Vol. 53 No. 6
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £16,500 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íochta an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1935, chun Seirbhise Sicréidighe.
That a sum not exceeding £16,500 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Secret Service.
Would the Minister say what is the necessity for this big amount to be voted for the secret service? As has already been pointed out, the actual expenditure on secret service over a number of years has hardly been more than £2,000 a year. The House is now asked to vote a sum of £25,000. Would the Minister say how much of that money has been spent out of the Vote up to date? This Vote is an index of the whole line of policy that is being pursued by the present Administration. They have created such a state of affairs in the country that they are forced to organise a new kind of secret service, to extend its ramifications in the form of spying into all kinds of organisations and in all kinds of directions.
They have not succeeded in establishing a secret society in the Army.
I would like to know how much of the £25,000 is being spent in the Army and how much of it is being spent in the police force. If the Deputy is able to assist the House in that he will be doing a valuable service.
May I point out that the terms of the Vote expressly forbid that information.
Then the Minister ought to put his back-benchers right. At any rate, I would like to know how much of it has been spent up to date.
The back-bencher referred to the organisation of a secret society within the Army, and I think the Deputy is familiar with that incident.
And the Minister as a student of history is also familiar with it. The Minister for Justice is brazen enough about this on occasions. He was telling about one particular organisation in the country, and on last Sunday or the Sunday before he said that there was not a thing that happened in the organisation that he did not know inside 24 hours; that, of course, he was not taking action on everything he heard, but that he had his finger well on the spot. The Minister and the Government are anxious to develop spying, as it were, in every direction, and they are prepared to leave nothing undone to develop that particular type of thing in the country. I am sure that they are not getting much value for their money, but I think it is a terrible reflection on the type of Administration that is being carried on at the present moment when we have to have this particular type of Vote.
I have here a sworn statement by Mr. Albert Loughlin to this effect:
"In the month of February, 1934, I was employed by the Irish Press newspaper as a canvasser in the advertisement department, the manager of which was Mr. Erskine Childers. Towards the end of the same month Mr. Childers sent for me and informed me——”
What is the purpose of this statement?
The Minister will understand it all if he listens.
It seems to me that the Deputy is taking advantage of the privileges of the House to make a charge against some person. He has referred to two people. I think the Deputy should not mention the name of a person who is not a member of this House without, first of all, disclosing to the Chair the document he proposes to read and ascertaining from the Chair whether it would be in order to read such a document to the House.
I do not know that the Chair would undertake such a task as that. I do not know exactly what is the relevance of this document at all and I cannot at the moment—the Deputy has not read much of the statement—say whether the matter is relevant or irrelevant.
You may be quite certain, Sir, that the Deputy would not read in this House any document which he thought would be innocuous either to the Irish Press or to the gentleman whose father he sent to his death.
I cannot go on any assumption of that kind.
The point I am making in reading this document——
You should let Erskine Childers and his name rest now.
——is that there is sworn evidence here of the fact that if a particular person who makes a statement can provide information that the Blueshirt organisation is an armed organisation, he will be introduced to Mr. Ruttledge or to Colonel Broy. The second paragraph of this statement——
Do you not see, Sir, the purpose of that statement? If that statement were true—and I am perfectly certain it is false, because we know the type of people who were employed by the Deputies when they were in office——
Is this a point of order? It is a criticism of the previous Government when it was in office.
It is not a point of order at all. What I should like to ask Deputy Mulcahy is whether any charges with reference to employment by anybody mentioned in that document come out of this Vote?
I am charging the Ministry that, through particular channels of their own, they are asking people——
I think your question, Sir, must, first of all, be answered. The Deputy should prove that this document has its origin either in a promise to pay money out of this Vote or in advances made by a person who is in receipt of a payment under it.
Might I point out, Sir, that you asked a question of Deputy Mulcahy and he was answering you. Half-way through the answer the Minister interrupted.
I am waiting for Deputy Mulcahy.
