Proposed Sale of Distillery—Motion for Tribunal.

The Taoiseach

I move:—

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say, the allegations affecting members of either House of the Oireachtas made in Dáil Éireann on the 22nd, 29th and the 30th October, 1947, in reference to the disposal or proposed disposal, since the 1st January, 1946, of the distillery of John Locke and Company, Limited, at Kilbeggan, County Westmeath, and of the stocks of the said distillery or any part thereof; the nature and extent of the connection which any member of either House of the Oireachtas had with any transactions relating to such disposal or proposed disposal.

It has my hallmark upon it. It is:—

"To add at the end of the motion the words `and any other facts or circumstances connected with such disposal or proposed disposal which, by reason of the exercise or nonexercise, in relation to them, of any Governmental or Ministerial function, are, in the opinion of the tribunal, of public importance'."

The terms of reference, therefore, are to inquire into the allegations made here during the debates on three indicated days, to find out what are the facts with regard to all these allegations and to find out to what extent, if any, Ministers have had any connection with the matter or, as in the amendment in the name of the Tánaiste, there has been any failure of duty or improper use of their powers by Ministers, or, in so far as members of the Dáil or Seanad are concerned, anything has occurred that would be improper action by such a member. I do not think it is necessary for me to go over the ground again, and, in fact, I think it would be improper to do so. We have discussed this matter. Allegations have been made, and, quite irrespective of the fact that, as I have already pointed out, we do not admit that any case had been made for the suggestions put forward, we are prepared to have this tribunal.

General Mulcahy

Do I take it that we are to consider that the Taoiseach's amendment to his own motion is proposed and added to the motion as it stands on the paper?

The Taoiseach

Yes.

On a point of order, I think it advisable that some time or another we should be told what is implied in the amendment in the name of the Tánaiste that is not in the motion itself. The Taoiseach gave no such explanation that I could gather, so that if the general order of discussion is not disturbed in any way by the withholding of the moving of this amendment by the Tánaiste until I have finished on my amendment and until Deputy Dillon has finished on his amendment, we might then have some comment from the Tánaiste on his amendment. I suggest to Deputy Dillon that there is no necessity for him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Dillon

I understood that the Leader of the Opposition would prefer me to do that.

General Mulcahy

No, so long as——

If it can be done within the rules of order—that is the trouble.

Mr. Anthony

I would ask you, Sir, to act strictly in accordance with your decision now and to rule out any references to personalities or persons. Any Deputy who has been here within the last couple of weeks must deeply deplore the low standards of the debate and I should hate to have a repetition of that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let that lie. I have asked for the co-operation of the House, without which no Chair can rule. I am asking for that co-operation again.

Mr. Anthony

I hope you will get it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I expect so.

General Mulcahy

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:—

To delete all words after the word "say" and to substitute therefor the words:—

"all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding any proposal made or attempted to be made at any time since the 1st January, 1946, either to buy or to sell Locke's Distillery, Kilbeggan, or any part of the property or business thereof."

The motion as it is drawn is so restrictive as to stifle inquiry. It asks that a tribunal be set up to inquire into definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say the allegations affecting members of either House of the Oireachtas made in Dáil Éireann on certain dates. The inquiry then is intended to be restricted to an examination into allegations made here on certain dates and enshrined in the debates of Dáil Éireann. As it stands, the motion contemplates that a number of judges can be got willingly to agree to sit on a tribunal, to take the Dáil debates of the 22nd, 29th and 30th October, find therein allegations against members of either House of the Oireachtas and to carry out an investigation into all the facts concerning these allegations. That is the motion in the form in which the Taoiseach has put it down.

I do not see what extension of that inquiry is implied in the amendment which the Taoiseach has put down in the name of the Tánaiste. When he was speaking just now, the Taoiseach said that: "We are to see"—whoever "we" are—"that members of the Oireachtas do not behave improperly in their actions as such and that Ministers in the exercise of their functions also do not behave improperly". This House is asked to pass a resolution that three judges shall be found—there being no power on the part of the Government to require a judge to sit on that inquiry—who will voluntarily sit on the tribunal to inquire whether members of the Oireachtas as such have behaved improperly in the exercise of their power or whether Ministers in the exercise of their functions have behaved improperly either. We had here last week a motion to set up a select committee to inquire into all the facts and circumstances related to the sale of Locke's Distillery. I pointed out in connection with that motion that it was fully provided for under Standing Order No. 67 which says:—

"The Dáil may, on motion made after notice, appoint a select committee to consider, and if so permitted, to take evidence upon any Bill or matter, and to report its opinion for the information and assistance of the Dáil."

