Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1949

Vol. 114 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McGilligan)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,250 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach (No. 16 of 1924; No. 40 of 1937; No. 38 of 1938; and No. 24 of 1947).

Deputies will notice that there has been a saving in sub-head E. The main purpose for which the increased moneys are required over and above that saving is set out on the foot of the page—additional sum required for travelling and subsistence allowances of members of the Government and of officers of the Department of the Taoiseach, £1,600. That additional sum is beyond the amount previously estimated. A number of Ministers and officials visited London in June, 1948, for discussions with British Government Ministers and their officials. That resulted in the signing of a trade agreement between the two countries. In August and September the Taoiseach. with his aide-de-camp and officers of the Department, went on an official visit to Canada and the United States. In November of last year the Minister for External Affairs and myself travelled to Paris for discussions with Commonwealth representatives in connection with the repeal of the External Relations Act. Those are the reasons why there is this addition to the Estimate.

Mr. Lemass

I understood the Minister to say that one reason why a supplementary vote for travelling expenses is required now is because the Taoiseach visited the United States and Canada in September and October in an official capacity. Is that correct?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, he paid an official visit to these places.

Mr. Lemass

I am anxious to get further information on this matter, because when the Taoiseach left for Canada he was interviewed by Press representatives on the boat and he stated then, according to the report published in the Independent Newspapers, that his visit to Washington was entirely unofficial. Subsequently, he arrived at Montreal and, again quoting the report published in the Independent Newspapers, he said, when questioned as to the purpose of his visit: "I am a lawyer. I am here as the guest of the Bar Association and for that period I have shed my political capacity and status." That was in the Irish Independent on the 31st August, 1948. If, as is now disclosed, the Taoiseach's visit to the United States and Canada was an official visit, for which the Dáil is being asked to vote money, it is rather difficult to understand why these statements which I have quoted were made by the Taoiseach at the time that the visit occurred.

The matter is more than of academic interest, because the House will recollect that during the course of his visit to Canada the Taoiseach not merely made there important pronouncements bearing upon the policy of his Government of which the people of this country learned through Press reports, but he also made other statements which appeared to be of even a more controversial character, statements which certainly aroused not merely a number of controversial discussions here but which provoked also an explanatory announcement from the Government Information Bureau.

I assume this is the occasion on which any questions relating to that visit should be raised. Every official act of a Minister, or almost every official act of a Minister, comes before the Dáil eventually and generally in the form of a request to the Dáil to vote money to defray the expenses associated with that act. We are now asked to vote money to defray the cost of an official visit by the Taoiseach to the United States and to Canada—a visit which the Taoiseach himself appears to have described at the time as unofficial. Having regard to the events which characterised that visit, I think the Dáil should be slow to vote the money without getting some satisfactory explanation of these events.

I do not want to widen the scope of this discussion to cover ground which was adequately surveyed in debates last year; but it will be recollected that shortly after the Taoiseach arrived in Canada the people of this country were startled to read in the newspapers that he had made the following pronouncement. I am quoting now from the Irish Independent of the 7th September. The Irish Independent quoted the Taoiseach as having made this announcement in the course of a radio broadcast; that appears not to have been correct. The Irish Press reported the statement to have been made in the course of an interview; subsequent inquiries appeared to establish that account to be more accurate. The announcement was to the effect that: “Ireland was prepared to come to the aid of Canada if ever the Dominion were menaced by a communist country.” Later, in the course of an address to a body called “The Canadian Club”, the Taoiseach appeared to have reiterated that undertaking. The report which appeared in the Irish Press on the 11th September, 1948— and which had been cabled by the United Press Agency—stated that “Mr. Costello strong aligned Ireland against any possible Soviet aggression. He told his audience that Ireland will do her utmost to preserve peace but warned that ‘to-day the very basis of civilisation that produced us is being undermined by the most formidable enemy. Throughout the world despairing multitudes sit parleying in the Valley of Indecision.’” The report then continues:—

"He added that Ireland would support the struggle for safeguarding democracy and liberty."

That announcement by the Taoiseach, following his previous announcement, reported in the Irish Independent as made in the course of a radio broadcast but, as I believe, more accurately reported in the Irish Press as made in the course of an interview with the representative of a Press agency, appeared definite and seemed to imply that a decision upon policy had been made and was being announced—a decision upon policy on which the Irish people had not been consulted and which represented a very decided change from the attitude previously indicated in Ministerial utterances, and certainly a very decided change from the attitude indicated in the utterances of these Ministers before their election to office.

Later, however, there was a statement issued by the Government Information Bureau. It was a very ambiguous statement. It purported to deny or to correct the statements previously attributed to the Taoiseach; but, in fact, it does not appear to have done anything of the sort. The statement which was issued on the 14th September, 1948, is as follows:—

"The following statement was issued by the Taoiseach, Mr. J.A. Costello, in Quebec on Sunday night, the Government Information Bureau announced yesterday: ‘My attention has been directed to statements in a certain newspaper to the effect that in my address to the Canadian Club at Ottawa on September 10th, I defined the attitude of Ireland in the event of war. The text of that address was circulated to newspapers and agencies. The subject of the address was Irish-Canadian friendship and the role of Ireland in Canada in securing international co-operation for permanent peace on the basis of Christian principles and ideals. I did not, in that address or elsewhere, define the attitude of Ireland in the event of war. In my Press conference in Ottawa on September 7th, I stated categorically that Irish national unity is a prerequisite to Ireland's joining the Western Union of Europe for defence purposes. This statement was widely published in Canada and the United States of America."'

