asked the Minister for External Affairs if his attention has been called to an allegation made by a member of the Oireachtas speaking at a public meeting in Fermoy on March 6th last, to the effect that a document submitted to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation by the Minister for External Affairs was dishonest and calculated to mislead; and, if so, whether he will make a statement on the matter, having regard to the damage to Irish prestige and our case for Marshall Aid which such an allegation is likely to cause if not contradicted by a responsible person.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Speech at Fermoy.
I read the newspaper reports of the speech referred to, and, as the Deputy may have noticed, I issued a statement with regard to it through the Government Information Bureau on the 7th March.
The speech in question contained a number of allegations and suggestions which are quite unfounded and unjustifiable. It described the choice of the year 1947 for comparison purposes as "definitely misleading". In fact, the year 1947 was chosen as the basic year for comparison purposes, not only by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation itself in its instructions for the preparation of long-term programmes, but by practically all the participating countries which submitted long-term programmes to the organisation. The choice was an obvious one because 1947 was, of course, the last complete calendar year before the European Recovery Programme entered into operation. Apart from that, our long-term programme was prepared in October, 1948, when the 1947 figures were the latest available figures. The suggestion made by Deputy Lemass that the year 1947 was deliberately chosen by the Government for its own purposes is, therefore, completely false and unjustifiable.
Another statement made in the same speech was that the rural electrification scheme is proceeding at one-fifth or one-sixth of the rate planned. As the long-term programme clearly states, it is hoped to increase the rate of completion of the scheme up to 10,000 kilometres of line per year, according as line materials and skilled personnel become more easily available; but, in the meantime, the value of Deputy Lemass's statements may be gauged from the fact that, in the last 12 months, 2,795 kilometres have been completed, as compared with 1,140 kilometres completed in the 12 months' period prior to that. In other words, the rate of progress within the last 12 months has been 140 per cent. faster than it was before.
Are other Deputies going to be deprived of the right to ask questions by the length of these answers?
His answer is most salutary and desirable.
I can deal with that on the Estimate.
There is a question on the Order Paper dealing with a specific matter. The answer of the Minister is now on a quite different matter to which the question made no reference.
He referred to the dangers of the civil war being responsible for the decision to engage in the Atlantic Pact. There should be an opportunity of debating the question.
Surely if a statement is made by a Deputy at Fermoy which contains a tissue of lies, the Minister is entitled to reply to it.(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, have I the right to speak?
The Minister is making a speech.
The Minister has the right to answer a question put down. The question should deal with one specific matter.
It is a question relating to a speech made in Fermoy on the 6th of March last by a member of this House, in the course of which it was suggested that a proposal laid before this House, and communicated to other countries by me, was a dishonest proposal and calculated to mislead. I respectfully submit that I am entitled to inform this House that the long-term programme put forward by this country was not a dishonest proposal and was not calculated to mislead and surely I am entitled to contradict the false allegations made by a member of this House outside this House.
Hear, hear!
I have the speech here, and if the Ceann Comhairle wishes I shall read the relevant portions of the speech. I shall continue with my reply:—
Similarly, as regards Deputy Lemass's statements about Government policy in relation to acreages under tillage, in actual fact, the long-term programme aims at a higher production of cereals in this country than the four-year programme submitted to the Paris Conference by the former Government, of which Deputy Lemass was a member, in the year 1947. Other statements made in the course of Deputy Lemass's speech are on a par with those with which I have dealt——
I claim we are entitled to debate all this. The Minister is making a speech and I protest against that. We are entitled to reply to that statement. I claim that as a matter of privilege. Deputies are entitled to reply to this statement, and we must insist.
The Chair cannot fix the length of the reply to a question.
If the Minister makes that statement, we are entitled to reply to it.
Deal with it on the Adjournment, if you like.
It seems to me that it is not regular at Question Time to answer in full, in reply to a question relating to a speech, every point raised in the speech.
My submission is that if a statement like this is made, we are entitled to reply.
I will proceed with my reply.
We will not listen to the Minister.
Interruptions. Bell rung for order.
It is no use ringing the bell. We will not listen to the Minister.
If he carries on, I hold we are entitled to reply to him.
Has a Minister the right to speak in this House?
If he has, we have a right to reply, and that is what we claim.
Why not raise this matter on the Adjournment?
There are Deputies over there trying to sabotage this country.
Deputies on your side did their damnedest in the interests of John Bull to sabotage the country.