Is Deputy O'Sullivan in the Chair?
I waited until the Minister had finished. Might I make the point that here is a case in which a man is offered, according to Deputy Mulcahy——
Is this a point of order?
Yes. I am suggesting that the thing is relevant to the point asked by the Chair——
Would the Deputy allow me for a moment? I have asked Deputy Mulcahy to relate what he proposes to read, or any statement contained therein, to expenditure under this Vote, or to any promise of expenditure under this Vote.
I am charging the Government, basing my charge on a sworn statement here, with using agents of their own to go to persons outside, in difficulties or otherwise, and to ask them to get them information that the Blueshirt organisation is an armed organisation, on the promise that if they get information that will be of use to the Government, they will be introduced to Mr. Ruttledge or to Colonel Broy. The implication is that they are going to be rewarded for finding out that information, or for making up a story and providing evidence, cooked or otherwise, that the League of Youth is an armed organisation.
How much did you pay for the document?
One may discuss anything on implication. If we were to allow implication to be the basis of debate in this House, anything could be debated on an Estimate. There must be something more clearly related to a Vote than that.
May I suggest——
May I say that it is not sufficient——
I suggest, Sir, that I am in possession. I suggest that it is relevant in this manner, that this is a Vote for Secret Service——
Have you not ruled on this point, Sir?
He has ruled nothing of the kind, I suggest.
I was not addressing you. I was addressing the Chair.
I was making a point of order, and I should be allowed to make it without interruption.
I asked if the Chair had not ruled on the point.
May I suggest that I be allowed to make a point of order and that the Attorney-General should not intervene until I have made it? It may or may not be sound but it is not for the Attorney-General to intervene until I have made it.
If the Chair says I should not intervene, I shall not.
This is a Vote for Secret Service and the money is being spent to get information of a certain type. We know one of the objects for which the money will be spent is to get information on the various organisations through the country. Here we have an organisation and efforts are made to get information in connection with that organisation and I suggest that nothing could be more relevant, when we see the attempts that are made to get that information, than an argument, which is debatable, whether we agree or not, as to whether this money should be used for that particular purpose.
I have no evidence to guide me, but the statement made by Deputy Mulcahy that money from this Vote is being used for that purpose. He has made a reference to certain outside firms and such things which have no connection whatever with it.
Might I suggest, on a point of order——
I am going to ask you, Sir, to listen——
Might I put this, that a document of this sort should not be read in this House and no debate should be allowed on that document until it is proven, and not presumed, that the person who has made the statement has, in fact, received moneys from the Secret Service Vote.
We have no judicial functions here.
I am dealing with a case in which a man A——
The Deputy cannot get out of this by way of a point of order.
I am going to say this: A man A told a man B that the Government had no definite proof that the Blueshirts were an armed organisation; that they were anxious to get such proof; and that if B could get the information for A that would make that proof available, A would introduce B to Mr. Ruttledge or Col. Broy.
Clearly, that is not connected with the Vote.
It is getting secret information and offering a bribe for the getting of it.
Clearly, that does not connect it with this Vote. The Minister for Justice is responsible for the maintenance of order in this State and Col. Broy is the executive officer to that extent. I think that the introducing of people of that kind to the Minister for Justice or to Col. Broy would not at all be connected with this Vote.
Might I suggest that a point has been raised here by the Minister for Finance that it should be proved that Secret Service money has been spent in this way? The Minister knows perfectly well that that is precisely the case that cannot be proved and I suggest that the point you, Sir, are putting to Deputy Mulcahy also cannot be proved and that no details of expenditure in relation to this Vote can be proved. I suggest, that from the very nature of the case, that is so. We have to go then, when we see the Government seeking information of a certain type and offering a certain reward for it, to the uses of this Vote and that is, therefore, relevant.
There is no proof.