Anybody reading carefully that official announcement issued by the Government Information Bureau would see at once that the Taoiseach did not deny in it that he had made the actual statements attributed to him. He may not have regarded these statements as defining the attitude of Ireland in the event of war, but they were certainly interpreted here—and apparently interpreted in some quarters in Canada —as defining the attitude of Ireland in the event of war. Uncertainty as to the position was not reduced by an announcement made by the Tánaiste, Mr. Norton, on 20th September. Mr. Norton, according to a Press report——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nobody here in respect of the Department of the Tánaiste.

Mr. Lemass

I realise that, but I am quoting the Tánaiste in reference to this visit by the Taoiseach to Canada. The report said:—

"Intervening in a debate at the resumed Labour Party Conference in Dublin yesterday on a motion dealing with Partition, the Tánaiste, Mr. W. Norton, said it was alleged by some, if not all of the Canadian newspapers, that Mr. Costello made a statement in a broadcast talk in Canada to the effect that he committed Ireland to rendering military aid to Canada in certain circumstances. Since then there had been a categorical denial by the Taoiseach that he used the words attributed to him. ‘I have in my possession here,' said Mr. Norton. ‘a letter which I have since received from Mr. Costello, in which he confirms his Canadian denial and in which he avers that on the occasion of his Canadian broadcast he handed a manuscript of his talk to the Canadian newspapers and that manuscript does not bear the interpreta tion attributed to Mr. Costello. I think that ought to lay the bogey."

So far as the Tánaiste's statement had reference to the facts, it certainly did not lay any bogies. As I have pointed out, he states that the manuscript of Mr. Costello's Canadian broadcast contains no statement bearing the interpretation which had been attributed to it. I have explained that the statement to which exception was taken, the statement which caused concern here and which was misunderstood in Canada was not made in the course of a broadcast. It was made in the course of an interview with a Press representative.

Similarly the official statement issued by the Government Information Bureau did not contain what the Tánaiste described it as containing—a categorical denial that he used the words attributed to him. Mr. Costello, who is skilled in the use of words, presumably prepared that statement with care, and anyone who reads it with care will see that in no part of it does he deny that he used the words attributed to him. If the Taoiseach made a statement on an important matter of national policy without preparation and consideration and realised afterwards that he had said something different from what he had intended, the right course for him to adopt was to have corrected himself as quickly as possible and have an official statement issued not merely to the Irish people but in Canada, where the significance of his remarks clearly was misunderstood. If he spoke these words in what he thought was a private conversation with an individual who turned out to be a Press reporter and who publicised them, then perhaps they have still more significance, because it would be a disturbing matter for all of us if the Taoiseach, travelling abroad as a representative of this country, was using privately in a matter of that kind words different from those which he was using publicly.

I prefer to assume that the Taoiseach used these words in the course of an interview, knowing that he was speaking to a Press representative, knowing that the words would be published and that he did not decide that it was necessary to modify or to contradict them until he was informed from here of their repercussion on Irish public opinion. If that is so, I think this is an occasion upon which he, or some of his colleagues in the Government, should clear up the position by a statement to the Dáil. The Dáil is now being asked to vote money for this visit and to defray the expenses in connection with it. I think that the Dáil would be held to have given a post factum approval to this declaration and other declarations made in the course of the visit, if it voted that money without getting such comprehensive and detailed statement as I have indicated. I do not want to press that point further at this stage.

On the technical point of the responsibility for these expenses, which I raised at the beginning, and whether in fact the Taoiseach went to the United States and Canada on an official visit, perhaps the Minister could also say at what stage, and in what manner, and when he received the invitation from the Canadian Bar Association, and why he thought it desirable, prior to making all these formal announcements of Government policy and all these controversial declarations upon matters of deep public concern, to state in Canada that he was going there as a lawyer, going as the guest of the Canadian Bar Association, and that for the period in which he was there, as guest of the Canadian Bar Association, he had shed his political capacity and status. Certainly, the preliminary announcements made by the Taoiseach—the statement on the boat before leaving, that his visit was entirely unofficial, and statements made afterwards—had not prepared Irish public opinion or Canadian public opinion for the important and controversial statements of policy which followed. Many of the matters upon which the Taoiseach spoke then have been the subject of debate in the Dáil since, and I do not propose to refer to them. I think, however, this question of an undertaking to afford military aid to Canada in certain eventualities has never been satisfactorily cleared up, and that before the Dáil, by passing this Vote, declares the whole question to be closed, it should be cleared up. That is why I invite the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, or some member of the Government to intervene now.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I think it is in the interests of all of us that a definite explanation of the position created by the visit of the Taoiseach to Washington and Canada should be forthcoming.

