Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 May 1946

Vol. 101 No. 1

Private Deputies' Business. - Motion for a Select Committee—Question of Members' Conduct.

Mr. Dillon

I move:—

That a Select Committee consisting of seven members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, be appointed to investigate the facts in the case of a certain member of the Dáil who, as appears from Press reports of evidence given in court recently, received financial accommodation from a company, in furtherance of whose business interests he made representations in his capacity as a member of the Dáil to the Department of Finance; to report on this matter and to consider and report if the member's conduct, as found by them, is inconsistent with the standards of conduct which should be expected from members; That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; That the quorum be four.

I put that motion on the Order Paper of this House, Sir, on the 25th May, 1945, very nearly 12 months ago; and the House is entitled to some explanation of how and why it has not come before the House for consideration before to-day. When the matters, to which I shall refer to-night, first came to my attention I waited on the Ceann Comhairle and I directed his attention to them. I asked him to communicate with the Leader of the House, the Taoiseach, and to inquire if it was the Taoiseach's intention to take steps in the Dáil to constitute a Committee of this House to inquire into these matters and to recommend any steps which the House might consider it desirable should be taken in the light of them.

The Ceann Comhairle took that matter under consideration and, at his request, I waited upon him at a later date. If my recollection serves me well, he did not deem it expedient then to discuss whether he had mentioned the matter to the Leader of the House or not, as other aspects of the problem had presented themselves to his mind, amongst them being, I think, the question as to whether this matter might properly be brought before Dáil Eireann at all. I made certain submissions in the light of which the Ceann Comhairle eventually gave his approval to the motion which appears on the Paper now, but subject to the proviso that it could not be brought before this House for discussion until the litigation, in the course of which the evidence referred to was given, had been finally disposed of. The litigation continued, in a court of first instance and, on appeal, over a period of several months and it was only brought to a final conclusion within the last month; whereupon, on my application, the Ceann Comhairle indicated his readiness to permit this business to be considered and the Government, at my urgent instance, took the unusual course of providing Private Deputies' time in or about the Budget discussion. But I have reason to complain, sir, about one particular detail. I asked the Tánaiste in this House some days ago whether an opportunity would be given to discuss this motion and I was informed on that day by the Tánaiste that the bulk of public business was so great that Private Deputies' time could not be given in that week at all and that, therefore, the motion could not be discussed. That was on Wednesday. Nevertheless on that Wednesday night the House adjourned because it had no business of any kind to transact, and Deputies went home. I was then notified yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach that this motion would be set down for consideration at half-past seven on Thursday evening. I received that notification while I was in Ballaghaderreen. Fortunately I came to town to-day only to discover that, without any amendment of that message to me of any kind, the Government had announced their intention of taking the motion to-night at 9. Had I accepted the formal notice which they gave me and refrained from coming from the country until to-morrow morning the Government, no doubt, would have had the satisfaction of saying that Deputy Dillon, having pressed for time on this motion and been granted it, was not in his place to put it before the House.

The Taoiseach

It was indicated to the Ceann Comhairle to-day that if the Deputy did not happen to be here it would not be taken.

General Mulcahy

It was indicated under protest.

The Taoiseach

No.

Mr. Dillon

In any case, I am too old a parliamentarian not to perceive the advantage of pointing to Deputy Dillon's seat and saying: "When he gets time he is not here to do it but, of course, we will give him time some other day." I think it is right the House should know that and judge for themselves the propriety of notifying me in Ballaghaderreen that the Government had arranged to take this business at 7 o'clock on Thursday and then, without any attempt to correct that notice, good, bad or indifferent, to announce that the motion would be called for 9 o'clock that evening and let the House decide it. I do not think it is proper.

Now, Sir, my submission to the House is this: that a representative democracy, such as we have struggled to establish in this country and have established, is possible to maintain only when those chosen to represent the people maintain their own integrity.

The Taoiseach

Before this matter proceeds, we have only one name on the paper. Are we going to have a seconder of this?

Mr. Dillon

You are.

The Taoiseach

We would like to know who.

Mr. Dillon

Since the Taoiseach wishes to be informed, I invited the Taoiseach to inform me to-day whether it was the Government's intention to accept or reject this proposal and the answer was he did not know. I do not know why he should expect me to be so communicative when he is not communicative himself.

Mr. Kissane

It was not the Taoiseach who gave the reply. It was I who brought the reply to the Deputy and what the Taoiseach said was that he would have to await the opening statement before he could make any decision.

Dr. O'Higgins

A distinction without a difference.

Mr. Kissane

It is a great difference.

Mr. Dillon

Let us carry on. My submission to this House, Sir, is that a representative of the democracy which we have sought to establish and succeeded in establishing in this country——

The Taoiseach

May we know if there is a Deputy to second the motion?

Mr. Dillon

There is a Deputy.

The Taoiseach

I would like to know who it is, because it would be a very nice position, indeed, if the Deputy were going to make charges here and we found that there was no seconder and, therefore, no chance of replying.

Mr. Dillon

Your Parliamentary Secretary could second it, if you want to debate it.

The Taoiseach

He did not disclose that he wanted to.

Mr. Dillon

There is no use trying gags. You are not going to put me off. Is there anyone else who wants to make a little interruption? Get them all off your chests and I will go on. My submission is that representative democracy in this country cannot be sustained unless those elected to represent the people maintain their own integrity. My submission is that to allow one's conduct or actions in public life to be affected by a bribe or an advantage offered by someone seeking help or assistance in the sphere of one's duties as a Deputy is corrupt and a betrayal of a Deputy's integrity. If anyone amongst us, no matter what benches he may sit upon, is guilty of such conduct, then this Dáil should reprobate that conduct and dissociate itself from it. I must trespass for some time upon the patience of the House in order to read to them the sworn testimony of a defendant in this court and of a Deputy of this House in this court. I propose to read that sworn testimony without embroidery and without comment. I read the evidence as reported in the newspapers:—

"One of the defendants under examination in further reply said that in 1943 a situation arose in which the company was refused further Swiss francs. There was a considerable amount of correspondence between witness and the Department of Finance on the matter.

