asked the Minister for Defence if he will state whether invitations to the Official Commemoration of the 1916 Leaders on the 2nd May last were withheld from a number of persons who in previous years received such invitations; and, if so, what reasons or principles underlay such differentiation; also if he will state the number of persons given invitations in previous years who were not sent invitations this year; the names of those from whom invitations were thus withheld who took part in the 1916 Rising; and on whose instructions invitations were withheld.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Invitations to 1916 Commemoration.
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
There was no good reason why some of those on the original list should have been included. Two hundred and forty-one persons who were invited in former years were not included in this year's list; it is not known how many of them took part in the 1916 Rising. Neither is it known how many persons who took part in the 1916 Rising were excluded from the list in previous years. The invitation list was revised this year on my instructions in order that accommodation might be provided for the relatives of those who were killed or executed from 1916 to 1923. The work of perfecting the list for future use is at present in hands. It is hoped to make it really representative of those who took part, and of the relatives of those who were killed, in the National struggle. Suggestions as to names of such persons for inclusion in the present list will receive favourable consideration as far as accommodation permits.
Can the Minister state what good reasons there were for excluding Mr. Michael Hayes an ex-Ceann Comhairle of this Dáil and who was also a 1916 man?
Is it contemplated to include in the list that the Minister is having prepared the relatives of the 400 dead soldiers that lie around Michael Collins' remains in Glasnevin?
Is the Minister aware that in every case put before him for relatives and friends of the men of 1916 facilities were given to attend?
Deputy Mulcahy will have to bear in mind that it is we who are preparing this list and who had the compilation of this year's list. In other years the compilation of the list was in other hands and during those years people known to be in the 1916 movement were definitely excluded. We are preparing this list now and we will consider suggestions, no matter from what side of the House they may come. If names are put forward they will be considered.
I quite appreciate the Minister's desire to have all the Irish people represented at these official celebrations, and I am not suggesting exclusion of any kind. My question is why persons living in the public life of Dublin and many of them who took part in the 1916 Rising were deliberately excluded from the list. And when some of them asked why they did not get their invitation they were still excluded all the same. I am only directing the Minister's attention to that fact.
People who fought in 1916 were deliberately excluded in the past. We have the compilation of this list now and anyone who wants to get on the list will have to satisfy us as to his claim.
I can assure this House that no person who was known to be out in 1916, was excluded in the previous list. I again ask why persons who are prominent in Dublin and who are known to have taken part in the 1916 Rising were taken off that list.
I informed the Deputy that 241 persons invited in former years, were not included in this list. The reason was that we wanted to make room for the relatives of those who were killed or executed in 1916 and 1922. If there are any people, who owing to their connection with 1916, 1919, 1921 or 1922 or 1923, that should be invited, and think they have a right to be invited, I shall have their names considered, and if it is possible to accommodate them accommodation will be provided.
It is not a question of some claims against other claims. I ask expressly why a former Ceann Comhairle in this House, who was a 1916 man, was taken off the list. I did not mention others though others could be mentioned.
In regard to names, if I was considering the claim of the former Ceann Comhairle against the names of the relatives of some of the men killed or executed, the former Ceann Comhairle would not be accommodated if some of the relatives of these men could not find accommodation. All these things will be taken into consideration and the final decision rests with us.
I have no desire to interfere with the final decision. I would ask the Minister if he is making this a matter of claim and counterclaim at an official commemoration? Would he publish a list of the 241 persons who replaced the 241 persons who were taken on?