asked the Taoiseach if he will state the circumstances in which certain public representatives did not receive invitations to the 1916 commemoration ceremony at the GPO on Easter Sunday.

2.

asked the Taoiseach the total number of people invited to attend on the GPO platform at the special ceremonies on Easter Sunday morning, the date on which invitations were issued, the basis of selection of those invited, the total number present, the number of those invited who refused to attend, and the number and names of those selected who did not receive invitations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

With your permission, Sir, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

The invitation list for the platform party at the GPO, Dublin, for the ceremony on Easter Sunday morning covered approximately 1,000 persons. Apart from the President, the Taoiseach and the Lord Mayor of Dublin, they included members of the Government, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Council of State, former Ministers of State, surviving participants in the Easter Rising, 1916, and immediate relatives of the leaders executed in 1916. The invitation cards were issued between the 1st and the 4th April but, through oversight, they were sent only to the surviving participants. A statement expressing regret for this oversight was issued by the Department of Defence through the Government Information Bureau and published on the 12th April.

Over 50 per cent of the invitees attended. No refusal was received.

Do I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that he did not receive an invitation?

Is the Taoiseach aware that a number of public representatives, including Deputies and ex-Ministers, received no invitations and, so far as I am aware, invitations were not issued to them because they were never received?

The invitations were, in fact, issued only to those who had participated in the Rising. This was the oversight in respect of the matter.

Does the Taoiseach not consider that in the circumstances in which elected public representatives were not invited to what should have been a national celebration some more formal expression of regret than his statement, worded in somewhat unusual language, issued on behalf of an anonymous Department, should have been made? Normally, a Minister accepts responsibility. In this case two conflicting statements were issued, one indicating that invitations had been issued, whereas, in fact, they had not, and that was subsequently altered by a statement that the Department regretted. There was no indication that the Government or the Minister responsible expressed regret.

The Government take responsibility for the oversight and have expressed regret for it.

Do I take it that members of the Government did not receive formal invitations?

No.

In that case, how did they appear on the platform?

Some of them who expected to receive invitations inquired about them and in their cases duplicate invitations were issued.

Therefore, should it not have been obvious to the Department of Defence or whoever was responsible that there must have been some mistake?

That might have happened.

(Cavan): Could the Taoiseach say why invitations in general were sent out only on the Wednesday before Easter for ceremonies taking place on Easter Sunday?

That is not correct.

(Cavan): Does the Taoiseach deny that that is a fact?

Yes.

Does it not seem that the Taoiseach has shown tremendous contempt for the House and for the other Parties in not consulting with them or in not informing them long beforehand that they would be invited on the platform?

The intention was to invite them.

Is it not perfectly clear now that the Taoiseach was grossly at fault when he refused last October to have representatives of the Opposition on this Committee and that if he had then acceded to the request that representatives of the Opposition be on the Committee, this could not have happened because they would have known who should have been invited?

The list of persons who should have been invited was known.

Further, does the Taoiseach consider it proper that he as chairman of the Committee should wait until now to have an apology dragged out of him by question in the House, and is it not perfectly clear that any person who wanted things to be done in the proper way would, immediately the mistake was discovered, have apologised there and then and not waited until today to have it drawn out of him?

An expression of regret was published as soon as the mistake was discovered.

Not by the Taoiseach as chairman of the Committee or by the Government.

On behalf of the Government.

No, it was not. That is not true.

It is a scandalous and regrettable thing that only one Party was represented there.

That is not correct.

The Taoiseach has to take responsibility for that.

There were members of Opposition Parties there as survivors.

Were there members of the Opposition Parties on the platform?

Yes.

There was one— General Mulcahy.

And Professor Hayes.

Neither is a member of the Oireachtas.

They were invited as survivors. As I explained, the invitations were actually issued only to surviving participants in the Rising.

Why did the Taoiseach not apologise as he should have done?

If it is any consolation to the Deputy, I should like to say that his absence was noticed.

