Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

In light of the Tánaiste's prognostication, I was concerned by the iniquitous and awful proceedings I would find in the club, but to my great surprise, I found a well run establishment in which ordinary, decent people seemed to be having ordinary, decent fun. There was no drink and anyone who had notions of lap dancers or the like would have been disappointed. The people were not in the process of exposing themselves to significant losses of funds. On the other side of the coin, 800 people work in these casino clubs where thousands of people find enjoyment, but the Tánaiste did not seem to care a jot that his threat to close them would put those people out of work and on the dole.

In light of the Tánaiste's reputation on other issues, we should not have been concerned. He backed off as soon as public pressure emerged, sensible people started raising sensible points and a number of investors with a Fianna Fáil orientation brought the matter to the attention of their representatives. It was another U-turn. We saw the old characteristic in that the rottweiler of serious intent turned out to be the poodle of U-turns. This is not surprising as it is the Tánaiste's regular routine. For example, this week in the Dáil saw a rottweiler standing guard over the sleaze in Fianna Fáil turn out to be a poodle accepting the outcome.

This is a regular occurrence as far as the Tánaiste is concerned, which was highlighted in an excellent article by Fionnan Sheahan of the Irish Independent, who went to the trouble of rooting up some of the Tánaiste's more interesting U-turns. The article referred to the casino club U-turn and the current controversy, but it also referred to the Tánaiste's conduct in respect of the leadership of his party. The article mentions that at the time of the Supreme Court decision on the child sex issue, the Tánaiste, who saw no need to pass emergency legislation because there was no gaping black hole, put a Bill through the House in seven days with the co-operation of the Opposition. He needed to withdraw his outrageous and infamous remarks about my friend and colleague, Deputy Bruton, who he compared to the Nazi, Joseph Goebbels. He did something similar in the case of his constituency colleague, Deputy Gormley. The list goes on. I will not bother to refer to café bars and other such matters.

See this speech in context