asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures (a) if it is a fact that the suppression by the Censor of portion of a book review referring to the revolt against popular government in 1922-23, to Mr. de Valera's denial of the Dáil's legitimacy even when he had taken his seat in the Assembly and to the Blueshirts' determination to preserve the right of free speech against organised rowdyism was justified by the Censor on the 13th November last on the grounds that, at a time when the unity of our own people was more than ever called for, it would be contrary to the public interest to allow a fresh controversy to break out in the Press regarding either the Civil War or the Blueshirt movement; (b) if the Censor in the course of such justification has expressed the view that this consideration could be urged in support of the suppression of all political controversy; (c) if the operating of censorship according to this standard is not a breach of the guarantees given in the Dáil in September, 1939, and (d) if he will ensure full freedom of political discussion unrestricted by censorship and will indicate to the Dáil the directions to this end given by him to those entrusted with censorship duties.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Operation of Censorship.
It is untrue to say, as the Deputy alleges in the first part of his question, that the portion of the book review involved was "suppressed" by the Censor. The facts are that the passage referred to, having been deleted by the Censor on duty on the night staff, the matter was brought to the notice of the Controller of Censorship who thereupon immediately authorised its publication in full.
A letter from the Controller of Censorship to the newspaper concerned contained the words quoted by the Deputy in the second part of his question. In the course of his letter the controller stated as one of the reasons why the particular deletions were made:—
"That at a time when the unity of our own people was more than ever called for, it would be contrary to the public interest to allow a fresh controversy to break out in the Press regarding either the Civil War or the Blueshirt movement."
He added:—
"Naturally the weight to be given to the last-mentioned consideration —which could be urged in support of the suppression of all political controversy—must depend a good deal on the circumstances of each particular case."
And he went on to say:—
"In the present circumstances, I do not myself feel that we are justified in going so far as to prohibit you absolutely from publishing the whole of the matter deleted if you feel that it is necessary to go into these matters for the purpose of refuting what you consider to be an unfair attack on your paper in the book under review."
As for the question of policy, the paramount necessity for the greatest possible measure of national unity in the present emergency is a consideration which the censorship is bound to bear in mind. Speaking generally, and making all necessary allowances for the circumstances and context of an isolated reference or allusion, it is both the right and duty of the Censors to prevent a heated controversy about the Civil War or the Blueshirt movement from developing in the Press at the present time.
In regard to the guarantees with respect to the censorship which were given to the Dáil in September, 1939, all I need say is this: that there was never any guarantee, express or implied, that in allowing full freedom for political discussion the censorship would allow any section of the community or the Press to undermine public morale or the authority of the State. And, in my opinion, any attempt to revive, at the present time, the animosities and bitterness of the Civil War would be disastrous to public morale and national security.
asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if he knows that a speech made at Balscadden on the 21st September last by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to, amongst others, members of the Local Defence Force, the Local Security Force, and the Red Cross was published on 22nd September last; if the Censor permitted or at any time made objection to such publication; if he is aware that the speech contained a reference to the Civil War, and if he will explain why the possible adverse reaction on national unity of a reference to the Civil War urged by the Censor as a reason for suppressing a book review in mid-November was not adverted to by the Censor towards the end of September.
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is "Yes". The answer to the second and third parts is "No". The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures (a) if it is a fact that in January, 1941, the editor of the Kilkenny People was warned by the Chief Press Censor that he would not be permitted to publish the said newspaper unless before publication the entire issue was submitted for censorship; (b) if on 13th November the Minister in the Dáil said that all editorial comment of the Dundalk Examiner would have to be submitted for censorship before publication; (c) the reason for the discrimination in treatment as between these two newspapers; (d) if a recent letter from the editor of the Kilkenny People adverting to this discrimination and intended for publication in his newspaper has been entirely suppressed without any explanation being offered for the suppression; (e) within which (if any) of the 55 categories of censorable matter recently established by the Chief Press Censor does the said letter fall, or for what other reason was the said letter suppressed.
The answer to (a) is "Yes", but that the order was withdrawn before it became operative on receipt of a satisfactory undertaking from the editor. The answer to (b) is "Yes", and that all editorial matter is still being submitted. The answer to (c) is that the Dundalk Examiner was treated more harshly than the Kilkenny People because it was felt that maliciously disposed persons might attempt to undermine public confidence in the censorship if more drastic action was not taken in regard to the offence committed by the Examiner. The answer to (d) is “Yes”, and to (e) Clause 54.
asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if, about 20th November last, the Censor deleted and suppressed part of an official statement issued by the United States State Department on the removal of General Weygand from his office.