I am not interested in my own absence; I am interested in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition.

Was the Leader of the Labour Party there or was he invited to be there?

I have explained that certain people who should have been invited were not invited to this function. The Leader of the Labour Party was in communication with my office on the question of another invitation so that if he wished to make inquiries in that regard, it was open to him at that time to do so.

The Leader of the Labour Party attended all the 1916 functions he could attend. It is sad and regrettable that we could not be represented on the big occasion for 1916. All I can say about this matter is that it was a shocking mess up.

He got no invitation.

Before Easter Sunday, Deputy Corish was in communication with my office to know if one invitation he had received could be transferred to Deputy Tully. He knew at that stage that the Sunday invitation had not been issued and if he had wished to inquire about it, the matter would have been rectified on the spot.

Perhaps he did not do so because he had in mind what the Taoiseach said some months ago about politicians not taking an active part in the ceremonies and assumed that members of Fianna Fáil would not be there either, that they would be left to the 1916 men.

3.

asked the Taoiseach if he will comment on the contradictory statements which were issued by the Government Information Bureau as reported on 11th and 12th April 1966.

The statement published on the morning of the 11th April last was made in the light of the information available to the Government Information Bureau at that time. An investigation on the afternoon of that day disclosed the oversight which was the subject of the statement published on the 12th April.

Is it not a fact that members of the Government accepted invitations to attend functions in places other than Dublin and surely these members conveyed to the Taoiseach and the Government their intention of being absent from the city?

The invitations were confined to those known to be available in Dublin.

I understand that only three were available. Surely they should have been aware that no invitations had been issued to these?

That is so.

What action has been taken in regard to the officials responsible for this.

The Government have taken full responsibility.

Have any of them been sacked yet?

I have stated that the Government have taken full responsibility.

That is what should happen to you: you should be sacked.

4.

asked the Taoiseach the names of those members who served on the Committee and subcommittees under his chairmanship in connection with the ceremonies and celebrations commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1916 Rising.

The names required are set out on page 12 of the programme of the commemorative ceremonies and celebrations. Copies of the programme have been placed in the Library.

Was it the Taoiseach who nominated the members of the Committee?

I nominated the original members and subsequent members were appointed on the suggestion of other members of the Committee.

I was never consulted about it.

5.

asked the Taoiseach if consultations were held with Opposition Parties in planning the 1916 commemoration ceremonies; and, if not, why they did not take place.

On the 28th July last I wrote to the leaders of the Parties opposite about the proposed arrangements and enclosed a copy of the first outline of the Commemoration programme.

I would also refer the Deputy to my reply to a question on the subject addressed to me in this House on the 20th October last.

Is it not obvious that this was just a Fianna Fáil commemoration ceremony at the GPO in Dublin and that no consultations whatever were held with the Opposition leaders and that no invitations were sent to them.

I informed the Dáil in October last that while I did not consider it necessary or desirable to duplicate the work of that Committee by establishing another Committee, if the Leader of the Opposition or of the Labour Party wished to have an opportunity of meeting the secretary of the Committee to learn details of the arrangements in progress or to put forward ideas about the ceremonies, this would be arranged.

6.

asked the Taoiseach the total expenses incurred in connection with the 1916 commemoration ceremonies in Dublin.

All expenditure on the official 1916 Commemoration ceremonies and celebrations has not yet been brought to account.

When can we expect this?

I could not say.

Can we expect it in a month's time?

I would not think so.

7.

asked the Taoiseach why there was no Government representation at any of the 1916 commemoration ceremonies in the Six Counties.

Dublin was the scene of the principal official ceremonies and celebrations marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Easter Rising 1916, and the Government participated fully in them. It was made known that it was for the local committees who organised ceremonies or celebrations outside Dublin to decide whether or not Government representatives should be invited. In all cases where a request for Government representation was made it was complied with.

There was no request from the North for a Government representative?

That is right.