asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if in his discussions with the British Government he has made it clear that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution are not a matter for compromise.

The matter has not arisen in the course of such discussions.

Might I ask the Minister to consider the implications of the public statements made by himself that would give rise to the belief that the reverse of this is, in fact, intended; and in order to allay any doubts in the minds of our people that it is intended to wipe out these Articles and disclaim our just claim to the Six Counties, would the Minister make it known, for the benefit of the British and everybody else, that we are not going to change these Articles?

The only proposed change in these Articles was made by the Committee on the Constitution in 1967 under the chairmanship of Deputy George Colley, which suggested an alternative version. There is no other proposal, and certainly, as far as we are concerned, this has not arisen in the course of the discussions with the British Government at any time.

It was Deputy Tom O'Higgins's suggestion on that committee.

The Minister has just stated that the only proposal to amend these articles—plural—was from the committee of which I was chairman. Would the Minister correct that statement, please? Is it not true that there was no proposal to amend Article 2?

The question put to me relates to Articles 2 and 3. The only proposal relating to those Articles is that one.

Which portion of that relates to Article 2?

I am sorry, I did not say which portion did——

The Minister said the "Articles". It is very important that he gets this right. If he does not understand this, he does not understand anything about it.

I fully understand the position and so does the Deputy, that the question here relates to Articles 2 and 3, and the only proposal relating to either or both of those, if that helps the Deputy, is in fact the one proposed by the 1967 committee.

That is not what the Minister said. Can we get it clear? Would the Minister agree the position is that the proposal of that committee related to an amended version of Article 3 and made no proposal to amend Article 2? Is that correct?

That is not in doubt, but that is the only proposal of this kind that has been put forward.

I should be glad if the Minister would now clarify that that is the position, because that is not what he said.

While it may be very important to Deputy Colley to get the record right, what is important is to find out from the Minister if he is categorically saying that he and his Government have no mind to change either or both of these Articles in the immediate future or at any time?

The matter has not arisen either at these discussions or otherwise.

Never mind the sidestepping.

There is no proposal to change these Articles other than the suggestion of Deputy Colley's committee.

The Minister ought to be more precise in his wording. It is quite clear he does not understand what is involved when he uses those words.

He understands very well what is involved, that is the trouble.