Mr. Murnaghan (one of the Counsel for the State): You said that all these letters were shown to Mr. Briscoe? —Yes.

Did you say that Mr. Briscoe acted in every case and wrote all letters? —I meant to say that Mr. Briscoe also wrote letters.

Is he the same person who appears from time to time on the books of the Gilbert Watch Company? —He is.

I want to know in what respect. Take page 140 of the cash book. Do you see an entry there under date July 28, 1943? —Yes.

Was it in 1943 first of all that Mr. Briscoe became interested on your behalf to make representations to the Department? —I can't say the exact date.

What is the entry? —It is a bill of exchange for £50 for Mr. Briscoe.

Does it represent an accommodation bill for £50 to Mr. Briscoe?— Yes.

For how long? —Probably for two or three months.

Take page 144, under October 4, 1943. What is that? —A bill for £50.

For whom? —Mr. Briscoe.

What is that? —The same thing again.—For how long? —I can only guess for two or three months."

Mr. Lavery intervened to ask that Mr. Murnaghan be asked to indicate the relevancy of these questions and said there must be some limit to that inquiry.

Mr. Murnaghan said that these entries appeared on the books of this company, which were in evidence, and he wanted to know what they were about. Evidently they were not transactions in watches.

The court allowed the questions.

"Mr. Murnaghan: I want to know from you how long that accommodation was for?

The defendant answered: It may have been for one, two or three months. I have no means of knowing from this book.

Mr. Murnaghan: Turn to page 146. There is an entry there under date November 1, 1943, for Briscoe. Is that another bill for £50? —Yes.

Page 150, January 10, 1944. Briscoe. Bill £50. Is that similar? —Yes.

And January 19, on the same page, a bill for £50? —Yes.

February 3, Briscoe, a bill for £50? —Yes.

Page 154, March 31, Briscoe, a bill for £50?—Yes.

Page 155, April 14, Briscoe, a bill for £50?—Yes.

Page 156, May 5, Briscoe, a bill for £50?—Yes.

July 11, Briscoe, a bill for £50?— Yes.

If you examine the books you will find that is the last?—Yes.

Your business was a wholesale watch business?—Yes.

Has anybody else been accommodated to the extent to which Mr. Briscoe was accommodated, as shown in your books?—Yes.

Who else?—Mr. Eppel.

Why was Mr. Briscoe accommodated in 1943 and 1944, in particular, to the extent shown in your books?—Because the man was short and he was running into debt.

Was there any particular reason why he was accommodated in this period, while he was assisting you and your firm in making representations to the Department of Finance?—None whatever: I believe I helped him on many occasions years ago.

Then Deputy Briscoe came to give evidence himself:—

"In reply to Mr. Campbell, S.C. (for Samuels), Mr. Briscoe said a period was reached during the war when there were restrictions not alone on Swiss currency but on other currencies as well. Subsequent to June, 1942, a number of people approached him with complaints that they had been wrongfully refused facilities to secure Swiss currency to bring in watches. Three other firms apart from the Gilbert Watch Company made these representations to him. He had known Samuels all his life, and had no doubt about his respectability and about his approach in the matter being quite open and above board. He knew Shribman for about 20 years, and he was quite satisfied from his own knowledge that both men were responsible, respectable and decent citizens. He entered into negotiations and correspondence with the Department of Finance on behalf of the company.

Mr. Briscoe, continuing his evidence, said he made representations on behalf of the Gilbert Watch Company to the Department of Finance to have an allocation of Swiss francs made to them to import watches from Switzerland. The company were given an allocation through Messrs. Samuels Brothers, Limited, of £3,000 in July, 1943, and had purchased £1,500 worth of watches. When the allocation was made the accused had given an undertaking not to export any of the watches. The allocation of the balance of francs was held up by the Department until a full investigation was made by them into the trading of the company. He was surprised by this notification and the suggestion of anything irregular. Samuels had informed him that he could account for all the company's sales of watches, and would give any further undertaking or guarantee asked for by the Department.

Mr. Campbell read a letter from Mr. Briscoe to the Department which contained a reference to Moylan, a State witness, and which he asked Mr. Briscoe to explain.

Mr. Briscoe said he had never seen Moylan until these proceedings started, and in connection with which an official of the Department had mentioned Moylan's name. Witness told Mr. Good, Moylan's solicitor, about representations he had made on behalf of Samuels and Shribman, and said he had learned that Moylan had made a statement involving the Gilbert Watch Company. Mr. Good said he did not know that but had no objection if witness asked Moylan about it. Mr. Good would, if necessary, verify that conversation.

Witness met Moylan at Leinster House, and he denied making a statement to a Revenue official containing allegations of illegal smuggling by the principals of the Gilbert Watch Company, and said the only charge he had made against them was of issuing invoices to him for prices lower than he had paid for watches supplied to him. He added that that was to save income-tax by hiding profits. Witness had told him of the representations he had been making and said that he would withdraw them if he could be satisfied that he had been misled. He also advised Moylan to tell his solicitor about the statement he had made, as not only would Samuels and Shribman be hurt by the allegation, but he (Moylan) would be involved.

Mr. Briscoe, referring to a letter dated 11th April, 1944, said Moylan appeared to hold a series of grievances against Shribman and to have reached a stage where he would leave no stone unturned, and hoped to see Shribman destroyed. The conversations between Moylan and himself covered a number of other matters. Moylan denied making any statement dealing with alleged irregularity in the disposal of goods, and later said he would even go to jail willingly, if he could bring Shribman with him. He had no grievance whatever against Samuels. His animosity against Shribman was based on the latter's taking advantage of him to extract high prices for goods."

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy understands that the case is not being re-tried here?

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to re-try it but I am basing my case on the sworn testimony of the Deputy only. It would not, in my submission, be fair to take extracts out of that testimony and offer them to the House dissociated from the context, as I know it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Names are being introduced which have nothing whatever to do with this motion.

Mr. Dillon

I am merely reading the evidence, as recorded.

