that no such request had been made. I put it to the Taoiseach now that Mr. Smurfit indicated that he was prepared to take a further term as chairman of Telecom Éireann only if he could be assured that the company would be privatised. The Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, personally, at the same time that he was telling the Congress of Trade Unions the exact opposite, assured Mr. Smurfit that that authorisation would be forthcoming. Hence Mr. Smurfit's action in getting on with the job and Mr. Brennan's inability to disclaim Government involvement. Mr. Smurfit's personal interest in the design of a new headquarters for Telecom in Ballsbridge was  not because of any short term profits that might accrue with or without his knowledge to any of his investment companies but because of his intention to take a significant and a controlling interest in a privatised Telecom.\n\nBefore publication of the Desmond/ Pernod Ricard letter by Deputy De Rossa, the single most disturbing allegation of an extraordinary series of allegations was the revelation by Deputy Bruton that sensitive financial data secured in confidence about the commercial affairs of a subsidiary of Aer Lingus was transmitted to a rival company in the private sector of which the Taoiseach's son is a principal. The Taoiseach made no reference to this matter which has so disturbed so many of his own backbenchers. He has transferred my questions on the matter to the Minister for Communications, Deputy Séamus Brennan, who has distinguished himself so far in this controversy by managing to avoid what he believes is the truth of what happened.\n\nMay I now put it to the Taoiseach that no postal misdelivery every occurred? May I put it to him that the financial and related data spoken about by Deputy Bruton did indeed actually reach Celtic Helicopters, and may I ask him to explain to the House why we are now getting a different version of events from that given to the Aer Lingus board at the time? Can I invite him to explain to the House the significance of last week's Sunday Business Post front page story that the principal in the company, Mr. Ciaran Haughey, was at the time a consultant for Ryanair?\n\nI had also hoped to have time to ask the Taoiseach in some detail about the summons he issued to Mr. Bernie Cahill in the summer of 1990 to visit his island retreat to instruct him there to discontinue the services of Goodbody's stockbrokers in favour of Mr. Desmond's NCB for the upcoming flotation of Irish Sugar.\n\nThe Taoiseach insinuated yesterday that I and Deputy De Rossa met with the Chief of Staff of the IRA apparently to secure information to discredit the  Government. It is a base lie and the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey and his bullyboy Minister for Justice know it is a lie. It is a lie that stands excised from the record of the House but was widely broadcast since.\n\nI share the same county and similar humble origins with the Taoiseach, but other than that there is more than a generation dividing us. The Taoiseach has carved out a number of distinctions which have so far eluded me. I have missed out on the great wealth that has somehow fallen into his lap during his time in public life. His career has also been marked by the distinction of having been charged with the illegal importation of arms. That is not a distinction that I covet. Last night in an outrageous attempt to divert attention, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Ray Burke, sought to rely on the contents of a television programme against which libel actions have been initiated and in respect of which the principal source of allegations against The Workers' Party has since been remanded and charged with conspiracy to murder members of the security forces in the name of the provisional movement. These facts did not suit the purposes of the Minister in his frenzied scavenging to intimidate The Workers' Party Deputies.\n\nThere is no secret about the origins of The Workers' Party. One dimension of our history is rooted in the militant nationalist tradition. More than 20 years ago our antecedents recognised the futility of physical force. The progenitors of The Workers' Party did make mistakes in the circumstances then prevailing in Northern Ireland, and what seems to be upsetting Minister Burke and some of his backwoodsmen is that these mistakes have been acknowledged by The Workers' Party and that we have left behind the blind alley of militant nationalism and entered the arena of democratic politics. Unlike Fianna Fáil which has its own origins, The Workers' Party Deputies did not enter this House with revolvers in their pockets. Of course it would suit the purposes of Fianna Fáil if The Workers' Party supporters were  still painting letter boxes green or shooting at members of the security forces rather than making such a political nuisance of themselves in this House. The viciousness and sheer malice of the attacks on the Workers' Party by the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey and Minister Burke must be some kind of barometer of the impact we are making on this Government. Neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister likes being pursued for answers and I can scarcely think of two Members in this House less suited to engaging in a witch-hunt against anyone.\n\nWhat can the House expect from a Minister for Justice whose previous role has been in his own words, to act as the protector, enforcer and provider of and for the speculators? With unconscious irony he tells the House that he has initiated the first comprehensive review in recent years of the Garda Fraud Squad. Minister Burke is uniquely qualified to know how badly such a review is needed in the fraud squad. He has an extent of personal experience of the fraud squad which none of his predecessors can claim. Having secured his auctioneer's licence almost contemporaneous with his election to Dublin County Council, Minister Burke's subsequent activities are to some extent a matter of public record and eventually became the subject of a fraud squad investigation. One wonders if the country would have been so fortunate in its Minister for Justice if the system of appointment in the US, for example, of Senate hearings for senior Government appointments applied. The prospect of being able to question the Minister, for example, on the contents of Frank McDonald's book Saving the City is certainly an appealing one. In the book Frank McDonald stated about Deputy Burke:\n\nAs an auctioneer he was an agent for the hundreds of houses they built in the Swords area. As a councillor he tabled motions to have agricultural land which they had bought rezoned for development, immeasurably increasing its value. An extract from one of the Brennan and McGowan  companies published by the newspapers showed that he received the sum of £15,000 in fees under the heading \"planning\" in relation to the sale of 35 acres of newly zoned industrial land at Montgorry near Swords. Another Brennan and McGowan company built his house, \"Briargate\" on its own grounds off the Malahide Road. It was designed by the group's principal architect, John P. Keenan, who was later appointed as a member of An Bord Pleanála by Mr. Burke on his last day in Office as Minister for the Environment in June 1981. Mr. Burke insisted that there was no connection between the motion he seconded to rezone the Montgorry lands for industry and the £15,000 payment. He told the Sunday Independent that the sale of the land to which the payment was linked had not gone through.\n\nI happen to have got a copy of the Sunday Independent in question of 23 June 1974 which includes a photograph of our present Minister for Justice under the heading \"Conflict of Interests on Council\". Deputy Burke is in a nice position as the Minister for Justice of this State and he is in a nice position to berate me or any of my colleagues in this House. This is Minister Burke's background, and when he is opening files and scavenging for dirt perhaps he would read again the unfortunate Joe McAnthony's article of June 1974.\n\nI have a good deal of additional information but time is rapidly running out. However I want to say this. It is a bit difficult to listen to a lecture on morality from Minister Burke who, for much of his political career, acted as the enforcer, protector and provider for land speculators. The fact that Deputy Burke was appointed Minister for Justice says a lot about the Taoiseach's choice of friends and assessment of character. Gasps of disbelief went around the fraud squad in Harcourt Square when that Cabinet appointment was made in 1989 and they discovered that their new political master was to be a man who himself had been  the subject of an intensive fraud squad inquiry arising from his activities as an auctioneer and politician in North Dublin.\n\nDeputy Burke clearly believes that the events which occurred in 1971 and 1972 are legitimate matters to raise in this debate. If he can cast his mind back that far again perhaps he would cast it back to one year earlier. He demanded answers from The Workers' Party. Perhaps he should also ask some questions relating to the illegal plot to import arms in 1970. I should like to ask the Taoiseach if it is true that it is a condition for any journalist seeking an interview with him that no questions relating to the arms plot may be raised? Why has the Taoiseach never commented on the suggestions made by Mr. Justice Henchy in his summing up at the arms trial that either Deputy Haughey or Deputy Gibbons had committed perjury? Who did the Taoiseach meet at that time? Did he meet with people who where then leading members of the IRA? What was his knowledge of the circumstances of the establishment of the Provisional IRA? Why has the Taoiseach never commented on the statement made in the Dáil on 1 December 1972 by his former cabinet colleague, Deputy Blaney who said, and I quote:\n\nNot only did circumstances bring the freedom fighters into existence but so did the promised support of help, not just by me but by a lot of other people as well. The blame lies on me and a whole lot of others, who helped to bring into existence shortly after those who are now condemned as terrorists, murderers - the gunmen of the Provisional IRA.\n\nThat is a brief excerpt of the response I should like to make to the scurrilous assaults on my party by the Taoiseach and Deputy Burke. To ask us to vote confidence in a Government which is led by one and has the other as Minister for Justice is to ask too much of us.","The issue we are addressing here today is one of confidence. We are asked to affirm confidence in the Government and in their management of the economy. The revised Programme for Government issued in the past few hours is an innovative and creative document agreed in a spirit of partnership by the two parties.\n\nIt sets out the economic and budgetary strategy for the next three years. I advise Deputy Noonan to get a copy and to buy a pair of glasses and perhaps he will then appreciate the parameters of the economic and budgetary strategy in the document.\n\nI did not interrupt  anybody. When I set out on this road in 1989 I said in my budget speech that the level of income tax is a major disincentive to initiative and hampered the drive to increase employment. I pointed out then that in the interests of employment and equity the tax burden had to be reduced.\n\nThose guiding principles have been applied in each of my subsequent budgets in 1990 and this year. That is what we were doing then and that is what we are doing now. It is my contention that the record of this Government speaks for itself. Unfortunately for the people sitting on the benches opposite their record, too, speaks for itself and the people of this country know all about their record. They remember that the very people who today have had the effrontery to put forward a motion of no confidence were the very same individuals who, over five years of pathetic indecision and mismanagement, brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy.\n\nThe facts and the dismal record of their period in government make it clear that their pretensions - or their aspirations to office have no credibility. I have to point out that Deputy Bruton has achieved some unenviable distinctions in his mercifully brief periods as Minister for Finance. One of those distinctions - worthy perhaps of the Guinness Book of Records - is that he never got an annual budget through the Dáil.\n\nThe other was that in 1986 he presided over the biggest budget deficit ever recorded in this country. It amounted to a staggering £2,145 million - and even that figure represented an overrun of £144 million on the intended target. Deputy Bruton, Deputy Spring and their colleagues in that very poor administration are hardly qualified to lecture us on economic management.\n\nThe Leader of Fine Gael is given to expressing concern about the national debt. He points out - quite rightly - that the national debt is a huge burden not only on this generation but on our children. I agree with him. What a pity  then, that the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition, of which Deputy Bruton was a leading member, virtually doubled the national debt in their time in Government - and added some £1,000 million a year to the burden on the PAYE worker as a result. Credibility indeed.\n\nAnother prominent member of that administration was Deputy Noonan who is the Fine Gael spokesman on Finance. I have to say that Deputy Noonan displays some kind of consistency - the wrong kind. He consistently maintains the lack of responsibility on economic matters which was the hallmark of that Government. I visited Germany last week for discussions with the German Finance Minister and with German parliamentarians with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to seek amendments to proposed tax legislation which might as originally drafted damage the prospects of the International Financial Services Centre. The centre is a success story of which Fianna Fáil and indeed the whole country have a right to be proud. Despite the cynicism of the critics when it was established it has already attracted 180 projects including many of the biggest names in the international financial world.\n\nYou would expect that my mission to Germany would have the full support of all political parties here at home. That is the normal practice in most countries when an important national interest and valuable job opportunities are involved. That I am sorry to say was not the line taken by Deputy Noonan. Instead he issued a totally misleading statement calculated to pull the rug from under me. There can be no excuse for his blatant act of national sabotage and his blatant lack of responsibility towards our economic interests or  towards the jobs and future job prospects at the centre. This is reckless behaviour from a man who is spokesman on Finance for the leading Opposition party.\n\nThat example of \"top of the head\" opportunism heedless of the consequences is, unfortunately, typical of his performance and that of his party; the \"top of the head\" response to any situation - regular calls for more and more spending and in the same breath a lecture on the need for tight fiscal control. This type of double-speak is not lost on ordinary people. They are far more intelligent and perceptive than Deputy Noonan thinks. They are wise to his double-speak.\n\nNow let us coolly and calmly look at the facts on our management of the economy. The economy grew strongly for several years, most particularly last year. Our rate of inflation was reduced to one of the lowest in Europe. Our exchange rate is rock steady in the EMS. The trade balance has shown a healthy surplus for some years, mainly on foot of a strong performance in exports. Our strong trade balance has given us a substantial surplus in our balance of payments - one of the strongest in the EC.\n\nWhat were the factors which led to the strong growth over 1987-90, which by any definition amounted to a boom period for the Irish economy? A favourable international environment clearly helped. However, the real transformation stemmed from our own better handling of our affairs in a number of crucial economic and financial areas. That transformation started the day Fianna Fáil returned to office.\n\nFirst, we greatly improved our competitiveness. If there is one lesson which the past four years has taught us it is the importance of competitiveness to our economic performance. The pay agreement in the PNR gave us the kind of competitiveness gains that our employment needs require. At the same time, workers' real take home pay increased  substantially aided by continuing tax reductions.\n\nThe importance of improved competitiveness cannot be overstated. We depend for jobs primarily on exports, on what we can sell abroad. By adhering to these moderate pay agreements, the Irish workforce has contributed and is still contributing greatly to progress. That moderation is especially important in the present difficult trading conditions.\n\nThis Government and their predecessor played a major part in the economic turnaround. We devised the overall strategy and persuaded the social partners to join in implementing it. We encouraged wage moderation by reducing income tax rates and improving the tax structure. We also maintained a firm stance of the exchange rate.\n\nSince 1987, consistent policies have been implemented by this Government and their predecessor with the aim of creating more jobs. In the three years to April 1990 total employment rose by 40,000. That contrasts with a fall of 23,000 in the preceding three years under the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition. This increase in jobs between 1987 and 1990 took place despite the need to reduce the size of the public sector. Between 1987 and 1990, the number at work in the private non-agricultural sector rose by almost 70,000.\n\nThere was, of course, another important ingredient behind those achievements and this brings us back to the central theme of this debate. This special ingredient, this \"Factor X\" of recent Irish economic progress, was and is confidence - confidence among our own people at home and among investors from abroad.\n\nThe confidence of foreign investors in the strength of our economy was evident, and still is evident, in the £4 billion worth of Irish securities that they continue to hold, and also in the steadiness of the exchange rate. It was also evident in the narrowing of the differential in interest rates at home and abroad. The gap  between Irish and German interest rates is now less than 1 per cent; a year ago it was 2 per cent and four years ago, when Fianna Fáil initiated our strategy for recovery, it stood at a massive 9 percentage points.\n\nFrom the further narrowing in interest differentials this year, one can only conclude that the financial markets are not as worried as some of our domestic commentators profess to be. The judgment of international investors is thus in direct contrast with the nonsense that is being spewed out by the Opposition.\n\nThis year the startling pace of recent economic growth has faltered. It has faltered among our main trading partners as well, but despite the recession in some or our main trading partners, the fact is that our economic performance is holding up very well. Our inflation remains one of the lowest in the EC. This year we expect to see a balance of payments surplus equivalent to 3 per cent of GNP.\n\nManufacture output was 2.5 per cent higher in the first seven months of this year compared to the same period last year. The volume of exports increased by an estimated 4 per cent in the first seven months of this year with industrial exports performing even more strongly. The trade surplus exceeded £1 billion in this period. Excluding garage sales, the volume of retail sales has increased by almost 2.5 per cent in the year to June, a quite creditable performance.\n\nI am particularly heartened by the recently published estimates of employment in manufacturing which showed an underlying increase in the second quarter of the year. The latest official figures published last Friday show that industrial employment went on growing even in the very difficult conditions of the first half of this year. In the first six months of this year, industrial employment was up by almost 1,500 or 0.7 per cent on the first half of 1990. Employment in manufacturing industry was up by 2,000 or 1 per cent.\n\n Unemployment remains a most serious problem. We are acutely aware of the hardship and frustration for those directly involved and for their families. That is why the drive to grow our economy and thus generate lasting and viable jobs is and will continue to be our first priority. Naturally, unemployment also has serious effects on the public finances through higher spending on social welfare.\n\nIn contrast to the pattern over the first half of the eighties the rise in unemployment this year is not due to job losses. It has been due to a cessation, if not indeed a reversal of net emigration. It is not the result of a fall in employment. All the available indicators bear this out. The total at work will on average be higher in 1991 than in 1990. Indeed, some of the more dramatic increases in the live register this summer have been due to students temporarily signing on the live register because they could not get summer jobs abroad.\n\nThe Government have been attacked in this debate because of the increase in unemployment. I have not heard anyone across the floor make even one sensible suggestion as to how we might avoid this increase in unemployment, much less reverse it. We have set up the Task Force on Employment to draw on the knowledge, experience and ideas of all the social partners to produce new ways of reducing unemployment.\n\nOur achievement in dealing with the public finances stands in stark contrast with the situation before we took office in 1987. In that context I am expecially concerned that several Deputies have referred specifically to the budgetary performance this year and implied that the budget was presented in the knowledge that the targets were unrealistic. Deputies Bruton and Noonan and many of their Fine Gael colleagues have, with their customary recklessness, suggested that we introduced a false and fraudulent budget. That is a contemptible allegation which casts an unacceptable and entirely  unwarranted slur on the integrity of the Government and of the Department of Finance officials who prepared the forecasts.