asked the Taoiseach if he will make available in the Oireachtas Library the full text of his recent interview with the Washington Post.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - American Newspaper Interview.
2.
As the interview was an informal one, there is no text available.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that something was printed in the Washington Post? Would he not agree to make that “something” available in the Library and would he also tell the Dáil whether the “something” printed in the Washington Post represents substantially what he said or whether it distorts what he said and, if it did distort what he said, where it distorted it? I think the House has a right to be informed of this.
I am sure the Deputy has access to the Washington Post as well as I have, but I can tell him I have procured a copy of the Washington Post, or that part of it which carried the interview with me. I can tell the Deputy that the heading carried by the Washington Post—“Lynch Raps Kennedy over Ulster Pull-Out”—was a misleading heading. I was asked by the interviewer concerned what I thought of Senator Kennedy's suggestion about the withdrawal of British troops from the North of Ireland. I told him, in so far as Senator Kennedy advocated an immediate and total withdrawal now, that was not my opinion. I said I could understand Senator Kennedy saying such a thing because he was not as well informed of the situation as we were here. However, I did go on to say, as I have said before, that I think the British troops should withdraw from areas where the Catholoc population is centred in a high degree of concentration in order to let the situation dampen down, in order to reconcile feelings between the two communities. I am not finished.
I only made a gesture.
Then the Deputy is ready for the "off" obviously. That was one part of the misleading report. The other part was contained ——
I know the heading was misleading. What else was misleading?
I am just coming to it now. The other part was contained not in the Washington Post but in a report of the interview which The Irish Press picked up from the Washington Post.
And got it wrong?
Got it wrong, yes. In the Washington Post, I quote, on the question put to me about Senator Kennedy:
"It required some period of time before the soldiers could be pulled out," the Prime Minister said "to dampen down and reconcile feelings in the two communities".
The Washington Post goes on to say:
Responsible officials here and in Britain fear that withdrawing the soldiers now would lead to a bloody civil war, one in which the half million Catholics would likely lose more lives than the 1 million Protestants. A disaster of this order could compel the Irish Republic to intervene and the nightmare scenario could end in a war with Britain.
There was no attribution of these sentiments to me, nor did I express them.
In what does the Taoiseach disagree?
The Irish Press, having used these two sentences, end the second sentence, that is: “... the nightmare scenario could end in a war with Britain” with the words: “said the Taoiseach in the interview conducted by Mr. So-and-So”. I never said that. The Irish Press report was misleading and untrue.
That is "The Truth in the News."
Is that sufficient for Deputy Cruise-O'Brien?
The Taoiseach describes this interview as being informal. The Taoiseach will appreciate that the Washington Post is an influential newspaper in an influential country. Why then an informal sort of interview in a situation like that, having regard to the importance of the Washington Post and of the influence of America?
What is the difference between "informal" and "formal"?
I do not know. It was the Taoiseach who said it was informal.
The reporter approached one of the Government agencies—I forget whether it was the Government Information Bureau or the Department of Foreign Affairs—requesting this interview. This gentleman happened to be in Dublin some time ago and was unable to get the interview, so I acceded to his request on this occasion. It was conducted almost exactly at this time last Thursday.
In the light of that, I would not describe it as informal. It had been set up.
Oh, it was set up. The reason I said it was informal was to indicate that I have not got the question and answer report of the interview.
That is the Taoiseach's definition of "informal". Would he not consider that on a subject like this he should have his own notetaker or tape recorder to make sure that there is not any misrepresentation either of him or any member of his Cabinet on this subject?
I think it is good and acceptable journalistic practice that, when a journalist comes to interview a person, he asks the question: "Is it on or off the record?" I told him that it would be on the record in so far as I said it would, and substantially what the reporter had in quotes was on the record and substantially in accord with what I said. Right through his report he refers to "responsible officials", "officials in Ireland" and "officials in both countries". I do not know who these people are. Obviously he interviewed other people as well and "officials" I think has a different connotation in the United States than it has in this country. Certainly, the Washington Post reporter did not attribute to me anything that these officials or responsible officials said to him but The Irish Press did.
Question No. 3.
The Taoiseach should be more careful in future. I am not saying that in criticism, but I think he should be.
I think our own newspapers here should be more careful when they take "pulls" out of foreign newspapers.
Would it be correct to conclude from what the Taoiseach has said that the remarks incorrectly identified by The Irish Press as having been declared by the Washington Post to be said by the Taoiseach were words actually said by the Taoiseach off the record and that he was happy enough to see them there but did not want to have them attributed to him?
No, I did not refer to them or make any assertion along those lines in any way, or anything resembling these assertions.
In what respect, then, does the Taoiseach differ from the statements attributed to him? What was wrong with them in substance?
I never said them to anybody.
But do you agree with them?
I do not agree with them, of course.
In what respect do you disagree?
I am not going to be cross-examined at this stage. The Deputy asked for information. I gave it very fully.
Perhaps you will give him an interview.
With a tape recorder.
We have debated this question sufficiently.
In view of the fact that the Taoiseach has in his possession and has been reading from a copy of the Washington Post, would he now accede to the request in Deputy Luke Belton's question, and have a photocopy of that made and put it in the Oireachtas Library?
I will do that, yes, certainly.
Thank you.
I am very grateful to Deputy Belton for having the record set straight.
No bother.