Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There may be good reasons the Government did not go for the backstop and I would be interesting in hearing them - the real reasons. However, it seems wrong that what happened was that a decision was made by the Government and after that decision was made, with a big fanfare the Taoiseach came into the House to make a five minute speech in which he stated the Government had made a decision not to put a backstop in place. He gave no explanation of the rationale behind that decision or what a backstop would have involved in terms of conditions. If the Dáil was working properly, if it was working like the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine under the stewardship of Deputy Andrew Doyle, a marvellous Chairman, where issues of contention are thrashed out and all of the details and choices are put on the table in an open way, we could have arrived at a consensus in this case. In other words, the Dáil has been presented with a fait accompli. It is obvious the choices for the Government were not that black and white. If they were, why did it not make a decision on the issue at the regular Cabinet meeting that took place last Tuesday week? If they were that simple, why was the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine called out from the Dáil at Question Time - something I had never seen happen before - to rush over to Government Buildings to take part in the Government's decision, particularly if it was to rubber stamp a decision that was so self-evident that it did not need debate? I cannot understand why the Minister had to leave in the middle of Question Time. I have no doubt that the truth will emerge in time and that it is that this was a decision, like most decisions in life, with many pros and cons. I believe that after careful consideration, including of information received up to the last minute, the Government decided on balance that the price of the backstop would have been too great and that it was better to go it alone.

Let us look at the issue with some common sense. Let us suppose we could have obtained a backstop with no new conditions attached and that it would have been underwritten, it is evident we would have been fools not to take that precautionary line of credit. I would accept the Government's response if I knew what the conditions were, but the Taoiseach did not tell us what they were. If the backstop would have involved an enormous price, in terms of money or conditions or somebody trying to tamper with our independent decision making on the issue of corporation tax, the price might have been too high to pay and it would have been right to say "No".

The day he became Taoiseach Deputy Enda Kenny spoke about a democratic revolution. He spoke about doing things a new way and involving the Legislature in the passing of legislation. Unfortunately, we are not involved enough in that process, apart from a few areas. Again, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is an exception in that regard. I have my arguments with him, but when it comes to dealing with legislation, he does so in a model way, involving the Opposition and accepting valid arguments made. I cannot understand how, when this decision was being made, the Government did not seek to put all of the options and details before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and how it did not seek to involve it in the decision making, while keeping to itself the ultimate right to make the decision. I cannot understand how it did not seek the committee's view on what should be done. I do not understand how it is so hard to involve wider groups in what is going on, although there is always a reluctance on the part of the permanent government to do so. I know from experience that at times the permanent government is not over keen on telling Ministers the full extent of what is going on.

See this speech in context