Charles J. Haughey casts a long and dark shadow over Irish political life. It is nearly 20 years since Charles Haughey became Taoiseach, seven since he left public life, but our political system is still struggling to come to terms with his legacy. In this debate this evening we are addressing ourselves to one aspect of that legacy.
Charles Haughey took over the leadership of Fianna Fail in 1979. He immediately set about stamping his particular style of leadership on that party and on the country; both suffered as a result. Life in Fianna Fail under Haughey was not exactly pleasant. If you disagreed with the leader's views you could be intimidated, threatened - even assaulted within the precincts of this House by his more thuggish supporters.
Haughey sought to establish a close identification between the party and his own personality. At times even the nation, the party and himself became confused with one another in his own mind.
His leadership was based on a type of unquestioning personal loyalty, demeaning to those who offered it, shallow to him who received it. Debate and discussion were discouraged. Dissenting views were silenced. We were into the era of uno duce, una voce.
Charles Haughey created a new climate within Fianna Fail, one very different to that which prevailed under his predecessors, Lynch, Lemass and de Valera. He created a climate of fear, a climate of greed, a climate of secrecy and conspiracy.
The damage which Haughey was doing to the party and the country was becoming increasingly apparent as the years went by. Many of us fought it. I was thrown out. Others left - Bobby Molloy among them.
Among those who left was also someone from the next political generation to us - the present Tanaiste, Mary Harney. As a young person she had the courage and the guts to stand up to Haughey, qualities which were sadly lacking in many of her more senior colleagues. Having said that, I am sure that if what is known now was known then, there would have been many more who would have left with us.
But there were many who didn't leave, many who felt totally comfortable in the kind of party which Charles Haughey had created. Among those was Mr Padraig Flynn. It might not be widely appreciated, but Mr Flynn and myself have something in common - we have both been dumped upon from a height by Fianna Fail.
It happened to me 15 years ago. In 1984, I was expelled from the parliamentary party for my heretical views on Northern Ireland. The following year I was expelled from the party itself for my even more heretical views as an Independent on the subject of family planning.
On that occasion, Padraig Flynn was one of those doing the dumping. From the steps of party headquarters in Upper Mount Street he addressed the nation through an RTE camera and pronounced that my conduct was "unbecoming a member of Fianna Fail."
Now it is Mr Flynn's turn to be dumped upon. It seems as if quite a few of his party colleagues up and down the country are baying for his blood. Apparently they regard his failure to explain what exactly happened between Mr Tom Gilmartin and himself as "conduct unbecoming".
At this stage we don't know what exactly happened nearly 10 years ago. The only version of events put forward so far, however, presents a pretty appalling vista of the workings of government in this country in the late 1980s.
Imagine a Minister for the Environment in an Irish government sitting in his office in the Custom House. Imagine a leading property developer coming to visit him.
Imagine the property developer handing him a cheque for £50,000. Imagine the Minister telling him to leave the payee line blank. That could indeed be conduct unbecoming, could it not?
Did such an event actually occur back in 1989? Mr Tom Gilmartin says it did; Mr Padraig Flynn is saying nothing. As I have said, I don't know what happened but, like everyone else in this country, I'd like to know. And that, in essence, is what this motion and these amendments are about here tonight.
The parliament of this country, elected by and representing the people of this country, is making a very simple and straightforward request to Mr Flynn: make a clear statement and tell us what did happen or did not happen back in 1989.
Did you get £50,000 from Tom Gilmartin? Did you give the money to Fianna Fail or did you pocket it yourself? Did you do anything for Mr Gilmartin in return for his largesse? Did you pass on any of this money, either directly or indirectly, to Charles Haughey?
Mr Flynn should clarify, also, whether or not he made contact with Mr Gilmartin last year, and whether or not he tried to influence Mr Gilmartin's evidence to the Planning Tribunal.
Attempting to get a witness to change his testimony before a tribunal of inquiry established by vote of this House would be a very serious matter indeed. Anybody attempting that would render himself automatically unfit for the position of town commissioner, let alone European commissioner.
The questions being posed for Mr Flynn are not complicated: they are simple, straightforward and easy to answer. And yet he declines to do so. He informs us that he will say his piece to the Planning Tribunal.
