Deputy Flanagan proposes to raise on the motion for the adjournment a matter arising on Question 22 on to-day's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate: Censorship of Letters.
On the 25th October, I raised a question in the House relating to the censorship of letters posted and due for delivery within this State. The question was addressed to the Minister for Justice, who, I was informed, was responsible for the issue of all warrants for the opening of correspondence. I asked the Minister to-day if he would state the procedure followed by him in relation to the censorship of private letters posted in Eire for delivery within the State, and the number of warrants at present in operation for this purpose. In his reply the Minister informed me:
"There is no `censorship' of private letters, but in accordance with Section 56 of the Post Office Act, 1908, a letter may be detained and examined under the authority of a warrant issued by the Minister for Justice."
Surely, if a warrant is issued by the Minister for Justice there is censorship of private correspondence. I want to know who is responsible for compiling the lists submitted to the Minister who issues the warrants. Is it a civil servant, is it the Minister himself or the Gárda authorities? The Minister stated that warrants are issued by his Department only in cases where the State could use the information contained in those letters for the detection of crime. I want to say for the Minister's information that there is, or was, a list called "List A" at Pearse Street Post Office which contained six pages of foolscap with the names of citizens not only in this country but in England, Denmark and France. Probably the names of some of the Minister's colleagues in Russia were on the list as well. I would be glad to know who is responsible for compiling that list. Will the Minister tell me if a separate warrant is issued by him under his hand in accordance with each letter that is opened, or is it a general warrant that is issued under which the Post Office authorities are entitled to open any letter they desire, relating to the individuals on that list? I am sure the position is that a separate warrant is not issued in the case of every letter relating to the individuals on "List A" in Pearse Street Post Office. Under Section 56 of the Post Office Act of 1908 it is provided.
"that nothing in this section shall extend to the opening, detaining, or delaying of a postal packet returned for want of a true direction, or returned by reason that the person to whom the same is directed is dead or cannot be found, or shall have refused the same, or shall have refused or neglected to pay the postage thereof, or to the opening or detaining or delaying of a postal packet under the authority of this Act or in obedience to an express warrant in writing under the hand of a Secretary of State: Provided that the warrant in Scotland may be either under the hand of a Secretary of State or of the Secretary for Scotland, in Ireland shall be under the hand and seal of the Lord Lieutenant, and in the Isle of Man shall be under the hand of the Governor issued with the sanction of a Secretary of State."
If my interpretation of that Act is correct, it is under the hand and seal of the Minister that a separate warrant must be issued in respect of every letter that is opened. I am now giving the Minister an opportunity to prove to the House that a separate warrant was issued by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act for every letter that was opened. The Minister cannot say that this is a new thing that has come into operation since the emergency. It was there before the emergency. What guarantee has any respectable law-abiding citizen from the Minister that his private and personal correspondence is not being tampered with and opened by the Minister as he desires? What guarantee have we here on the Opposition that our correspondence going through the post is not being opened at the Minister's request, with the information contained therein being used for political purposes by the Minister's Party?
I am sure there will be no danger of the correspondence of the Government Party being opened, because the Minister would not like the scandals contained in some of that correspondence to be disclosed even to the members of his own Civil Service. I should be very pleased if I could get some information from the Minister as to the whole procedure. I will go a little further and ask him to make a clear and definite statement to this House about this list which is at Pearse Street Post Office, containing, as I have said, the names of numerous citizens who are respectable and law-abiding. Many of them I know personally. Although the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said in this House that he was unaware of it, letters addressed to persons whose names are on that list are segregated and taken to Pearse Street. Is the Minister aware that there is an office in Pearse Street, under the control of a civil servant, where those letters are opened and censored before being taken back to Pearse Street Post Office and delivered next day?
What guarantee has any Deputy in the Opposition, or any member of this House, or any respectable citizen of whom the Civil Service or the Minister or the Gárda authorities may have suspicions, that his correspondence—which is in the custody of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and should under any rule of proper administration, be delivered to the person to whom it is addressed without being opened—is not being opened? Is it any information to the Minister that a letter addressed by me to a certain official of the Minister and Leinster Bank was opened by the authorities? It is a disgraceful state of affairs that a citizen cannot send through the post a letter concerning his own private financial affairs without having it opened by the State.
I raise this matter here to-night because I believe it is one of very great public importance. How can the general public have confidence in a Department such as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs if the Minister for Justice, for political or other purposes, can issue a warrant authorising the opening of correspondence addressed to any private individual? The Minister cannot tell us that he issues a warrant only in the case of citizens of this country of whom he has suspicions, because as I have already pointed out there are on that list the names of persons as far away as Shanghai, New York, Denmark, Norway and France. Does the Minister deny that addresses in those places are on the list in question? I want to know—and I want a clear and straight answer—what law, either of justice or of necessity, can be pleaded in this matter. I want to know how long this practice has been going on, and whether the Minister will give the House an assurance that it will stop. I may warn the Minister that, if he gives such an assurance, and the practice does not stop, there is a very easy way for the general public and for public representatives to find out. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said in this House on the 25th October that he did not know this practice was going on. To-day I told the Minister, when he denied that there is a censorship of correspondence, that I could give him the address of the office where the correspondence is being opened and censored, and if necessary the name of the civil servant in charge.