The matter referred to by the Deputy was deleted by mistake in consequence of a failure to recognise the official character of the statement in which it was contained. On that particular day the censorship staff on day duty had stopped the publication of various rumours and unofficial surmises to the same effect. The night staff, noting the action which had been taken during the day, failed to advert to the fact that, in this particular instance, the character of the allegation had altered from that of a rumour to being part of an official statement.
asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if, about the 19th November last, the Press Censor changed a proof dealing with the situation in Libya by deleting the word "not" where it occurred in the proof and so altered the statement into its direct opposite.
Yes. The effect of deleting the word "not" was to change an untrue statement, deliberately insulting to a friendly State, into a true statement offensive to no one.
asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if (a) the Censor permitted or raised no objection to the publication in the Press, towards the end of September last, of a report of a meeting at Balscadden attended by members of the Local Defence Force where there was unveiled a memorial to James Lawless and John Gibbons, who were shot in 1920; (b) if the Censor stopped the publication of a paragraph stating that a ceremony attended by members of the Local Defence Force had been held about the 17th November last in memory of four men who had been shot on the bridge of Killaloe in 1920; (c) if the Censor permitted without objection the publication in the Press about the 21st November last of a report of a ceremony similarly attended commemorating the shooting of Dick McKee in 1920; (d) if he will indicate the principle on which the Censor distinguished between these reports.
The answer to (a), (b), (c) is Yes. The answer to (d) is that in cases (a) and (c) the Local Defence Force and 2nd line Volunteers paraded with the sanction of the military authorities, while in case (d) such sanction was not sought or obtained. Publication was withheld in order to give cooperation to the military authorities in keeping control on the functions to be attended by the Local Defence Force.
asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if he will state why the Censor suppressed the information communicated to the newspapers on January 29th that the Agricultural Committee of the Fine Gael Party had sought and obtained an interview with the Government on that date in order to make representations in regard to the prices and production of wheat, oats and barley in the current cereal year.
Publication of the news item referred to by the Deputy was prohibited in accordance with the general censorship direction which was issued, after the price of wheat had been fixed and debated in the Dáil, in relation to matter which might have the effect of discouraging farmers from growing wheat at the fixed price. It was decided to prevent farmers from being discouraged in this way during the sowing season, because a shortage of wheat would entail taking drastic action hurtful to the interests of stock-feeding farmers and the community generally for the purpose of making alternative flourstuffs and foods available to the poorer sections of the people whose diet normally consists of a high proportion of bread. The necessity of minimising the amount of discouraging propaganda reaching farmers arises from the fact that a number of them who are unfamiliar with the growing of wheat might be persuaded by those interested in creating a shortage of wheat here that it was foolish to attempt growing it, although the truth is that from their own point of view, in ordinarily fair arable land, it is the best paying cereal crop farmers can grow, and that from a national point of view it is the height of wisdom and patriotism to do all they can to make the country self-sufficient in wheat.
Arising out of the Minister's reply and disregarding the long and irrelevant addendum thereto, does the Minister consider that it is a legitimate use of the censorship to prohibit the considered opinion of the Opposition Party in this country on a vital matter, which at the time when it was expressed was at variance with that of the Government, but which the Government itself adopted within 48 hours, and that after Government Ministers had been stumping the country at meetings summoned by themselves to advance "cod" theories? Does the Minister think that that is a legitimate use of the censorship?
If we can, we have to get grown in this country sufficient wheat to meet our flour requirements without having to take the drastic steps that are necessary to divert other cereal crops for that purpose. The price of wheat was fixed by the proper authority——
Wrongly.
——the authority to whom this Dáil gave the power to fix the price of wheat. We are living in an emergency. Somebody must have authority to govern the country, and if any member of this Dáil wants a price of 120/- for wheat, here is the place to say it. There are only a few months for the sowing of wheat, and we must not allow farmers to be discouraged from doing their national duty during that period. If there is to be a different price for wheat from that fixed by the Government, the authority which gave the Government power to fix the price of wheat should change the Government or change their powers. Here is the place to debate it.
Althought the Government changed the price of wheat.
