In reply to a question on the Order Paper to-day the Minister for Defence indicated that an official invitation had been issued, presumably with the authority of the Government, to the General Officer Commanding the British Forces of Occupation in the Six Counties and I asked your leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment, by reason particularly of certain statements which the Minister thought fit to make in the course of supplementary questions and answers.

The Minister availed of the occasion, among other things, to attack one of the best-known journalists in this country. This attack was made on the journalist in question because, apparently, faithful to his profession as a journalist, he had published a report, which has now been proved to have been true and accurate, concerning the official visit of the British General who commands the forces of occupation in the six North-Eastern Counties of Ireland. In my view, it is an abuse of the privilege of this House to attack in it a journalist—he is identified by name in the report which he published —for reporting a news matter of considerable political and military importance to this country. I am sure that everyone who cherishes the right of freedom of expression in this country——

Freedom of opinion.

Freedom of opinion, freedom of expression—will join with me in expressing the hope that nothing will be done to intimidate either a journalist or a newspaper in reporting matters of public importance in the Press of this country.

Like "His Master's Voice."

Deputy Cowan, I notice, these days, is not seeking to raise an army to march on the Six Counties. He is now standing behind a British General who comes to inspect the Curragh. We should congratulate ourselves on having a Press which reports news events freely and fearlessly. I do not think it was worthy of the Minister to avail of this occasion to attack a newspaperman for doing his duty, not merely to his newspaper, but to the public at large.

The Deputy should give up his lecturing and come to the point of the question. The Minister for Defence needs no lecture from Deputy MacBride.

I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach would much prefer that this matter was not raised. He tried to prevent me raising it at Question Time but I will raise it and will say what I like, subject to the rules of order of this House. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach does not like it, he can leave the House.

The Deputy does not mean a damn to the country.

Order!

Is it in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach to interject that it does not matter a damn?

I regret that expression and withdraw it.

Deputy MacBride.

I look to Deputies on all sides of the House to resist any attempt that may be made to intimidate either a journalist or a newspaper in publishing facts.

Who is the journalist? Certainly not the man who writes in the Sunday Independent.

There was a question on the Order Paper. Deputy MacBride is raising the subject matter of it.

It is somewhat hard to reconcile the Minister's anger plus the agitation of some of his supporters in this House with the Minister's own words in regard to this visit. The Minister seems to have been annoyed at the fact that this visit received publicity but it is hard to reconcile his annoyance and his anger with his own interview, published in last Monday's Irish Times, in the course of which he is reported to have said that there was nothing secretive about the visit. “How could you have secrecy with 3,000 or 4,000 men participating in the honour that was given?” the Minister asked.

Who said that?

The Minister is reported on page one of last Monday's Irish Times, as having said this.

The Minister?

The Minister for Defence.

That is correct.

I intimated to-day that quotations during Question Time or on the Adjournment, which is an extension of Question Time, have not been allowed and I would ask the Deputy to make his statement on the substance of the quotation rather than to give quotations.

If the Minister tells me that he did not give an interview of that kind to the Irish Times, I will accept his assurance.

I am not denying that.

The Minister is not?

Not at all.

Apparently, the Minister did give an interview to at least one newspaper in the course of which he said there was nothing secretive about this visit——

Not at all—no secrecy.

——and that 3,000 or 4,000 men know about it and therefore there could be no secrecy. It is somewhat difficult to reconcile that statement with the Minister's annoyance because another newspaper published the facts of that visit. This visit took place on Tuesday, 16th February, but, for some extraordinary reason, not one line of it was published until the following Sunday when the Sunday Independent published a full account of it, an account which has now been proved to have been substantially correct.

The organ of the Government Party, the Minister's Party, which had remained silent until then, published in its city edition then a statement to the effect that this General's visit was one to the British Envoy. It also suggested that the visit to the Curragh was incidental to a call on the British Ambassador and then went on to state that the visit had been made as a result of a request to the Department of Defence by the British authorities..