\n\nI have explained on several occasions, beginning with my Budget Statement - that the budget was framed against a background of exceptional international uncertainty. Last January I noted that the favourable international environment was changing for the worse and that the international slowdown would have repercussions on our growth prospects in 1991. Domestic growth was, therefore, more than halved in the budget projections, to 2.25 per cent as compared to the recent economic growth rate which had run at 5.6 per cent in 1989 and 6 per cent in 1990. That was, at the time, a realistic and prudent expectation.\n\nThe simple fact is that underlying international economic trends have been weaker than anticipated by my Department, of by the international agencies including the EC and the OECD or indeed by most of the leading stockbrokers. Even at this late stage, there are still conflicting assessments of the eventual growth outturn.\n\nDeputies do not want to hear the facts. The truth always hurts. Germany, France and Italy have also been obliged to introduce corrective packages this year to restrict budgetary overruns. During this week, the half-year Exchequer returns in the UK indicate that rising unemployment and lower than expected tax receipts will result in very significant budget overruns. Some commentators estimate that the British outturn deficit could overshoot target by £2  billion or more. Do the Opposition spokesmen believe that the German, French, Italian and UK budgets are fraudulent?\n\nThe factors which have led to the emerging overrun on the 1991 budget target for the EBR are at this stage well known. The slippage has arisen under a very few heads and for reasons that are readily identifiable. For the most part, the drift can be put down to the fact that the international downturn has been even worse than could have been foreseen in the very uncertain climate at the start of the year.\n\nThere is no question of any loosening of the strict control of spending. We reduced the annual Exchequer deficit from £2,145 million in 1986 to £462 million last year, that is from 12.8 per cent of GNP to 2 per cent. The overruns this year will result in a budgetary EBR of close to 2.5 per cent, less than half the German rate. That is still a very far cry from the budgetary track record which we inherited in 1987. In addition, this dramatic turnaround in the national finances was achieved while, at the same time, we managed substantial reductions in income tax and VAT. In fact, of course, the actual EBR will be more than one percentage point below that level when the proceeds of flotation of Irish Life, an extremely successful flotation, are taken into account. Thus the actual situation is that Exchequer borrowing is set to decline in 1991 for the fifth consecutive year.\n\nThe trend in the debt-GNP ratio, which had increased rapidly over the early to mid-eighties to reach 131 per cent in 1987, has since been dramatically reduced. By the end of last year the ratio was under 110 per cent, and it will fall again this year. What we are witnessing this year is a disruption in the underlying budgetary trend. This disruption reflects the slow-down of domestic growth and the different external environment. This is not to minimise the difficulties I have  to overcome in framing next year's budget. It is only to set 1991 in its proper context.\n\nDiscussions are taking place at official level with the social partners under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress consultative mechanism on a range of issues which have a bearing on next year's budgetary problems. I hope that from this process, proposals towards a satisfactory solution to our budgetary problems will emerge to which all interests represented will subscribe.\n\nAt the heart of the policies followed by this Government and their predecessors has been a concern to ease the overall burden of taxation and at the same time to bring about real tax reform in the interests of economic growth, job creation and social equity.\n\nA central thrust of our policy has been to maintain sustained downward pressure on public expenditure as to enable us to do that. We did not, as had been the case in the past, and more especially from the opposite benches, look to the option, a misguided option of increased taxation to correct the budgetary position.\n\nA large part of that increase in the tax burden through the early and mid-eighties came from income tax. The proportion of taxpayers paying at more than the standard rate increased from 11.5 per cent in 1980-81 to 44.1 per cent in 1987-88.\n\nThe key to our success lies in the firm management of expenditure that we introduced. Consider the record. Current Government spending increased from 41 per cent of GNP in 1980 to over 48 per cent in 1986. That trend was reversed from 1987. Current spending has been reduced from that 48 per cent peak to less than 40 per cent last year.\n\nThe message is clear. Tax reduction and reform requires prudent control of expenditure. That is the only sustainable policy, and that is the policy that has been followed by this Government and that has allowed reform to be achieved simultaneously with the reduction in the  level of Exchequer deficits that prevailed over the early years of this decade. That is how we propose to proceed, so that we can continue to move steadily toward a more equitable, simpler and more economically efficient tax system through a widening of the tax base and lower rates of tax.\n\nSince 1987, both the standard and top income tax rates have been cut by six per centage points, the top VAT rate has been cut by four points. Income tax allowances and rate bands have been increased and tax reliefs for low paid families have been dramatically improved. Over the same period our restrained approach to excise duties has brought our rates much closer to UK rates and the requirements of the single market.\n\nReform in the corporation tax code over the past four years has more than doubled the yield from that source. Revenue from capital taxes also has been more than doubled.\n\nFar reaching reforms and improvements have been made also in the tax administration system. These include self-assessment, current year assessment for the self-employed, power of attachment on tax defaulters and a radically improved system of tax enforcement. Under the reviewed programme announced today a comprehensive series of measures will be promoted to effectively tackle unemployment and ensure greater equity and social justice.\n\nThe reviewed programme stresses resolute adherence to the Government's medium-term budget targets. There will be no deviation from the budget discipline which has been central to the economic achievements of recent years. To this end the EBR will not exceed 1.5 per cent of GNP in 1993. In successive budgets we delivered extra cash increases, significantly ahead of indexation to families on lower welfare rates in the interest of social equity. Deputies will also be aware that despite the budgetary difficulties this year, arrangements  are being made to pay a Christmas bonus to all long term social welfare beneficiaries at a cost of £28 million.\n\nThe Deputy has just wasted three minutes of my time.\n\nWe have recorded notable successes in the discussion so far on economic and monetary union, in particular in blocking what would, in effect, have resulted in a two speed union. Quite recently the current presidency proposed a procedure for the passage to the final stage of the European monetary union under which those member states who met certain criteria would proceed by themselves to European monetary union while other member states would be kept outside until they fulfilled these conditions. On behalf of the Government I vehemently opposed this proposal for a two speed Community, and, with the support of like-minded colleagues, succeeded in having it quashed. The procedure now under discussion in the conference is one which is much more in keeping with the spirit which has informed the development of the Community up to now.\n\nMoreover, I was a prime mover in ensuring that the crucial subject of economic and social cohesion was put on the agenda of both intergovernmental conferences. In January last, I presented a well argued position paper together with proposed Treaty amendments to both Conferences. My initiative is clearly reflected in the draft Treaty texts which are under discussion.\n\n Our economy had not gone into reverse this year, as some contributors to this debate have suggested. Indeed what has happened here is no more than what has been happening to our trading partners. Indeed our results this year will be more in line with the average of what is happening across the EC. That is real evidence I suggest of the potential and good foundation for growth when the international recovery commences. The international experts in the OECD and the European Community forecast that the recovery should begin during the second half of this year and strengthen in 1992. We are engaging in bilateral discussions with the social partners with a view to keeping our house in order and to make sure that we can take full advantage of the opportunities that will arise when the recovery gets under way. On this side of the Chamber, we live in the real world. On the other side of the House they live in cloud cuckoo land.\n\nDeputy Bruton, for example, says he will not be part of a Coalition with Fianna Fáil unless his party are in the majority and he will become the Taoiseach. When is that going to happen? I suggest, never.\n\nWho is he kidding anyway? Himself obviously. I regret to have to suggest that he will remain on the Opposition benches or as he suggests himself, on the shelf, continuing to gather dust.\n\nIn cloud cuckoo land, one does not have to address real issues, provide real leadership or come  up with real alternatives, all one has to do there is to posture and point the finger. I have no fears whatsoever on that score. As far as I am concerned I go along with my colleagues in Government. I wish to put it on record that at all times I carried out my duties in a totally impartial manner in every Department in which I served.\n\nAt the heart of the allegations now under investigation there is the question of trust. Trust, and the integrity and sense of public duty of individuals is the only basis I suggest on which our system of Government can work. That same sense of trust is essential in every business. That is why the serious breaches of trust, which appear to have occurred, must be rigorously investigated. I know and share the anger and dismay of the man and woman in the street following these events.\n\nI expressed my strong feelings, shared by every member of the Government, on these matters early in September. I repeated that view subsequently many times in the public arena. I said there would be a thorough investigation and that the facts would be fully disclosed, that nothing would be swept under the carpet and if heads had to roll so be it.\n\nThe Government have acted promptly in initiating the most searching inquiries and examinations into these allegations but we are also concerned to ensure that the things which have been alleged cannot happen again. The Secretary of my Department has just completed, at the request of the Government, a report on the principles governing the relationship between Departments of State and State bodies under their aegis together with subsidiary and associated companies of the bodies in question. This examination was designed to ensure that (1) the traditional standards of integrity and conduct which are appropriate to the public service are maintained, and (2) the interests of the community and the State, as owners of these bodies, are taken fully into account in their operation.\n\n Among the questions examined were tendering for contracts; the monitoring of acquisitions, reporting and accountability. Together with my Cabinet colleagues I will be examining the findings of this report very closely with a view to preparing and implementing updated guidelines for State-sponsored bodies.\n\nThere is a responsibility on parliamentarians at a crisis time not to be cheaply opportunistic. No matter what side of the House one is on, one has to hold on to certain prime values. People are innocent until proven guilty. That does not change, just because there is the chance of a quick bit of publicity. Let me make it absolutely clear that those who may be guilty should face the consequences but only after their guilt is established. Nobody is above the law. What we have been witnessing, over the past few weeks, is more than a witch-hunt. It is a feeding frenzy. These allegations tarnish our country's image. Prospects for investment and for jobs will have been damaged.\n\nThe Opposition too have serious responsibilities in these matters. They should stop acting like unsupervised children around a halloween bonfire; never mind who or what gets burned or who gets hurt - build it higher, make it hotter, listen to the crackling, feel the heat on your face. But, let me make it clear, right now.\n\nI do not accept most of what I have been hearing over the past few days from the Opposition as a fearless hunger after truth and justice. Most of it has been brazen, political opportunism and self-promotion. The reckless behaviour of the Opposition is in sharp contrast to the restrained and responsible attitude taken by Fianna Fáil  when we were in Opposition at a time when the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition presided helplessly over a series of disasters. The mysterious evaporation of Irish Shipping - \n\nListen to them. There was the Insurance Corporation of Ireland disaster; the collapse of Dublin Gas; the PMPA - an endless string of disasters all associated with those people.\n\nWe could have hounded out of office the Ministers responsible in those areas, and perhaps  deservedly so. We did not choose to travel that road. Instead - \n\nThis is a new start, a new beginning. It has been a tough week in Irish politics. Let us put it all behind us and start afresh in the interests of the ordinary people of this country.","I thank Deputy Deasy for allowing me to share his time. I often wondered why politicians are unfortunately held in such low esteem by the general public. It is something that I, as a young person involved in politics, have thought a lot about. I got one answer today - and that was the way Deputy Roche spoke in this House. He was vile, nasty and sinister. It is that sort of thing that unfortunately gives us a bad name. Deputy Roche would have done us a favour if he had gone to the United States with his colleague who brought a bag of applications for visas and maybe they would have kept him. However, unfortunately, he might not get through the second test which is a personality test, because what he has done here is low, vile and sinister. His record and his advice to people in this country has caused many of the problems we are facing today, and it is the young people who have to pay in the end. It is no wonder the Taoiseach keeps him on the backbenches. Maybe the people of Wicklow will remove him if he carries on in that terrible and stupid manner.\n\nThis debate is taking place because of the state of the nation. The people have lost confidence in this Government. When there are more than 260,000 people unemployed it is understandable that there is cynicism and apathy. Out of every ten people employed in this country, seven are employed in the public service and three in the private sector. There is a problem with employment creation. Whoever is in Government must give incentives to the private sector in order to increase employment. The nearest country with similar statistics is Britain where out of every ten people employed, six are employed in the private sector and four in the public service. The Government have not tried to grapple with the problem that the system in this country does nothing to provide employment and while we allow this  system to stay in place, we will continue to have high unemployment.\n\nThe Taoiseach and many members of the Government have had the opportunity to outline the policies they will adopt for the next two years. The Taoiseach outlined nothing that would give confidence to the people or, indeed, to this Parliament. That is why it is time for this Government to vacate their position, to go to the country and look for a mandate, which I have no doubt they would not get because if they cannot get agreement with their partners, how would they get the agreement of the people? Both the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil are involved in brinkmanship and this is having a very destabilising effect on this country. As long as that continues the kind of decisions that are very necessary to take the country out of the economic mire it is in will not be taken.\n\nThere are a number of points I would like to make but unfortunately I do not have the time. There is mention of a number of people who could take over the leadership of the great Fianna Fáil Party in the not too distant future as a result of the effect of the so-called gang of four and the presence of a mortally wounded Taoiseach. The Minister for Finance had the opportunity to show what he was made of in in terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. He said in this House that we would have an economic growth rate of up to 4 per cent but I think he was the only person who advised us of that. I believe he knew himself that that was not possible but he did not have the gumption to take on the Taoiseach and say: \"stop, this will not be achieved.\" As a result we are left in a dire situation.\n\nI wish to raise a number of points, for example, the waiting lists for health care. The Taoiseach seems to have forgotten about this. The only time he seems to remember the health services is during election time.\n\nA final point, this  Government have lost their way. It is time they vacated their position and went to the country for a new mandate.","It has been said that history repeats itself - the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. This confidence motion put forward by Fine Gael is a pathetic, even farcical, attempt to repeat what happened in the autumn of 1982.\n\nFianna Fáil at that time were tackling the problems of the national finances, had just reached a  valuable agreement with the trade unions aimed at cutting back special pay awards and had produced The Way Forward, which, if implemented, would have saved us from the most prolonged recession any country in western Europe had to suffer over the next four years. Instead, Fine Gael and Labour were determined to pre-empt any success by tabling a motion of no confidence - there is nothing wrong with that. They subsequently won an election and took office, on the pretext of providing a Government of - I am quoting from some of their literature - \"honesty and integrity\", a phrase which was marketed then like a soap powder. They gave us what was probably the worst and certainly least successful Government in the history of the State.\n\nOnce again, the Opposition have nothing to offer in terms of policy alternatives. Instead of trying to beat or to match this Government on policy, they are once again trying to beat them by producing a wide series of so-called sensational revelations to break up the Government and to win power by default.\n\nI find the style of politics being pursued at present distasteful. It would not be my chosen way to carry out political debate. However, Fine Gael, Labour and, above all The Workers' Party have chosen the level at which the debate is to be conducted and that is the level of debate in which they must now be answered.\n\nWhat is most objectionable in this whole series of affairs is the rampant hypocrisy and the double standards. The Fine Gael Party are particularly good at striking poses and talking about low standards in high places but they consistently choose to ignore the beam in their own eyes. The last Fine Gael-Labour Coalition besides being a grotesquely incompetent Government did not rate very highly on the subject of public and political accountability. At the time of the debate on Irish Shipping the then Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell, was at great pains to distance himself, his Department and his officials, from any knowledge of the very questionable charter deals which led to the sinking of that  great company. Deputy Mitchell, in spite of what he now holds, refused to appear before a Dáil committee to discuss how he had handled his affairs. The late Deputy Cluskey asked a lot of questions at that time about the fiasco in Dublin Gas which cost roughly £100 million to the taxpayers of this country. The scandal so infuriated Deputy Cluskey - a man of great honour - that he resigned from office. He was not the only one to resign from office about what was going on and the low standards in high places at that time. Mr. Colm McCarthy also resigned from the board of BGE over a scandalous deal, a disgraceful deal, a deal which was highlighted for the Irish people by the courage of Deputy Cluskey.\n\nI am sure it is a matter of coincidence, and I will be told by Fine Gael that it is a matter of no relevance, that the Chairman of Dublin Gas, Mr. Ferguson, happened at that time to be the chairman of the Fine Gael fundraising committee. When this happened, with one honourable exception, the Labour Party did nothing and said less.\n\nOne can imagine the furore that would have been created in similar circumstances if Fianna Fáil Ministers or Fianna Fáil appointees or Fianna Fáil fundraisers were involved.\n\nThe Deputy is a gas man if he can sit there and say nothing about all of this. In the course of this contribution I will outline more than one other scandal involving and implicating senior Fine Gael contacts which remain firmly brushed under the carpet. Deputy Michael Noonan, for example, has never explained the loss of £6 million of taxpayers' money in the export credit insurance scam in Canada. That money disappeared through fraud in 1986. He was Minister for Industry and Commerce at that time but he has never commented on the matter in this House. I hope he  will break his long silence and inform us now of his accountability in the issue.\n\nPeople talk about golden circles these days. Fine Gael above all parties have had some friends in the business world. AIB, for example, was bailed out with remarkable expedition from the ICI debacle and allowed to pay an unaltered dividend with indecent haste.