An Ceann Comhairle

The evidence which the Deputy quotes should be relevant to the motion before the House.

Mr. Dillon

It would be a most difficult task to impose on me to make extracts from the evidence and do justice to the Deputy concerned. I merely want to place the record of evidence before the House. I cannot judge with infallible propriety as to what should be put on the records of the House and what should not. I continue the reading of the report:—

"Witness received a letter from the Department dated 15/4/44 stating that it was incorrect to state that the Minister had relied on Moylan, and that the reasons for the Departmental decision had already been given to witness. After further correspondence with the Department, he 'phoned Mr. Murray and asked if the latter had any further information, but he said he could give no information and perhaps it would have been wiser if those men had not been pressed for a quota. Ten minutes later, witness received a 'phone message saying that Shribman and Samuels had been arrested.

Mr. Murnaghan: Are either of the accused constituents of yours?—No.

Mr. Costello (who was counsel in the cause): They are constituents of mine.

Mr. Murnaghan: Do you say you made representations on behalf of any other watch firms?—I do.

Who were they?—The Romeda Watch Company, Benson's and Lawrence's.

What were you told about the Romeda Co.?—I was told that they had been refused francs, and, notwithstanding that, they had proceeded to attempt to make payments for watches by depositing bonds in England with an agent of the consignor in order to secure the release of watches here, and to evade the Department's restrictions.

That would be Mr. Handelmann?— Yes.

Did you convey to him that you were not proceeding with the representations?—I did.

What about Benson's?—Benson came to me three or four times and explained that he had a quota jointly with Ticher, Ltd., and also one on his own, and that he had come to the conclusion that in making the original application he had not done justice to himself. I told him that, in view of the 50 per cent. increase on the figures, the matter was not worth bothering about.

And what about Lawrence?—I mentioned it to the Department and they pointed out that he had not previously been an importer.

Is Samuels associated with a firm in Grafton Street?—I believe that he had a sister who has a firm in Grafton Street. I don't remember the name of the firm, but I know the shop.

What sort of firm is it?—It sells jewellery.

What is the Universal Watch Company?—As far as my information goes, it is a firm registered specifically for the purpose of importing watches from Switzerland.

Registered by whom?—I don't know.

Who was interested in the firm?— The name was first mentioned to me by the Department in connection with Mr. Mack.

Who is the Reliable Watch Company?—It is a firm owned, I understand, by Mrs. Shribman.

Until the proceedings in this court, did you know that?—No. I knew that Shribman or Samuels or both were close to this firm.

Could you describe these people as Shribman and Samuels, the Gilbert Watch Company, or the Reliable Watch Company?—No. For the purpose of clearing these watches, all could be eliminated except one, because the Department had decided to give a quota only to the one.

Were the Reliable Watch Company, the Gilbert Watch Company, the Universal Watch Company, and Samuels Brothers, in fact, Shribman and Samuels?—Yes.

Did you know, as a fact, that watches passing through the Gilbert Watch Company or Shribman and Samuels had been smuggled out of Eire?—No.

You knew that watches in large quantities were being sold to Moylan?—At that time, I knew nothing of the transactions or of the existence of Moylan.

Did you trouble to inquire as to where the watches were going from Shribman and Samuels?—Of course, I did. I told them that the Department wondered why they had ordered such a large quantity of watches, and that the quantity ordered would be far in excess of the normal requirements of the country.

Did you tell Shribman and Samuels that you and the Department were worried about these watches being illegally exported?— Being illegally exported never arose. Shribman and Samuels assured me that they wanted the watches for domestic consumption here.

Mr. Briscoe, further replying, said that he had made a cursory examination of the books of the Gilbert Watch Company, which he had later handed to the Department. He was satisfied from that examination that the firm had ample customers here to sell their watches.

Did you learn from Samuels that the majority of the watches had been sold to Moylan?—He told me that all the watches had been disposed of here. The first time Moylan came to my knowledge was when he was mentioned to me by Mr. Murray.

Had Shribman or Samuels never told you about Moylan?—No.

Did you not think it peculiar that Moylan was dealing with such a large number of watches?—No. I thought he was buying and selling.

Witness further said he did not know that Samuels had been mixed up in smuggling activities, but he knew of a case in which he had been fined for a firm with which he was connected.

Asked if he had received letters on the letter-heading ‘Samuels Bros., 97 Middle Abbey Street,' he said that he might have done.

Mr. Murnaghan: Wasn't it the merest cod to write you a letter under the heading and address of a firm that did not exist?

Mr. Lavery interjected to say that Samuels Bros. was a limited company and had a legal existence.

Mr. Briscoe then said that the Department had agreed to the application for francs being made in the name of Samuels Bros., but the Revenue Commissioners took the cheque for the duty from the Gilbert Watch Company. The whole thing, therefore, appeared to be a cod. All through the correspondence Samuels Bros. and the Gilbert Watch Company became intermixed for the purpose of getting the watches.

Mr. Murnaghan then referred to the letter written by witness to the Department in February, 1944, and asked: ‘Who was the person from whom the untrue information was alleged to have been extracted?'

Witness: I should have said ‘to attempt to extract', because Mr. Ticher was one of the persons who told me.

Asked whether he had received any financial assistance from Shribman and Samuels, witness said that it was not unusual to find himself short of money and to discount bills, but he would not borrow from a person who would expect him to do anything wrong.

Asked if he had, in fact, received financial accommodation from the Gilbert Watch Company during the period he was making representations to the Department on their behalf, Mr. Briscoe said that he was a man with a very large income and engaged himself in developing various little businesses. At that particular time he was associated with R.B. Metal Products for the manufacture of collar studs, and had casually mentioned to the Gilbert Watch Company that he was going to his cousin to borrow some money. They offered to discount bills for him to the extent of £150. These bills were duly met by him and the interest which accrued was reimbursed to Mr. Samuels.

Witness, questioned about his relations with the Department, said: ‘If the Department had satisfied me that these people (Shribman and Samuels) were not entitled to francs or could not get them, that would have ended my interest, but I have not been satisfied up to this moment.'"