The Minister is not responsible for what appears in the Press.

No. I appreciate that but it is by reason of the different accounts that were published in the Press that I feel it necessary to draw the attention of the House to them so that we may get an explanation from the Minister as to which is correct.

I must ask the Deputy to come to the matter of the question on to-day's Order Paper.

The subject of the main question to-day was whether this visit had been as a result of an invitation by the Irish authorities to the British authorities to send the British General Commanding the Army of Occupation in the Six Counties to inspect the Curragh, or not. There had been reports in the Government papers to the effect that the visit had been at the request of the British authorities. Reports were also published in other papers of the same day saying that the visit was the result of a specific invitation to the British authorities by the Irish authorities. The General in question is reported to have said that, when he received the invitation at first, he declined to accept it unless he could come in uniform and that thereupon a fresh invitation was issued to this British General to visit the Curragh in uniform.

That is one of the matters that I raised at Question Time to-day and upon which I failed to get any answer from the Minister. The Minister evaded my questions in that respect with great care. I would now like to repeat those questions specifically to the Minister. First of all, I would like the Minister to say, is it a fact that the Irish authorities invited this General to come? Secondly, did the British authorities reply to him, or to whoever conveyed the invitation, that he was not coming unless he was permitted to come in uniform accompanied by an A.D.C.? And thirdly, was he invited to come in full uniform and military regalia?

The Minister, in dealing with these questions at Question Time to-day, tried to side-track them by referring to the visit of another British officer in 1948. Before dealing with that particular matter, I should like to make this quite clear, that in 1948 there was no legislation being enacted for the deliberate purpose of insulting our flag in the Six Counties, and that in 1948 there was no elected representative of the Irish people in jail for sedition in the area under the military jurisdiction of this particular military officer. That is one fundamental difference. But if my recollection serves me, and I am open to correction on this, the 1948 visit, to which the Minister referred, was arranged before the change of Government. The arrangements for it had been made before the change of Government in 1948. I do know this, that when I became a member of the Government in 1948 I was horrified to discover the close degree of co-operation that existed between our authorities and the British military authorities.

The Deputy cannot deal with that on this question. It is not relevant.

It is only relevant in so far as it affects the close association that there had been.

A State secret.

Anything said by that gentleman does not count in this country.

The Minister was permitted to deal with events in 1948. I am only dealing with this incidentally, pointing out that there was no analogy. In the first place, I was horrified to find that ten years before there had been visits to this country and inspections of every military post that we had by British officers, sometimes at intervals of two and three months.

The relations between the two forces do not arise on this question.

Does this raise the question of Mrs. Attlee's dog?

Deputy MacBride cannot deal with events in 1948 on this question.

The Minister was permitted to deal with this at Question Time. I thought I was entitled to refer to the circumstances as I found them in 1948. Let me pass from 1948. I do know that later, in the year 1951, when a request was made by the military authorities here that Deputy MacEoin, who was then Minister for Defence, should meet and receive the British officer commanding the British troops in the Six Counties, he refused to do so. I think that should be known. I do not think it is worthy of the Minister to drag up this instance in 1948 which, as far as I can remember, and I am open to correction, was a visit which had been arranged by his own Government prior to the change of Government.

It could have been stopped.

I think that, in the existing circumstances, when the nationalist minority in the Six Counties are being persecuted, when an elected representative of the Irish people is lying in prison, and when legislation is being passed for the specific and deliberate purpose of insulting our flag, we should cease to have any dealings of that kind with the Army of Occupation in the Six Counties, and particularly with the officer commanding these forces.

Deputy MacBride in what he has just said is the typical Party leader, who has so thinned out his following that he stands lonesome and forlorn——

The Deputy has just a minute.

——surrounded by an immensity of solitude in desolate self-appreciation.

I will wait as the Minister has only ten minutes to reply. I did not expect that Deputy Cowan was going to deputise for the Minister.