On a point of order. I asked the Minister for External Affairs to make a statement with regard to the damage done, or likely to be done, to Irish prestige.
Let us have a ruling.
The Minister is in possession.
On a point of order. The Minister has not yet had an opportunity, by reason of the antics of the Opposition——
That sort of thing is played out.
On a point of order. I think this Assembly is being brought into disrepute by the conduct of Deputies.
It is being brought into disrepute by reason of the Government using that type of trick——
You are trying to sabotage the country.
Do not mention that word.
Is the Minister for External Affairs in possession?
He is not.
The Minister for External Affairs is in possession. There should, however, be some limit to the length of replies to questions, and——
A question was put to me asking me to make a statement with reference to a speech made by a member of the Oireachtas at a public meeting (Interruptions). Have I a right to speak in this House?
Mr. MacEntee rose.
Is the Minister for External Affairs in possession, and will he be allowed to complete his answer?
The Minister is in possession, but Question Time would never end if questions put down relating to speeches made outside are to be answered in full by Ministers. It is not consonant with the ordinary method of answering questions here and it is, indeed, an abuse of procedure on Question Time.
May the Minister complete his answer to the question?
On a point of order——
I asked a question on a specific point of order. Will the Minister be permitted to complete his answer?
Yes.
On a point of order. The Minister for External Affairs has stated that he is making a statement. Has it not been the practice, when a Minister proposes to make a statement at such length, to make it after the conclusion of Question Time and before Public Business is taken?
That has been the practice.
A question was addressed to me——
By arrangement.
It was put on the Order Paper, presumably because the Chair thought it was a proper question to be put on the Order Paper.
What I want to know is, if this type of answer is allowed, will we get an opportunity of replying?
I have given an answer.
What has your answer been?
If the Deputy did not hear it, I cannot help that.
I would like to know now. Surely we are entitled to reply to him?
I said I would consider that a statement of that length, in reply to a question, is an abuse of ordinary Question Time. I want to hear the rest of this answer.
I will proceed with it. It is: "They can only have been made either quite recklessly or out of a deliberate disregard of the facts. That a public representative should have thought fit, on such a basis, to impugn the sincerity and good faith of proposals made by his own Government to the Governments and authorities of other countries must be almost without precedent. It certainly betrays a reprehensible degree of indifference to the national interest which I hope shall not be repeated in this House."
I have a supplementary. May I ask the Minister does he think it enhances the prestige of this country abroad to introduce into our international relations the propagandist methods of Clann na Poblachta?
More sabotage.
I stated what the facts are. I repeat, with all the responsibility at my disposal, that the statement made by Deputy Lemass was a malicious statement, calculated to damage the credit of this country abroad, and it should not have been made.
Hear, hear!
Does the Minister not recognise that any document purporting to make a comparison between prewar and post-war agricultural productivity, where the post-war year selected is 1947, is bound to be misleading, and does he not think, whether the Organisation of European Economic Co-operation requested the preparation of the document based on 1947 or not, that the statement should have pointed out that that year was an abnormal year, that the yield of crops in that year was abnormally low, that all agricultural production was affected by adverse weather, and does he not agree that the publication of that document abroad, without any intimation of the abnormal conditions which prevailed here, was misleading? Does he not agree that the preparation of the document in that manner was primarily designed for home use as Government propaganda?
More sabotage.
Does the Minister not agree that in any event——
Is this a supplementary question or a speech?
It is another effort to wreck this country.
Does the Minister not agree that there was no likelihood of the American or any European Government being misled by the errors in the report—errors which I pointed out in my speech?
Tell them not to give a grant.
The year 1947 was selected, firstly, because it was the year with which we were asked to make the comparison; secondly, because the programme was prepared in the month of October, 1948, when the 1948 figures could not be available.
But the 1946 figures were available.
The comparison was on the basis of the 1947 figures.
You were trying to trick the Irish people. Should you not have pointed out that that matter——
Of course I am telling the truth. It is you who are trying to trick the Irish people.
Do you want to injure the country?
The injury has been done. It is published in this. You did not fool the Americans.
The Deputy made consistently false and untrue statements in that speech. If he had any decency or any sense of responsibility he would now apologise for having done so.
There was not a statement in that speech which was false or untrue or inaccurate and I shall raise the matter upon the Minister's Estimate and prove that.
Why do you want to injure the country? What good does it do you?
Because I do not believe in these trick-o-the-loop methods in international affairs.
You cannot help yourself by injuring the country.