Mr. McGilligan

He was not in Washington.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

He was in New York.

Mr. McGilligan

The reference the Deputy made was to Washington.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

He was in New York and if he were on official business, he should be in Washington as well.

Mr. McGilligan

That is contrary to what Deputy Lemass stated.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

Anyhow, I should like to have it explained whether it was really an official visit.

Mr. McGilligan

It was, quite clearly.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

Did he couple this official visit with an ordinary visit to the Bar of Canada?

Mr. McGilligan

He did.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

It is capable of a very serious interpretation.

Mr. McGilligan

Do not misconstrue it.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I should be glad if the matter were completely cleared up. I doubt very much, if it were an official visit, that he would have made the rather serious statements that he did make, that this country was prepared at any moment to help Canada if certain other countries attacked Canada. I always understood, and I think the people generally understood, that we as a people cannot be involved in any war either through promises or through action without the consent of the Dáil. I think it is a thing that we should be extremely jealous about. The technical aspect of the position does not make very much difference but in these times, when such visits are becoming more frequent, I think it would be a good idea if some definite rule were laid down in which it would be openly declared that the visits were official or otherwise. So far as the other aspect of the matter is concerned, the promise that was made and withdrawn as Deputy Lemass said, has not been fully withdrawn. Canada is a rather large country and I know myself that there are a great many people in Canada under the impression that at any time they are attacked we are going to go to their aid.

Mr. McGilligan

Do you know that?

Mr. M. O'Reilly

Yes. I am not saying that we would be very much use to them but at the same time there are people in the backwoods of Canada and in other places who did not understand, or who had no knowledge of the refutation that was made and they are still under that impression. There can be no offence in discussing these matters and having them flattened out in a place where the matter can get genuine publicity. I think that if there was a complete official explanation of it, it might in time catch up on the supposed promise made by the Taoiseach in which the Army of this country was compromised.

Mr. Little

I should like to ask the Minister if the Government, before the Taoiseach went to Canada, had come to any decision as to what the line of policy would be, and what the nature of his statement would be when he went out.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know what the Deputy is at.

Mr. Little

A serious matter like that should be fully explored and discussed by the Government and the Taoiseach before any public statement would be made, especially in a foreign country.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy is insinuating that the Taoiseach said something that was not Government policy?

Mr. Little

I am asking a question.

Mr. McGilligan

The answer to the question is that the Taoiseach's policy was fully approved of by the Government.

Mr. Killilea

Did he not say what was quoted?

Mr. McGilligan

I say he did not say it.

Mr. Killilea

Why is he not in the House to tell us he did not say it?

Mr. McGilligan

I am handling the Vote.

Mr. Killilea

He knows that there was a complete misunderstanding about all this business.

Mr. McGilligan

I think there is a deliberate attempt to create misunderstanding. Nobody, I think, really misunderstands it.

Mr. Lemass

If the Minister is concerned about what he describes as a deliberate attempt to create misunderstanding, will he turn his mind to the fact that his colleague, the Tánaiste, in the course of his statement on the matter, said that it was alleged in some, if not all, of the Canadian newspapers that Mr. Costello made a statement in a broadcast talk in Canada to the effect that he committed Ireland to render military aid to Canada in certain circumstances? Whatever machinations the Minister attributed to Opposition Deputies here, he cannot assume that the Canadian newspapers were activated by the same motive. If they misunderstood what the Taoiseach said, is it not desirable that there should be a categorical explanation of what he said?

Mr. McGilligan

What is wrong with the explanation?

Mr. Lemass

The statement, first of all, was not made in a broadcast. Secondly, the Taoiseach never denied that he made it.

Mr. McGilligan

What?

Mr. Lemass

I shall quote the Taoiseach's statement again.

Mr. McGilligan

He said he gave out a manuscript.

Mr. Lemass

The statement is not in the manuscript. The statement was not made in the broadcast, but to a representative of Reuter's press agency after the broadcast and published by the press agency in various newspapers.

Mr. McGilligan

Has the Deputy any doubt as to the Taoiseach's mind on that—that he never said what was alleged?

Mr. Lemass

The only thing I can say is that Reuter's press agency are prepared to certify that the statement was made to their representative.

Mr. McGilligan

Is that the United Press report? Is it not notable that what is now being talked about is not in quotation marks?

Mr. Lemass

I say that Reuter's press agency are prepared to certify that the statement I quoted was made to their agent at the broadcasting house after the broadcast talk in the presence of many other people.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a pity they did not say that openly. They said it to you? Has that information ever been made public before?

Mr. Lemass

They said it in their report.

Mr. McGilligan

Has that information you have given ever been given to the public before?

Mr. Lemass

So far as I know it was not published in any paper.

Mr. McGilligan

Where did you get it?

Mr. Lemass

I inquired.