Is he hoping that he will have been able to complete his term in Brussels before he is called to give evidence in Dublin Castle? Why else would he refuse to explain himself? What does he have to fear from telling the truth?
Mr Flynn is a public servant, working for the people of Europe and the people of Ireland. The people of Ireland - Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Opposition and national media - have asked Mr Flynn to account for himself and to do so now. If he has any respect for the position he occupies he should do so immediately. With the benefit of hindsight I can now see more clearly than before why certain leading figures in Fianna Fail - Mr Flynn being notable among them - were so opposed to the notion of coalition with the Progressive Democrats back in 1989. Could it be that they were afraid we would cramp their style of doing business, I wonder?
The next few months could be crucial in the political life of this country.
We, as a nation, will be asked serious questions as to what kind of society we want, what kind of values we want, what kind of country we want.
There may be more revelations - by tribunals, by inquiries, by the media - of wrongdoing at the highest levels of Irish society. If there are, they may be shocking and disturbing to most members of the voting public.
For example, today's newspapers report a tribunal yesterday as having discovered that one of the providers of money (£100,000) to a Haughey family company was Mr Michael Murphy who has been a close associate of, and long-time insurance broker to, Mr Larry Goodman. He helped to negotiate Mr Goodman's earliest export credit insurance cover for Iraq. He was also insurance broker to the Department of Agriculture until they sued him last December in respect of the huge losses they sustained in a major fire at a beef intervention store in Ballaghaderreen, in 1992.
Politicians will have a clear choice in how they respond to any such revelations. They can choose to respond with courage, integrity and determination to eradicate the cancer of corruption that has poisoned the political and commercial affairs of this country in recent years.
Or they may choose to shirk their responsibility. They may choose to act the "cute hoor" yet again. They may choose to turn a blind eye, look the other way and indicate their tacit toleration and acceptance of a culture of crookedness and corruption.
The people of this country will then have a choice.
We may have no general election for two or three years, but events may dictate otherwise. Whenever the next election is held, the question of standards in public life is likely to be one of the main items on the political agenda - if not the main item.
What kind of standards do people want? What kind of parties do they want? What kind of politicians do they want?
Will they believe those who say that all these tribunals are only barrister-fattening exercises, a waste of time and money, and that we don't want to be digging into all that class of thing anyway? Would they vote for the brown-envelope brigade if those gentlemen presented themselves for election again?
Or are they prepared to make a genuine break with the past and embrace a new political order, one that gives precedence to decency over expediency, to honesty over dishonesty, to the public interest over the vested interest?
This government has been surprisingly successful. It has made enormous progress in creating jobs, reducing unemployment, improving the lot of pensioners. The recent budget, for example, was a radical and reforming initiative by any standards. I take my hat off to Mary Harney for succeeding where others failed and bringing in tax credits.
It is a successful government and we in the Progressive Democrats would like to see it continue in office. But it can continue in office only while there is trust and confidence between the two coalition partners.
The position of the Progressive Democrats is straightforward. We do not expect people in public life to be saints or paragons of virtue. All we ask is that those in public life, and especially those in high political office, abide by normal and reasonable standards of honesty and decency in dealing with affairs of state.
If we are to be criticised for holding that position, then this democracy is in more trouble than any of us realise.
It is a well-worn cliche to say that politics is on trial in this country. But that cliche has never been truer than it is now. The public are interested to see revealed what the politicians of the 1980s got up to. But they are also interested to see how those revelations will be dealt with by the politicians of the 1990s.
All of us in this House can help to restore public confidence in the Irish political system, or we can abandon our responsibility. If we abandon our responsibility to deal decisively with sleaze and corruption, we run the risk of abandoning democracy itself.
There is a political movement out there now, watching current developments very closely. That movement has recently put itself forward as the real anti-sleaze party in Irish politics. I refer to the so-called republican movement, the people who murdered Jerry McCabe.
Increasingly, public cynicism about politics is creating political space which these people are glad to occupy. The last time I made a speech in this House about my vision of a republic, I got into a lot of trouble over it. Let me say this: my idea of a republic is very different to that of those who go around murdering guards.
We have a chance to restore the public's faith in politics over the next few months. We have an opportunity to show that this Republic is run by decent people according to decent standards. Let's embrace that opportunity.
