asked the Minister for External Affairs whether, in view of his statement at the O'Connell Street meeting that it was made clear to the British Government that it was the intention of the Government to repeal the External Relations Act long before the decision was formally announced, and long before the Republic of Ireland Bill was introduced in the Dáil, and the apparently complete contradiction of that statement by the British Secretary of State for the Home Department in columns 390 and 391 of the Official Report of the British House of Commons of the 17th May, 1949, to the effect that no documents had passed between the Irish and British Governments and no conversation took place between them indicating that any pronouncement was going to be made by the Irish Government regarding the repeal of the External Relations Act before Mr. Costello made his statement in Canada and that this announcement had come as a complete surprise to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations who was in Dublin when the report came out in the papers, he will (1) give the Dáil the date upon which the British Government was first informed of the Government's intention to introduce proposals for legislation for the repeal of the External Relations Act; and (2) state the method by which that information was conveyed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Repeal of External Relations Act.
I think I can best reply to the question by recalling, first, some facts which will be within the recollection of most Deputies.
In introducing the Estimates of my Department on the 20th July, 1948, I outlined the Government's attitude towards the "last remaining link with the British Crown" (Dáil Reports, Volume 112, columns 909-910).
On the 6th August, 1948, the Tánaiste intimated to the Dáil in the clearest terms that our self-respect demanded the repeal of the External Relations Act without delay. On the same day, the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy de Valera, indicated that he would support the repeal of the Act.
In addition to these facts, which are a matter of public knowledge, I pointed out to the British representative, in informal conversations, that most of my colleagues in the Government had opposed the passing of the External Relations Act or had criticised it since it was enacted, and that the Act was likely to be repealed. Subsequent to the Dáil references which I have mentioned, the repeal of the Act was confidently forecast in several newspaper articles.
All these indications of the Government's policy and intention were given before the Taoiseach's Press Conference in Ottawa on the 7th September, 1948, in the course of which, confirming the reports which had already appeared in the Press, he stated that, the External Relations Act being full of inaccuracies and infirmities, the Irish Government were preparing to repeal it.
In so far as the Deputy's question may, by design or otherwise, be construed as justification for the action of the British Government in including the provisions relating to the six-county area in the "Ireland Bill"——
That is a damned shame. I object here and now. What right has the Minister to make a statement like that? (Interruptions.)
Order!
What right has the Minister to impute any motive to the Deputy? (Interruptions.)
Is that a point of order?
Mr. Brady
It is my point of order also. I asked the question and the question is quite clear and specific. I want an answer to it.
You are getting your answer and you do not like it.
Might I ask if the Minister would repeat the phrase?
If it is an imputation of motive it would be better not to repeat it.
And it should be withdrawn.
Has the Ceann Comhairle heard the statement?
On a point of order, I want to ask you, Sir, to insist on the withdrawal of the imputation in the Minister's reply.
A Deputy
That is not a point of order.
That is a matter for the Chair.
Can I get your ruling on that?
There should be no imputation of motive in a reply to a question.
Deputies
Hear, hear!
Is the Ceann Comhairle prepared to state that there is an imputation of motive in the answer I have given?
Some Deputies think so. There is some ambiguity.
It is a question for the Chair to decide.
What was the purpose of putting that into it at all?
I shall read the passage again so that the House will hear what has been said: "In so far as the Deputy's question may, by design or otherwise, be construed as justification for the action of the British Government in including the provisions relating to the six-county area in the ‘Ireland Bill', I should point out that a number of communications were exchanged between the British and Irish Governments, and two conferences were held, at Chequers and Paris, respectively, prior to the introduction of the Bill to repeal the External Relations Act."
Now, Sir, you have heard the statement repeated. Do you regard it as an imputation of motive against the Deputy?
I was waiting to hear the particular statement repeated. I do not think the words "by design" should be there or appear in the Official Report.
On that——
I shall hear the Minister.
Yes, but may I say——
Deputies
Order!
The Minister.
Will you hear me on a point of order?
Yes, on a point of order.
The point of order is that the phrase objected to, "by design or otherwise", may be construed——
That is not a point of order.
I think, Sir, I am entitled to submit to the House that this question may be construed, "by design or otherwise", as indicating that the Irish Government was to blame for a certain situation.
The question is: Does the Minister accuse the Deputy of designedly doing so?
I do not.
That is not the interpretation which might be placed upon it by other people. It may be construed in either way, and the Minister is entitled to his view.
I submit, on a point of order, that the Minister for External Affairs himself has stated that slander by innuendo is the most deadly form of slander and this is slander by innuendo.
There was no slander by innuendo in what Deputy Boland said on Sunday.
Every word was straight from the shoulder and every word was meant.
We have now slander by stupidity.
We shall interpret the Minister's words "by design or otherwise" as we think fit.
I should point out that a number of communications were exchanged between the British and Irish Governments, and two conferences were held, at Chequers and Paris, respectively, prior to the introduction of the Bill to repeal the External Relations Act; that full and frank discussion took place concerning every aspect of the proposed repeal; that agreement was reached as to the consequential steps to be taken by the Governments involved; and, finally, that there was a clear understanding that both Governments would maintain close consultation concerning such consequential steps. Consultations actually took place between the two Governments in pursuance of this understanding. At no stage, however, did the British Government inform or consult the Irish Government about Clause 1(1) (b) of the "Ireland Bill", nor was the text of the Bill made available to the Irish Government until it was introduced.
I might avail of this occasion to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding in the Deputy's mind, as well as in the mind of the British Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Chuter Ede). At columns 390 and 391 to which the Deputy refers, the British Minister purports to reply to a question asked by the Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy), but, no doubt through a misunderstanding, does not reply to the question asked but replies to some question which had not been asked. If the Deputy will turn to column 357, he will find that, in effect, what the Member for Platting, Mr. Delargy, asked was whether any communications had passed between the two Governments before the repeal of the External Relations Act, and, if so, whether the British Government would consider publishing these as a White Paper. Written communications, in fact, did pass between the two Governments on the following dates:—7th October, 1948; 12th October, 1948; 14th October, 1948; 16th October, 1948; 20th October, 1948; 13th November, 1948; 14th November, 1948; 13th December, 1948. In addition, of course, there were conferences held at Chequers and Paris.
In so far as the British Home Secretary replied to a hypothetical question, which he was not asked, he was strictly correct in his answer. No written communication passed between the two Governments before the 7th October, 1948. But, having regard to the facts enumerated by me in the first portion of my answer, I am astonished that the reference made by the Taoiseach at a Press Conference in Ottawa on the 7th September, 1948, should have come as a "complete surprise" to members of the British Government.
However, be that as it may, there was ample time, as a period of well over two months elapsed before the introduction of the Republic of Ireland Bill, during which time discussions and consultations, in fact, took place, in contradistinction to which the Irish Government received 24 hours' notice of the introduction of the "Ireland Bill" and no discussion or consultation took place.