Mr. McGilligan

You sought for it?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. I took particular care to make all possible investigations before attributing to the Taoiseach the statement which the press agency quoted. In fact, the Irish Press was the only newspaper which mentioned in its report that that statement was made in an interview. The other papers attributed it to the Taoiseach in the course of a broadcast talk. It was not made in the course of a broadcast talk.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy read from an issue of the Irish Press. There was only one bit of that which I understood was in quotation marks; at least that is what he explained here. It has nothing to do with this.

Mr. Lemass

Let us be clear on this.

Mr. McGilligan

There is only one phrase in quotation marks.

Mr. Lemass

This is what Reuter's agency reported the Taoiseach as saying—that Ireland was prepared to go to the aid of Canada if ever the Dominion was menaced by a communist country. As to the subsequent address to the Canadian Club, which appeared to confirm that earlier statement made in the course of an interview, part of the report is published as a direct quotation and part in the usual reporting form.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy knows what I am at. He read something published in the Irish Press. There is a phrase there about countries dallying in their decision. That is the only part in quotation marks.

Mr. Lemass

The whole of what I read is a quotation from the United Press report.

Mr. McGilligan

There is only a bit which purports to be a quotation from the Taoiseach.

Mr. Lemass

Every newspaper reporting speeches puts part of a speech in the first person and in quotes and other parts of the speech in the third person. The Taoiseach was reported partially in one form and partially in another.

Mr. McGilligan

Am I right in saying that that is putting into the Taoiseach's mouth his own words and the rest is not?

Mr. Lemass

The Taoiseach was reported by Reuter's agency as having said to their correspondent in the course of an interview that Ireland was prepared to come to the aid of Canada if ever the Dominion was menaced by a communist country.

Mr. S. Collins

The Taoiseach denied that.

Mr. McGilligan

He did.

Mr. Lemass

Subsequently the Taoiseach gave an address to the Canadian Club. The text of that address was handed by him or by his aide-de-camp to the Press reporters. The reporters took the text of his speech and made a synopsis of it and cabled it throughout the world wherever the agency services were being accepted. It came here and was reported. I hesitated to think that the Taoiseach would make that declaration, in the precise form in which it was worded, in Canada without consultation with the Dáil or the people here. I, therefore, waited for the publication of an official denial, and a statement came from the Government Information Bureau which purported to be a denial but which, in fact, was not. If the Taoiseach's answer to the case is that he never made the statement, why does he not say that in so many words: "I never made the statement"? If his speech to the Canadian Bar Association was misreported, why does he not say that? What he did say in the course of the official contradiction, as it was described, was that in the course of his broadcast talk, or in the course of his address to the Canadian Club or elsewhere, he did not define the position of this country in the event of war.

What the precise legal significance of that phrase is I do not know. When it was followed by a further announcement by the Tánaiste to the effect that he had received a letter from the Taoiseach in which he averred that he gave the manuscript of his broadcast talk to the newspapers and that the manuscript did not bear the interpretation which was placed upon it, then it seemed to me that something was being covered up, because nobody ever alleged that in the course of his broadcast talk the Taoiseach made that statement. It was reported that he made one statement in the course of an interview and another statement in the course of an address and the attempt by the Tánaiste to reinforce the ambiguous denial which came from the Government Information Bureau, only made a confused matter still more confused. It is a simple matter to put right and I am anxious to have it put right.

If, as Deputies have suggested by their interventions, these statements were never made, this is the occasion on which that should be made clear.

Mr. McGilligan

I am saying it now without any hesitation and in the most comprehensive way possible.

Mr. Lemass

Am I to understand the Minister to say on behalf of the Taoiseach that these statements that he was reported to have made in the course of interviews——

Mr. McGilligan

And the broadcast to the Canadian Club were never made.

Mr. Lemass

While I accept that, I think that the Minister's assertion would be supported by the appearance of the Taoiseach in person. I repeat it first of all because there is, as I have said, the fact that the report of the speech to the Canadian Club was handed out to the press agency there. The text was handed out by the Taoiseach's aide-de-camp to their representative. Secondly, so far as the Reuter reports are concerned, that association states definitely that the statement was made to their representative in the course of an interview.

Mr. Traynor

I am not as deeply concerned as Deputy Lemass is with what the Taoiseach may or may not have said as I am with the amount of money involved in this Vote. I want to say, by way of preface, that I am not objecting to expenses to the Taoiseach or to any member of the Government who has to go abroad to conduct the affairs of State. While I am, to a certain extent, concerned with what our representatives say when they go abroad, I am rather inclined to think, in view of the Government's attitude to the Army, that the Taoiseach was inclined to be facetious when he was making such a statement. The Taoiseach made a definite statement that he was not going to Canada on official business.

Mr. McGilligan

No, he did not.

Mr. Lemass

He stated it to the reporter of the Irish Independent. The Irish Independent on the 26th August published the report of an interview between their reporter and the Taoiseach on board ship that his visit to the United States was entirely unofficial.

Mr. Aiken

Do you deny that statement?

Mr. McGilligan

As that was read before it was "to Washington."

Mr. Lemass

"That his visit to Washington."

