asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there were any differences between the speech he delivered to the St. Patrick's Society of Brooklyn and the Emerald Association in New York on 1st October, 1977, and the script of the speech which was circulated to the media; and, if so, why.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Ministerial Speech.
20.
Because of the informal nature of the occasion to which the Deputy refers, I spoke without a script. My remarks were based on the script which was supplied to the Press and circulated among those attending the function. I did not intentionally omit any of the main points in the supplied script.
I preface my questions with this observation, that of course I accept that a considerate speaker, out of regard for his audience, may often omit tedious and verbose parts of his script. That is not an issue. But the script, as circulated to the media, contained a specific condemnation of paramilitary organisations and activities in Northern Ireland and also contained a specific welcome and praise for the commitment for the United States administration to seek out and prosecute persons in the United States who were engaged in the exportation of money and arms to Northern Ireland.
Can we take another question?
Would the Minister regret that the circulation of his speech and a considerable departure from that speech as circulated, gave rise to the suspicion—which I know is unfounded; the people in the United States might not know as much as we do—that he was prevaricating on these two very vital issues? My second question is: having regard to Press reports that people attending the function in question praised the Minister because he did not condemn the IRA, or did not ask people in the US to stop sending money and arms to paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, have any steps been taken to disabuse anybody attending that function, or indeed anybody else, of the impression that the Government have two views on this matter?
I am certain that the Minister on the occasion and in the future on this aspect was and is fully competent to deal with the situation.
It is not the Minister's competence I am testing at present. I am asking what steps have been taken to make it clear that his sentiments, as circulated in the media, are his sentiments and that, in omitting to make a condemnation of the IRA at the function and omitting to applaud the United State's Administration for prosecuting people who send arms and money to the IRA, he was not to be taken as weakening on the matter?
There is no weaken-of the Government's position in this matter.
Why not make that clear?
I am certain the Minister will make it clear on a future occasion. This was an informal invitation——
What matters is the reputation of Ireland and the Minister's failure to use an opportunity when speaking to a United States' audience to condemn paramilitary activities and the sending of money and arms to organisations in the North.
The script is on record and contains fully the Government's view and attitude on any encouragement to any paramilitary organisation in this island.
But the Minister according to a Press report was praised for not using what was in his script.
I am not responsible for sub-editing a national newspaper.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister agree—as I am sure every other Member of the House would—that one of the most important points for any member of an Irish Cabinet addressing an American audience would be to clarify the point of the paramilitary involvement in Ireland; to condemn any support for it in the United States and to explain to the American public that it was wrong to subscribe moneys for this type of activity in Ireland? In view of that does he not think it rather strange that a Minister for Foreign Affairs should overlook these two very important points in such a speech no matter what audience he was addressing?
I do not accept for an instant the imputation in the Deputy's question. The Minister's and the Government's stance were fully set out in the script available to the media as being the full Government position on this matter, and that is where we stand. What the Minister may have said in an informal way to an informal gathering is something different. This happens quite regularly in regard to ministerial speeches. The important thing is what is on the record. As far as the record is concerned our stance is strong as regards totally condemning any support from any quarter for paramilitary organisations in this island.
Why had the Minister not the guts to say it to his audience?
The very point we are making, about which I am not in dispute with the Minister, is on the record.
I take it the Deputy is eliciting information?
I want to ask the Minister a question.
It is the record that is important and what is on the record is the Minister's script.
There is something called double tongue too.
(Interruptions.)
Yes, and what is on the record in Leinster House and what is on the record in the United States is what we are questioning. I want to know why were those two important points omitted. That is what I want to know. I am not asking what is on the record. I am asking why were those two important points omitted?
I am surprised at the Deputy, coming from where he does, playing politics with this very sensitive matter.
(Interruptions.)
No, no; this is the very point. I have never yet shied away from condemning something I was against. What I am now protesting about is——
We are getting into an argument.
Why is it that the Minister responsible——
We cannot have a debate on something the Minister is alleged not to have said. We cannot continue.
(Interruptions.)
There is ambiguity in this. There is no allegation being made; it is a statement of fact. The Minister for Foreign Affairs overlooked these two very important criticisms of matters contained in his script.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling the next question.
I have already said I refute entirely the imputation in the Deputy's question.
I just want to give notice that, when the Minister for Foreign Affairs returns, I will be raising this matter on the Adjournment. It is much too serious to be dealt with in the flippant way the Minister is dealing with it.
I will communicate with the Deputy but he does understand that he will have to raise it again on the day in question. Next question.
In view of the admitted difference between what was circulated in the script and what appears to have been said at the meeting and in order to clarify the Government's position, perhaps a copy of the script should be sent to the organisers of that meeting so that the Government's position will be well and truly made clear?
I will certainly convey that suggestion to the Minister.