asked the President if, in relation to the falsehood about Deputy Mulcahy given publicity by the President in the Dáil on 28th September last as a reason for bringing the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act into operation, he will state (a) the date on which the information upon which this falsehood was based was received by him; (b) whether that information was communicated by direct personal approach to the President or by letter or through any intermediary; (c) the name of the person alleged to have supplied the information to the President; his address; age; nationality; profession, trade or occupation; associates; means of knowledge of the matters alleged; his general repute in respect of reliability, accuracy, veracity and his touch with or knowledge of events in the Saorstát in recent years; (d) whether all or, if any, which of these details were known to the President when this person's approaches were first made; (e) whether any and, if so, what investigations were made in respect of whichever of these details were originally unknown to the President.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Statement Concerning a Deputy.
I have nothing to add to the statement on this matter which I made to the Dáil on October 4th.
Is the President aware that the only statement made in this matter was that he did not propose to hold an inquiry? I am not now asking anything with regard to whether the person who is alleged to be responsible for a certain falsehood will come forward to give evidence or not, but I am inquiring as to what have been the President's activities in this matter. Does the President realise the difference? Further, does the President now think that it would have been wiser to be discreet before he gave publication to the false information than to be discreet now?