Mr. McGilligan

You read that before as "Washington."

Mr. Lemass

Subsequently, he passed through the United States and arrived in Canada. When he arrived at the railway station at Montreal he was interviewed by Canadian Press representatives and said to them: "I am here as the guest of the Canadian Bar Association and for that period I have shed my political capacity and status." That statement also appeared in the Irish Independent.

Mr. McGilligan

"As the guest of the Canadian Bar Association. "What is inconsistent about that?

Mr. Traynor

Perhaps I may now continue my remarks. We are getting to the stage in this House, and outside of this House people are in the same position, that when the Taoiseach makes a statement we are not sure whether it means what it says, because, as far as I can see, the Taoiseach has two guesses every time he makes a statement.

Mr. S. Collins

Who is the high priest of it?

Mr. Traynor

If he wants to go to Canada on unofficial business he can do that. He has the right to go there and carry out any business he desires, or accept invitations which he may receive from organisations over there. But, if the Taoiseach went there as a private citizen, why is this House being asked to vote a sum of money to pay these expenses? I think it is a reasonable thing to ask that question. I am not deeply concerned about what he said because, as I said a moment ago, he can hardly have been serious, particularly if we are to examine the policy of the present Government in respect to the armed forces of this State. For that reason, I am not deeply concerned as to whether or not he made the statement. If he did make it, I think I can describe it as the statement of a humourist. It is rather reminiscent of the Skibbereen Eagle. What I am concerned about is, why this House should be asked to pay the expenses of a Minister who goes to a foreign country to conduct affairs which are his own private concern.

Mr. S. Collins

I think that, if the case put forward by Deputy Lemass and Deputy Traynor is a genuine one, they have suddenly become very childish. If they are going to entertain this House by indulging in quibbles as to whether this visit was official or not, and particularly in the light of the results, politically, for this country which this visit had, then I think that both Deputies when they come in here to quibble about a small sum of money are downright nationally dishonest. For the expenditure of this small sum of money, the Taoiseach by his visits to Canada and America was able to bring about a cementation of the relations between this country and those countries—something that had not been done previously.

I think that all that we have heard here this evening is a little bit of cheap Party politics and nothing else. Deputy Lemass has sufficient intelligence to be able to read correctly and accurately the quotation which he gave to the House. As to whether the Taoiseach said that for the period he was to be in Canada he was to be the guest of the Canadian Bar Association, and during that period shed his official capacity, I cannot see anything inconsistent in the Taoiseach being the guest of the Canadian Bar Association during a certain part of an official visit to Canada or in shedding his official capacity during that period. The Deputies opposite know full well that before ever he became Taoiseach he had received that invitation from the Canadian Bar Association.

Mr. Killilea

That makes it all the worse.

Mr. S. Collins

I will make my case. You are so thick you could not get under the skin of the case.

Mr. Killilea

You are a highly intelligent man.

Mr. S. Collins

That is telling you something straight.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Collins will address the Chair.

Mr. Lemass

I submit that he was addressing the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He was not addressing the Chair.

Mr. S. Collins

With my normal intelligence I cannot see anything inconsistent. It has been done by many people before now. Remember that even the tortuous stupidity of the Opposition cannot deny the fact that while in Canada there were conferences, meetings and various discussions carried out by the Taoiseach with results that you did not expect, when the External Relations Act was repealed. Remember that we are in here dishonestly quibbling about the expenditure of a very small sum of money that facilitated, whether Deputy Aiken who has left the House likes it or not, the clearing up in a very expeditious manner the difference between external relations and the Republic of Ireland. I got on my feet for the purpose of appealing to the Opposition to accept an assurance that has been given here by the Minister for Finance that the statement they allege is worrying them was not made. Possibly, in his attempt at facetiousness, Deputy Traynor may have hit on the truth because it does seem to me rather an inconsistent attitude between himself and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition if he says that the Taoiseach was humorous in referring to what military aid Ireland might give Canada in view of the Government's attitude to the Army. Deputy Lemass is gravely concerned that the Taoiseach should have made such a statement. He cannot have it both ways. The position is that the Opposition is now trying to make an issue of a statement which a Government spokesman has now said was never made and which the Taoiseach himself on previous occasions has said was never made.

Mr. Lemass

I never said that.

Mr. S. Collins

You are trying to make an issue of that matter—for what? To cover up some other wounds you are suffering from as a result of these transcontinental visits.

Mr. Traynor

If the sum was only a quarter of the amount the Deputy refers to it is your and my duty to see that it is properly expended.

Captain Cowan

It is a pity that a simple and important matter such as this cannot be decided on proper principles. If we are to decide issues of finance purely on Party lines I think that we shall be setting an exceptionally bad precedent. I had no doubt in my mind that when the Taoiseach left this country for Canada he left as a private individual on the invitation of the Canadian Bar Association. He left it on that invitation because he was a distinguished lawyer and because he was following in the footsteps of many other distinguished lawyers from many countries who had been invited to address that assembly. It was a great honour to the Taoiseach as an individual and a lawyer that that invitation should have been extended to the two of them. At the time he went I had no doubt, and the general public had no doubt, that he left this country as a private individual and went there as a private individual. That is borne out by what Deputy Collins just said —that the invitation the Taoiseach had was sent to him before he became Taoiseach at all. If he accepted that invitation and travelled over there then obviously that is a matter for the Taoiseach himself and it is not a matter for this Assembly or the Republic as a whole.