\n\nHowever, I would like to come to some more recent controversies and deal specifically with them. The commercial activities of the Irish Sugar Company over the past four years have, rightly and properly, come under the microscope following revelations about arrangements that certain executives made to reward themselves and their families at State expense. The political connections of these people has been a matter of comment in some sectors of the media for some time.\n\nI am not saying that association with Fine Gael is a crime or that it is an offence of any kind against the law of this land but I would suggest that it is an offence, on occasions, against common sense if it is not actually a crime. Nor am I saying that Fine Gael can be reasonably blamed for every character, shady or otherwise, who is associated with them. However, I do hold that above all else that party which have based their entire existence on what one perceptive journalist called earlier this week the mirror image of Fianna Fáil, should be the last party to decide to base their attack on this Government on the idea of guilt by association.\n\nI have already dealt elsewhere with another aspect of the affairs of the Sugar Company in 1986. I refer to the report which I laid before the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies on the acquisition of a shareholding by the Sugar Company in Woodland Investment Group Limited. On 1 May 1986 Irish Sugar acquired 140,000 shares in that company. The Companies Office records for 1 May 1986 on Woodland Investment Group Limited make very interesting reading indeed. I am glad Deputy Deasy has now joined us. Among other things it shows a set of share transactions involving a private individual whom the Fine Gael members on the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies choose to identify as Mr. Brian Hussey. In these dealings 52,181 shares were sold by that gentleman to the Sugar Company and 59,601 shares were sold to the new group. Having offloaded a total of 111,752 shares, Mr. Hussey was left with a holding of one share in the original company. We do now know how much was  paid by the then State-owned company to the relation of a serving Fine Gael Minister. The deal has been described to me by one leading businessman not as a golden handshake but as a golden parachute. In due course, as we know, Mr. Comerford and Mr. Tully - two gentlemen whose names crop up elsewhere and, indeed, everywhere - joined the board of the new company.\n\nWhile we do not know how much Mr. Hussey received, we do know that the investment was far from highly regarded by either financial or accounting specialists who looked into the affairs of the Sugar Company and this is the important issue. One of these firms of consultants operating just over a year later for the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies referred to this investment as having been \"undertaken without due consideration\" and went on to suggest that the investment be disposed of. Within months of that report, another firm of consultants, Price Waterhouse, found that the cumulative losses on this venture at that time amounted to £750,000 and described the investment as being valued at nil. The Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies accepted my report on this quite extraordinary affair and the matter has been referred to the inspector appointed by the High Court.\n\nThere are a whole series of questions appended to that report dealing with the cost to the Sugar Company of this investment, possible payments to Sugar Company executives and possible contacts between Fine Gael Ministers. I have no doubt that Fine Gael contributors will provide us with the details of exactly how much was paid for these shares and exactly why this investment took place. Why, for example, did the Sugar Company which had ample space in Tuam and had a well-known and a long-standing connection with Hilleshog, the other firm involved, not get involved directly in this particular investment? I await with interest the answer to those questions.\n\nWhile we are on the issue of friends and golden circles there are aspects of the affairs of Telecom Éireann which would seem to warrant considerable and closer scrutinty than they have received to date. I am glad Deputy S. Barrett is in the House. Quite understandably, virtually every eye in this House and elsewhere has been focused on the Telecom Éireann site at Ballsbridge. In nearby Clonskeagh there is another site where some interesting things have been happening. In October, 1990, Ericssons, one of the major suppliers to Telecom Éireann occupied a newly constructed office at Richview in Clonskeagh. The building is in the front garden of the Smurfit headquarters. The building was constructed by a company called D-MAC, a company which Dr. Michael Smurfit claims is owned by the Smurfit pension fund. Journalists have been unable to establish whether this is the case and the companies involved, and some of their leading personnel, have not been particularly helpful in establishing the facts. However, we know that two shares in the company are held by Bacchantes Properties Limited, an Isle of Man company which has featured in debates here and elsewhere. The other is held by Bacchantes Properties Limited and by a Mr. Frank Conroy. Mr. Conroy is a very busy man. He is, among other things, a director of Telecom Éireann. My IPA year book informs me, although it is not on his list of directorships, that he is also a director of Telecom Éireann Information Systems. He is also a director of a number of other companies - Barrett, Hegarty, Molony Limited is one. That company will be well-known to members of the Fine Gael Party. They and Mr. Conroy will be particularly well-known to Deputy Seán Barrett who has joined us and who is another of the partners of that company. The interesting point about all this is that Ericssons moved to the Beechill office from offices  at the Harcourt Centre. Their old offices did not stand idle - \n\nMr. S. Barrett Mr. S. Barrett\n\nMr. Roche: The old office at the Harcourt Centre did not stand idle for very long as Telecom Éireann obligingly occupied 10,000 square feet of the vacated offices and the lease was assigned to Telecom Éireann by Ericsson Limited. All this could have just been a happy coincidence, but I think not. The deal between Ericssons and D-MAC was negotiated by Mr. Frank Conroy. He at that time was a director of two State bodies, TEIS and Telecom Éireann. I wonder whether Fine Gael, who appointed Deputy Barrett's business partner to the board of Telecom Éireann in 1984, would see any conflict of interest there. I await with interest the demands of Fine Gael to have this whole affair made the subject of another inquiry and I anticipate their ringing condemnations of conflict of interests.\n\nWith regard to saying these things outside this House, I have no problem. At least one newspaper has already specifically said these things outside this House, despite the whingeings of Deputy Barrett. The truly interesting thing about this is that the Conroy/D-MAC/Telecom triangle and all of its tortuous manifestations were fully explored by The Sunday Business Post two weeks ago, but a Trappist-like silence has surrounded the whole affair as far as Fine Gael are concerned.\n\nInterestingly, this is not the only property contact between the Fine Gael appointed company director in Telecom and Ericssons. That gentleman was involved in the development of an office block at Adelaide Road, Glasthule, in Deputy Barrett's constituency in the early 1980s. That building lay effectively idle until 1985 mainly due to the problem of getting sufficient phone lines. The problem was resolved shortly after Mr. Conroy joined the Telecom board, no doubt a concidence, and the phones were put in place and Ericcssons moved in as tenants.\n\n I would like to turn now to issues raised recently by Deputies Owen and Mitchell. I refer to the Kinsealy pipeline.\n\nI would like now to turn to the issue raised recently by Deputies Owen and Mitchell. I refer to the Kinsealy pipeline. In this, Fine Gael have been in pursuit of inherently unverifiable and implausible conjectures about the possible future implications of sewerage connections for the development of the grounds of the Taoiseach's property at Kinsealy. What we are dealing with here is conjecture laced with innuendo. The Taoiseach has categorically and unambiguously stated that he has no intention of seeking a rezoning of the grounds of his home.\n\n The facts of the case have not been clearly dealt with. The Taoiseach allowed pipes to be laid across his land to connect the Baskin Cottages. This happened ten years ago. The Taoiseach did not look for any form of compensation. Recently, to prevent an outflow polluting an open stream with very limited capacity this scheme was connected to the Feltrim/ Kinsealy sewerage scheme for a cost of around £80,000. I state that fact because it is relevant. It is impossible to see anything against the public interest in all this. Deputy Bruton in his characteristic fashion joined in the hue and cry. I wonder should he have so done.\n\nIt is a pity that Deputies Owen and Mitchell with their minds so concentrated on sewerage did not extend their investigations in the direction of Dunboyne, where something very much more interesting and significant has been taking place. It is my information that land at Castle Farm, Dunboyne, belonging to members of the Bruton family, including Deputy Richard Bruton, who together with his brother Deputy John Bruton is trustee for another portion, was rezoned for residential development in May 1989. There is nothing wrong with that. Nearly a year later a contract was signed for the sale of almost eight acres to a developer for £55,000 an acre with an extra £1,000 \"luck money\". The deal also involved land belonging to a neighbour, bringing the total area involved to around 17 acres. The original asking price had been pushed up in negotiation from £35,000 an acre. The price caught the peak of the market. The land was sold without planning permission but in the confident and assured expectation that there would be no difficulty getting permission.\n\nAn application to build 95 houses was subsequently lodged with Meath County Council by the developer in 1990, and was refused. The grounds of refusal were not simply the lack of sewerage treatment capacity in Dunboyne, but also that the River Tolka was much too small to take effluent. Consequently, the development was stated not to be \"in the interests of proper planning and the development of  the area\". That is a matter of record. However, An Bord Pleanála upheld an appeal stipulating that no more than 50 houses should be built for the time being and the remainder when the sewerage improvements were in place. This was against the specific advice of Meath County Council.\n\nAs recently as last June Meath County Council submitted a scheme costing £560,000 to pipe sewage from Dunboyne to link with the greater Dublin scheme at Mulhuddart. I understand that their report refers among other reasons to new developments about to take place at Castle Farm. This matter is still with the Department and it is not clear at whose behest the county council acted on this. I am sure some Fine Gael worthy will ask, what is wrong with all this? There may well be nothing wrong with it - so far. However if the name on this land was Haughey and not Bruton we would be deafened by the clamour about it.\n\nThere is however another interesting detail in all these issues. While this was going on in Dunboyne the building industry was going through a very difficult period. The builder sought a number of extensions - and got them - on the closing of the sale until he could get planning permission. I am informed that the owners were paid £60,000 under a variety of penalty clauses for the period to May 1991 with a further £22,000 due in September last. I am sure I will not be told if it was paid but it is claimed that the builder was asked to call these payments, in particular the £60,000 payment, \"compensation\" for tax reasons. Penalty int erest, as the House knows well, is added to income and taxed at the full rate. Compensation is a different matter. The questions which have to be asked are whether this was true and would this constitute a legitimate tax avoidance ploy - a term which infuriates every PAYE taxpayer.\n\nAs I understand it the contract has now fallen through. Well over £100,000 in deposit and compensation has been paid for land which remains in the hands of the original owners which has not merely been rezoned residential but now has absolute planning permission for 50  houses and potential for another 45. It is worth several hundred thousand pounds and, perhaps, more when the taxpayers pay for the sewerage improvements in the Dunboyne area. I do not wish to suggest that land owners in selling their land for housing development do anything wrong or that as land owners they are not perfectly within their rights irrespective of whether they are politicians or not to seek to use and develop their lands as they so wish within the planning laws. The tax aspects of any transaction in these matters clearly will be dealt with in due course by the Revenue Commissioners.\n\nHowever, what I cannot understand, given the striking parallels between this and the allegations which have been made not only by Deputies Owen and Mitchell but by Deputy Bruton, is why Deputy Bruton should be so imprudent as to deal with this issue in the way he has. I have to say that I take no personal joy in recounting such issues as I have touched on here.\n\nI much prefer to carry on political debate on the level of policy and performance. Fine Gael and other parties have been happy to debase political debate by focusing it entirely at the level of invective and innuendo. They should not now whinge when they are responded to in like coin.\n\nI was amused recently when the deputy leader of that party chose to refer to my report to the Oireachtas joint committee  as muck-raking looked through his own eyes.\n\nI have no doubt as to the nature of the response my contribution will touch off here. What I am suggesting is that if we take any set of facts and choose to portray them in a certain way we can conjure up scandals where probably none exist but the Members sitting on the Opposition benches started this and they should not whinge now when they are responded to in like form.","I could agree with much of the analysis proffered by Deputy Lenihan even though some of it was a little lighthearted. However, I am afraid I cannot find any logic in the conclusions he arrives at both from a political point of view and his own personal experience with the Government he is going to support tomorrow.\n\nThe people of this country are not looking for leadership - at least in the sense that this Government would define it. What the people of this country want is a sense that the sacrifices they are making, and are prepared to continue to  make, are recognised, reciprocated and shared. They want a clear and sober analysis of the challenges we face; they want a programme for action they can share in, and they want only one assurance, that every decision will be taken on a basis of fairness.\n\nOn 12 July 1989 I made some remarks in this House on the formation of the present Government. They may not have been picked up at that time. However, as time has gone by they have been slightly prophetic. I said that over the next months and years, two main questions would preoccupy the political system in this country, that at least the two questions ought to be among the principal issues we should deal with. I said at the time that they may be ignored and settled by default; that it may well be that the politicians we have elected to Government will simply turn a blind eye to them, and allow them to be decided by faceless, anonymous people. I said at that time that it would be disastrous if that was allowed to happen as it has been disastrous in other countries where it has happened.\n\nThe questions were, how the fruits of economic growth would be distributed and who was going to wield the power and the influence of ownership in Ireland in the future. I believe these are huge and difficult questions. At first glance they are probably not the most obvious ones to mention on the formation of a Government. However, I believed at that time that recent political experience had shown us that issues like those must be pushed to the centre of the political stage.\n\nI said that too much of our recent experience had been tied up with defending people against the callous and unthinking consequences of an ill-con-sidered approach to policy, that too much of our recent experience had been tied up with unscrambling the consequences of secret deals and political cronyism, that we could not, as a community, allow the style and substance of this kind of Government to continue.\n\nThat warning I gave in July of 1989 - and I have repeated it in this House a number of times - has obviously fallen  on deaf ears. Long before the present series of scandals this Government was run on the basis of secret deals and strokes. We had the Foxe and Fahey deals. We had a spate of secret reports commissioned by the Government in regard to State companies. We have had secret agreements with beef barons as well as a number of much publicised deals. We have had a whole series of decisions about the future of State companies, all taken and implemented with as much stealth as possible.\n\nThat is one side of the coin in this country. On the other side, we have had economic growth in the past two and a half years. We have had more efficiency in the public service and throughout the economy. Nobody can deny that. However, it has been built on the backs of 100,000 emigrants and a quarter of a million unemployed people. It has been built on the backs of one million poor living below the poverty line. It has been built at the cost of increasing inequality and disadvantage at every level of Irish society.\n\nSide by side with the increasing efficiency of our economy we have witnessed in the past two and a half years an increasing polarisation of Irish society. It is manifest in our two-tier health system, just as it is manifest in the virtual collapse of the public housing programme, the gradual elimination of free education and the dismantling of the social welfare schemes. A more efficient economy coupled with a more unjust and less equal society is what we have begun to create in our country under the Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey.\n\nThe Taoiseach, opening this debate yesterday, spoke at great length about getting the fundamentals of the economy right. I would ask the Taoiseach, are people not part of that equation? Are they not one of the fundamentals in our economy? Do the people count at all in the Taoiseach's economy unless they have a couple of million pounds of disposable income? Are we not now in a clear position to see in the wealth and greed that many of these scandals have shown us just how polarised Irish society  has become. Let us make no mistake - and this is where I differ fundamentally from Deputy Lenihan - it is no accident that there are some in Ireland who are getting rich, many more who are struggling in business and employment and thousands who are suffering the indignity and alienation of grinding poverty. This is no accident. All of these things are connected and the connection is to be found in the \"me first\" philosophy of which our Taoiseach is the principal champion.\n\nLet us not forget -although he himself may wish to forget at the moment - his partners in Government, the Progressive Democrats. There may be considerable enmity between the two parties in Government at present on both a personal and personality level. There may be a deep distrust between them, but when it comes to the ideological choices that have divided Irish society, when it comes to the connection between increasing wealth and increasing poverty, Fianna Fáil are doing no more than putting on the Progressive Democrats' ideological clothes.\n\nThe late Frank Cluskey, former Leader of the Labour Party, spoke trenchantly about the Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey, in the famous debate that took place in this House on 11 December 1979. It was on the question of the agreement or otherwise of this House to the appointment of Charles J. Haughey as Taoiseach. I should like to remind the House of some of the remarks made by the late Frank Cluskey during that debate. He said:\n\nWhen we cast our minds back to the mid-sixties, we recall that there appeared on the Irish scene in the political and the business world a group of young, well-educated, very clever, highly articulate young men, who also had one other quality, they were totally ruthless and they had a clear indication of what their personal ambition was,... They had another thing in common, a philosophy of life that was dominated by the principle that the end justifies the means. Those people,  small in number, set out to acquire great personal wealth, influence and political power. The pinnacle of the success of their personal ambitions was during the period when Deputy Haughey occupied the position of Minister for Finance in the late sixties. The philosophy of life which those people held is also held, I believe, by Deputy Haughey. He was the political counterpart of the group of ambitious, ruthless young men of the middle and late sixties and he was only too willing to ensure that as far as he could, by virtue of the political office he had, he would facilitate them in every way in the achievement of their ambition, the acquisition of great personal wealth, influence far out of proportion to their numbers, and the sympathetic ear of the most politically powerful men in our society at that time.\n\nThose people, with all those dubious qualifications, achieved their ambition. They did not choose to enter into the normal business and commercial life of the country.... They chose to operate in what could only be described as a grey area of Irish business and commercial life, the area of the land speculator, the office builder, the gerry house builder. They identified those areas as being lucrative which they knew, properly facilitated by the laws of the land, would enable them to reach their stated personal goals....