The Deputy must not mention those names here.
I did not mention names, but if the Minister so desires I will pass on the information to him. I challenge the Minister to deny that, for seven years, his Department has been acting in this matter. I think it is a practice for which no shade of justification exists. Every word I have said here to-night is quite true, and the Minister knows that. I raised this matter here in order to get an assurance from the Minister that the ordinary correspondence of the general public will not be tampered with. I can give the House an assurance that —although I was not supposed to see the list—I know there are on that list the names of most respectable citizens who are completely cut away from politics, who took no hand or part in the civil war, and who take no hand or part in present-day politics, but for reasons best known to the Government their correspondence is being opened. I want a clear and definite statement from the Minister as to the whole procedure concerning the opening of those letters. It is a matter of great national importance, because we are supposed to be living in a State where we can carry on our private business without interference.
I want the Minister to say whether he can deny that this list exists, whether he can deny that there is an office in Pearse Street for the purpose of censoring this correspondence; how long this practice has been going on, and whether it is going to continue. What I am mainly interested in is that, in accordance with this Act which I quoted for the Minister and which the Minister quoted in his reply to me to-day, if he has not issued a separate warrant for every letter opened he has been acting grossly illegally, and is open to very severe criticism. I shall be very glad to hear under what Act or under what law or what authority the Minister has issued a warrant for the opening of all correspondence addressed to any citizen. I sincerely hope he will give us a clearer reply than that which he gave me to-day, or that which was given by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who admitted in this House that he knew nothing about the censoring of letters entrusted to his custody for delivery.
I do not think I can give a clearer reply than I gave this afternoon. I dare say there is a list. When I, as Minister for Justice, for the purpose of detecting crime issue a warrant authorising the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to stop correspondence addressed to certain individuals, I presume that he arranges a list in accordance with the number of warrants issued by me, but I do not know what machinery he adopts to do that, or where the office is. That is not a matter for me. I am responsible for the warrants issued. I issue them, and I issue them for the reason I stated here to-day, to help in the detection of crime. If Deputy Flanagan has information of the kind he says he has, I should like him to let me have that information. But it is a remarkable thing that Deputy Flanagan happens to come from the same constituency as another Deputy, Deputy Davin, who raised a similar thing in private with me, and promised in the presence of other members of this House to give me all particulars of a case in which he said that the correspondence of a private citizen was stopped by the authorities. I waited, and waited in vain, for those particulars from Deputy Davin. Notwithstanding that, he raised the matter on my Estimate here. The Guards took up the question, and asked him to help, as they were most anxious to find out if such a thing could have happened. When they invited Deputy Davin to supply all the information he could in order to enable them to trace any leakage that might have occurred —I admitted to Deputy Davin that, the Guards being human, it was possible a leakage may have occurred, but I did not believe it—Deputy Davin claimed privilege as a Deputy. Deputy Davin claimed privilege as a Deputy, which nobody denied he had, and now we have Deputy Flanagan on the same point.
On a point of order, Sir, it is Deputy Flanagan the Minister is dealing with, and not Deputy Davin.
Mr. Boland
I am coming on to deal with Deputy Flanagan, but I am pointing out the peculiar coincidence that both Deputies come from the same constituency. I am now inviting Deputy Flanagan to supply me with the particulars that he says he has—not necessarily in the House; I would prefer that the information should not be given in the House because I think that the best way to go about the thing is to let the Gárda deal with anything of that kind—and if there is found to be any leakage, I undertake to investigate it. I wish, however, to say to the House that no warrant is issued by me except for the purpose of detecting crime. The only guarantee you have in regard to that is my credibility, and if I am not fit to exercise that authority, you should put down a motion saying that I am unfit to be Minister for Justice. I tell the House quite definitely that for no other purpose than the detection of crime do I issue a warrant.
I shall not give the number on the list—it is not a very large number—but I can assure everybody that it is only for the purpose of detecting crime that this is done. What the procedure is, I am not going to tell. I will not advise people, who may be interested in knowing what the procedure is in order to cover up their tracks, as to the procedure that is adopted. All I do say is that if a warrant is issued by me, I will stand over it, because I would not be doing my duty to the State if I did not help the Gárdaí in their efforts to detect crime.
Was it for the purpose of detecting crime that my correspondence with the bank was opened?
Mr. Boland
I can say this much: that I never signed any warrant for Deputy Flanagan's correspondence to be opened, and I do not believe for a moment that it was opened either by the Gárdaí or the officials of the Minister for posts and Telegraphs. If it was, it was not on my warrant—not that I say that I would not do it: not for one moment would I hesitate to do so. If I got a case from the Gárdaí, and they made it clear to me that Deputy Flanagan or anybody else was engaged in criminal activities, I would not hesitate for a moment to sign a warrant. However, I did not do so, and I doubt if his correspondence was opened by any Gárda or official. If it was, it was not on my authority.
Can the Minister say whether, in addition to this List A, in Pearse Street, which contains six pages of foolscap there is another? It would appear that if there is a List A, there must be Lists B and C, and so on.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.15 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th November.