I can admit that during the period the Taoiseach was in Canada and the United States he did make contacts that were useful and desirable from a national point of view. If the matter were put to us in that way, that the Taoiseach did a considerable amount of national good in that visit and that as a special compliment to him this House should vote him a certain sum of money to cover expenses I do not think there would be any opposition whatsoever from the House. But if it is to be contended that this additional Estimate is necessary to cover a visit that was official, that was authorised by the Government and was part of the official duties and responsibilities of the Taoiseach at the time, then I think this House is being asked for something that the House cannot agree to give. It is regrettable that the matter of the expenditure of public money should be utilised as the plaything of ordinary Party politics. I think each and every one of us, irrespective of the Parties we belong to or whether we belong to a Party at all, has a very big responsibility to his constitutents in regard to the expenditure of public money. I think the approach made by Deputy Collins is one that should not be made by any Deputy in this House to a matter of this kind.

Mr. Killilea

Intelligent boy.

Captain Cowan

There must be a certain morality, a certain sense of responsibility, in regard to public moneys. We shall get that sense of morality and that sense of public responsibility by an objective examination of the matter that is under discussion. It certainly came as a surprise to me to know that a visit that I believe was absolutely unofficial and purely personal made by the Taoiseach should now be made the grounds for an application in this House to sanction a Supplementary Estimate of £1,250. That may seem a very small amount to Deputy Collins. I suppose that in conjunction with the total national expenditure £1,250 is a small amount but that is not the issue. The matter that is involved here is the principle. If the Taoiseach made that visit, as I believe he did, as a private individual and as a distinguished lawyer at the invitation of the Canadian Bar Association, I think this House ought not be asked to put up any expenses incurred in that visit.

If it was the other way, that there was a substantial national benefit accruing from that particular visit and that this House in its generosity decides that it would be a good thing to pay those expenses, or portion of them, then that is another matter and one can look at that in a completely different manner.

Now, with regard to what the Taoiseach said in Canada, I always had a considerable amount of doubt about it until I heard the Minister for Finance this evening giving a definite denial. No denial satisfactory to me was issued at any time. There was a denial of something that was not alleged. That was the position up to the present. To-day in this House we had a categorical denial that the Taoiseach said in Canada at any time that if Canada were menaced we would come to their aid.

Mr. McGilligan

I really believe I am not going any further than the Taoiseach had already put it.

Mr. Lemass

What the Minister said was a great deal more definite than what the Taoiseach said.

Mr. McGilligan

I can deal with that later.

Captain Cowan

I read the allegations very carefully and I read the denial. The denial was that the Taoiseach did not say this particular thing in a broadcast. There was no allegation that he said it.

Mr. McGilligan

He went beyond that in his denial.

Captain Cowan

If he did, I have not seen it. Until I heard the categorical denial by the Minister for Finance this evening my mind was doubtful as to what, in fact, the Taoiseach did say. The denials that were made were denials of something that was not alleged at all. However, the matter seems to be specifically cleared up now by the statement made by the Minister for Finance this evening. That aspect of it is cleared up.

With regard to the other aspect, I think it is the duty of the House, of every individual Deputy in it, to approach matters of expenditure such as this from the point of view of our public responsibilities and our duties as Deputies, and not because we may make some little bit of political capital against our opponents on the opposite benches.

Mr. Little

I should like to know from the Minister whether the Government decided before the Taoiseach went to Canada that he should make the announcement with reference to the Republic and the repeal of the External Relations Act—whether that should have been made outside Ireland, made in Canada.

Mr. McGilligan

On this matter, as to in what capacity the Taoiseach visited America or some parts of the United States and Canada, I wonder will Deputy Lemass oblige by telling us what is the date of the quotation from the Taoiseach's statement that, if he went to the United States, his visit would be entirely unofficial? What was the date of that quotation and what paper does it come from?

Mr. Lemass

He said that if he went to Washington his visit would be entirely unofficial.

Mr. McGilligan

Where was that published?

Mr. Lemass

In the Irish Independent on the 26th August.

Mr. McGilligan

Has the Deputy a copy of the newspaper in front of him?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. McGilligan

I have, and what is in it is that Mr. Costello pointed out that "if he goes to Washington his visit will be entirely unofficial." Funny enough, the Deputy said that when he was speaking first. It was Washington he said and now he changes it to the United States of America. That was after I pointed out that the Taoiseach did not go to Washington. Was that change made by the Deputy to meet the new situation? In any event, there is what he said. He was asked was he going to go to Washington and he said: "If I go to Washington the visit will be entirely unofficial." Now, that has nothing to do with going to the United States.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister say what precisely that means? What is the difference between the Taoiseach going to the United States and going to Washington?