Some evidence was then tendered relating exclusively to a man called Moylan which, I believe, I can, with perfect propriety, omit. I continue:

"Mr. Briscoe said his sole purpose in seeing Moylan was to find out if he had involved the Gilbert Watch Company in the statement he had made, and he (witness) had accepted Moylan's statement that he had not involved it. He did not think that Shribman and Samuels were capable of smuggling.

President: In your letter of November 22, 1943, you wrote: ‘I have myself reason to believe that watches were, in fact, smuggled from Éire.' What did you mean?—Mr. Murray had explained to me that large quantities of watches were coming into the country far in excess of the normal requirement and that they were being smuggled into England, and that it would be very dangerous for us if such a thing happened, because our supplies of francs might be cut off. I agreed, and told him at that time lots of people were coming from the North of Ireland and that all the shops were doing a great trade with them. I did hear that there was some traffic in the illegal getting out of watches, for the purpose of smuggling them to England.

You had no definite evidence about it?—No.

Did you know about the disagreement in the Gilbert Watch Company between Mr. Schaper and Messrs. Shribman and Samuels?—Only from the time I took up the application.

Did you know the extent of the dealings between Shribman and Samuels and Mack?—I understood that large quantities of watches had been ordered.

Did you know the amount?—I never knew the amount until later on. I believe there were more ordered and that some were sent back. I know there were substantial quantities ordered.

Did you ever know that of this £21,000 worth of watches that has been referred to, about £8,500 of watches had not been entered on the books of the Gilbert Watch Company?—No.

You were never told that £8,500 worth of watches were not entered on the books?—Afterwards all the facts came out, and I subsequently did hear it.

When did you find out that the £8,500 worth of watches were not entered on the books?—About March, 1943.

Who told you?—Shribman and Samuels.

Did you inform the Department of Finance that these watches were not entered?—I discussed every aspect of the matter with the Department, and I am sure they are aware of it.

I am asking you a definite question and I want a definite answer. Did you inform the Department of the fact that this £8,500 worth of watches was not entered on the company's books?—I did not inform them of it, but they were aware of it.

Now, I desire to place these matters before the House with complete detachment and with no desire to generate heat, acrimony or recrimination. I believe that the evidence which I have read to the House does give legitimate grounds for the prima facie suspicion that a transaction took place which is not in accordance with the standards of conduct which must be required of any Deputy of Dáil Éireann. I believe it is the duty of this Dáil itself to make careful inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding this case and, having done so, without fear or favour, to report to this House what they have discovered to be the true nature of these transactions, declaring Deputy Briscoe to be faultless in the whole transaction, if that be their finding, or else pointing out where he erred and in how far that error was due to imprudence, or, if need be, to malice, and having settled his responsibility, to place on record the judgment of this House on that conduct, objectively, if needs be by addressing such admonishment to the Deputy or not as the House deems prudent.

I am bound in conclusion to refer briefly to one aspect of this matter without which I feel I would do myself a great injustice. It could be, and may perhaps have been, suggested, that my bringing this matter before Dáil Eireann is in some measure due to an anti-Semitic inclination in myself and that it was on account of Deputy Briscoe's race and faith that I wished to direct the attention of the Dáil to this transaction. I want to say quite deliberately that that is not true, that I regard anti-Semitism as utterly diabolical, that I believe the curse of God must descend on any person who takes part directly or indirectly in the persecution of any man or woman in this world on account of faith or race. Let those who accept that avowal, accept it and those who reject it, reject it. My friends and those who know me will, I believe, accept it. Those who wish to reject it are welcome to do so. As far as I am concerned, I do not give a thraneen for their opinion or their esteem. I place the facts before the House, Sir, and I am convinced the honour of this Oireachtas demands that they should be scrupulously and dispassionately investigated and a judgment by this sovereign body of the State pronounced upon them.

I declare these things should be done in a judicial spirit and with no desire either to vindicate my actions or those of Deputy Briscoe. If I have erred in bringing the matter before the House, all I can say is that I have erred after giving the matter the best consideration I could and that, had I to do it all over again, I would do exactly what I am doing now. If Deputy Briscoe has erred, let that be declared. If he has erred through imprudence, there will be nobody in this House to cast a stone at him. We have all been imprudent in our own good time. If he has erred, and has given way to temptation, or has done something that has not been consistent with the position of a Deputy of this House, let that fact be fearlessly recorded and the verdict of this House declared on such conduct. On our readiness to face this most distasteful duty depend, not only the honour of all of us, but I believe the safe survival of representative and democratic institutions in this country.

Mr. Anthony

I desire formally to second the motion reserving my right to make any comments before the close of the debate.

Mr. P.J. Fogarty

Next week you might have a motion about Maureen O'Hara or somebody else.

The Taoiseach

Apparently nobody else is going to speak. Before I deal with the matter of the motion, I think I should refer to Deputy Dillon's opening remarks. His suggestion was that he was treated very badly in this matter, that the motion had been for a very long time on the Order Paper and that he was not given an opportunity of dealing with it. He made it quite clear, however, that it was not the Government's fault that that was so. He made it clear, notwithstanding his initial suggestion, that this was not dealt with earlier because until a comparatively recent time the case in which the matter arose was still sub judice. Is there anybody here who thinks that a motion like this dealing with a case of that kind should have been introduced here while the matter was still sub judice?

What is Deputy Dillon's complaint then? He suggests that he was badly treated to-day. He has for some time been urging that this motion should be taken. This is the day for Private Members' time, and it was found that it could be taken to-day and would conveniently fit in with public business. It was announced this morning that it would be taken. It was also made clear, when it was announced, that if Deputy Dillon was not available here it would not be taken, so that any suggestion that it was going to be taken in Deputy Dillon's absence has no foundation whatever. It could not be suggested that it was taken at short notice because he himself was the person who was pressing to have this case taken. Therefore, we may take it that he had ready and prepared anything that he wanted to say on the matter. So much then for his introduction, and the suggestions contained in it.

