We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ Ceisteanna—Questions . Oral Answers . - Anti-Amendment Campaign .

Attorney General advice and anti-amendment campaign

Summary

The Taoiseach denied contact with the anti-amendment campaign and rejected the allegation that he provided it with the Attorney General’s advice. Haughey pressed him for a direct answer and objected to being accused of knowingly repeating a falsehood; the Taoiseach reiterated his denial.

asked the Taoiseach if he has had any meetings or contacts with members of the anti-amendment campaign.

Comment on this

: No.

Comment on this

: Is the Taoiseach in a position to confirm to the House rumours or stories which have been circulating to the effect that he either gave or caused to have given to the anti-amendment campaign a document of advice by the Attorney General?

Comment on this

: That allegation has been made already by the Deputy in this House. I have already stigmatised it as false. The Deputy knows it is false and is repeating it knowing it is false. I cannot regard that as honourable conduct.

Comment on this

: On the contrary, the Taoiseach is not in a position to say that I know anything to be false. I do not know anything to be false. I am entitled to ask the Taoiseach a specific question. If he gives an answer to that question I will accept it. I resent his attributing falsehoods to me. I am simply endeavouring to find out from the Taoiseach the truth of this matter. It is widely alleged that this document, a copy of which I have to hand, the advice of the Attorney General on this issue, was given to people involved in the anti-amendment campaign either by the Taoiseach or by someone acting on his behalf. It is a perfectly valid, legitimate question.

Comment on this

: The reason I answered as I did was that this question was raised yesterday by the Deputy and I said then that the allegation was false. For him to raise it again implies that he did not accept my denial and it was to that fact that I was referring. I note that he now accepts my denial, the second time it has been made, and I feel he should have accepted it the first time.

Comment on this