Mr. McGilligan

Naturally if he was going to Washington, where the White House is, it could be assumed that he was going to see Mr. Truman, and surely if he went to see the President of America it would be in his official capacity. Could the Deputy also oblige me by telling me, with regard to his quotation from the Taoiseach at Montreal, where he gets the quotation from and the date?

Mr. Lemass

From the Irish Independent of the 31st August.

Mr. McGilligan

Will the Deputy oblige me by reading it again?

Mr. Lemass

"I am a lawyer. I am here as the guest of the Bar Association, and for that period I have shed my political capacity and status."

Mr. McGilligan

Is the Deputy quoting from the newspaper?

Mr. Lemass

I have written down here what the newspaper published.

Mr. McGilligan

It is amazing that a very significant word is left out. The newspaper contains the phrase: "To-day I am a lawyer and I am here as the guest of the Bar Association."

Mr. Lemass

And when he said "for that period" he meant for that day.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it not amazing the Deputy could make two changes in the newspaper accounts and purport to give the truth to this House? The essential word there is "To-day."

Mr. Lemass

And the period was that day. He was there unofficially then and the following day he was going to be there officially.

Mr. Traynor

To-day he is a lawyer and to-morrow he is not.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy has been caught out in a deliberate piece of trickery.

Mr. Lemass

Apparently the Taoiseach was caught out in a deliberate piece of trickery.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy purports to give quotations and he leaves out the vital word.

Mr. Killilea

Your quotation makes it even worse.

Mr. McGilligan

It makes it worse to leave out the essential word.

Mr. Killilea

He was speaking as a lawyer one day and as the Taoiseach the next.

Mr. McGilligan

It might be well that the Deputy would understand the situation and be able to speak without prevarication for the future. The Taoiseach was speaking as a lawyer and he is a lawyer. As a lawyer he got an invitation to address the Canadian Bar Association.

Mr. Killilea

As a K.C.

Mr. McGilligan

He is described in the newspapers as K.C., which they go on to define as being the Irish equivalent for a K.C. In any event, he did go to Canada and he had an invitation from the Canadian Bar Association. He went for a particular day in a private capacity. There is no doubt that to everybody's knowledge the Taoiseach went out on an official visit.

Mr. Lemass

When he spoke to the Canadian Bar Association three days later was he still Taoiseach or only a lawyer?

Mr. McGilligan

I should imagine that when he addressed the Bar Association he was speaking to them as a lawyer.

Mr. Lemass

On that day he was a lawyer.

Mr. McGilligan

An attempt will be made to confuse this issue. Is it not quite easy to understand that he has a dual capacity? The Canadian Bar Association invited him before he was Taoiseach to address them as a distinguished lawyer. Is it not possible to conceive that he could speak to them as a lawyer, putting behind him the fact that he was Taoiseach? Is it not possible to conceive that before or after that date he was acting in his capacity as Taoiseach and accepted as Taoiseach? I do not think the situation is so difficult to understand as some Deputies would pretend it is. That pretence is indicative to some extent because when the Deputy tries to make his case he distorts two newspaper reports and the presentation of them to the House. Possibly that is a matter that the Deputy will take up with a member of his own Party later on when he tries to justify the statements made by him here to-night.

Mr. Killilea

It is justified by the fact that the State is asked to cover the expenses incurred irrespective of whether he was acting as a lawyer or Taoiseach.

Mr. McGilligan

The State is asked to pay the expenses in respect of the Taoiseach's visit to Canada and United States of America for a period of 27 days, leaving out of account the boat passage. The expenses are those incurred as between New York and Canada.

Mr. Killilea

Is that for the whole party which travelled with him?

Mr. McGilligan

No. The whole party were not officially there. The people for whom the money is requested were officially there. The Taoiseach was there for 27 days or nights. Everybody knows that in the main he was there in an official capacity. The proof of that lies in the invitations that he received. The invitations were clearly those that would be accorded to a member of a particular State when visiting another State. All the receptions were of an official type. I understand that it was suggested that he should be the guest of the King's representative in Canada. The Taoiseach did not avail himself of that invitation. But that was suggested at one stage. There is no indication of any kind, examining the entire record, which would prove that he was there in any capacity except in an official capacity. I always understood that he was going in an official capacity and I accordingly made provision for him and for some of those who went with him. The Taoiseach has not said at any time that his visit was a non-official one. He did say that it he made a particular visit that might be unofficial; but that did not actually occur.

I think Deputy Captain Cowan will appreciate that part of the visit was so to speak as a private individual. But the Taoiseach, being Taoiseach, would never have gone to Canada merely to meet the Bar Association there. He did there business which was of its nature wholly official business and what he did in the Bar Association was quite apart from that altogether.

With regard to the other matter, I would prefer to leave it on the complete denial of the comprehensive type that was given. Deputy Cowan says, however, that he never saw a denial of a comprehensive type. Deputy Lemass read or purported to read the denial as issued by the Government Information Bureau. He made the case that that denial referred only to the address given to the Canadian Club. I take that to be the Deputy's point.