I regret very much having to oppose my opinion to that of the Chair but I really must argue again that, on this Secret Service Vote, which provides a very much increased amount for secret service, I am entitled to discuss the action of one man coming to another and saying that the Government is anxious to get information that the Blueshirt organisation is an armed organisation and that if that information can be got, or anything that would be accepted as information can be got, the man in question will be introduced to a Minister of the Government or to the head of the police. I think it is entirely wrong to prevent discussion being carried on if it deals with this particular matter.
I cannot allow discussion on the basis of the reasoning that Deputy Mulcahy has given. He has simply said that a certain individual asked another individual if he had any information, or if he could obtain any information, regarding a certain organisation and that if he could give information of a certain nature, he would be introduced to the Minister who is responsible for the maintenance of order in this State and to his executive officer. That does not connect it with this Vote, in my opinion.
There is here a suggestion of reward——
On a point of order, Sir, have you ruled on this document?
I find myself completely nonplussed, Sir, if, on this Vote for Secret Service, I cannot discuss a case in which——
A perjurer perjures himself.
We cannot have that, either. There is no good in making such charges here against people——
The Minister is defending a very dirty mess and hiding his dirty information.
If the Deputy were sure of that he would not avail of this House to make that statement; he would go and publish it in the United Ireland.
I know of no place more meet and proper to discuss the action of persons seeking information for the Government from some member of an organisation that they wish to brand as an armed organisation and offering some kind of reward for that information.
I will not allow the Deputy to discuss this without producing relevant evidence. There is no proof of any connection whatever between the moneys under this Vote and what the Deputy is speaking about. It is simply asking somebody to give information to the Minister for Justice, or to his executive officers, if he could obtain that information.
Am I not entitled to discuss that matter on this Vote?
On a point of order, the whole essence of this case is this document. The Deputy has taken advantage of his position to read the document here in the House——
The Deputy has read portion of it.
Yes, the most significant portion of it, but why not publish it outside, where the Deputy would have to prove that this person who made this declaration had sworn what was the truth?
I will not allow any further discussion on this document.
On a point of order, I am entitled to say that the Minister for Finance has accused a certain man of perjury. Then he gets up and negatives that, for he shows that he did not know a thing about it.
That is not a point of order.
But the man's name was mentioned here.
And the Minister called him a perjurer.
Two men's names were mentioned.
And I am prepared to mention a third, the solicitor.
The name of the man who was accused of perjury by the Minister was mentioned in the House.
I have no knowledge whether the person's name was mentioned or not nor can I connect anyone mentioned with the charge made by the Minister.
If you will throw your mind back, Sir, you will recollect that Deputy Mulcahy started by saying: "I have here an affidavit by So-and-so," giving the name of the man. Then he proceeded to read it and the Minister for Finance accused the author of that document of perjury——
I take it that the Chair must satisfy itself by its own seeing and hearing. I cannot connect this charge with any person mentioned.
But you did hear the Minister making a charge of perjury.
That is not a question I will answer.
I cannot prove that a single halfpenny was paid from this Vote and on your ruling, as far as I understand it now, we cannot discuss any matter in which we cannot prove that money passed. I do not know whether I would be in order in referring to the statement made by the Minister for Justice on Sunday week last that there was not a single thing which passed at a meeting of the I.R.A. that he did not know in 24 hours. I am perfectly clear that that is a matter for the Secret Service and Secret Service money, but I could not prove it. I do not know what kind of discussion can be carried on on this Estimate when the Minister for Justice is performing in the way he is performing. The agents and employees in other directions of the members of the Government are also soliciting information from other people outside and offering bribes for information against an organisation politically opposed to the Government. Men are taken in difficult circumstances and bribed definitely or have bribes dangled before their minds. They are asked as members of the League of Youth to make some kind of a case that this organisation opposed to the Government is an armed organisation. I cannot prove that a single halfpenny is passing for that particular class of transaction, but the transactions are widespread, and some of them, as I have already said, have been sworn to in testimony. I think it a grotesque business, Sir, to be asked to discuss a Vote of this kind and not be able to make use of a document which is sworn to and which contains definite evidence that agents acting for the Government are seeking——
Is it in order, for a Deputy, Sir, to describe your ruling as grotesque?