Now, with regard to the motion itself, the facts of this case were, in fact, investigated before a court. The facts are admitted. It was admitted in court that Deputy Briscoe did make representations on behalf of this firm. It was admitted that he made these representations persistently to the Department of Finance, that the Department of Finance considered these representations and refused to make an allocation to the firm called Gilbert Watch Company because they had not the trade, apparently, at the time which would have entitled them, in accordance with the rules which the Department had adopted, to get an allocation. But the firm of Samuels, the personnel of which had been incorporated in the other company, was entitled and the Department of Finance gave an allocation of £3,000 in Swiss francs, about £1,500 of which was made available for the importation of watches.

Deputy Briscoe made representations in the case of that firm as he had done in the case of other firms. Every Deputy in this House practically, at one time or another, has made representations to the Departments during the period of control. They have made representations to the Departments with regard to facilitating some people that they knew, some people whose business was being affected by the restrictions, some people whom they regarded as being entitled to get allocations of one kind or another.

Personally, I have always regretted that members of the House should go personally to make representations to individual civil servants and I have often wondered whether there was any possibility of establishing a system by which these representations would be made in some other way: whether it would be possible to establish, in connection with each Department, a sort of inquiry office where these matters would be put through, so that individual civil servants, dealing with these matters, would not be taken from their work and would not be directly approached by Deputies. It is a practice that has been in operation here for a considerable period—this approach to Departments by Deputies. I certainly, for one, would welcome very much a Select Committee here that would indicate how that could be avoided. I have spoken to civil servants about it. It undoubtedly interferes considerably with their work. On the other hand, they say that by their direct contact they are able to convince Deputies who approach them that the position is not exactly as the Deputies represent it: that there is another side to the question other than that which they have been made aware of. If the House is willing to set up a Select Committee to examine into that matter, I certainly would be very glad of it. Deputy Briscoe, in making representations to the Department of Finance in regard to these allocations, was not doing anything that other members of this House would not have done in different forms in regard to their constituents or other people who had brought to their notice particular grievances which they thought they had.

Therefore, there is nothing that we can find fault with in the case of Deputy Briscoe as far as that is concerned except that he was following a practice which is universal as far as I know with the members of this House. The fact that these representations were carefully examined and that they did not influence the Department of Finance is clear from the whole action of the case. It cannot be suggested that Deputy Briscoe, when he was brought into this case, was treated in any way other than the way any outside member of the public would be treated, and that was quite proper of course.

Now, what is the thing exactly in Deputy Briscoe's case to which objection is taken? I take it that the whole gravamen of his conduct, as represented by the Deputy who has raised this question, is that it happened that whilst he was doing this he had also got accommodation from the particular individuals on whose behalf he was making these representations. It was brought out in court, however, that these bills were bills for one or two months, and that they were paid with the interest due on them. It came out in court that Deputy Briscoe knew this Mr. Samuels, that he was a friend of his, that he had known him from boyhood and that he had known his father before him, that there had been transactions between them, lending and borrowing, and that Deputy Briscoe had been in the habit, in a case like this when he was short for a particular transaction, of borrowing money on bills, and that there was nothing whatever unusual, on that particular occasion, in his getting this particular type of accommodation.

Mr. Dillon

Where is the record of all this?

The Taoiseach

The record is there.

Mr. Dillon

Where?

The Taoiseach

I have seen the record. I have tried to investigate this case, and these are the facts as I have found them.

Mr. Dillon

Nobody else has seen the record except those engaged in the case.

The Taoiseach

I have seen and examined this carefully, and I say that is the position. The House can say, if it wants to, that Deputy Briscoe was imprudent to have taken that accommodation at that particular time. It can find judgment on that if it wishes, but it cannot find on it—the facts are admitted—that he was guilty of any corruption.

Now, the first thing we must have in cases of this sort is something that will be recognised as a standard, something that will be a warning to every Deputy that he is transgressing if he does not observe it. We ought not simply, on a particular case like this, bring this matter up, instituting an ad hoc inquiry in order to find out what our standards should be. It has been reported to me, for instance, that certain things have happened. People who are traders and who are members of the House have made representations on behalf of their own particular firms. It has been pointed out to me that professional men who have been acting in cases outside have raised these matters afterwards in the House. We might think there was something in these cases equally dangerous and, if the House desires, I certainly will be glad to put down a motion that a Select Committee be set up to deal with this whole question of privileges, to deal with this whole question of standards. But I certainly think it is not right that, in a case of this sort, we should be asked to set up a committee specifically to deal with one Deputy on matters which have been investigated in court under oath.

We are anxious about standards in this House, but there is one thing which is also essential in this question of standards and that is that the privileges of the House ought not to be abused by members in their attitude towards other members. We ought to take care that people coming into this House can feel that they can carry out their public duty here without having other members taking advantage of the situation which this House gives them, the freedom which is given, to try to make imputations against the characters of other people. It is all very well for Deputies to say: "I am imputing nothing, I am only stating so and so," but the very fact that they state these things in this manner does imply an imputation and a lot of the mud will stick. If we want people to come here as public representatives, it is the duty of the House to see that they are safeguarded in these necessary matters.

I feel I would be setting a very bad precedent indeed if, when a matter was already investigated in court, I was to give way and have a Select Committee set up. The facts stated by the Deputy are admitted. The question is whether Deputy Briscoe was unwise, because no other charge can be made. Surely it was not for the sake of the 12/6 interest, whatever might be due in a month or two on the money, which was paid back; even the interest was paid. It was not on that basis that the charge of corruption could be made. This money was paid back. The cheques are available, the bills are available; they were available in court. What then? On what basis then should we——

Mr. Dillon

Who said the bills were available in court?

The Taoiseach

They were, and the cheques.

Mr. Dillon

That is what you say.

The Taoiseach

Those are the facts.

Mr. Dillon

The House does not know that. It is to ascertain those things that the Committee should be set up.

The Taoiseach

The House knows it from me.

Mr. Dillon

It is to ascertain those things that the Committee should be set up.