They changed the price of wheat after full consideration and after hearing all the interests involved, including the Fine Gael Party.
Is the censorship to be conducted in such a way that the Government, charged with doing a certain thing, do it wrongly; that everybody else's voice is to be suppressed and, if the Government responsible for doing a thing continue to do it wrongly, that situation will be made continue by the Government, with the hand of the censorship over everybody else's mouth? Is that the point?
Is the Deputy trying to argue that every galoot in the country should have the power to try to advocate starving our people or to disrupt the economic life of the country by refusing——
Is the Fine Gael Party a galoot in this case?
If they want to say anything about any matter, they have the right to say it here.
Not outside the House? Why have you the right to say it outside if we have not?
Because this Dáil has given us power to use every effort to try to get the community through the war that is going on.
The Minister misses my point completely. This House was normally shut until the 4th February. Are the members of the different Parties to continue with their mouths shut while this Dáil is unassembled, say, over a long Christmas Recess, and say nothing about a very urgent matter which everybody recognises is urgent, and is the censorship to act against that?
The price of wheat was fixed last autumn and it was debated in this House last autumn. Somebody should have the authority in these times of emergency to say to the people: "You must do this for the sake of national security."
But you did it wrongly.
Somebody must have authority to do it. This Dáil has given authority to the Government, and the Government, in the exercise of that authority, fixed from year to year and from time to time the price they thought would get the wheat grown.
They did it wrongly.
After consulting various people throughout the country, they believed that the price of 45/- for wheat was more than a fair price to the farmers, but they thought that it was going to take 50/- to get the farmers to do what was their national duty.
It has been mentioned by the Minister that the price of wheat was fixed. It has been admitted by the Government that the price of wheat was incorrectly fixed. Is it the contention of the Minister that a galoot can only speak in this country if he speaks with the same voice as the Fianna Fáil galoot, and that, if his opinion happens to differ, then his opinion cannot be heard? That is a new line on censorship.
That is what the Minister stated.
The statement was made a few minutes ago that the Opposition Parties have the right only in this House to advocate changes of policy in respect of agriculture and other matters. Is it to be taken that political Parties in opposition to the Government are not to be allowed to advocate changes of Government policy outside the precincts of the House?
That is the latest contention.
That is not true.
What is the answer?
The answer is this: that during this war when this country is in an emergency——
The answer is yes or no.
——that during this war, when the life of this country is at stake, it is necessary for some disciplined, united effort on the part of the people to do all that is required to protect the country and its interests, to do all that is required both from the point of view of defence and economics. It is quite legitimate to advocate changes in Government policy, and everybody who reads the papers every day in the week, or hears the wireless, can see that very many changes in Government policy are being advocated in the most strenuous, and sometimes extravagant, way, by Deputies and various people throughout the country. But when this Dáil, which is the authority, decides a matter, or when a matter is decided in accordance with the powers given by this Dáil, in a time of emergency, that policy should go until it is changed in the ordinary constitutional manner. I have pointed out what the constitutional position is in regard to fixing the price of wheat, and also that the country is not being governed by an individual down the country who thinks he knows more, not only than the Government, but than the whole of this Dáil.
Has it become unconstitutional to criticise a decision taken by either the Dáil or the Government, and, if so, since when?
As the Minister speaks of the importance of Parliament in this matter, is he not aware that a speech by Deputy Hughes before Christmas, made in a very responsible and sensible way, on the question of wheat prices, was censored by him?
That is another question, but, on that matter, I want to say that Deputy Hughes' speech in the Dáil was not censored in the papers which appeared immediately afterwards, but that Deputy Hughes happens to be interested in a paper which proceeded to censor everything else said against his proposition and to publish his own speech in full, months after the original debate. We refused to allow Deputy Hughes to censor the thing in that way.
Will the Minister require the Irish Press to publish all Fine Gael speeches at the same length as that at which they publish Fianna Fáil speeches, because I have never seen them made to do it? Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, with your leave, Sir, I intend to raise this matter on the adjournment.
Mr. Belton rose.
Question No. 42.
I want to tell the Minister that the price of wheat will not give him enough now.
We will get enough without you.
Where?
If the Deputy does not give us wheat, we will take his oats.
If the House desires not to hear any more questions, the remainder will be postponed.
Are we sitting tomorrow?
That is a separate question. Question No. 42.