asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if he will state what speeches in the debate on the Estimate for his Department were censored for the Press, what proportion of each speech were the newspapers forbidden to publish, and why were the Minister's powers to suppress publication used in connection with the Dáil debate of his exercise of those powers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Press Censorship.
The papers were prohibited from publishing those portions of the Deputy's speech which displayed a completely unhinged and unbalanced sense of loyalty. This was done in order to prevent our papers being used to broadcast over the world wild falsehoods about the Irish people, their Government and the Irish race—falsehoods, which like previous falsehoods uttered by the Deputy, will, I fear, be used to prejudice our relations with foreign Governments and peoples, by persons who are hostile to us because of our stand on neutrality and our defence of the rights of the Irish nation. My own comments on those portions of the Deputy's speech which were deleted, were also withheld from publication.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, and ignoring for the moment his lying and slanderous observations in my regard——
That is not a question.
No, I am ignoring them.
The Deputy when referring to them made irrelevant comment——
I want to ask the Minister whether he considers it in conformity with decent democratic Parliamentary practice to set down specifically for discussion an Estimate, designed to provide an opportunity for ventilating the gross abuses for which he has been responsible as Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures——
The Deputy may not comment on replies.
I am not commenting. I am asking——
If the Deputy in saying that the Minister was guilty of gross abuses in administering the office which he holds was not commenting I do not understand plain English.
I submit that this House was invited to discuss the abuses of the censorship for which the Minister is responsible on a special Estimate put down for that purpose. Is it in conformity with decent Parliamentary democratic practice that when these abuses come to be discussed the very instrument that has been abused is used to suppress discussion? If that is the standard that obtains in this country of decent democratic Parliamentary practice, then in God's name is it any wonder that we have the Minister we have?
That, again, is controversial. Question 8.
If that is a question I want to answer it.
Question 8.
asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if he will state if a Reuter news item, about April, 1942, relating to the appointment of a Press Advisory Committee to assist the Government of Australia on censorship matters was stopped by Censor in this country; if so, the date of such stop order; when, if at all, was the said stop order lifted, and if all the Press previously notified of the stop order were informed that the news item could be published.
The item referred to in the question was not stopped by the Censor. It was submitted for censorship on the 9th April last, by one of the Dublin evening papers, and later on the same day by one of the dailies. The matter was held for consideration until the following day, and, following the usual practice, the papers concerned were notified accordingly. The next day, the 10th April, the item was passed for publication, and the newspapers previously notified were so informed. One of them, the Evening Herald, published the item in its issue of 11th April.