The Taoiseach

Those are the facts, and the facts being as I know them, I say all the House can find judgment upon is that Deputy Briscoe, by doing that at the time, was leaving himself open to imputation and leaving it open to be suggested that he was doing an improper thing and, therefore, he was unwise. But that is the only judgment that can be got and, if you want to set up standards here which Deputies are to maintain, then let us have a Select Committee to indicate what are the things that must not be done, what is not in accordance with the standards; whether it is proper that professional men, for instance, coming in here, who have dealt outside with cases, should raise these matters in the Dáil. Let us have that examined in the abstract. Let us have the question examined as to whether business men who are in this House should make representations on behalf of their own firms whilst they are members of the House. Let a number of these things, in general, be examined.

Let us go further. More than once since we have come into office the question has been raised with regard to an Act here dealing with the privileges of the House. I doubt very much if we have the power, for example, without legislation, to compel witnesses. If you set up a committee and want to have witnesses before the committee, I doubt if you have that power, without legislation. Therefore, there seems to me to be need of a Privileges Act. Let a Select Committee be set up to examine how far that is desirable, or what should be the extent of it. I have seen a draft Bill already. If you want to raise this matter and make sure of these things, let us do that, but let us do it apart from imputation, an imputation with regard to a particular individual, when the facts have already been brought out in public court.

I am not accepting this motion, but I am prepared to put down a motion that a Select Committee of the House be appointed to examine this whole question of standards, in so far as it is possible to indicate these standards, to investigate matters such as I have indicated—if it is proper for a person having financial transactions, borrowing from certain people, to make any representations in their case. In fact, a still wider question, as I have indicated at another stage, is this, to what extent it would be possible by other means to get whatever advantages there are for the public and Deputies in this method of making approaches to individual Civil Service heads or particular officers in the Departments? I think that these are matters which it would be in the public interest to examine and I am prepared to do that, but I am not prepared to accept this motion in regard to a matter which already has been the subject of a judicial examination.

Dr. O'Higgins

You should put the nets out to catch the red herrings.

Mr. Ruttledge

I want to make a statement. I happened to be the solicitor in that case. Deputy Dillon must be perfectly well aware, if he has read the evidence, that what he insinuated here is absolutely untrue. The bills were produced; the cheques were produced at that time, and that appeared on the note of the evidence and the Deputy must have seen it.

Mr. Dillon

I do not know why anybody assumes that I have read the notes of the evidence. I have made it perfectly clear that I have not read the notes of the evidence.

Mr. Ruttledge

Then what did you read?

Mr. Dillon

I read what was published in the newspapers, what was read by every ordinary citizen up and down the country, and it is what the citizens think of us and it is the example the citizens take from us that matters. I ask that this House should set up a Committee.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy concluding?

Mr. Dillon

Let me explain. Both the Taoiseach and Deputy Ruttledge sought to suggest that, having read the full notes of the evidence, I misrepresented the facts.

Mr. Ruttledge

I thought the Deputy was reading from the notes of the evidence.

Mr. Dillon

I was reading—and I said I was—a report that appeared in the newspapers. I made that perfectly clear and I asked the Chair not to impose on me the duty of abstaining from reading any part of that report, because I wanted to be perfectly honest. My suggestion was that a Committee of the House should send for the full note, examine it and, on the full note, record the truth, and if it were a vindication of Deputy Briscoe, record that vindication and thus correct the impression of what appeared in the newspapers. I want the public mind to be clear on this. I am not concluding the debate, but I want it cleared up.

Major de Valera

Are we, then, to understand that a Deputy comes in here and puts down a motion of this nature, insinuating charges against another Deputy, on the basis of a mere newspaper report when he could have had accurate knowledge? The Deputy knows as well as I know that, even if he could not obtain the official transcript of the notes after determination of the case, he had only to ask the Minister for Justice in a Question here to produce the notes, and they would have been produced. If the Deputy were sincere in his protestations in the opening of his speech to this motion, would we not have expected that he would at least have taken care to get evidence, to acquaint himself with the facts through the open official channel I have indicated, or to inquire of the Department, because the Deputy knows as well as anybody else that if, in such circumstances, he had inquired from the Department, he would have been furnished with the complete evidence?

I may seem a little heated in this regard, but, as one of the latest additions to this House, I am appalled to find that a procedure of this nature should be adopted to make charges against any Deputy. If there is anything calculated to bring the reputation of this House into disrepute, it is that kind of carry-on. As I say, I have perhaps been a little heated, but I do not want to let that in any way take from the astounding fact that, on the basis of a newspaper report— with no diligence and no energy shown by the Deputy, who knows his privileges and knows that nobody can come at him, that he is covered by the privileges of this House—a Deputy casually and carelessly puts down this motion with the most high-sounding and beautifully pious aspirations at the end of his speech. I will not abuse the privileges that I have by referring to hypocrisy, but I must say it is an appalling state of affairs.

There is, however, something more on this motion, and there is something that I should like to say as a newcomer to the House, and I think many other Deputies will say it. It is that, in the present situation, for us Deputies vis-á-vis our constituents, vis-á-vis our duties as Deputies, there are certain difficulties. The making of representations on behalf of our constituents has grown to be part of our duty as Deputies, and we all make these representations. In fact, I am afraid that to a certain extent there has been competition in that matter. We can all agree on that. It is very difficult to say where one is to draw the line between representations which are tinged, shall I say, by a personal interest and representations which are not. For instance, people come to see me in the Dáil as they come to see other Deputies. A number of Army people have come to me to see if anything can be done about resettlement.

Every other Deputy has the same experience and I am glad to be able to say that every Deputy has tried to do his best for these people. Suppose a man comes here whom I do not know personally. There is no trouble about the making of representations in his case, about giving him a reference or trying to help him out; but suppose somebody whom I know very well comes up here. Am I misusing my position as a Deputy in helping such a friend? Put in that way one can see how difficult it is to draw the line and I suggest that there is there a problem which might easily be examined. I think we should all welcome it.

There is the further difficulty in this situation, in which so much of our time, as every Deputy knows, is taken up with matters of that nature, that it is extremely difficult for a Deputy to give all the attention he should give to legislation passing through the House. We are primarily here to pass the laws and to give proper attention to the legislation passing through the House. Every Deputy realises the difficulty of paying proper attention to these matters and I suggest that that aspect should be taken into consideration if these matters are to be considered. But that perhaps is a side matter.