\n\nA major part of the responsibility for that sad, sick part of our society can be traced back to the appearance on the Irish scene of these same young hot shots of the sixties. The term \"mohair suit\" was not used to describe a mode of dress. It was a term that described a philosophy of life, a philosophy of life that meant that there should be unbridled opportunity for the economically strong, the clever, the sharp; a philosophy of life that totally exploited the basic needs of the majority of our people. Apart from the normal intelligence which most of us have, only one thing was needed,...  a total lack of principle and a total lack of either personal or business integrity. These gentlemen had all of these things and they were guided and are still guided by that same philosophy: that the end justifies the means irrespective of what the consequences are or would be upon their fellow Irishmen and women. I say with total personal conviction that Deputy Haughey was regarded by them as their political champion and the one whose ear they had to ensure that the way was made quite clear for them to engage in that type of operation.\n\nHe concluded by saying:\n\nThe people about whom I spoke, the speculators, the dealers in land, the peddlers of human misery, who I believe form Deputy Haughey's main political constituency, will take great heart from his apparent election as Taoiseach in this House today.\n\nThat speech was made almost 12 years ago. It contained a sharp pen picture of the man who has been perhaps the leading politician in this country for the last 20 years, and of the culture he thrived on. Can anyone in this House seriously deny the relevance of that picture to the debate we are having over these three days? Can anyone in this House seriously deny that the culture of the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, of the complacent and acquiescent Governments he has led has contributed to the debasement of Irish political life in no small measure?\n\nIt has been said and repeated many times that the scandals of recent weeks have nothing to do with the Government per se, and even that they relate to events totally outside the Government's control. I do not accept, in my humble opinion, that anyone in this House seriously believes that, and it appears that the public do not believe it. I would say every Member of this House knows in his heart of hearts, that the seeds for all these scandals were planted on the day that the culture personified by the Taoiseach came to prominence in Ireland and that they have flourished under his leadership.  The men who operate in the grey areas of Irish commercial life still have the sympathetic ear of Ireland's most powerful politician. That is why the scandals we have seen for the last few weeks can only be described as chickens coming home to roost.\n\nHow could it be otherwise? the Taoiseach has spent a good deal of his time in the last few weeks seeking to redefine the concept of friendship. He devoted part of his attention to that difficult task in his speech yesterday. But all these people are people in whose company the Taoiseach has gone to great lengths over the last number of years to be seen. They have dined with him, wined with him, sailed with him and certainly been seen at intimate family occasions with him - they have even featured with him in some of our more prominent gossip columns, yet when the time comes they are not friends any longer. We have seen that in relation to friends in this House.\n\nOf course, some things have changed since the late Frank Cluskey made that speech 12 years ago. The land speculators who were prominent during those years no longer even take risks: the deals they do now are done in the certain knowledge that enough influence will be brought to bear to guarantee that those deals are profitable. The gerry builders that he referred to then do not build anything anymore; instead they manipulate the sale of buildings in order to maximise profit and minimise tax. The \"clever and the sharp\" do not invest their own money - instead they develop asset-backed, bank guaranteed, risk-free BES schemes. But in every other respect the culture that Frank Cluskey described then thrives now as much as it ever has, if not indeed a great deal more.\n\nI want to make some remarks in relation to the current scandals. I recognise and hope to stay within the rules of this House in relation to the sub judice rule but I did notice some leeway being given to the previous speaker - \n\nHowever, whatever the constraints in the House I feel there are certain things which need to be said. Yesterday the Taoiseach made a disparaging reference in the House to the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry, and to the role public representatives have to play in relation to that tribunal. I want to make it very clear to the Taoiseach that I have no apology to make to him, his Government or anyone else in this House for my attendance at the tribunal and for my interest in ensuring that this Oireachtas is represented. In fact, given the patent nonsense which is being uttered by Minister after Minister throughout this debate, the tribunal may be a far more meaningful forum than the Dáil over the next few months.\n\nWhen the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry begins its detailed work, if will have to examine two key questions. The first of those questions involves the issue of whether or not there has been wrongdoing within the industry itself, under a number of headings - headings like fraud and tax evasion, to name just two. The second, and equally important issue, concerns the relationship between the beef industry and politics. The questions raised by these issues must be answered because they go to the very heart of parliamentary democracy.\n\n Some things are already becoming clearer. We seem to have a death-bed conversion on the part of those in authority in the wakening of vigilance. There has been no more pathetic sight in the last few days than the sight of the Minister for Agriculture and Food proclaiming his devotion to integrity in the beef processing sector. This Minister, who for years consistently denied even the possibility of wrongdoing in that sector for which he was ultimately responsible, has been like a whirling dervish for the last fortnight or so, even to the extent of claiming credit on the national airwaves for the establishment of the tribunal itself.\n\nI do not know for certain why he has changed his tune in recent weeks. All I know is that this change on the Minister's part is about four years too late. As we participate in his debate, there are gardaí on the premises of at least one meat plant that I am aware of for sure conducting intensive investigations. But where have they been for the last four years, when every dog in the street knew there were things going on in meat plants which urgently required investigation?\n\nI understand that the Revenue Commissioners have now completely reopened their files on tax evasion in that sector and that they will ultimately be demanding many millions of pounds in extra payments and penalties, in addition to settlements already made. But the question is: why was the file in that area ever closed? Where has all this extra vigilance come from in the very recent past?\n\nMaybe after all this, the politicians who are now praising themselves for their vigilance and the need for vigilance will finally have the self-respect and decency to come in to this House and applogise to people, like former Deputy Barry Desmond, Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla, and others, that they maligned in this House when they rightly raised matters of criminal activity in the beef sector.\n\nI take it you are acting under Standing Orders. I wish to mention briefly the whole issue of Carysfort. I tried to raise it yesterday but, unfortunately, questions are undesirable on that topic. My colleague, Deputy O'Shea, raised the subject in this House on the day the Government were telling us how they were doing good things for UCD. At that time the Fine Gael spokesperson on Education effusively welcomed the great deal. The Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, attacked my colleague, Deputy O'Shea, and assured him and the House that it was UCD who had initiated the whole project.\n\nIt is clear now, as a result of the otherwise innocuous statement issued by the President of University College, Dublin, that the Minister seriously misled the House on that occasion. It was, as we have alleged throughout, the Government who initiated that project. The only role played by UCD was to decide whether or not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Deputy O'Shea will deal with this issue in more detail. There are some salient facts that must be re-stated. First,  Carysfort could have been bought by the State for a great deal less than the State ultimately paid - perhaps for as much as £5 million less. Secondly, it was bought without any valuation and thirdly, none of the usual procedures were followed in this case. The Higher Education Authority were not consulted as they should have been, and none of the internal Cabinet procedures were followed. The observations of other Departments were not sought. In fact, I understand that an attempt was made by the expenditure division of the Department of Finance to explain to the Taoiseach - one does not tell the Taoiseach; one tries to explain occasionally, and one needs courage apparently to do that - that what was proposed was completely undesirable. That particular civil servant got short shrift, the kind of short shrift we have heard described by Deputy Seán Power when he attempted to give some of his observations to the Taoiseach at a private meeting.\n\nWe have some respect for ourselves. We are all equal as parliamentarians: nobody is more superior than anyone else at the end of the day whether you are a Taoiseach, a Minister or otherwise.\n\nThat was the problem he had and you do not realise it. Perhaps the most salient point in the Carysfort transaction was the beneficiary - the beneficiary whose identity has been established - Mr. \"Pino\" Harris.\n\nMr. \"Pino\" Harris had bought what is sometimes referred to in property circles as \"a glugger\" - a property whose value could never be realised because the zoning of that property was only for educational purposes with a limited market, a market which we had all been led to believe was starved of funds. We have  no money for building houses, we have hardly money for buying educational facilities. In normal commercial circumstances Mr. Harris should have taken a bath.\n\nNot only did he not have to take a loss, he ended up, after a few short months, with a handsome profit. Interestingly, we have discovered that the day after Mr. Harris completed his transaction on Carysfort he was able to register the title deeds on another substantial property on the Naas Road. It would be even more interesting to see how that further deal affected the capital gain liability on the profit from Carysfort.\n\nMr. Harris has other things to recommend him, apart from his property acumen. He too fits within most of the definitions of friendship employed by the Taoiseach. Certainly, his very considerable resources have been placed at the disposal of the Fianna Fáil party in the past and not, in case anybody else takes umbrage, for the benefit of the party nationally. Instead he has concentrated his efforts on helping out the party in Dublin North Central where Harris trucks have been a prominent feature of recent campaigns. In terms of putting money on a horse, it is not a bad investment if one can get a return of £1.5 million on one property transaction. But it does raise questions, and questions which the Taoiseach has refused to answer, in relation to his involvement in the affair. He has chosen not to answer those questions, he has passed them on to other Ministers. Certainly, until the Taoiseach answers those questions I will remain convinced that the Carysfort deal represented nothing more than a sleazy manoeuvre to help enrich even further a close Fianna Fáil friend. If there was no other reason for refusing to vote confidence in this Government tomorrow, the Carysfort deal alone would constitute adequate grounds.\n\nWe have had some mention of the Telecom scandal. The scandal itself was bad enough. I do not know what people are thinking about a country where one can make that kind of money fast, without any risk of exposure. One of the  consequences of that scandal was that economic pressure was applied to the task of suppressing a substantial article in relation to this scene. That article was originally to have appeared in Phoenix magazine. I do not hold any brief for Phoenix magazine but I do take a serious view of arbitrary censorship imposed by virtue of the fact that one is economically and politically strong. I must ask what the people behind the suppression were afraid of in that article, a copy of which I have.\n\nWere they afraid - they were - of the people of Ireland knowing the following:\n\nDetails of the complex but tax `efficient' transactions on the JMOB/Telecom site in Ballsbridge which has resulted in tax-free profits of approximately £5 million to certain secret investors. Of particular interest is the information that: 1. Michael Smurfit subscribed for £500,000 (and not £100,000 as reported) shares in UPH, the company that first acquired the site from the liquidator; 2. Larry Goodman is also a shareholder in UPH through Paribas; 3. John Finnegan, the principal in Finnegan Menton, was an advisor in the original sale to UPH (at £4.4m.) and to Telecom (at £9.4m.) only 17 months later; 4. The site had been offered to other property developers by Finnegan Menton at £2.7m. in 1988; 5. The sale to the so-called European consortium, i.e. Noel Smyth's friends, (at £6.25m.) was only fully concluded days before Telecom paid over £9.4m. for the same site; 6. The bank behind the Smyth/Doherty consortium is Ansbacher Bank. The same bank holds a 75% interest in Doherty's Irish shopping centres.\n\nOr were they afraid that it would be revealed that UPH has two classes of shares, with Michael Smurfit subscribing for 10 per cent of both, at a total cost of £500,000 - not the £100,000 as reported elsewhere, through his Isle of Man-based Bacchantes. Other big names, it appears from the article-\n\n were brought in as ordinary shareholders for a total of £1m. Using their presence and high net worth,\n\n- a lovely expression -\n\na further £4m. of 8% convertible preference shares were sold to the institutions. ... (Michael Smurfit's) partner in other city properties - Larry Goodman - also took a stake through Smurfit Paribas, with the institution itself also joining in.\n\nOr were they afraid that it would be revealed that:\n\nthe site was bought by UPH in November 1988 but it was never owned by it because UPH transferred its interest in the contract to buy the site to another company called Chestvale Properties. Chestvale was a subsidiary of UPH and by this simple device a tax saving of almost £300,000 was made. This is because the stamp duty on property transfers is 6% but the duty on share transfers is only 1%. When the time came to re-sell the site, UPH sold the company which owned the property (Chestvale) and not the site itself.\n\nThe article went on to state:\n\nUPH only paid the liquidator a 15 per cent deposit (£660,000) and that the balance was not paid until August 1989, when the so-called European consortium paid over the first part (approx. £4 million) of their purchase price. We can also reveal that UPH negotiated their original purchase through John Finnegan of Finnegan Menton. The same John Finnegan - a close business associate of Michael Smurfit - also advised on the purchase of the site for Telecom.\n\nIn other words, John Finnegan advised on the value of the property for the period of 17 months during which it increased in value from £4.4 million to £9.4 million - or by £10,000 per day.\n\nI cannot understand why we fail to get investors into this country.\n\nThe article further revealed that:\n\n the really significant part of this transaction is the fact that the bank guarantee for the loan notes was not put in place until days before Telecom purchased the site. Goldhawk has discovered that Ansbacher would not guarantee the loan notes until the Telecom deal was certain. Obviously Ansbacher Bank was not willing to extend more than £4 million on the site (i.e. its real value) until there was evidence of the sell-on.\n\nThis highlights the interesting fact that UPH effectively owned the site until days before Telecom purchased. The semblance of UPH not owning it was created by allowing (Noel) Smyth to put his nominees onto the board of Chestvale after he gave an undertaking to put the loan notes in place. The fact is, however, that ownership of Chestvale was not transferred to Delion until days before Telecom paid over £9.4 million on May 7th 1990.\n\nIn a matter of days Delion sold the site to another company - Hoddle Investments - which is owned by property developer P. J. O'Doherty. Doherty and Ansbacher own shopping centres in Galway, Limerick and Portlaoise, with the bank owning 75 per cent in each case. We do not know - yet, that is - how much Hoddle paid for the site. If these people succeed in stopping the inquiry in the High Court we may never know. It is likely that they paid a price close to what they received from Telecom. In this way the bulk of the profit - £2.65m. - could be left in Delion for the benefit of the secret shareholders.\n\nOne of the more remarkable features of the whole saga was the involvement of Mr. Smurfit - UPH investor, to the tune of £500,000, proponent of the Ballsbridge site, and chairman of Telecom. Mr. Smurfit has always admitted that he is a details man. New employees do not come into Smurfit's organisation without his say so and he personally approves all capital expenditure. The things that Mr. Smurfit did not know in relation to this transaction were quite amazing. It is also  amazing that Mr. Desmond, his executives, Mr. Barry or Mr. McHugh, or his solicitor did not inform him of what the transactions were. At this time Mr. Smurfit succeeded in threatening a High Court writ on the Irish Independent because of an article they printed, and still it was not brought to his attention that he was, in fact, involved in this business.\n\nThe last question in that article remains after all this has been gone through, and the taxpayer has paid about £5 million more than the site was worth. In relation to what we know and do not know about it, somebody would say there are a lot of wonderful people in the city of Dublin - wonderful stockbrokers, bankers, solicitors estate agents, all of whom worked hard with Mr. Smurfit for 17 months just to ensure that they could hand over a profit of millions to a little fellow called Patrick Doherty in London. That is some tale.\n\nThe whole point in relation to that article was that it was suppressed. It was not allowed to be printed in a magazine. That is as worrying as the contents of the article. It was not printed because people in this country with economic power would not allow it to be printed. The media were being intimidated in their attempt to investigate and report on these crucial matters.\n\nWe are all in this House aware of the browbeating and bullying engaged in by members on the Government side whenever any of these issues are raised. The subtle threats of the Taoiseach yesterday, the bluster of the Minister for Justice last night and the sly toadying of Deputy Roche are only three examples of what we have witnessed in the last couple of days. But we in the House are relatively privileged by comparison with the media, who have been subjected to a barrage of intimidation ever since this whole saga began.\n\nThat is not the first time the media have been silenced. We saw it before and it continues. The Taoiseach has sent solicitors' letters all over the place - letters have been sent to The Irish Press, and the Irish Independent in relation to the tribunal and there is now one in The  Irish Times in relation to an innocuous article on the Carysfort scandal.\n\nWe all remember how a story written by a young and professional reporter in the Irish Independent was effectively buried for nearly two years by Mr. Smurfit's and Mr. Desmond's legal efforts. We all remember too the numerous writs and threats issued by Mr. Larry Goodman at the height of his power. They all have one thing in common - gagging writs, solicitors' letters, the threat of libel, defamation, and contempt - all aimed at frightening away and silencing the media. When the political and business establishment in any society has to resort to intimidation on this scale, of a supposedly free press, one has to begin to worry about the future of that society. But that is not the only basis on which we have grounds for worry.\n\nThe debate which is occupying this House for three days has been since its inception a futile and meaningless exercise because it will undermine politics and politicians in the eyes of the public. As I said on the Order of Business yesterday, we are debating confidence, or no confidence in the Government, and the question is - where are the Government? With all due respects to the Minister for the Environment, for whose presence I am grateful, it is public knowledge that the Government are engaged in negotiations behind closed doors, negotiations which up until yesterday only occupied two negotiators from each side on behalf of Fianna Fáil and The Progressive Democrats. One now certainly gets the distinct impression that every Member of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party and every Member of the Progressive Democrats Parliamentary Party, and indeed some notable outsiders from the Progressive Democrats, are engaged in these negotiations.\n\nIt is verging on the theatre of the absurd for Fianna Fáil spokespersons to troop in here one after the other and pledge confidence in the Government while, at the same time, looking over their shoulders and wondering. Some  people are starkly missing in reiterating their confidence in the Government, people who had been up front some weeks ago and were up front until the last parliamentary meeting of consequence. They are beginning to fade on the margins. Every speaker must be looking over his shoulder wondering if somebody will come down the steps of the Chamber, wondering if Deputy Brady will come in with a little note saying \"please stop speaking, because it is all over\". Confidence is affected by what has been happening over the last number of days. There is the clear feeling that we no longer have a Government.