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.
The 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 [844] 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.
On 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.
The 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.
I 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.
That warning I gave in July of 1989 - and I have repeated it in this House a number of times - has obviously fallen [845] 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.
That 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.
Side 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.
The 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 [846] 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.
Let 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 Fil are doing no more than putting on the Progressive Democrats' ideological clothes.
The 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:
When 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, [847] 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.
Those 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....
A 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,... [848] 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.
He concluded by saying:
The 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.
That 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?
It 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. [849] 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.
How 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.
Of 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.
I 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--

However, 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 Dil over the next few months.
When 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.
[851] 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.
I 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 garda 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?
I 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?
Maybe 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 Toms Mac Giolla, and others, that they maligned in this House when they rightly raised matters of criminal activity in the beef sector.
I 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.
It 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, [853] 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 Sen Power when he attempted to give some of his observations to the Taoiseach at a private meeting.
We 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.
That 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.
Mr. "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 [854] no money for building houses, we have hardly money for buying educational facilities. In normal commercial circumstances Mr. Harris should have taken a bath.
Not 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.
Mr. 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 Fil 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 Fil friend. If there was no other reason for refusing to vote confidence in this Government tomorrow, the Carysfort deal alone would constitute adequate grounds.
We 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 [855] 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.
Were they afraid - they were - of the people of Ireland knowing the following:
Details 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.
Or 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-
[856] were brought in as ordinary shareholders for a total of 1m. Using their presence and high net worth,
- a lovely expression -
a 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.
Or were they afraid that it would be revealed that:
the 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.
The article went on to state:
UPH 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.
In 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.
I cannot understand why we fail to get investors into this country.
The article further revealed that:
[857] 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.
This 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.
In 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.
One 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 [858] 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.
The 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.
The 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.
We 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.
That 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 [859] Irish Times in relation to an innocuous article on the Carysfort scandal.
We 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.
The 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 Fil and The Progressive Democrats. One now certainly gets the distinct impression that every Member of the Fianna Fil 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.
It is verging on the theatre of the absurd for Fianna Fil 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 [860] 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.
A Deputy A Deputy 
Mr. 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 [861] 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?
Let 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.
The 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.
[862] 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.
The 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.
These 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.
[863] 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.