Well, it is very interesting to hear Deputy MacBride on this question. He has, apparently, washed his hands of any responsibility for what happened in 1948. As far as the 1948 visit is concerned I had no responsibility whatever. I did not know of it until I knew it was taking place and, unlike the suggestion that was made by Deputy MacEoin, there was no question raised by Fianna Fáil. We had sufficient good taste not to intervene in a matter of that kind, in a matter where an eminent British General was paying a courtesy visit to an Army establishment in this country. Deputy MacBride must realise that these visits of one group of army personnel to another are a normal procedure amongst friendly armies.

Are we friendly armies?

Just take your gruelling and do not grumble. We have had not only visits of British Army officers; we have had visits from eminent American gentlemen, and the Irish Independent did not go out of its way at any time to assail those gentlemen, as far as I know anyhow, nor did it go out of its way to assail the Fine Gael or Coalition Government on the occasion of a very similar visit in 1948 for which I have no responsibility. Will Deputy MacBride answer me this question—did he as Minister for External Affairs give approval to that visit?

My recollection, as I indicated to the Minister, was that that visit had been arranged——

Did you or did you not give approval to the visit?

The Minister has asked me a question. If the Minister wants an answer to the question he will have to listen.

Well, there is no need for a speech about it.

My recollection is that that visit had been arranged by the Minister and the Government prior to the change of Government.

That is completely wrong. That is, you refuse to answer the question I have put to you. The Deputy has completely and entirely refused to answer the question I have put to him. I only wanted to put that question for this simple reason, to let the Irish public see that the Ministers of that Coalition Government acted independently of each other, that you knew nothing at all about the visit, that it was arranged by a Fine Gael Minister.

It was arranged by your Government beforehand.

That is not so.

Arranged by your Government.

Left in the dark.

If we want the actual facts and not the distorted admissions that have been made by Deputy MacBride who clothes them with lies and statements——

I object——

I withdraw the use of the word "lies".

The Minister has withdrawn the word "lies".

Do not use the Churchillian alternative.

The Deputy has been endeavouring right through this debate to make it appear that there was a desire to keep this visit secret and that they wished the gentleman to come in civilian attire. That is what you have been endeavouring to make the House and anyone else believe.

It was published in the papers.

The actual fact of the position is that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion. The actual facts are these, that some time last year, early last year, General Woodall took up office and shortly after that he paid what is regarded as a normal courtesy call on the Chief of Staff, and in the course of the conversation at that courtesy call he expressed a wish to see a training establishment of our Army. It was suggested by the Chief of Staff that the best possible establishment from the General's point of view would be the main training establishment in the Curragh. The General asked on that occasion if it would be proper for him to wear uniform. The Chief of Staff informed him that that matter could be settled when the arrangements were being fixed for the formal visit. Some months afterwards when the arrangements were being made for that particular visit, that is the more formal visit, no question whatever arose as to whether there should be civilian attire or military attire. The General was coming to visit this State, to visit a military establishment in this State, and he was coming as a military man, as an eminent soldier.

As a soldier.

And as I said he came in uniform, and we paid him the compliments which he was entitled to and which were appropriate to his rank. No matter what Deputy MacBride may do to try to distort the facts, those are the facts and there was no question good, bad or indifferent of secrecy; there was no question good, bad or indifferent of the General making any terms as to whether he would come in civilian attire or in uniform. He came in uniform because he was a soldier and there is nothing wrong in that. If Deputy MacBride says that it is wrong to have these visits let him get up and say so. Let him tell us it is wrong to have any connection with these people; but the facts of the matter are that only this week I had to sign approvals for the right to apply for vacancies in British educational establishments and we sincerely hope that these vacancies will be granted to us. I can only hope that the mischievous article, because that is what it was, a mischievous article, that appeared in the Sunday Independent will not do any damage to the friendly relations which have existed up to this; and I hope, and sincerely hope, that that new type of sensational journalism which has been introduced recently by the Sunday Independent of a scare a week will be brought to an end as a result of this discussion.

It was a dirty suggestion.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.56 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, March 3rd, 1954.