\n\nA Deputy A Deputy \n\nMr. Spring: I will not interrupt you when you come into the Chamber to speak. It would appear that the Progressive Democrats have not the courage to come into this Chamber. It is remarkable, they claim to have so much power in this Government, yet they cannot come into the Chamber and make their views known. Have they difficulty in standing in the Chamber and pledging their confidence in this Government. There is no confidence in this Government, whether we like it or not. Less than 30 per cent of the electorate are satisfied with the Government. The Government parties have failed over a period of three months to put together a basic renegotiation of the Programme for Government. How  can the public be expected to have confidence in these parties when, even after that period of three to four months, the basic premise on which their partnership should continue has not been produced?\n\nLet us recognise the serious situation facing us as a parliamentary democracy. For God's sake, let us stop harking back to the mistakes of the past. I acknowledge that mistakes have been made on all sides. It does not do anybody credit to blame a Labour/Fine Gael Coalition, the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey's previous Government or anybody else. The people we represent are not interested in history lessons. Their history is what they have to live through every day to try to make ends meet. The people are entitled to expect hope from the politicians. The people are entitled to demand the restoration of high standards in high places. To put it bluntly, the people want some old style patriotism. They want people who are prepared to work for their country and community in a spirit of openness, generosity, equality and fairness. They have not seen that in recent months. The people are sick, angry and disturbed at what has been happening and at what has been revealed in the last number of weeks.\n\nThe fact that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor has become more evident in society. If one is in the right circle, if one has the economic power, one can do what one likes. That is what was beginning to happen and it must be stopped. It is all glamour and glitz on one side of the coin, millions of pounds can be made in deals overnight in the city. The ingredients of these deals all have the familiar thread running through them, the thread of insider information, the offshore company and high tech manipulation. That is what it has come to in the city. They all add up to vast and fast profits without tax liabilty or any contribution to the welfare of this country or to the community, other than another triumph for the deal makers. Of course, these people get careless, they got very casual, it was becoming so easy. This always happens.\n\n I hope we are not too late to stop the rot in society. I hope we can bring back some decent standards to commercial life. Needless to say, most citizens and most business people carry on business in a reasonable manner with high standards but, unfortunately, all have been tainted because of the abuse by people who felt they were above the law, people who saw Ireland as their playground for making their vast profits out of their vast deals.\n\nThe other side of the coin is not pleasant and it is far from easy or glamorous. It is different from that described by the Taoiseach here yesterday afternoon. Things are not easy or glamorous for many people. Unemployment is at nearly 260,000 people and we are heading for 300,000 if present policies continue. There is a growing housing crisis which perhaps the Minister for the Environment can address. The health service are straining at the seams. We have high pupil/teacher ratios in our schools and high unemployment among teachers. Thousands of public service workers are living on very low wages with few promotional opportunities and they are now facing further cuts in their standard of living. Parents are struggling to meet high tax rates and high education fees and the farming community are facing their bleakest prospect for many years.\n\nThese are the realities which the Taoiseach seemed to be so far away from yesterday. I am sure that if the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, and the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, are talking to people in County Mayo and in the midlands they will be aware that people in this society are angry at present. People have always felt that there are other people who are more privileged than themselves with access to money and power but this has to stop because people paying their taxes, and trying to educate their children and pay their mortgage do not like what they have seen in recent weeks. What they have seen in recent weeks are people, who we have been told were successful whizz kids whom the country needed more of, making vast profits out of taxpayers money without any morality or scruples.\n\n The people are angry at present. I would like to impress upon the Government that it is not the anger of envy or begrudgery but rather a genuine disbelief at the greed which has overtaken Irish society, in particular those who claim to be on the inside lane. It is time for all of us in this House, irrespective of our political philosophy, to call a halt because Irish society and democracy and everything we would like to stand for will be under threat if this is allowed to continue. I say it is time for us as parliamentarians to restore Ireland to the people of this country, the genuine people out there who are trying to survive and make a living. Let us get it back from the hands of those whizz kids and wheeler dealers who have brought all of us in this House to shame. If this means the Government cannot do it and the Government have to go, so be it.","I have no confidence in the Government. I did not need Greencore, Bord Telecom, Celtic Helicopters or Dermot Desmond to convince me. I have never had confidence in Fianna Fáil or the Progressive Democrats to resolve the economic and social issues confronting Irish society. I do not intend to list again the scandals and allegations against this Government. I want to focus on the possible consequences of an Opposition victory in this confidence vote, or in any event, the probability of an election within the next year.\n\nFirst I want to reject categorically the smears, personal vilification and muck raked up by the Minister for Justice, Deputy Ray Burke, and other Fianna Fáil speakers in regard to The Workers' Party. The Workers' Party are, of course, well able to defend themselves. I want to congratulate the Workers' Party for acknowledging their earlier mistakes and the honest way they have confronted their own history. In particular, I want to acknowledge Deputy Mac Giolla's role in that transition from militant nationalism to constitutional politics and democratic socialism. It is despicable that they should be subjected to McCarthyite smears in this House by none less than the Minister for Justice. They have played an important role in creating a dynamic and democratic Left politics in this country and I welcome them all the more for that.\n\nIf present trends in the opinion polls continue, the only possible successor to this Government is another Government with major Fianna Fáil participation. There may be a change in leaders, Ministers, even coalition partners, but that is  all. Fianna Fáil will still dominate whatever new Government comes into place while the Left will be considerably strengthened in any such election.\n\nOf course, Fine Gael fancy themselves as leading the next Government. So desperate are they to get Fianna Fáil out, they will enter Government with anyone. They will abandon their principles, join with socialists, conservatives, greens, independents - anyone, to get in. Had Fine Gael not ruled out coalition with Fianna Fáil we might have just passed this off as normal political jockeying. Instead, we must be extremely concerned at Fine Gael's motives. There is the stench of a hidden agenda coming from the Fine Gael benches.\n\nWe are faced with counter motions of confidence and no-confidence from parties with a few policy differences. Fine Gael's only claim to becoming the alternative Government is that they would regulate crooks, conmen and frauds in the business sector better than the present Government. That is highly debatable. Arguably a Fine Gael-led Government would give rise to even more scandals. Their policy of privatising almost all public sector companies would surely lead to more conflicts of interest and attempts to secure private gains at the expense of the public interest. It will be Greencore all over again in Aer Lingus, Bord Telecom, the ESB and RTE. By their own admission these would all face privatisation in the event of Fine Gael coming to office.\n\nThe difference between a Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led Government is one of degrees. It is this lack of choice that is stifling Irish politics. This is why the majority of people do not want an election. They realise there is no difference between the two major parties. Fine Gael is just another way of saying Fianna Fáil. The faces are different, the policies are the same.\n\nIf there is to be an alternative arising out of this motion of no-confidence, it will come from the Left parliamentarians and political parties.\n\nIf this vote of confidence is to be of any relevance to the vast majority of people, the Left should be very clear about its future intentions. I want to be very clear about this, especially in the light of Deputy John Bruton's invitation to the Left to join him in an anti-Fianna Fáil Government.\n\nIn the eventuality of a hung Dáil where neither Fine Gael nor Fianna Fáil, with the help of the Progressive Democrats, can form a Government, the Labour Party will not participate as a minority partner in a Coalition Government with either of the major political parties.\n\nIn 1987 the Labour Party adopted the findings of their own commission on electoral strategy. One of those findings is that our medium term goal over ten to 15 years must be to exceed the party's best past performances. This requires that the party fight all elections on the basis of their independent policies and remain independent of all governments. That is the clear and unequivocal Labour Party policy on this issue. That will remain the case for the remainder of the decade.\n\nI want to send a clear message to Fine Gael and indeed to Fianna Fáil. The civil war which spawned their parties is over. The reasons for their separate existence have long ago ceased. They are both conservative parties with near identical policies. If between them, they command a majority, they, from the same political stable, have a responsibility to form a government. Let them not shift that responsibility to others.\n\nI want to state categorically that I will never, while the people of Kildare send me here, support with my vote in this  House the appointment of a right wing Taoiseach from either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael to head up a conservative majority coalition. The Left must not be involved in giving the kiss of life to John Bruton and Fine Gael, nor should we act as a crutch for Fianna Fáil. We must not be a mudguard for the excesses of either.\n\nThe only condition after this election or any other election in which I believe the Left should participate in a coalition with a right wing party, is if the combined Left is in a majority. Up to recently this might have seemed pie in the sky. But opinion polls now show Labour and The Workers' Party, together, with 20 per cent of the vote compared to Fine Gael's 27 per cent. The Left is not far off from becoming the second major force in Irish politics, if we act together.\n\nIf we count the Independent Socialist Party in Sligo, independents such as Tony Gregory, and the Green Party which I perceive as being an anti-conservative, positive force, we can see that progressive politics is gaining ground.\n\nI do not accept, however, that voting no-confidence in this Government means that the Left must go into a permanent opposition until it can form its own Government. I believe that, together, the Left must campaign to win critical concessions for our constituency. We should be willing to use our parliamentary strength to negotiate the best deal possible based on a set of minimum demands. These demands could include things like: an industrial and credit strategy based on investing in large, domestic public and private sector companies in key export areas as the basis for ending unemployment; a national minimum wage and the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare report; increased wealth and capital taxation, including a punitive tax on speculation and windfall profits; the  introduction of divorce and comprehensive family planning legislation; substantial increase in child benefit; more powers for local authorities; and comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.\n\nThese are just some of the issues that could form the basis of an alternative Left politics. With this kind of platform we can confidently go to the country and argue for an alternative way of doing things. We may not be able to form the next government. But we can make a difference, and that can be the first step on our way to a Left majority coalition. That time might be nearer than many people think.\n\nI want to finally make clear that I am speaking about the Left. I have consciously used that term for I believe all of us in the Labour Party, The Workers' Party and other groups must first and foremost see ourselves as parliamentarians and activists of the Left, in alliance against conservative forces in society. Otherwise, this confidence motion is just an exercise in oppositionism. Those who advise the Left that we should join a coalition with larger right wing parties are not advancing left politics, they are not bringing to people a radical alternative. They are not making a difference. The Left should ignore such advice. I am well aware that the Left is, at this stage, too small to control the national agenda, but we can control our own actions and make our own decisions. Voting no-confidence in this Government can be just the beginning.","The motion before us relates to confidence in the Government. No decent Deputy could walk through the lobbies at 4 p.m. and vote confidence in this Government. We have seen a despicable performance by the Minister for Education. We know that the Lenihans, Mary and Brian, lay great store on loyalty but I suggest that loyalty is only merited by those who deserve it. The Taoiseach does not deserve the loyalty proclaimed by the various Ministers.\n\nThe Minister for Education has not given us the full truth about the Carysfort matter. She has been selective in what she has put on the record. She has failed to answer the fundamental charge relating to the profit made by Pino Harris at the intervention of the Taoiseach who commended to UCD the purchase of that property. The Minister stands castigated for her performance today. It is a bad reflection on democracy. To add insult to injury, she pranced out of the House declaring that she was going to a press conference. That is indicative of the attitude of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. They are far more interested in lines in the papers than honest Government and genuine commitment to the people. They are interested in Government only for their own self-promotion, self-advancement and publicity. Our forefathers fought very hard for the  establishment of the democratic institutions of this State. The Dáil and Seanad should be respected by the Government as democratic institutions. Matters of serious importance should be brought first to this House and discussed here. Instead, today there is a Government press conference to present to the press what the Government have decided. This House is literally being ignored by the Government. The democratic institutions of the State are being ignored. Unfortunately a dictatorship is in operation.\n\nCould we blame people for becoming increasingly cynical about public life, politicians, this House and the Government? I refer to the young people who are applying for Morrison visas, the 260,000 people who are unemployed, old people who are on waiting lists for hip operations, unfortunate people who are lying on stretchers on corridors of hospitals. This Government have brought disgrace to the nation. Any honourable and decent person recognises that this Government reflect very poorly on the Irish people. It is time the Government removed themselves from office.\n\nI eventually succeeded today in getting a copy of the programme agreed by the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil. I managed to obtain it in the corridor; it was not brought before this House. It is a cobbling together of a lot of words without any substance. The Government have pursued tactics over the past four days to ensure that the Opposition parties will not be in a position to debate the real Programme for Government for the next two years. They are ashamed to present it because it has such little substance. Fundamental questions have not been addressed.\n\nWe will not be silenced by Deputy Roche or any other member of Fianna Fáil who makes allegations. We will not be intimidated or silenced by such tactics. That is what Fianna Fáil have been attempting to do. We will continue to search, investigate and publicise in every possible way any instance where the Government are misusing taxpayers'  money. Scandal after scandal has repeatedly proved the abuse of power and the misuse of taxpayers' money.\n\nWe fully support the full disclosure of interests. The programme states that a register of all Members' material interests will be established from September 1992 and will be available in the Oireachtas Library. What a weak statement. What are the specific details? What will be registered? Any of us can register that we own a house or so many shares. Ten days later what is to stop any Member from engaging in further business activities which will not be entered on the register? There is no provision for a code of conduct.\n\nThe programme goes on to state that the Government are determined to ensure the highest standards of ethical behaviour in the conduct of all State and commercial business dealings. They do not state that they are committed to the highest standards of ethical behaviour by Ministers and Ministers of State. That is notably missing from the programme. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, was questioned on the matter, he sidetracked and said it was a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Government do not want to put the full facts on the table. It is time they were removed from office so that another Government could put proper procedures in place.\n\nThe Government in this programme do not deal with the important issue of European political union. It is mentioned only in a paragraph which simply states that there are no obstacles to prevent Ireland from participating fully in the front rank of European nations. There is no clue as to what these two parties intend to do, what ideas they have on the issues in question and what they are saying in Europe - if they are saying anything at all. This Government are being led by other members and have no ideas of their own going to the conference table in Europe. That is extremely unfortunate.\n\nWhat is the view of the Government on the North Atlantic Treaty or the Western  European Union Treaty which expires in 1997? Do they believe there should be a new European defence treaty? We have no idea of their view. What is the future for the people when the Government have no specific idea of where they are going? In the area of defence all we have in the programme is a statement of what we already know. Only two days ago a Franco-German proposal was made regarding the establishment of a European army. Do the Government have a view on that issue? If so, are they expressing it in Europe? We do not know. The programme gives no information.\n\nThis Government are a sham, a group of self-interested people trying to maintain their hold on office to further their own interests and self-advancement. Young people are very cynical. They see a culture of grab and greed and the fast buck, where honour and integrity in public life are no longer to be commended. Some people talk about \"Garret the Good\" with a laugh, as if to be good in politics is something one should not be; in other words, that it is no longer right or proper in public life to have certain ideals or principles or a commitment to high standards. The people are not being served by this Government. The Government do not reflect our concerns: they are not doing anything to address them. All they are doing is to literally protect their own self-interests, to promote and ensure that a certain golden circle in this community, particularly based in the Dublin area, continues, to advance and make the quick buck. It is extremely unfortunate.\n\nWe should recognise the fragility of democracy and the importance of Members of this House having the highest standards and an absolutely untarnished pedigree in relation to their performance in public office. That is vital. We should recognise that our democracy is only in place for 70 years. On the international front I am sure many countries looking at Ireland right now are saying that we are nothing more than a banana republic. I am sure we are being compared with some of the most appalling types of states in parts of Africa and  that we even compare badly with some of them. On the international front there is now no confidence in the Irish economy. What did this Government do for the past three or four months to-ing and fro-ing in relation to bringing forward an agreement? They destabilised the economy. It is neither right nor proper for any party over there to put the blame on the other. Both are jointly responsible. Both had the responsibility to have that programme well put together before the House came back here two days ago. Instead of that they adopted various positions and ended up at the 11th hour cobbling together a document that is hardly worth the paper it is written on.