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 Dil 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 [944] on the high moral ground. The one-man government-in-exile down in the Four Courts has been notably silent on this issue.
I quote from the reply given to me by the Minister for Education in the Dil on February 13 last:
Any 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.
The Coalition Government was informed by the Minister for Education at all stages. The Progressive Democrats knew and they must, therefore, share the responsibility.
Was 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 Dil on the issue on 18 December 1990 when I challenged her in relation to the supplementary estimate.
I quote the Minister from the Dil record:
I had four separate meetings with the College authorities with regard to the proposal they put to me for the purchase of Carysfort.
It 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:
The Minister indicated that positive consideration would be given to a proposal from UCD to purchase Carysfort for its graduate business school.
[945] The 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.
The 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.
This brings me to the term "forced-fed" which I used in the Dil 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.
With 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 [946] for giving it to us but you can't blame us for taking it."
I 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.
This 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:
I 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.
How 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?
The property was purchased in July 1990 by the company of a well-known Fianna Fil 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 [947] 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.
Very 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?
The 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 Fil 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 Fil, clearly with the assistance of the Progressive Democrats, have looked [948] after one of their own and grossly misused nearly 10 million of taxpayers' money in the process.
The 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.
There 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 [949] 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.
The 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.
The 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.
Unemployment 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 [950] 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.
If 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.

The Carysfort issue relates to collective Government responsibility, misleading this House and the adoption of a role by the Taoiseach [951] 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 Fil have done a grave injustice and disservice to democratic Government in this country.