Will the Attorney-General get up and defend the filthy nest he is defending by words of his own and will he give some explanation as to why this excessive Vote is being asked for?
I do not understand what the Deputy means by "filthy nest" of my own. I do not know to what he is referring. I merely made the point that you had ruled from the Chair that this document should not be discussed further and I objected to Deputy Mulcahy describing your ruling as grotesque.
I do not think he described my ruling as grotesque. What he said was the whole procedure.
The whole situation.
This Vote shows a very large increase on last year's Vote. I submit that the reason for that increase should be given. I would like some information as to how it is proposed to spend this money and in what particular direction. Some years ago, information was given to the Dáil that this money was not to be used for political purposes. I would like now that some statement to that effect should be made on this Vote. What is the reason for such a large increase —is it to deal with ordinary crime or is it to deal with political matters, and, if so, under what headings do those political matters come? Some information should be given as to the way the money is being spent, whether it is being spent to find out what are the activities of the political opponents of the Government. In that connection, I would draw the line if the Minister would discern between those who are suspected of being armed for the overthrow of the State—those whose object is to be achieved by bringing about a change of Government by force of arms—and those whose objects are constitutional. Certainly the House is entitled to know why there is this increase from £10,000 to £25,000. I am speaking from recollection when I say that last year something like £3,000 was spent and now we have a sum of £25,000 asked for. There ought to be some explanation of the increase.
I would like to say that here is a Vote that is remarkable to this extent, at all events. If you make any comparison with the Votes in previous years you will notice that this Vote has been increased two and a half times. It is singular in that respect. I suggest that there should have been a full explanation as to the reason for this increase. In the absence of that information we can only speculate as to what precisely was the purpose of the increase in the Secret Service Vote from £10,000 to £25,000.
What has it led to? We do not know how the money is being spent; we only see this sudden increase. I presume, as there is no check on the details of it, that it is being spent to get information. Supposing the information is being got, what is it being used for? For the prevention of crime or for the punishment of crime? Which? Is there any evidence in the conduct of the Government that it is being used for one or the other? I hope the Minister for Justice will not follow the fashion of practically every member of the Government in denying the report of his speech in the papers. It is becoming almost epidemic with them. It is quite obvious that, taking the Minister as being reported——
May I point out that the Minister responsible for this Vote is the Minister for Finance, and if the policy of the Minister for Justice is to be criticised, it should be on the Vote of the Minister for Justice?
I am discussing what this money is being used for. I presume it is being used for some purpose and I want to know what is the purpose. There is such a thing as collective responsibility. I am discussing whether the Government having got £25,000——
It has nothing to do with it.
Is this a point of order? I am discussing whether or not the Government are utilising this money for any useful purpose. I hold that it does not matter what Minister makes the statement. If the Minister for Finance wishes to repudiate what the Minister for Justice said in Mayo he may, but that does not absolve him or any other Minister from responsibility for that statement. If he does not repudiate it, then I do not understand the sense of the interruption. Is this money being used for the prevention of crime?
No.
Did I hear "No"? This money is not being used, as the Deputy from the West clearly points out, for the prevention of crime. The Minister for Justice made that quite clear. I am glad to see that there is one member of the Government Party who stands behind the Minister for Justice.
I was not listening to you at all—I was discussing another matter.
The Deputy ought to be on the Front Bench for getting out of things.
Do not be trying to twist it in that way. I was not paying any attention to you.
I never suggested that members of the Fianna Fáil Party pay any attention to anything said here.
They have too much commonsense to pay any attention—at least, I have.