\n\nIs this what the people of Ireland deserve? I put it to the Minister that it is not. The Party Whip is very important and internal party politics seem to be more important to Fianna Fáil than the national interest. That is extremely unfortunate. Politics in Ireland have now reached an all-time low and the finger must point at Deputy Haughey who is the main architect and instigator of that. Go back to 1969 and from 1969 to 1979 and through the eighties. Once Deputy Haughey appeared the rot followed. Deputies Browne and Davern may smile on the backbenches but that is the reality. The level of decency that was in the leadership of Fianna Fáil is no longer there. Fianna Fáil now get into office in order to be in a position to gain from being elected to this House. I would appeal to the decent Fianna Fáil TDs - and there are some decent men and women in Fianna Fáil - to have the gumption to speak out and say they are not prepared to tolerate this level of orchestration, this low level political behaviour, and that they want this Taoiseach out. It is unfortunate that they have not the gumption to do that and it is indeed a very poor reflection on them. I appeal to them to consider that matter in the interests of the Irish people and the Irish nation.\n\nAt this stage all decent Irish people feel disappointed, saddened and totally ashamed at the performance of this Government particularly the manner in which all these scandals were allowed to  develop under various Ministers. That happened because, as everybody knows, the Taoiseach is the boss and dare one disobey him. Fianna Fáil Deputies must do as they are told or else. We well know how that operates but unfortunately the Fianna Fáil Deputies have not got the gumption to take him on. That is the situation within Fianna Fáil today.\n\nIt is sad that this House has to discuss this matter in the present political circumstances. It is unfortunate that the people have to listen to scandal after scandal compounding the level of mismanagement by this Government. It is unfortunate that the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil have, at the 11th hour, cobbled together a document just for the sake of the vote at 4 o'clock in order to retain their respective ministerial offices. I hope that at a very early date the people will have an opportunity of showing what they think of this Government because I believe they are disgusted and want this Government out and out quickly.","Cuidím leis an tairiscint seo atá romhainn: \"Go n-athdhearbhaíonn Dáil Éireann a muinín sa Rialtas\". De réir mo thuairimse tá an mhuinín sin tuillte ag an Rialtas.\n\nI have no doubt the vast majority of people in this country feel totally nauseated by the hypocritical stance of the Opposition in putting down a motion of no confidence in the Government. It appears to me that the combined Opposition parties are motivated by one issue and one issue only - to undermine, by whatever means, fair or foul, mostly foul, the credibility of this Government. They are not concerned with the national interest. They are not concerned in any way with the adverse effects of their actions and statements on the required confidence in our economy - confidence which was restored by this Government after the disastrous period of office of the Fine Gael-Labour Government. They deliberately ignore, for the basest of political reasons, the widely accepted view that this Government have, since coming into office, injected a new spirit of confidence and enthusiasm for the future, resulting in new investments, 40,000 net new jobs and new hope for further development. While this may not be enough jobs, we are en route.\n\nThe simple answer to the plethora of allegations now being levelled at the Government, and at individual members in particular, is that no Government can legislate for human behaviour. The Opposition parties know this full well - indeed my colleague the Minister for  Tourism, Transport and Communications indicated how well they should know - but in their rush to burnish their tarnished image they follow every rumour, piece of gossip and tittle tattle for the sake of even a single mention in the media, and all the better if they can be portrayed as taking a high moral stance on these issues. I reject their pinchbeck moralism.\n\nI want to repeat that I reject these pinchbeck moralists.\n\nMuch of what the Opposition spokes-people have been doing over the past number of weeks has been blatant band wagoning, in itself an indication of the paucity of ideas which is now evident on the opposite side of this House. They have taken all their cues from media reports - despite their often privately expressed contempt for the media and its activities. In essence their performance has been nothing short of a complete sham and underscores yet again the absence of concrete policy proposals for the overall good of the country.\n\nDeputy John Bruton and his colleagues have great reliance on a recent opinion poll. What are the facts? In 1989, 43 per cent of the opinion polls supported Fianna Fáil while 41 per cent supported them in the most recent poll. What support have Fine Gael? They had 31 per cent support in 1989 and 26 per cent in 1991. The Deputy is a very good computer and he does not think that a drop from 31 to 26 per cent is a rise.\n\nI want to make another  point for Deputy Bruton who, like a blind Samson when he cannot see where he is going, is anxious to pull down the whole edifice. In 1989 his predecessor, Deputy Alan Dukes, had 69 per cent support while he now has 39 per cent support. Deputy Alan Dukes supported this Government from 1987-89 and Deputy Bruton should remember that as a result of giving that support he gained four seats for the Fine Gael Party, which is more than his successor is headed for now.\n\nAs I said earlier it comes as no surprise that the response of the Opposition to the country's economic and social challenges is a motion of no confidence, negativism. It is both an ironic and an appropriately timely reminder to the people and the electorate of the legacy left by the Opposition, when last in Government, to Ireland and its people: confidence in its financial system at rock bottom; confidence in its currency at the lowest ebb possible; confidence by the business community non-existent; confidence in its economy lower than it has ever been; and the people's confidence simply a thing of the past.\n\nAs a brief reminder to those who may have managed to suppress the trauma in 1983-87, let us not forget some of the more pertinent aspects of their tenure in office; a reckless doubling of the national debt - this has been stated by several contributors from this side of the House; the complete failure to develop a cohesive and unified team approach to the management of the economy; and the collapse of investment reflecting despair at the impotence of Fine Gael and Labour. In the end Ministers allocated double jobs before the Government finally collapsed and came before the people who at the ballot box rejected them fully and comprehensively. It is against this bleak background that the achievements of the Government between 1987-89 and from 1989 to date can be contrasted.\n\nAegam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem - remember to keep a calm mind when times are troublesome. I would commend those wise words to those across the floor who, of late, have  been prone to exaggerated, even apocalyptic forecasts about the current and medium-term direction of our economy.\n\nA calm and measured approach to the difficulties we are facing is not only advisable but essential if the challenges posed are to be met and overcome. Since coming into office this Government have provided a steady hand at the tiller and have already demonstrated their willingness and capability to take corrective action to keep the ship on course, despite the hollow criticisms of those opposite who lacked the courage to do what needed to be done, and had it been done Ireland would now be a better place to live in.\n\nThe benefit of the corrective measure taken last July to reduce the emerging budgetary over-run - I dispute the figures given by Deputy Yates - will not begin to have full impact until the final quarter of this year. However, it is perfectly clear from the end-September Exchequer returns that Exchequer borrowing can be expected to turn out close to 2 per cent of GNP even before taking account of the significant proceeds from the Irish Life flotation and that the debt-GNP ratio will again decline in 1991.\n\nNotwithstanding our tough policy stance the harsh reality is that we continue to confront a problematic budgetary position next year. The wisdom of the consensus approach which we have initiated over the last few years, and reasserted earlier this year in the negotiations of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, shows clearly that a unified approach to Government does work. I want to say here that that consensus approach was worked on very hard by the Taoiseach, Deputy Charles J. Haughey. This is a tribute to him, and when the economic history of this period is being written, that development of the consensus which he worked so hard at will mark this whole economic period as one of great success.\n\nThe year 1991 has been one of global turmoil. From the war in the Gulf through the dizzying pace of change in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the grim and troubling events in  Yugoslavia, these have all fed through into an uncertainty on the economic front and we have been confronted with an international downturn which has cast a dark shadow over the domestic economy. As a result, the pace of economic growth is lower than we would otherwise have expected.\n\nThese international events have provided us with a salutary reminder of the limits to which we can insulate the Irish economy from unfavourable external policies and trends. I have no intention of minimising the difficulties which we face, but neither will I minimise the achievements of this Government and the extent to which the economic fundamentals have been turned around to enable us to overcome our problems.\n\nLook at some of the facts. We have one of the lowest inflation rates in the European Community; we have maintained currency value within the EMS; we have improved competitiveness; we have a healthy surplus in the balance of payments; there is a narrowing interest rate differential with Germany; we had an Exchequer borrowing requirement of 2 per cent of GNP last year and, as we now know, it will be close to that again this year.\n\nThis situation is a far cry - 40,000 net new jobs - from the days when Fine Gael and Labour were in office.\n\nIt is the direct result of the policies we have pursued as well as the support through consensus - and I would like to emphasise its importance - of the social partners over the past few years. Add to this the growth abroad up to mid-1990 which bolstered demand for Irish exports and it can be clearly seen how we came though the late eighties to a situation where we are basically better  equipped than before to tackle the difficulties of the present international economic environment.\n\nOf course the factor of external growth was not within our control; this began to weaken from around the middle of last year. The slowdown was particularly marked in the United Kingdom and in the United States - two of our most vital export destinations; Germany comes next, France and then the Netherlands. But even in this area, improvements in competitiveness and investment have ensured that Irish exports have held up well in the circumstances. Not all of our trading partners have suffered recessionary problems; the experience internationally has been quite varied. Germany saw continued strong growth; the other EMS partners saw a slowdown but not a reverse. Our performance in 1991 is not aberrant: it is, as we might have expected, in line with the better performing EMS countries.\n\nThe fundamental improvements in economic performance also mean that we will be well positioned to seize the advantage of the world upswing in economic activity as it gets under way, and as envisaged by the key international agencies. It is predicted that growth will return to the UK and the US in the second half of this year and will further improve in 1992. We can, therefore, chart a steady course towards a more satisfactory domestic growth rate next year. Consumer spending should begin to pick up as the signs improve; we expect inflation to remain comfortably low and the balance of payments to continue to show a healthy surplus. And, again, as external growth resumes an upward track we can reasonably expect a recovery in investment and a continued very good export performance. Of course I do not need to tell the House that the Single Market will bring huge benefits in trade terms.\n\nIn the meantime, and before the opportunities of a recovery in international growth present themselves, we must confront the short term slowdown in growth and the level of unemployment while maintaining the gains we have made over the past four years. What we  need is less of the gloomy punditry which is commonplace to the Opposition parties and a more cautious and sober assessment of the problems as well as an agreed approach to tackling them where we have the scope to act. We must continue to take decisive action. As I mentioned earler, the Government did precisely this last July when we moved swiftly to contain the size of the emerging budgetary gap.\n\nI must stress again, as I have been doing in speeches to other fora, and as I will continue to do, the imperative of holding firm on the present strategy, backed up by the support of the social partners. Nothing I have read or listened to in recent months convinces me that any of us can afford to deviate from that course even in the face of though and often unpalatable decisions which must be taken in the context of next year's budget. Let no one be under any illusions about this: we have to keep the public finances in shape to underpin our growth potential. We must also speed up the rate of employment growth - that is the purpose of the exercise - and we must maintain competitiveness, profitability and good industrial relations. In other words, preserve and conserve the gains we have made while implementing the strategies which will enable us to reap the benefits of international upturns.\n\nYes, we face tough budgetary decisions as the public expenditure estimates for next year are being finalised. No area of expenditure can or should be expected to avoid coming under the most detailed scrutiny. Let me sum up my view of the situation in which we find ourselves: the ship may have run into heavy weather but it is most definitely not adrift and has a good captain in charge.\n\nI will now deal with my own area of responsibility in the Department of the Marine.\n\nLest it be forgotten, the policy decision to establish a new Government Department to co-ordinate and implement Government policy on the development of marine resources was a Fianna Fáil initiative. In the past, major areas of  marine administration were fragmented with wasteful demarcation lines and overlaps between Departments. The past few years have witnessed a streamlining of the administration of all the major sectors of the marine industry with effective general control and guidance over the numerous agencies operating under the Department's aegis.\n\nI want to put on the record of the House the achievements of this Government in the marine area. A number of major policy issues which will have very far-reaching implications for the development and economic well-being of the Irish sea fishing industry are now under active consideration by the European Commission. I would expect that within the near future and right up to the end of next year decisions of vital importance to our fishing industry will be made in Brussels. In these circumstances, I consider it to be an absolute priority that the interests of the Irish industry as a whole be taken fully into account before any policy proposals are tabled.\n\nWith this objective in mind, at Fisheries Councils and in bilateral contacts with Vice-President Marin and other Fisheries Ministers, I have underlined my grave concerns about possible policy adjustments which, if implemented, could create major problems for our fishing industry. In all such cases, I have made it absolutely clear that Ireland's development potential in the fisheries sector must be safeguarded and cannot be bartered away. In no circumstances am I prepared to contemplate any erosion or diminution of the advantages or opportunities deriving from European Community membership.\n\nThe current negotiations with EFTA countries on the creation of the European Economic Area (EEA) are undoubtedly our most immediate cause for concern, desirable and all as is the creation of the EEA. In these negotiations with the Community, the EFTA side has sought total liberalisation; in other words, removal of tariff barriers for all fishery products from EFTA countries. If acceded to, this would be disastrous for our industry as our main markets within  the Community would be threatened by imports from the fishing industries of that bloc. In particular, total liberalisation would seriously threaten the herring and mackerel processing and salmon farming sectors and undermine employment in those communities, particularly in the west and south of Ireland which are heavily dependent upon fishing.\n\nI have made it clear to the Commission, and indeed in bilateral contacts with the Norwegians and some member states that liberalisation of these three sensitive products cannot be contemplated and in so far as Ireland is concerned is non-negotiable. I have in discussions with the Irish Fish Producers' and Exporters' Association given assurances that industry concerns on fishery issues could not be set aside in the context of the EEA negotiations. I would hope that these matters will be satisfactorily resolved from an Irish viewpoint in the current negotiations.\n\nAnother cause for real concern at present is the review of the Community's fishing fleet policy being undertaken in the context of the Multi-Annual Guidance Programme for the fleet for the period 1992 to 1996 and the impact that this could have on essential fleet development. The exercise is taking place against the background of declining fish stocks and overfishing within Community waters as a whole. In Ireland's case however, it has been clearly demonstrated in our Multi-Annual Guidance Programme submission that there is still scope for some expansion within our fleet to facilitate the take-up of under-utilised quota, mainly white fish species and non-quota species, mainly off our west coast. At present, we simply do not have the type of boat capable of exploiting these opportunities.\n\nI have made it very clear that I will not accept an across-the-board capacity reduction in the Community fleet as a whole over the next five years without regard to special circumstances of the Irish fleet. An across-the-board major reduction, while justifiable in Community waters where stocks have declined in recent years and where quotas  have been fully exploited, makes no economic or biological sense in the context of the opportunities available in waters off our western and south western coasts. I am insisting that these factors must be taken fully into account by the Commission before programmes are finalised. I am pressing, and will continue to press, for a practical recognition by the Commission of the development needs of our fleet over the next five years. Any decision which fails to take these factors into account will simply not be acceptable.\n\nBefore turning from fisheries issues, I would like to say something about the mid-term review of the Common Fisheries Policy which is scheduled for next year. Decisions taken in the context of this review will have long term implications for our industry. The importance, therefore, of articulating Ireland's position prior to next year's negotiations cannot be overstated. In that regard I would again take this opportunity of congratulating the industry advisory group, under the chairmanship of Dr. T. K. Whitaker, whose recent report and advice have made a valuable contribution towards the policy position being developed by me in this context.\n\nIn preliminary discussions at Council and in contacts with Commissioner Marin, I have already outlined issues that will be of particular concern to Ireland in the review. It has been made abundantly clear that the Government are determined to secure the future of disadvantaged coastal regions and that they see the development of the fisheries sector, on the basis of the fish stocks contiguous to these regions, as playing a key role in promoting this economic development. In addition, the Government's concerns, to ensure that the Common Fisheries Policy, in accordance with the Hague principles and stated objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy itself, should continue to promote this development and not act as a constraint, have been forcibly put to the Commission.\n\nI anticipate very difficult and lengthy negotiations as debate on the review  intensifies during the course of next year. My objective will be to secure the best possible deal for our fishermen with particular emphasis on the areas of priority that I have mentioned.\n\nIrish aquaculture is currently worth £30 million. The annual output of 26,000 tonnes is making a major contribution to the Irish economy/balance of payments and to local economies in isolated coastal regions.\n\nGovernment policy has been geared to encouraging production of the main commercial species - salmonids, mussels, oysters, and clams - while research and development is well advanced on the commercial potential for new species such as scallops, sea urchins and turbot.\n\nHaving expanded from negligible beginnings in the early eighties it is only in the past few years that this sector has been given the attention it deserves. Employment full time in the industry is almost 1,000 with a further 1,000 persons employed on a part-time basis.\n\nWith regard to inland fisheries our objective in the medium term is to increase the contribution of the inland fisheries resources to the national economy through increased tourism and development of the home angling base.\n\nIn 1991 we are investing £6.75 million in inland fisheries. As Deputies also know a Bill setting up a co-operative system to develop inland fisheries has gone through this House and the co-operatives would have been establised but for the gratuitous refusal of Members of the Opposition to take a brief amendment from Seanad Éireann before the recess.\n\nHarbours were mentioned by Deputy Yates. In order to maximise the fishery contribution to the economy the industry needs an adequate infrastructure. To this end the Government are committed to a programme of substantial investment to provide adequate infrastructure at strategically located fishery harbours. The  programme I announced last year provides for an investment of some £20 million over the period up to 1993.