Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

I read with interest Deputy Sargent's article on what he proposes to do after the next general election. It was a dance of the seven veils in which he courted the different types of coalition before deciding which way he would go. I loved his choice of words. He said it would be very difficult for the Green Party to go into Government with Fianna Fáil. If we were to say that it would be very difficult to go into Government with Sinn Féin, we would be pilloried and rightly so. The Deputy then beautifully rolled out of the situation and said that it would be up to the membership of the organisation to decide what the party would do. That is great leadership on the part of Deputy Sargent. The Green Party has only recently come to grips with the concept of leadership, so it is not at all surprising that he would distance himself from that decision. It makes one wonder what he and his party are thinking.

Deputy Sargent stated that he is inclined to prefer a Fine Gael led Government to a Fianna Fáil one on the basis that there is a need for a change of Government. That is arguable and I would not agree with it. He stated that there is a tradition of corruption within Fianna Fáil. Garret FitzGerald has said that since the 1960s, less than 1% of national politicians were corrupt. Mr. FitzGerald is respected on both sides of the House and if his assessment is correct, then it rubbishes what Deputy Sargent suggested in his article. In the mid-1990s, John Bruton called in his city councillors to tell them that they were a laughing stock because of what they were doing regarding rezoning. I do not condone what happened among Fianna Fáil councillors, but why do Green Party members think that Fianna Fáil is so much worse when they consider the facts that have emerged from the tribunal? It is the typical attitude of a party that is not prepared to lead. It is an example of the cloudy thinking that has deflected attention from the serious issues that have been raised in this debate.

This debate is about corruption, which is the use of a public position for private gain. If a politician decided to agree with the residents' association in the hope that they might all vote for him, would that constitute selling a public role for private gain, that is, for electoral dividend?

See this speech in context