To return to the motion in perhaps a little cooler mood than that in which I started, let us look at this from the point of view of a charge, because it is a charge. Let us by analogy consider it from the point of view of procedure on indictment. What is the first thing? The first thing is the information stage when the prosecution is expected to make a case. Otherwise, informations are refused and nothing further happens. What is the case? Listening to the Deputy who made the case, I have not been able to find what the charge is. Evidence was read from a newspaper report, I gather. It is insinuated that it implies turpitude, but no definite or specific charge has been made. Is that a prima facie case of anything? There is no need to go over it again—it has been dealt with already. Where is the charge? Confining myself strictly to the narrow part of this motion, I do not see that a prima facie case about anything has been made, and, consequently, this motion is unsustainable.

General Mulcahy

When the Taoiseach clears his mind with regard to any difficulties there may be in Deputies having to approach Departments about persons or matters and puts a proposal by way of motion before the House, we shall be very glad to consider it. When the Taoiseach also clears his mind as to whether he has any animadversions to make on the way in which business people in this House or persons with professional callings in this House seek to serve their interests in this House, and as to whether he sees any reason for designating any of these practices or actions as objectionable and puts a motion before the House asking for assistance in the consideration of these matters and the passing of judgments upon them, we shall be very glad to assist the Taoiseach to discuss such a motion. But we are not discussing either one or the other of these things here.

I do not understand Deputy de Valera feeling that he has to be heated in this matter and I do not understand that any charge has been made. When I listened to Deputy Dillon I felt that this was really a matter in respect of which, arising out of the Press reports and even following any examination which the Taoiseach might have made of it, the Government might have moved to set up a Committee of the House to investigate the facts, and see whether what was suggested to the public or to some of the public was correct or not, or whether, as was apparently necessary, wrong impressions should be disposed of by a full examination of all the facts and a report by an impartial Committee of this House.

As I say, I feel that the Government themselves might have moved in the matter or, failing that, that I, as Leader of the Opposition, might have moved in the matter, because it seems to me that the statements which have been made from the Government Benches have rather added to any suspicion that might be in the public mind, perhaps unwarrantedly. The Taoiseach's statement, coupled with the reports that Deputy Dillon read, which I understood him to say were reports taken from the Press and were the only reports available to people throughout the country regarding certain transactions of a Deputy, suggests that there are two matters that might very well be fully inquired into: (1) whether in fact there was any special treatment given to any firm as a result of Deputy Briscoe's representations; and (2) whether in fact any accommodation of a financial kind that was given to Deputy Briscoe was repaid in the way in which the Taoiseach says, namely, in full and with interest. If the facts are as the Taoiseach so emphatically states, that the Deputy got no accommodation for a particular firm as a result of his representations on the one hand, and that he, in fact, did not benefit financially by reason of his operations in this matter, I think it is due not only to Deputy Briscoe, but to this House, that the public would have it completely established for them what the facts were and that that should be done by such an impartial body as this House could set up.

As the Taoiseach says he has completely investigated this matter and has found that there is no cause for saying anything except that Deputy Briscoe was unwise, I feel that that is one reason why he should do what this motion asks him to do, to give the House an opportunity of informing itself of the facts and, through its inquiry, informing the public, because the fact is that it is quite possible that this House has not sufficiently established its own traditions. We have got through a rather difficult period since this Parliament was set up. If we are to have not only the reputation of the members of the House individually, but the reputation of members of the House as a class, perfectly clean and clear before the public mind, we ought to be ready to take any steps that might be necessary to clear away doubts in an individual case or to prevent individual cases of one kind or another putting it into the power of anyone to suggest that Deputies were making use of their public positions for their own private advantage. I suggest to the Taoiseach that he should reconsider this matter; that it is quite wrong to feel that charges are being made in this House and that the information the public have and the information that we all have here is simply the information to be got from the Press. From the information that we can get from the Press, coupled with the statement of the Taoiseach to-night, I suggest that a very strong case has been made for setting up the Committee asked for by Deputy Dillon and having the facts fully stated to a representative committee of this House and, through that committee, to the people.

Mr. Flanagan

I would not have spoken on this motion but for the fact that Deputy Dillon and Deputy Major de Valera seemed to be very much alarmed about the reputation of members of this House and about Deputies upholding their own dignity and the dignity of this House. I challenge the Taoiseach to point out one honest man in this House.

Mr. Little

What about yourself?

Mr. Flanagan

All the members of this House seem to be very much alarmed at the accusations made. But I think that the members of this House have no idea of what the people, to whom Deputy Mulcahy has referred, think about us.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must deal with the motion before the House. I take it this matter is serious.

Mr. Flanagan

It is a very serious matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

It should be so treated.

Mr. Flanagan

I am of the opinion that it is such a serious matter that it should not be taken as a joke. At the same time, I am convinced, although the Chair may not be pleased with the statement, that Deputy Dillon has a right to say what he likes as a member of this House, that the Taoiseach, as a member of the House, has a right to say what he likes, and hence, that I, as a member of the House, have a right to say anything I like, I say that there is not an honest man in the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Neither the Deputy mentioned, nor the Taoiseach, nor Deputy Flanagan has a right to say what he thinks unless it is in order.

Mr. Flanagan

I say that the reputation, honesty and dignity of Deputies are under review on this motion.

Mr. O'Rourke

Is it proper to say that there is not an honest man in this House? It is a national disgrace that it should be said.

Mr. Flanagan

Where is he? Point him out. So far as this motion is concerned, I am prepared to accept the statement of the Taoiseach that he has thoroughly investigated the matter.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Even though he is not an honest man.