Is this money being used for the detection or prevention of crime? We have the statement of the Minister for Justice less than a couple of weeks ago that he knows every move made by a certain Party who openly profess that they are out for the armed overthrow of the Government of this country when the opportunity is ripe, but that he is not using that information against them. He is a nice, quiet, mild man. He is their friend but, "God help them if other people get into office; as long as I am here you are all right." Is the money being used, therefore, for the prevention of crime in the sense of getting information about crimes that are in danger of committal? Is the money being used for the punishment of crime? What is the money being used for?
We have had various instances of extraordinary action and inaction on the part of the Government where crime is concerned. Is the increase of this Vote from £10,000 to £25,000 helping that in any way? They confess that where a certain organisation is concerned they know every move of it. If that is so, I suggest that for the mere getting of the information they have employed the money well. But their purely academic interest in the matter is what amazes me and should amaze the House. Having got the information we gather that it is not going to be used. I wonder if there is going to be a slowing down of the process where the members of that organisation are concerned, now that we know perfectly well all those terrible things which they are doing and plotting? Is that the idea? The money is not being used as far as we can see in a proper manner for the prevention of crime or for dealing with crime afterwards. I wonder whether any of this money went to the celebrated—I presume he was in existence; I am not doubting that; I do not therefore call him fictitious— man who gave the information about Deputy Mulcahy.
Information!
That is in inverted commas—to the man who told the lie which was circulated in the House.
May I point out that the Vote before the House relates to expenditure for the current financial year?
Might I suggest that we are discussing policy, on this Vote? We have tried during the last year to get information on this point and we have been refused it. The lie has been circulated. I can understand a certain delicacy on the part of the Minister as regards the discussion of this matter.
Particularly the Minister for Finance.
I think it was he who first gave a hint of it in this House before the President spoke. He referred to the Austin car that Deputy Mulcahy was supposed to have used. I think the Minister was the first person to refer to it.
Did that alleged event, or the reference to that alleged event, occur within the year under discussion?
No. But may I suggest that I am discussing the use likely to be made of this, and that during the past 12 months we tried to get information on this particular matter?
I allowed the Deputy to make a passing reference to that, but that is all he must make.
I am only using it as an illustration—I am not going to discuss the details of the matter, because I do not think it is necessary. If that is the type of information for which the Government are paying money, I hold that this Vote ought not to be passed. I suggest, so far as the information which the Government put before the public is concerned, that that information, where it has been put before the public in recent times, is not such as to allay the anxiety in the mind of the public as to how secret service and allied methods of dealing with political opponents are being used by the Government. There is a feeling of nausea, so far as the great bulk of the people is concerned, with the conduct of the Government in these particular matters. When we see the use that they are ready to make of an agent provocateur it is a very dangerous thing to increase this Vote from £10,000 to £25,000. They have not shown any desire to avoid some of the worst abuses of a tyrannical Government in the use of an agent provocateur. That being so, the money, of which they are being given complete control, and in regard to which they have tried to burke discussion in this House, should not be voted them too readily. The House should be extremely slow to pass the Vote, and Deputies would be lacking in their duty to the country if, without very careful examination, in so far as examination is possible, seeing there is no voucher for this, this Vote were passed. There is every reason, I suggest, why the whole thing should be fully ventilated. I submit it will be impossible to close the discussion until we have had a rather exhaustive statement from some Minister. It was the duty of the Minister for Finance to explain the increase in this Vote, but he has not done so. I suggest a proper discussion can only begin after the Minister has made that statement.
I am also curious to know how this money is being spent. I suppose the only way to approach the matter is by the process of elimination. The first question that arises is, are they using this money to prevent naval secrets being stolen? Are there numbers of foreign spies seeking information about our naval secrets, the construction of our guns, and the type of ammunition our navy uses? I understand the only vessel we have is the "Muirchu." Somebody said she had no gun and someone else said she had one gun. Is the money being spent to protect the secrets of the Army, the construction of our new guns, the types of new ammunition for those guns, or the character of the poison gas shells that are being made here for our Army? Does the technical school where our laboratories are require protection? The Civic Guards are paid under another Vote. I hope that none of this money goes to the Civic Guards in the nature of extra pay for the purpose of taking them away from the services for which they were normally engaged. This House votes money to pay the Civic Guards full wages for their duties as policemen. We have a navy with one vessel and no gun. We have an Army that is paid out of the Army Vote. I understand the guns and ammunition are purchased abroad and we may take it any secrets in connection with them are well known to persons outside this country, possibly better known to them than to people here.
