The Minister for External Affairs wishes to make a statement in regard to alleged misrepresentation.
Alleged Misrepresentation—Minister's Statement.
In September, 1947, I became aware that certain allegations had been brought to the attention of the then Taoiseach by a firm of solicitors in Dublin. This firm wrote a letter to the then Taoiseach which, inter alia, contained the following paragraphs—I do not propose to mention any names in relation to the whole matter. After reciting certain allegations the letter went on:—
"On examination of the facts disclosed, we are of the opinion that in order to have the matter properly investigated it will be necessary to deal with it expeditiously, and in particular to arrange for an immediate and simultaneous examination of books and records of several business firms in the country, and of certain Government Departments and concerns. Unless such steps are taken without prior notice a proper investigation will be rendered difficult. By reason of the persons involved, it is felt that attempts may be made to prevent a full investigation.
In these circumstances, we take the liberty to write to you directly so that you may, if you see fit, direct the appointment of some persons with authority to carry out the investigation suggested."
Mr. P.J. Burke rose.
Does Deputy P.J. Burke want to intervene? The Minister stated that he was misrepresented in regard to a speech made somewhere and that he would give his own words, or his speech. I should like to hear one or the other.
Certainly.
Mr. de Valera
I ask the Taoiseach whether, if this matter is going to be discussed, he will give public time for it?
No.
The Minister asked for permission to give the exact words he used in the speech in question. So far, he has not given any of them.
Being aware of this communication——
Will the Minister state whether he became aware of that communication in September?
I knew of that document in September. On the 31st January—that is, four months subsequently——
Mr. Boland
Four days before the election.
It was not two days after the election, like certain other things. Four months subsequently no steps, that I was aware of, had been taken. In the course of the speech I made at Enniscorthy—I am quoting from the Sunday Independent of the 1st February, 1948, and I am giving it as it appeared in that newspaper—I spoke as follows:—
"He would like to ask the head of the Government, he said, if he had received as far back as last September information relating to alleged frauds in connection with Government contracts and breaches of rationing and price control Orders, and concerning, among others, some persons closely connected with the Government, and if so what steps had been taken to have the matter fully investigated in public. Information, continued Mr. MacBride, had been conveyed to Mr. de Valera concerning some extensive malpractices in which some persons, not unconnected with Government circles, were closely associated. This was some months ago. He did not know whether that information was capable of proof beyond doubt, but he did know that the information was made available to the authorities. He was not aware that any public investigation had been carried out. There had been ample time to get these matters investigated and brought before the courts, and he now wished to ask why that had not been done."
That, I take it, is all I am allowed to say.
That is so.
There is no one else allowed to say anything. You kept that for four months until the day before the election.
The point is that the Minister has not read the fullest report available to the public. There is nothing in the report which he read which refers to the chairman of a public board.
No.
There was in a report of the Minister's subsequent statement.
It is slander.
Mr. de Valera
May I suggest to the head of the Government that this matter ought not to be allowed to stand where it is?
This matter was not brought up by us. It was dragged in here for a certain purpose and we have given all the facts connected with it.
That is a lie.
You got into office on it.
Mr. de Valera
I think the Taoiseach ought not to take up that position. I think he is in duty bound——
I do not want to be told my duty by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. de Valera
He has, nevertheless, a public duty.
That is a matter for me and my colleagues to determine.
Mr. de Valera
It is for the House to determine. The point is that the Taoiseach has a public duty to see that this matter is not allowed to stand where is it and that there will be either a public inquiry into the matter or that we be given an opportunity to discuss it here in the House in public time.
Deputy MacEntee, while in his seat, has declared that the Taoiseach has spoken a lie and I ask for its withdrawal.
The Deputy must withdraw it.
I withdraw.
May I respectfully suggest to Deputy de Valera that he is now making a charge when he says that it must not be left where it is? He is charging me with having made some statement that is inaccurate or untrue. Are you making that charge?
Mr. de Valera
The point is that I know a certain amount about this case. The statement made by the Minister for External Affairs shows that this was sent to me originally. I want to make it clear to the public that the steps that were taken both by me and by the Minister for Justice were in accordance with the public practice in regard to matters of that sort.
That is not the point.
We did not interfere with the police or the Guards.
I have been asked certain questions and I have given certain replies as Minister. My word is now being challenged by Deputy de Valera and I suggest that that is unreasonable in view of the fact that these questions were put to me in the first instance by his Party. I here and now declare that every word I said in reply to these questions is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Mr. de Valera
I am not suggesting anything. Ministers can make mistakes apparently. It has been suggested to-day that somebody else made a mistake. I think this matter ought to be investigated and the actual facts made clear in order that, if there has been any fault, the fault will be seen. There may have been misunderstandings and these should be made clear.
With your permission, Sir, may I just make this observation? Deputy de Valera is now talking about a public inquiry. I have sent for the file in my Department. I am speaking from recollection, but I can verify it if necessary. In regard to the speech made by the present Minister for External Affairs the Deputy stated that he would not have a public inquiry into this matter, that the place to inquire into these matters was the courts. You refused an inquiry after four months.
Mr. de Valera
That is not the question. It is a court matter to inquire as to whether certain things were done. The question that I want to be examined is whether steps were taken by the proper authorities for the investigation of this, whether there was any fault or any attempt on the part of any member of the Government to shield anyone.
Will the Deputy not agree that it was extraordinary that when one of the members of the Oireachtas was mentioned the police should wait for nearly five months?
Mr. de Valera
I can state my view on that. That is why, when this letter was received by me, I immediately sent for the Minister for Justice. That is my recollection. I immediately rang him on the 'phone. He came down and I gave him this letter. It was quite obvious that it had not merely an ordinary complexion, but also a political complexion. I said: "You had better see about this at once." He reported to me—I do not know how soon—within a day or so, that he had, in fact, given this matter over to the police, and that they had gone to the firm in question, that the police went down to investigate it and that investigations were being conducted. I think they reported at some stage that there was not evidence enough to support a prosecution. That is my recollection.
Deputy de Valera is anxious for an investigation into this matter. We have been very apprehensive lest anything that would be done in connection with this would create a precedent, or do anything which might prejudice the public interest. It would have been very easy for us, if we did not have regard to the public interest and to the necessity for the protection of police investigations, to publish certain things on these files which would be very useful to us and to the public. We did not want to do that. We did not want to have these files——
That is more slander, by innuendo.
I want to make that clear so that the public may understand our attitude. We do not want to have to publish reports of police inquiries made in the course of investigations into alleged criminal offences.
Mr. de Valera
There ought not to be partial reports or suggestions made.
We made no suggestions. May I recall the Deputy's recollection to the fact that the Minister for Justice, when the matter was brought up for the first time in the House, asked Deputy Boland not to press the matter, and was exceedingly careful and very cautious in order that he should not be in the position of making charges against any people?
That was slander by innuendo.
Seanad Éireann has passed the Children (Amendment) Bill, 1949——
You got in by slander and the Irish people will give you your answer.
It is most disorderly for Deputies to make speeches.
It is these people who are making speeches.
(Interruptions).
I think that the exhibition——
When the Ceann Comhairle speaks others should be silent. Deputy Davern is a persistent roarer up there.