Mr. Flanagan

If the Taoiseach has investigated the matter, I cannot see why he should not welcome the suggestion in the motion. If the facts are as the Taoiseach has stated, then what is there to be afraid of or ashamed about? I think that in fairness to Deputy Briscoe, whom I knew for many years before I came into this House, the Taoiseach would be wise to accept the motion in order to clear the Deputy from any allegation that has been made. The Taoiseach has made reference to the manner in which Deputies make representations to the different Departments. All Deputies are approached from time to time to make representations to various Departments. The Taoiseach has indicated to this House that he is inclined to agree with the idea of an inquiry into the manner in which Deputies make representations to Departments. I am one Deputy in this House who would strenuously resent and strongly oppose any action which might be taken by the Government to restrict the rights of Deputies as far as representations to Departments are concerned. The Taoiseach has not suggested that this should be done, but he has stated that he would welcome an inquiry into the ways and means in which such representations should be made. If any steps are going to be taken in that direction I suggest that there should be no interference whatsoever with the present rights which Deputies in this House have in approaching civil servants in their Departments. We all know—at least I know—that there is no civil servant in any Department to-day who shows any political spite or any bias towards any Deputies because of Party affiliations or for any other reason.

Deputies from this side of the House may not agree with me in that, but I know that what I am stating here is true. The civil servants in all our Departments here are above politics. If the present system were to be changed and if it were incumbent upon Deputies to make representations through the Ministers over the various Departments I am one Deputy in this House who would not approve of such an arrangement. I am one Deputy in this House who has never made any representations through a Minister of the Fianna Fáil party. I know that when I make representations to a secretary of a Department that secretary has no political prejudices and that his Department, in its administration, is above party politics and one Deputy is treated in the same way as any other Deputy. I have known of cases where Deputies have been received by civil servants and those civil servants were completely ignorant as to which Party the Deputy belonged. I think that is the right and proper spirit in which to run our Civil Service. I say that no steps should be taken to restrict the right of any Deputy to discuss any matter concerning his constituents with any officer of a Department. I am convinced from my own experience that no accusations can be levelled against civil servants in their treatment of Deputies because of party affiliations or anything else.

Now, sir, assuming any Deputy in this House happens to be a solicitor and one of his constituents comes into his office and requests him to make representations, we will say, to the Land Registry. That Deputy, in his capacity as a solicitor, has to purchase the Land Registry maps. In his capacity as a solicitor he probably has to make out a file in which the correspondence relating to that constituent's case will be kept. Now could Deputy Dillon raise a motion in this House if that solicitor, who happens to be a Deputy of this House, charges his constituent for his services as a solicitor?

I would like to know does Deputy Dillon, or any other Deputy in this House, think that it savours of corrupt practices for such a solicitor to claim his expenses and his fees for his services as a solicitor, while at the same time he is in a position to make representations to Departments on a similar matter in his capacity as a Deputy? Now I regard this as a very serious matter because, assuming I was a solicitor and I accepted fees from my constituents in return for services rendered to them in my capacity as a solicitor, I feel that no Fianna Fáil Deputy would hesitate in putting down a motion on the same lines as Deputy Dillon has tabled in this House to-day in Deputy Briscoe's case. Thank God, I am not a solicitor.

Now, I think that Deputy Dillon, in his closing remarks on this matter, should make very clear to the House what exactly his views are in relation to professional representations made by Deputies. I believe that where a Deputy fills a dual capacity both are separate and distinct. His occupation as a solicitor and his temporary position as Deputy are not fundamentally co-related. His position as a Deputy is temporary and it should not enter into account in relation to remuneration for services rendered as a solicitor. The same argument is equally applicable to doctors who are also members of this House. If a constituent calls in the medical aid of a doctor, who is also a member of this House, and that doctor in due course furnishes a bill to his constituent for such services, surely it is not suggested that this House would in those circumstances have before it such a motion as that tabled here to-night bringing a similar charge against the Deputy as the charge that has been made against Deputy Briscoe? I believe that any medical man, who is also a member of this House, is entitled to his fees for medical services rendered to his constituents.

I think it would be grossly unfair if a motion on similar lines were to be put down here against a doctor in this House and for that doctor to be charged with taking fees from his constituents in return for his services. I am not raising this matter now for the purposes of publicity, but merely for the purpose of getting some concrete information from Deputy Dillon. I agree with Deputy Dillon when he asks for an inquiry into this matter because I honestly and sincerely believe that if such an inquiry is not held now the only person who will suffer by that is Deputy Briscoe. In all fairness to Deputy Briscoe I think that such an inquiry should be held and the facts should be made known to the general public. The facts of the case were published in the Press. The facts of the case will be republished in the papers to-morrow morning with the result that people who have long forgotten all about this matter will have their minds and their memories refreshed. Therefore, in all fairness to the Deputy, I think the Government would be well advised to accept the motion put down here and would be well advised in making known to the public all the facts. If the facts then are as the Taoiseach has pointed out, so much the better for Deputy Briscoe and so much the better for Deputy Dillon. Deputy Dillon's curiosity will be satisfied once more. As far as this House is concerned it is my belief that every member in the House would welcome an inquiry on the lines suggested.

Mr. P.J. Fogarty

I just want to make a few remarks about the Taoiseach's statement concerning the privileges exercised by members of this House. I do not intend to deal with the motion relating to Deputy Briscoe. But the Taoiseach has stated that he would welcome a committee to inquire into the manner in which representations are made to Ministers and others. Now I never in my life have made any representations to civil servants or to the head of any Department. I have always gone direct to the Minister. The Taoiseach, or his Ministers, cannot deny that when such representations are made they are referred to the Departments concerned and one gets back the stock reply. I would welcome any committee which would make recommendations in this connection so that Deputies would have some assurance that when they make representations for their constituents they will receive the proper attention. If the Taoiseach will give us a guarantee here that any representations made either to himself, or to his Ministers, will be specially investigated and not merely diverted through the ordinary channels, with all the delay involved—

Mr. Flanagan

I think some Deputies should resign from this House in all decency.

Mr. P.J. Fogarty

I would like to say that I have been told by members of my own Party, when I was dealing with matters connected with my constituents and when I said that I must see the Minister about so and so, "Ah, Paddy, don't be foolish". I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned until Friday, 17th May, 1946.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 16th May, 1946.