What do they expend the £25,000 on except the collection of political information? And what is the political information for? Is the money spent in collecting information about a branch of this Party, what is being done by that branch, and what it is going to do? The Minister for Justice, speaking in Connaught the other day, said that in 24 hours he knew all about the I.R.A. and what they proposed doing. I do not know whether he is paying for that information or whether it is given voluntarily. Perhaps he is acting as the friend and protector of the I.R.A. by telling them that. He tells them freely, without any reward, that if he goes out of office, within 24 hours they will be abolished. I wonder is the I.R.A. paying the Minister for giving them this information? Yesterday his Eminence Cardinal MacRory, speaking at Maynooth, said that were it not for political trouble in this country we would be the most peaceful people in the world. The general belief is that the £25,000 are being spent getting information of some kind or another about the political opponents of the Government.
I know perfectly well that none of the Ministers will say to any individual: "I will give you £100 if you get me a certain piece of information." What the members of the House are really doing by voting this money is offering money to any man who desires to degrade himself by giving information, true or false. It is just the same as saying: "Here are £25,000 voted by this House. Do you want any of it?" This money is being voted by the representatives of the country who are ostensibly here to protect the interests of the taxpayers. We are voting money to encourage people to degrade themselves by acting as spies. When you carry out a process of elimination the only issue left is this: "Get political information." Cardinal MacRory's advice yesterday was to eliminate politics.
How does Cardinal MacRory come under this Vote?
His Eminence said that if we eliminate politics we will be the most peaceful people in the world. There can be no doubt the £25,000 are being spent on collecting some political information. Is it wise for the House to vote this sum in order further to embitter feelings in the country? If the £25,000 are to be expended for the purpose of getting people to give information so as to create trouble, I submit the House should reject the Vote. If they desire peace and happiness for the country, Deputies should definitely vote for its rejection.
Dean Swift once referred to certain respectable persons who, when they were made bishops, lost their original virtue while making a journey across a certain famous heath and arrived in Ireland as highway robbers and desperadoes. In the discussion on this Vote we have seen the spectacle of men of experience who were in office for ten years leaving behind them their own disreputable past and passing into Opposition to assume there the robes of primeval innocence. One would think, to hear Deputy O'Sullivan speaking on this Vote, that he had not at one time or another dipped his hand into the Secret Service pot, that there had never been before the Dáil a proposal to provide a certain sum for secret service. In 1922-23, Deputy O'Sullivan and the Government which he then supported approved an Estimate for £220,000 and that was submitted to the Dáil. In 1923-24 there was an Estimate for £50,000; in 1924-25 for £35,000; in 1925-26 for £20,000. In 1926-27 there was an Estimate for £14,000, and since that date, and up to this year, the Estimate has been for £10,000, for the purposes which are set out fully on the face of the Estimate, for the purposes of the Secret Service.
How much was spent?
That Vote was often discussed in this House when we were in Opposition, and we did not utilise that Vote, as it has been utilised on this occasion, for the purpose, under the cover of the privileges of this House, of making a slanderous accusation against a reputable citizen of this State—an accusation that, least of all, should be made by Deputy Mulcahy because there is——
The Minister was not prepared to listen to it.
——because there is on his hands the blood of a very distinguished Irishman, whose name is borne honourably and worthily by his son. When we were in opposition we never brought into this House a document and said that it was sworn to by a certain person.
