On a point of order and explanation in reference to a matter which is reported in the Parliamentary Debates of 31st March, last Thursday, in columns 2053 and 2054. Deputy MacEntee asked a question with regard to the loan subscriptions referring me to the terms of the reply which I made to him on March 23rd, and which was alleged by him to be in the terms that the amount of the loan allocated for public subscription was limited to £8,000,000. I denied the accuracy of that. The Deputy's last comment in a supplementary question was: "I think the Minister had better read what he said before he corrected it." The obvious insinuation was that I had used another phrase and had got it corrected in the Official Report. I deny that any such remark was made. I have had the matter investigated and I understand that you, Sir, have had it investigated by the official reporters. There is no truth whatever in what the Deputy has insinuated.
Minister's Statement.
In reply, all I have to say is—I am sorry, Sir. I should like to hear what you have to say in reply to the Minister.
I have nothing to say, except that I saw the report of what was said. I do not see that there is any need for further discussion.
There is.
That is for me to say. If the Deputy has a question to ask I shall hear him.
In reply to the Minister, all I have to say is that I took his remarks as reported in the Official Report. Naturally, I had to abbreviate them somewhat.
The Deputy said that I had corrected the report.
No. I said "before he corrects it".
That is untrue, and I want to brand it as an untruth.
The Deputy says he did not mean any such thing.
The report did not require any correction to bring out what I said.
The Deputy said: "I think the Minister had better read what he said before he corrected it". There is no mistake as to what that meant. That is untrue and I want to have it marked as such.
A private Deputy has not the resources of a Minister spending time in trying to correct replies to supplementary questions asked.
I do not know whether the Deputy is insinuating that the Chair did not see the script. The Chair did, and that is all.
I want to say this, that I did not say "corrected it." I said "corrects it."
Very good.
Here, in a text before me, it is "corrected it."
Then it is a storm in a teacup.
Except that the Deputy ought to correct that.