\n\nWith regard to commercial harbours the Government have sought to ensure that Ireland will have the necessary port infrastructure to compete on equal terms with other member states in the completed internal market. A committee are sitting on the legislation covering harbours. Projects approved under the operational programme on peripherality include the provision of new and improved handling equipment, extra berthage, docking facilities and port access routes, both road and rail. Total capital expenditure on commercial ports under the programme will reach almost £69 million. The bulk of that will be spent at Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Rosslare with aid also going to Drogheda, Dundalk, Foynes, Galway, Kinsale, Limerick and New Ross.\n\nCapital expenditure on commercial harbours in 1991 will be in the region of £17 million. With regard to ship building we are glad that Damen Shipbuilders have taken over at Verolme and we expect them to be in business very shortly. I am glad also that in shipping our dead weight tonnage is now 190,000 tons, an increase of 34 per cent since 1986.\n\nThe \"Bell Pioneer\" must be viewed as a breakthrough in that it is the first hatchless container ship to operate anywhere in the world. It has improved turnaround times at harbours by 40 per cent. It is also a very good ship from the point of view of fuel consumption. With regard to transport costs, I agree with Deputy Yates that ours are double those on the mainland. We want to develop a sea bridge through that kind of shipping. A major study was commissioned by the Government and half paid for by the European Commission on the whole subject of transport. I do not have time to go into that matter now.\n\nIn the coming session I will introduce a Bill on the safety of passengers being carried for fares on small ferries and small boats. I established Slánú during the year. A medium range helicopter is in place and is operating. In relation to  marine research an institute will be set up in a matter of weeks and I am proud to tell the House that under the STRIDE programme £10 million will be available from the European Community for research in my area.\n\nThank you. UCC, UCG and my Department's fisheries research centres will benefit from the STRIDE programme.\n\nThe motion of confidence in the Government before the House deserves the support of the House. I, and my colleagues in Government, will outline achievements and our future policy in such a way that every right-minded and right-thinking person in the House will support the motion on Friday.","A Cheann Comhairle, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on this motion of confidence in the Government.\n\nWe must send a clear message to the people of Ireland. The business of government is not about promoting the interests of one section of society at the expense of another. It is about implementing the kind of policies that tap entrepreneurial spirit to create jobs and give the less well-off in our society their share in the rewards of economic and social progress. Any other view of government is narrow and divisive and does not serve the interests of the people.\n\nYet, this is precisely what Fine Gael, Labour and The Workers' Party are doing. The people are entitled to know the reasons for the Government-bashing that has been going on since last May. For the past five months in particular, the Opposition parties have engaged in a deliberate campaign designed to smear the Government, discredit their achievements and policies and undermine confidence in the way in which the nation's business is managed.\n\nThe Opposition are clutching at straws. Mischievously, they are determined to link the Government with questionable practices and alleged wrongdoing in the semi-State and private sectors. The Government in all of this have acted decisively.\n\nThe Minister for Agriculture and Food established the tribunal of inquiry into the beef industry only days after an ITV documentary alleged abuses in a major meat processing group. These allegations have major implications for our home and export beef markets. There are 10,000 jobs involved in this industry. I  refer Deputy O'Shea to that reality and I ask him to stop pulling down the beef industry for his political purposes. He should not come here whingeing about jobs and go outside and destroy the Irish beef industry in every supermarket throughout England. He should not be such a hypocrite.\n\nThe value of total output was £1.2 billion and exports amounted to £686 million last year. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has appointed High Court inspectors on foot of investigations initiated by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications into the so-called Telecom affair.\n\nDeputies and the public can rest assured that the Government will take whatever action is needed arising from the investigations into Greencore, the Telecom controversy and the beef industry.\n\nGiven the prompt action of the Government when these matters arose, it is somewhat surprising that the Opposition are engaged in a political witch-hunt.\n\nFor the second time in less than a year, Fine Gael have revived their vendetta against the Taoiseach. Ever since the debate in 1979 on the installation of Deputy Charles Haughey as Taoiseach, in what is generally accepted as one of the most scandalous speeches ever delivered by an Opposition leader in Dáil Éireann, Fine Gael have sought to smear the Taoiseach at every opportunity.\n\nFine Gael do not have either the ideas or the policies to deal with the issues facing the country today. The evidence from 1983 to 1987 proves this beyond any doubt. The party are drifting helplessly in Opposition and even two changes of  leader have done nothing to improve Fine Gael's standing among the voters. They are wasting their time and that of the country in purely destructive and still highly personalised attacks. The right wing Fine Gael Party are even prepared to join with the Marxist-Leninist hardline Communists of The Workers' Party, just to smear Fianna Fáil.\n\nDeputy Spring can take credit for the way in which he continues to exploit Fine Gael's ineptitude. Yet it is he and his party who were Fine Gael's partners in Government in the four years to 1987.\n\nThat Government doubled the national debt, increased taxation to crippling levels and did nothing for the least well off in our society. They left in despair when unable to even produce a budget for 1987.\n\nIn Government, the Labour Party did not restrain Fine Gael. Together they presided over debacles in Irish Shipping, ICI, PMPA, the failed Canadian export credit insurance guarantees, Dublin Gas and B & I where taxpayers lost countless millions.\n\nIn his fervour to create an environment of suspicion through unsubstantiated allegation, Deputy Spring has already suffered the embarrassment of having to publicly withdraw some of his allegations. Sadly, this indicates that his only real interest was to keep up the momentum of alleged new scandals in his efforts to destabilise the Government. Thankfully in this he has failed. I refer, of course, to the famous Temple Bar slur. In an article in The Dublin Tribune of 26 September 1991 it was stated that the Labour Party had withdrawn allegations in relation to Temple Bar made by party leader, Deputy Spring. Before long they will withdraw a few others. Deputy leader, Deputy Quinn, told The Dublin Tribune there was no truth in allegations made by Deputy Spring that shelf companies had been set up to take advantage of tax incentives in the Temple Bar area, even before redevelopment plans had been publicly announced. Of course, the local people were hurt and offended by these allegations. For two days Deputy Spring had difficulty in putting forward  any evidence. There are no secret owners. The companies named by the Labour Party are owned by local business people.\n\nThe Workers' Party are now more confused than at any time in their chequered history.\n\nThe old totalitarian regimes in Central and Eastern Europe with whom they had such close contact have been swept away. New democracies have emerged. The new Governments are embracing freedom and democracy and are enjoying the opportunity to create a better life for their citizens. They are looking to Europe and greater participation in the European Community. Instead of moving with the times, The Workers' Party continue to promote an economic and social model for Ireland that has been discredited. What vision are they offering the people of Ireland at this stage? All they are doing is trying to damage and discredit their political opponents true to the style of Lenin. That particular leopard has not changed its spots.\n\nI might mention I am reasonably familiar with the printing machines on the north side of Dublin which were used for printing both counterfeit money and The Workers' Party literature and The Workers' Party activist who has gone missing who allegedly operated them - I say allegedly. This was a classical upstairs downstairs operation: upstairs The Workers' Party said they did not know what was going on downstairs. We all accepted that these were nasty allegations against the nice Workers' Party people. They claimed they did not know, they only leased out the premises downstairs and that these allegations should not be given the credibility people give to such allegations. If that is true for The Workers' Party then they should allow the investigations look into all the nasty allegations they are throwing up day after  day against other citizens in this State and Members of this House.\n\nThe reality is that each of the Opposition parties have used every opportunity to spread innuendo, half-truths and downright lies. I was told last August that this orchestrated campaign was planned - I did not know what exactly was coming - and was runinng up to a vote of no confidence in the Taoiseach at that time. This orchestrated campaign resulted in the public being purposely misled about what are, at this point, allegations of impropriety and wrongdoing in the business sector.\n\nThis has now reached the point where Mr. Justice Hamilton, the chairman of the tribunal of inquiry into the beef industry, has spoken out and described the headline reports on the first day of the tribunal's deliberations as an \"absolute and positive disgrace\". The Opposition should take note of this reprimand instead of trying to undermine confidence in our institutions of Government.\n\nThe tribunal and the inspectors must now be allowed to get on with their work. The inquiries must be carried out in a careful, painstaking and fair manner to ensure that the truth is established. To ensure their success they must be allowed sufficient time to complete their work in a calm environment, without pressure. A rush to judgment will serve no one's interest.\n\nIn the heated atmosphere of allegation and innuendo, we must not overlook the fact that the semi-State companies, including those involved in the recent events, have played a crucial part in the development of the Irish economy and their role remains crucial.\n\nIt behoves Members of this House to remember that in bringing to light unacceptable business practices, care should be taken so that allegations made do not inflict heedless damage on the wellbeing of these commercial companies.\n\n Regrettably much of what has been said in recent weeks both in the media and by some Members of this House, could not be said to observe the degree of care to be expected from responsible Members of the Oireachtas. In the headlong rush to smear Fianna Fáil, some are willing to say anything if the desired damge to Fianna Fáil is achieved, regardless of the harm done to the semi-State sector.\n\nIn their verbal outbursts they are like vandals smashing up the national furniture. The suspicion and innuendo has inevitably done damage to the semi-State sector and has damaged public confidence in it. This should not have happened.\n\nThe public interest has to that extent been damaged. The proper expression of concern for what may or may not have happened in these companies, together with the investigation of the events themselves did not require the orgy of innuendo to which we have been treated. Those responsible for this excess have done a grave disservice to the semi-State companies and in turn to the Irish people. They have also, through the blind pursuit of their shallow political objectives, damaged business confidence at a time when a fragile recovery is under way.\n\nWhen the facts and findings are to hand the Government will act resolutely. A responsible opposition would support the Government in whatever measures are needed in the national interest.\n\nWe need entrepreneurs. Enterprising initiative in the semi-State and private sectors is vital to our success in the Single European Market and to our sharing in the opportunities for growth presented by the emergence of the new European democracies. Instead of fighting and arguing we should leave these matters to those investigations and get on with supporting entrepreneurs who go out and win the jobs Deputy O'Shea says we need so much instead of further denigrating the people in the House in relation to  matters which can be investigated in a proper way.\n\nWe must accommodate risk-taking and business acumen while ensuring that procedures, controls and regulations curtail opportunities for fraud, abuse and sharp practice. That will be done. There is no conflict between vigorous and highly competitive national and international dealings and a high standard of business ethics.\n\nThe business sector must also be aware of the need to re-invest its profits in creating the greatest number of new jobs for our citizens. Its contribution is vital to the nation's well-being. Businessmen will serve their country by investing, creating employment and returning their profits to re-investment in productive activities.\n\nThe underlying strategy of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the continuation of the national partnership, is the best means for achieving growth, job creation, increased prosperity and social equity.\n\nConfidence in our economy has been the most significant feature of the Irish economic performance since 1987. The Programme for National Recovery set out the economic strategy which laid the groundwork for that exceptional performance. Look at what has been achieved in those four short years: four years of solid economic growth, exceeding the EC average at 4 per cent per annum. There was no growth between 1983 and 1986; lower rates of interest and inflation maintained at 3 per cent; the debt/GNP Ratio has been reduced from 131 per cent in 1987 to 111 per cent at the end of 1990; Exchequer/borrowing has fallen from 13 per cent of GNP to 2 per cent last year - the lowest for 40 years; our balance of payments deficit of £500 million in 1986 was transformed into a surplus of £700 million in 1990 - that is all about jobs; recognition of Ireland as an attractive investment location; improved real living standards for our workers, and the ending of the spiral of rising prices which made managing a family budget so difficult.\n\nThe Programme for Economic and Social Progress will further consolidate  and build on the advances made since 1987. It was through consensus with the social partners that the programme was born. It was through consensus again with the social partners that the common and conflicting aspirations of all the divergent groups involved were married together in the new programme.\n\nLet there be no mistake about it, it will be through consensus yet again that the present difficulties facing the programme will be overcome. The Taoiseach made that position quite clear at last week's meeting with the social partners.\n\nThe Programme for Economic and Social Progress is the strategy for national progress. Look at what has been achieved for people depending on social welfare and for families at work on low pay. Against a background of difficult financial decisions the consensus approach has succeeded in protecting the living standards of those dependent on social welfare and those at work on low pay, in introducing new schemes to meet emerging needs in society, in expending the social insurance base to spread the cost more equitably, and in improving the delivery of services to our customers. The Government are determined that the least well off in our society will not be left behind. They will be protected and will share in our economic progress.\n\nAll long term payments, for pensioners, lone parents, widows and people who have been unemployed for 15 months or more now reach or exceed the priority rates of payment recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare, which is £54.60 per week in 1991 terms. This Government are committed to the achievement of the priority rate for all recipients by 1993. After that, social welfare rates will continue to be increased as the resources of the economy grow.\n\nThe practical application of the improvements introduced by this Government since 1987 mean that the long term unemployment assistance personal rate has been increased since 1986 by £18.30 or just under 50 per cent. A family with four children on unemployment assistance has received an increase of £38.85 or 40 per cent in the  same period. An old age pensioner couple have received an increase of £18.50 or just over 20 per cent since 1986. The position of families has been improved. Basic rates of payment and child dependant increases have been increased. Child dependant allowances for people on long term payments now continue up to age 21 for school going children. Nobody can dispute the fact that we have raised the standard of living in real terms for everyone who depends on social welfare.\n\nThose at work on low pay have also benefited. Through a combination of the radically improved family income supplement and new family tax exemptions for lower paid workers - measures which cost £16.5 million this year - we have ensured that people are better off at work than on the dole - as much as one third better off. A family at work with four children earning £160 a week now take home £175.20 a week cash - £44.20 a week more than if they were receiving unemployment benefit. The same family were only £22 a week better off in 1987. We have doubled the incentive to work. A family with four children earning £180 a week are £38.05 a week better off than if they were receiving unemployment benefit with pay-related benefit. A young person starting with a job paying £115 a week is still some £36 a week better off than if he or she were on the dole.\n\nThis Government's record in caring for the most vulnerable members of our society is one of unprecedented achievement. We have brought in a new carers allowance which for the first time recognises the essential support for elderly people provided by carers in our society. The new allowance provides carers on low incomes with a secure income support allowance of their own. Since I introduced this scheme it has been extended to carers of people receiving disabled persons maintenance allowance. We intend to go further. I am reviewing the means test which applies to the allowance to see what further improvements can be made.\n\n The lone parents allowance introduced last year brings together all payments for lone parents bringing up children on their own - and provides for the first time a payment for separated spouses bringing up children. Labels such as \"deserted\", \"unmarried mother\", no longer apply - all lone parent families are now treated on the same basis - that of need. The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance this year benefited some 200,000 children. For the third year in a row a Christmas bonus amounting to 70 per cent of normal weekly payments will be paid to 620,000 pensioners, and other people depending on long term social welfare payments and their 360,000 dependants. The bonus under Fine Gael and Labour in 1986 was 65 per cent.\n\nThis Government are proud of their record on pensions. We have introduced the most comprehensive and up-to-date legislation on occupational pension schemes since the foundation of the State. The new Pensions Act which I introduced last year is recognised as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in Europe.\n\nThe new Act provides for protection of pension rights for employees who change or lose jobs; full disclosure of information to members of pension schemes; equal treatment for men and women; and minimum funding standards for schemes. The Pensions Board which I set up earlier this year will oversee the new legislation and ensure full compliance by employers, trustees and pension fund managers. We have provided security and protection for over a half a million workers and their dependants.\n\nThis Government have brought about a major improvement in the way social welfare services are provided throughout the country. The new regional structure which I announced in August will transform our local offices into full service centres for all social welfare services. In these new style centres, pensioners, lone parents, unemployed people and families who are out of work through illness will get all the social welfare services, advice and information they need.\n\n The new local customer oriented service will mean: less frequent \"signing-on\", for people who are unemployed and more flexible methods of payment including payment by post drafts and by books of payable orders which can be cashed at post offices; better services for employers and better management of PRSI to ensure that employers meet their PRSI obligations for their employees and that the taxpayers' money goes only to those for whom it is intended; new supportive relationships with voluntary organisations working in the social services area.\n\nThe eight new regional centres at Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, Longford, Dundalk and Waterford are being given regional managers who will be charged with the responsibility of delivering this new service. This is an historic development for my Department and it is an indication that the Government care for those who depend on them.