Mr. Lemass

I did not do that. I read the whole statement as it appeared.

Mr. McGilligan

Would the Deputy read it again if he thinks there is any point in it?

Mr. Lemass

I say the statement does not say in so many words that the Taoiseach did not make the statement.

Mr. McGilligan

The Government Information Bureau issued a denial on the 14th September. Will the Deputy look at the headline: "Mr. Costello denies reports that in his address to the Canadian Club at Ottawa, or else where, he defined the attitude of Ireland in the event of war."

Mr. Lemass

What does that mean?

Mr. McGilligan

It is a denial of all that has been said before. That is not merely the headline. That is contained in the body of the statement. He says: "I did not in that address, or elsewhere, define——." It is interesting to note that in an editorial written in the Irish Press on the 14th September reference is made to this denial. That editorial says:—

"Yesterday the Government Information Bureau released the context of a statement issued by the Taoiseach in Quebec on Sunday night. In it Mr. Costello says that neither in his address to the Canadian Club at Ottawa, or elsewhere, did he define what Ireland's attitude would be in the event of war."

Then the Irish Press editor continues: “The statement will be received with a perfect sense of relief by the Irish people.”

Mr. Davin

Is that the Dáil Reporter?

Mr. McGilligan

No—apparently the Dáil Reporter was on a job that morning. There at any rate you have the Irish Press accepting it as a comprehensive denial.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think it did.

Mr. McGilligan

There is the statement. The Government Information Bureau say that Mr. Costello says that neither in his address to the Canadian Club, nor elsewhere, did he define the attitude of Ireland in the event of war. The Irish Press takes that denial as relating to that statement and they put it in relation to the statement upon which so much comment has been made. Am I wrong in that?

Mr. Allen

Have you any of the Canadian newspapers there?

Mr. McGilligan

There may be Canadian newspapers in this file. I have not looked at them.

Mr. Allen

You might quote from them.

Mr. McGilligan

About what?

Mr. Allen

About the particular matter.

Mr. McGilligan

Let the Deputy not misunderstand me. I do not deny that certain Canadian newspapers carried that phrase. The question at issue is whether the Taoiseach ever comprehensively denied that he made that statement. I said I was prepared to make that denial on his behalf. Some Deputies said that I was going further than the Taoiseach was prepared to go himself. But I do not think I am going further than that. I think this matter should be allowed to rest. A precise denial has already been given. I do not think I have added anything to what the Taoiseach said. But the Taoiseach is of the opinion that the matter ought to be comprehensively denied; and I am now comprehensively denying it for him. With the exception of possibly two days, I believe that the visit was an entirely official one and that at no time was the fact that it was an official visit ever in doubt. It was quite clear from the outset that it was official and provision was made, as provision would ordinarily be made in that respect, in accordance with practice and procedure.

Captain Cowan

Did the Minister give the details of how this £1,250 is arrived at?

Mr. McGilligan

I did not.

Captain Cowan

Would the Minister give the details now?

Mr. McGilligan

A sum of £370 is appropriated to the delegation which visited London in June, 1948, and as a result of which the trade agreement was brought about; a sum of £1,550 is needed in connection with the Taoiseach's visit and a sum of £160 in connection with the visit which the Minister for External Affairs and I paid to Paris in November, 1948.

Captain Cowan

With reference to the Taoiseach's visit, are travel charges included?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister explain to me as a matter of technical interest, why the expenses incurred in connection with his visit and the visit of the Minister for External Affairs to Paris are accounted for in the Taoiseach's Vote? The House is aware that the Minister for External Affairs has made other visits to Paris since. Presumably his expenses will have to be defrayed also. Is it intended that those expenses will be accounted for on the Minister's own Vote or will they also be Charged against the Taoiseach's Estimate through another supplementary?

Mr. McGilligan

As I understand it, the general practice is that anything that has to do with general Government business appears on the Taoiseach's Vote. If a member of the Government went to London on business entirely connected with his own Department that visit would be accounted for in the appropriate way on his own Estimate. But this matter ranks in the category of general Governmental business.

Mr. Lemass

I want to raise a matter concerning a report of a visit of the Minister for External Affairs to Paris. It is a matter which I do not want to raise hastily.

Mr. McGilligan

In connection with what? Is it O.E.C.?

Mr. Lemass

I am referring to a report that the Minister travelled to this international conference in Paris in a private plane belonging to a Minister representing another State here. That is a matter I do not want to refer to except in its appropriate place.

Mr. McGilligan

I think that was the occassion on which the Minister for External Affairs went over on O.E.C. business. There is a special Vote being taken for that. I should assume that if he went in a private plane no question of cost to the State would arise, and the matter could not very well be discussed.

Mr. Lemass

Nevertheless, there is a question of policy which the Dáil might wish to discuss.

Vote put and agreed to.

Mr. McGilligan

I would suggest that Vote 17 (Rates on Government Property), which is a purely formal matter, might be taken at this stage.

Agreed.