On a point of order, Sir, can we discuss that document? The Leas-Cheann Comhairle insisted that there be no further discussion of that document. If it is mentioned now, I suggest that we should be allowed to discuss it.
I am not discussing——
Wait a moment. The Minister should restrain himself for a moment. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle ruled that any further discussion of, or reference to, that document was out of order. I understood that to be his ruling. I suggest now that, if that document is to be discussed, it be discussed fully. We have no objection to discussing it. Quite the contrary.
If any document has been ruled out of order, it should not be referred to. The Minister made against a Deputy an accusation which seems to me to be of a personal character. Political charges may be made—very annoying charges at times—but personal charges may not be made.
May I say, Sir, that I am not discussing the document? I am only discussing the propriety of reading here, under the privileges of this House, a document——
If the document has been ruled out of order it should not be discussed.
But, Sir, I ask you is it in order for any Deputy to get up here and read a statement sworn to by a notorious——
I understand that the document referred to was ruled out of order in this discussion, and I will hear no more about it from either side of the House.
Very well, Sir. I am not making any reference to that document or to any document, but I am saying that it is quite easy for any person who wishes to injure another person in his character——
The Minister must refrain from all reference to that document, direct or indirect.
Again, Sir, I am not referring to any document. I say that it is quite easy——
On a point of order, Sir. The Minister is attempting to construct a document that will suit himself, having objected to the reading of a document that was actually sworn testimony.
The Chair has already said he will hear no more about the document.
I am not referring to a document, Sir, but I say that it would be quite easy for an unscrupulous member of this House to approach a person of notoriously low character——
On a point of order, Sir——
Am I to be continually interrupted by Deputy O'Sullivan?
The Deputy desires to raise a point of order.
On a point of order, Sir, I suggest that your ruling is being deliberately disobeyed by the Minister.
It seems to me that the Minister is trying to evade the ruling.
I repeat, Sir, that I am not talking about a document. I am talking about——
On a point of order, I suggest that the Minister is striving to put a hypothetical position before you, Sir, and, under cover of that, he maintains that he is not talking about the document. In actual fact, however, that is what he is getting at.
The Minister can have the sworn word if he wants it.
I would not take the sworn word of that gentleman.
I suggest that this has become very serious. The Minister has several times shown a complete disregard of the Chair, and I suggest, Sir, that you take notice of it.
If the Minister cannot get away from the document he will have to resume his seat.
May I ask you, Sir——
Order, order!
Am I entitled, Sir, to speak without being interrupted continually by Deputy O'Sullivan? I am not addressing my remarks to him, but, in accordance with the rules of the House, to the Chair, and am calling attention to the fact that Deputy Mulcahy has waved here in this House a document which——
The Minister is trying——
Am I entitled, Sir, to proceed without further interruption from Deputy O'Sullivan?
The Minister may proceed.
Thanks. I was saying that the gentlemen over there had assumed the garb of primeval innocence. It ill befits them. There is many a dark episode in the history of this State which, possibly, would not have happened if it had not been for the manner in which secret service money was employed under former Administrations. I am not going to enter into that. We have heard agents provocateur. mentioned in this debate. Is the memory of the Deputies so short that they do not remember the end of 1931, when a man was murdered here? I am not justifying that murder. I think that it was a dastardly thing, and that it should bring down vengeance on those who did it; but the action of the men who committed that murder was no more dastardly than the action of those who sent that poor agent of theirs into the circumstances in which he lost his life, and who paid him for that.
May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that Deputy Mulcahy is not only brandishing a document, but showing by his action that such a thing exists? The Deputy is referring to the fact that, possibly, some secret service money may have been paid to a person who was responsible for conveying false information to us. There is one thing certain, and that is that statements have been made here in this House by Deputy Mulcahy which have not been authenticated——
For instance?
——and which, before they were made here, should have been authenticated by him. I do not think that we could take the word—the uncorroborated word—of the Deputy in regard to this.
Give us the statement.
What is the statement?
I move to report progress.