\n\nThe new structure is essentially about bringing services to people in their locality. This is what they want and we are responding to that need. More and more, local people are tackling the problems in their own communities in an effective way. The community development programme which was introduced last year is proving to be the catalyst for major developments in local communities. There are now 21 projects throughout the country participating in the programme. Each one has a special role in providing social services and tackling unemployment and disadvantage. Ten of these projects have acted as focal points for tackling long term unemployment in the new pilot projects set up under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. These highlight the practical value of the programme.\n\nThis year the Government boosted the budget for the programme from £525,000 to £750,000. This has enabled me to expand the programme to another six areas. Soundly based local initiative is the way forward for communities around the country. The community development programme harnesses the enthusiasm, enterprise and innovation of local  people in dealing with the problems which affect their lives. It gives much needed confidence to communities and gives them the responsibility for shaping their own future. The Government's support for this activity is warmly welcomed at local level.\n\nThis Government's record in the social welfare area is one of unparalleled progress since 1987. Expenditure on our social welfare services is £3 billion a year - a record in the history of the State. New control measures will ensure that the taxpayer's money goes only to those for whom it is intended. Savings from anti-fraud and abuse measures will amount to some £38 million this year. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress will continue that progress by setting the agenda through the nineties. We must not be deflected by recent events, and the hype surrounding them, from our real task of keeping the economy on a sound footing so that investment and job creation are encouraged and fostered.\n\nThe Government have a first-class record in managing our national affairs. It is vital that we continue this work. We will support and encourage business and enterprise, but we will also provide new procedures and controls so that the recent disquieting events will not be repeated. The House can be assured that we will continue to tackle the issues facing the country in a mature and responsible way. I urge the House to support this motion of confidence.","According to all recent opinion polls, two-thirds of the Irish public do not have confidence in this Government. The Government have lost all moral authority to continue in office. Unemployment has risen each month this year in real terms. It is now at its highest level in the history of the State. There has been no response, no new initiatives undertaken by the Government to meet this heightening crisis. The budgetary targets set by the Government in January this year have proved to be fraudulent and false. The borrowing target is now likely to be, for 1991, £760 million, which is £300 million in excess of the target set for the year.\n\nThe Programme for Economic and Social Progress has been proved to have been based on unsound and unreal assumptions. These facts now mean that gardaí, nurses and teachers, who provide invaluable public service, are to be asked yet again to be the sacrificial lambs of Government mismanagement. Similarly health boards, not least of which mine, the South Eastern Health Board, are being asked to cut back £2.5 million between now and the end of the year. This will mean the closure of wards, cutbacks on dental and speech therapist services and not calling people from waiting lists because money has run out due to economic mismanagement. Similarly, public transport had to be increased three times this year, way above the current rate of inflation last month, to pay for the Government's errors due to their cutbacks in the subvention to public transport. Thousands of families awaiting local authority housing are left without  any hope because of the virtual elimination of the Government's public housing programme resulting in almost 30,000 applicants on their lists.\n\nEarly in 1991 we clearly saw that the budgetary exercise was a cosmetic and fraudulent one designed to deceive the public in the run-up to the local elections. The true state of the public finances and of the economy are only now emerging. On top of that has come public disillusionment, disbelief and anger at the daily revelations of the activities of the \"golden circle\" and their special relationship with the Fianna Fáil Party. It is not yet clear whether the different inquiries set up into Telecom Éireann will reveal the mystery financier or the Cypriot company who handled the massive profits on an over-valued site which Telecom Éireann do not really need.\n\nIt has not been determined whether Stock Exchange rules were breached in terms of disclosure by Sugar Company executives at the time of the public flotation of Greencore. It has not been explained why the Minister for Agriculture and Food was not aware of the multi-million pound deals in the 49 per cent sale and resale of Irish Sugar Distributors at a profit of £7 million within one year. It remains to be seen if the exact ownership of Gladebrook, Talmino and other offshore companies will be ever truly established. Some of these matters have not been finally resolved. However, there is inescapable and conclusive evidence already that the Fianna Fáil Government of 1987-89 deliberately or negligently failed in their supervisory role of these semi-State companies of Irish Sugar and Telecom Éireann. At the most benign interpretation, Fianna Fáil are guilty of incompetence and negligence.\n\nThe further revelations about National City Brokers, and the personal relationship and friendship of the Taoiseach and members of that Government with Mr. Dermot Desmond, could lead to a more sinister explanation to the greed culture of what has happened. Fine Gael are appalled at the breach of confidential  financial information from the State-owned Irish Helicopters to Mr. Ciarán Haughey's Celtic Helicopters, their principal rival. This breach of confidentiality by National City Brokers was so unprofessional, so unethical that it is simply not good enough for some junior executive to take responsibility. I was appalled to hear last Sunday of the open and flagrant boasting and bragging by Mr. Dermot Desmond in his letter to the boss of Pernod Ricard in relation to the services provided in the Irish Distillers deal. It is remarkable that Mr. Desmond should seek so openly and brazenly in written form to extort additional fees on the basis of his political friends and his alleged exclusive relationship with them. Moreover, that he would in turn allegedly have to repay to his political friends in some unspecified fashion is both remarkable and shocking. I should like to refer to the Taoiseach's comments in his speech this morning regarding his relationship with Mr. Dermot Desmond. He said:\n\nI had no relationship or association with Dermot Desmond in regard to any other matter in either the area of public administration or the private sector.\n\nHe referred to the Sail Ireland project and the International Financial Services Centre. The Taoiseach's statement is simply untrue. He must have had dealings with Mr. Dermot Desmond to appoint him last year as chairman of Aer Rianta. That is a matter of public record. I will not go into detail about the Angela Phelan and Terry Keane gossip columns which weekly show photographs of Mr. Haughey's family and Mr. Desmond. That is a matter of public record and public titillation. It stretches credibility when the Taoiseach says he had no relationship or association with Mr. Dermot Desmond other than on those two points.\n\nDenials have been made by many people but the public are now immune to such denials and do not accept the credibility of many of the principals involved. No satisfactory explanation has  been given regarding the lack of tendering for the consultancy contracts of some semi-State organisations. I would wish to see a full disclosure of the circumstances and the amounts of money paid by State companies in the context of the Sail Ireland project. Specifically, I seek clarification by the Minister for Energy in relation to the sum of £250,000 paid by the ESB and the approaches made to them to pay this sum when it was known to all and sundry that the Sail Ireland project was a financial disaster. I do not believe the ESB got value for money or any particular benefits from their sponsorship. The question must arise whether representations were made by the Taoiseach in view of his acknowledged support for this project. He said in his speech that he makes no apologies for supporting it fully. We need some clarification of his role in relation to that sponsorship and that payment by a company who are in debt and who have increased their charges to the public.\n\nOne of the most hapless and hopeless figures during the Dáil recess was the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy. This pitiful figure, who was able to moralise about condoms, was not even available for comment through most of the Greencore revelations. Any time he did appear before the public he repeatedly stated that he did \"not know\" of any of these details. The question must be asked, if not, why not? His attack on Mr. Bernard Somers, the accountant, showed that he was both foolish and precipitous in trying to be an over-enthusiastic public watch dog. All of this would be just sad were it not for the fact that Irish agriculture, farmers and the food industry are facing the most devastating future if the Common Agricultural Policy reforms, as proposed by Commissioner MacSharry, go through. We have already seen in the past two years a 30 per cent drop in farm incomes and the sheer depression and anxiety to be faced in rural Ireland if there are further cutbacks will be unbelievable. We must obtain at European level a special understanding and derogation in view of our unique dependence on the food  industry. We must be allowed a period of at least six years to phase in these cutbacks in EC supports through the CAP. It is clear that Irish farmers have no confidence in the ability of the Minister for Agriculture and Food to protect Irish interests. Only last week we saw his total lack of action when decisions were taken to legalise the importation of beef from Eastern Europe, which will depress further the Irish beef sector.\n\nUndoubtedly serious international damage has been done to the reputation of this country and its ethical standards in business and politics. It is vital that the Government take immediate steps to act to restore the good name of Irish business and Irish politicians. Fine Gael demand the immediate establishment of a serious fraud office, not under the Attorney General, as the Taoiseach has proposed, which would entail quasi-political control, but under the Garda Commissioner, who has seen his fraud squad seriously under-resourced.\n\nIt is also a matter of extreme urgency that our political system is seen to be transparent in terms of the links between political parties and the business community. Such transparency can only be brought about by a declaration of interests of politicians which should be made to a Parliamentary Ethics Commission. This should be made up of the Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General and a High Court judge. There should be a change in the funding of political parties, with a maximum limit on the level of expenditure by political parties in an election, a limit on the contributions that can be made by business or private individuals, and full disclosure. The State should fund the activities at national level of political parties and provide finance for general election campaigns at a limited level. I believe £1 per person, per year, about £3.5 million, would be the amount of money it would take to clean up our political system, coupled with maximum limits on expenditure. It is wrong to have political parties dependent on voluntary contributions  and vulnerable politicians susceptible to the possibility of corruption.\n\nIt is also vital that we have more accountability by the Government to the Dáil. It has been shown that our procedures for scrutinising legislation and financial affairs do not work. The fact that over £6 billion of expenditure was rushed through the Dáil in a couple of days is simply unacceptable. Increasingly we see on Wednesdays in this House guillotine motions introduced to rush through ten, 20 or 30 sections in a period of three hours. Many Opposition amendments are never reached. The cosy secrecy between the Government and the Civil Service, in which public services are provided, is not good enough any longer. Fine Gael, therefore, propose the establishment of three strong committees dealing with economic affairs, social affairs and general affairs to deal with the broad range of these vital Government services.\n\nIt is inexplicable that there is still no foreign affairs committee, especially when we saw throughout this over-lengthy Dáil recess so many international developments taking place without comment by the Oireachtas. On top of these reforms there is the immediate requirement for a freedom of information Act which would open up Government to proper scrutiny and accountability. We need a Government system that reveals more than it conceals.\n\nIt would be wrong to think that all the blame for the present difficulties can be laid at the door of the Taoiseach. It is a fact that disunity between Government parties has developed over the summer and that there is deep mistrust within the Cabinet. This has worsened due to the naked leadership contest that is taking place between Cabinet colleagues within Fianna Fáil, given the inevitable demise of Deputy Haughey as leader.\n\nWe are not satisfied with the explanations given so far by the Minister for Education why she paid £1.5 million more for Carysfort College than she could have bought it for some months earlier. The Minister for Labour has to explain his role in enticing the social partners, and particularly the trade union  movement, into believing that pay increases could be paid as laid out in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which were known to be unsoundly based and were known at the time to be unreal by any independent analysis.\n\nThe Minister for Finance has not only made a total mess of this year's financial management of the country but also faces serious questions which will be resolved in the context of the Goodman inquiry into his role as Minister for Industry and Commerce in the issuing of export credit insurance to that organisation. He has not explained, in the context of Mr. Dermot Desmond's letter to Pernod Ricard, his role in the monopolies and mergers legislation at the time of the Irish Distillers takeover that Mr. Desmond said was so favourable to the French drinks company. It is also obvious that his corrective action in the Dáil recess to rectify the budgetary disarray of this year will, in fact, not save £100 million, but rather £30 million. He seems so preoccupied with cultivating backbenchers and developing his leadership ambitions that he is doing an exceedingly weak job in his present Ministry.\n\nThe Progressive Democrats are showing this week that they have lost all political nerve and credibility. It is undoubtedly the case that in opposition they would be leading the charge with calls for \"high standards in high places\". This does not even figure on their agenda of discussions in terms of the future life of this Government. I understand the final act of this charade will be concluded tomorrow in relation to an agreement on the remaining life of this dying Government. The real story of this week is that the Progressive Democrats have been blinded to the reality of the current scandals.\n\nIt is impossible to escape the principle of collective responsibility by all members of this Government and a change of leadership in Fianna Fáil will not reduce the lack of confidence of Fine Gael in this Government. Fine Gael believe that this Government should be replaced by a Fine Gael led Government.\n\n Our priorities are the development of an enterprise society in a developing Europe. We want quality public services within a liberal and tolerant society with a pluralist ethos. We want to shift the tax burden away from employment to reduce the cost of creating a job. We want to set up a national jobs forum with the political and social partners to provide long term planning and solutions to our employment requirements.\n\nWe believe the productive capacity of the economy can be improved and made more competitive by an integrated transport policy. I quote the Tánaiste's own area of responsibility in relation to ports. Virtually 100 per cent of everything that is imported and exported in relation to our manufacturing industry comes through our ports, yet they operate outdated legislation passed in 1946. They require the Minister's approval fo everything, from selling property to commissioning a loan to superannuation. There is the most deep rooted bureaucracy as well as totally outdated industrial relations practices. This is, in effect, a tax on everything that moves in and out of this country.\n\nAs an island economy there is no more critical factor in developing the productive side of the economy than having a dynamic new structure for the ownership and deregulation of our ports. We need to implement the investment programme to ensure that our roads are brought up to a European standard and we have seen that the proposals of the Minister for the Environment as announced on 6 March this year, modest and all as they were, will not now be implemented in relation to new starts on national primary roads at a time when our transport costs are twice the European average. If we are to overcome our peripherality we must get an integrated transport plan together. Let us not be so taken up with our island status that we believe we cannot achieve success in relation to this. When we look at Japan and New Zealand and their real peripherality on the other side of the southern hemisphere we see that we are not truly peripheral and that if we take the correct decisions we can grow and  expand. The present lack of commitment on the part of the Minister for the Environment in meeting his own modest proposals earlier this year in terms of a national major roads development has been simply appalling.\n\nIn terms of the tax code we need a new starting rate of tax of 15 per cent for low paid workers. It is wrong that our lowest rate of tax is so high. We need to have an intermediate rate that low paid workers can lock on to.\n\nWe need to restore the incentive for work by reintroducing some tax-free allowance for children because under our social welfare system, the more child dependants they have the more people are paid. Under our present income tax system one gets the same tax-free allowance irrespective of whether one has no children or ten children. The reality is that there is no incentive for people with large families to go to work. We need to change our industrial policy by switching IDA capital grants, which are not linked to job creation, to tax credits on actual jobs created.\n\nWe need to extend our training and education programme to improve the skill levels of potential employees. We need to extend the scope of the social employment scheme for the long term unemployed so that more people on the live register can find gainful employment opportunities. We need retraining vouchers for people who are made redundant at an older age. Most of all, we need sectoral development that will create jobs.\n\nIn the food sector Fine Gael believe that grant aid should be geared to proposals which only have a detailed marketing strategy. For each food product there should be an Irish food quality mark for the health conscious European consumer. Financial support should be available to producer goods to provide guarantees of quality and continuity of supply. We need to enact a new food safety Act to raise standards. There is huge potential to assist the level of timber imports into Ireland by the substitution of Irish timber products. Fine Gael believe  that instead of setting up tax avoidance attractions in the form of the Financial Services Centre which will not actually create more jobs but will rather switch white collar employment from one side of town to the other, we should be establishing an international telecommunications service centre to attract specialist telecommunications based industries to Ireland in the areas of telephone sales organisations, information trading companies and value added network services. These are real employment opportunities unlike the German brass plate companies which have been attracted to the Financial Services Centre and whose employment content is only cosmetic. It is vital that, in all these areas of economic activity and job creation, Fine Gael restore some level of hope that there will be a dynamic economic future for this country.\n\nThe most damning indictment of this Government was the horrendous queue of young people to post applications at the GPO in the recent postal dispute for the 16,000 Morrison visas for people to get out of this country. Young people have lost all faith in the present Government. It is obvious, given the events of recent weeks and the parliamentary meetings of recent weeks, that many Fianna Fáil backbenchers if offered a free vote in this debate would not have confidence in this Taoiseach. Recent statements by Fianna Fáil backbenchers have clearly demonstrated their lack of confidence in their party leadership. At this time of huge international change, the dismantling of Communism, the opening up of Eastern Europe and the abolition of apartheid, we should be preparing for the vital changes that are necessary for the Single European Market. Instead we are beset with scandals, demoralised through financial mismanagment, facing cutbacks in essential services of education, health and housing and on top of this, we have a flurry of industrial disputes due to the Government reneging on pay commitments which they freely entered into only a few months ago.\n\nI will finish with the obvious conclusion that with over 20 per cent unemployed  and with more than 160,000 people emigrating in recent years this Government depend on the economies of America and Britain to resolve their failures in the employment arena. This Government have lost their moral authority to govern and should allow the public to decide whether it wants them to continue in office. Fine Gael are determined that the golden circle of which we have had glimpses in recent months will not only be fully exposed but disbanded."]