The Minister for Local Government gave me private notice of his intention to raise a matter of personal explanation arising out of references made to him in a speech by Deputy Dillon. Some Deputies may not be aware of the procedure on such a notice. The personal explanation must be brief, must be strictly personal and not argumentative.
A Deputy's Speech. - Minister's Personal Explanation.
As will be seen from columns 1359-60 of the Official Debates, Deputy Dillon, in the course of his speech on the motion which the Taoiseach had moved to establish a tribunal to investigate certain allegations relating to the sale of Locke's Distillery, took the opportunity to deliver a personal attack on myself. In the course of that attack he alleged that I had (1) violated the most elementary decencies of personal honour, and (2) betrayed the confidence of my own colleague. These are grave and serious charges to make against any person, and if they were made outside the House, the person making them would be amenable to the ordinary processes of the law. It is for this reason that I ask the indulgence of the House and the protection of the Chair while I address myself to Deputy Dillon's allegations.
These allegations are based upon nothing more substantial than the flimsy circumstance that on the afternoon of Wednesday, October 29th, I accidentally opened the door of the room in which he happened to be engaged with the Minister for Justice. I closed that door immediately I saw Deputy Dillon and I did not hear a single word of the conversation which was then taking place between him and the Minister for Justice. I did learn later that afternoon from the Minister that the Deputy had furnished him with certain facts, some of which the Deputy had not seen fit to communicate to the House, notwithstanding that one of them, in relation to all he has been saying in this House, is of the utmost importance. I must emphasise that I learned all this, not when I accidentally opened the door of my colleague's room, but later in common with other Ministers.
It is surely extraordinary that because he accidentally opened a door, a Minister of State should be accused here in this House, within the jurisdiction of the Chair, of having violated the most elementary decencies of personal honour.
Is it in order for the Minister to say that, within the jurisdiction of the Chair, a Deputy should be permitted to make a certain attack on the Minister? Is that not a reflection on the Chair?
I did not say that. I did not say that the Deputy was permitted to do it. I said that it was extraordinary that a Minister should be accused in this House of having done this. I submit, a Chinn Comhairle, that that statement of Deputy Dillon was quite unjustifiable and that accordingly you should require him on a suitable occasion to withdraw it.
The House is listening to a personal explanation from the Minister.
The second charge made by Deputy Dillon is that I betrayed the confidence of my colleague, the Minister for Justice. But a confidence cannot be betrayed unless there has been an unwarranted disclosure of something which has been revealed to another under seal of secrecy, or something which has been done in like circumstances. The question arises, therefore: what part of his visit to the Minister for Justice in his room here in Leinster House did Deputy Dillon regard as confidential? Was it what he said to the Minister or was it that he saw him at all? After his speeches here in this House, how could any matter which Deputy Dillon communicated to the Minister for Justice in relation to the proposed sale of Locke's distillery, be regarded by him as confidential? Did not Deputy Dillon himself tell the House on the 29th October that he had thrust—and mark the word he chose— that he had thrust upon the Minister for Justice every particle of information which came his way in relation to that matter? Similarly, it could not have been the fact that Deputy Dillon saw the Minister for Justice that he wished to be treated as confidential, for he himself has published that to the world at large. How, then, could I have betrayed a confidence, since it was neither the subject-matter of the interview nor the fact that there had been an interview that was either private, confidential or secret? The Deputy published these facts to everybody.
There are other aspects of this matter which I regret I am not able to deal with. I cannot conjecture why Deputy Dillon should make that attack upon me. I know that he knew that I was aware there was something which he should have disclosed to the House but which was not disclosed. That, however, must now arise for consideration in another place. All I am concerned to say is, I was quite correct when I did say on the 29th October that until that day Deputy Dillon had not furnished the Minister for Justice with every particle of the information in relation to this transaction which had come into his possession. I deny I was betraying the confidence of my colleague, the Minister for Justice, or that in accidentally opening a door I violated in any way any principle of personal honour or disgraced myself.
The Minister should in future endeavour to stop misrepresenting other people.