That motion was opposed and defeated by the Government on a certain number of grounds, the first being that it objected to a select committee consisting of members of the Dáil inquiring into all the circumstances surrounding the proposed sale of Locke's Distillery, circumstances which were connected with such facts as the Minister for Justice detailed when he made his statement on the 22nd October. The Government indicated that the Dáil was not a suitable place, particularly after the discussion that had taken place last week, to go into any matter like that, especially when Ministers or Departments or members of the Oireachtas had been involved in them. Why was the Dáil dealt this blow, as regards its functions, its decisions and its privileges, when we are asked to-day to look for three judges who will voluntarily sit on a tribunal to carry out a task which members of the Oireachtas should be asked to perform—to find out if there are any Deputies who behaved improperly and also if there are any Ministers who, in the exercise of their functions, did not behave properly? Surely an inquiry consisting of members of the Oireachtas is the only, or is certainly the outstanding, body that should be appointed to try this matter? That may be an aspect of the matter that may be declared to be outside this discussion, but what I want to develop is that, even if it were part of the normal functions of judges or that they could be required by statute to perform the duty of sitting on such an inquiry, it is a scandalous treatment of Parliament to suggest that a group of judges should be set up in this way to inquire whether members of the Oireachtas had behaved improperly or whether Ministers in the discharge of their duties also had behaved improperly. A Joint Committee of both Houses is the proper body to examine to what extent and in what circumstances "members of the Oireachtas as such have behaved improperly or Ministers have behaved improperly in the discharge of their functions as Ministers".

I challenge the Taoiseach to discuss that aspect of the matter. I give him his own very words. He uses these words in relation to a motion to set up the tribunal which he proposes now. I think I could nearly leave the matter there but in view of the way in which the Taoiseach has traversed the allegations in the discussion here on the 29th and 30th October, it is worth while challenging the Taoiseach as to what he meant when he discussed these allegations here. The Taoiseach himself traversed the allegations that were supposed to have been made here when he pointed out that the first person attacked was the President.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy does not propose to deal with these allegations now?

General Mulcahy

We are asked to set up a tribunal—

"to inquire into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say the allegations affecting members of either House of the Oireachtas made in Dáil Eireann on the 22nd, 29th and 30th October."

An Ceann Comhairle

And they may not be discussed at length.

General Mulcahy

I should like to know what the three judges will be invited to discuss. Are we in the position that we have to blindfold ourselves in relation to the discussions that already have taken place here lest common intelligence might tell us that the passage of this motion is a thing that ought not to take place? I want to know from the Taoiseach what he wants the tribunal to discuss, or what he has in mind that the tribunal will discuss, because he has wiped all the allegations out here. He says the first person attacked was the President, and he wiped out that, although everybody here pointed out to him that there was no allegation made against the President. Then he came to an allegation made against himself. I am not aware of any allegation made against himself. Then he came to the allegation made against the Minister for Justice. That allegation was that the Minister was mixed up with somebody in connection with the export of cloth. I think everybody wiped that out. The fourth allegation, according to the Taoiseach, was against the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

According to the Taoiseach, there was a statement published in the Press by a person prominently associated with the commercial life of Dublin and the organised manufacturers of the country, saying that when he was interested in the purchase of this business, there were certain facilities available for the export of whiskey but, until the discussion took place here last week, he was not aware of any increased facilities for the export of whiskey that might have been available. The fifth allegation that the Taoiseach finds is an allegation against Senator Quirke.

These were the five areas of allegation or charge that the Taoiseach found in the discussions that took place. Assuming there are these areas to be examined—and I think the Taoiseach developed some of these areas himself, rather than anybody else in the House —does the Taoiseach mean that there are no areas outside them to be examined, and that, whereas it appears to the public mind that a certain number of people who are most mixed up in the development of this purchase as a shady business have been cleared out of the country by a Government Order, that aspect is not to be open for examination at all?

I move my amendment in order to make sure that every fact concerning the recent happenings in connection with the proposed sale of Locke's Distillery should be examined. These, from the description of the Minister for Justice, are highly colourful, and are colourful in a most unsavoury way. That is the first reason why I press my amendment. Secondly, I press it in direct resistance to the Taoiseach's understanding of his motion, that this is to be an inquiry into whether members of the Oireachtas have behaved improperly, or whether Ministers in the discharge of their functions have behaved improperly.

The circumstance in which we find ourselves, both in this Parliament and in the country, should make us realise that there are very serious problems that will require the unity and the support of the people, with full confidence in their institutions. All the circumstances that surround the sale of Locke's Distillery must be investigated. It is of the utmost public importance, in the present circumstances, that there should be the fullest possible inquiry into the whole business.

The proposal to have an inquiry was put forward in a clear and temperate way on Wednesday last, but the Government thought fit to muddy the waters of thought and discussion, with the result that the debate that they themselves believed would be finished in 2½ hours, and subsequently agreed might take 3½ hours, ran into a considerably longer period, and that debate is being extended to-day as a matter of urgent public importance.

Surely the Taoiseach realises that, whatever might have been said or felt with regard to this matter, the fullest possible inquiry into every aspect of it is now necessary. If he is moving the inquiry from the hands of people whom he thought on Wednesday last were just a slander factory, if he is succeeding, by the defeat of the motion last week, in taking this inquiry out of the hands of the slander factory, if he is succeeding, by his majority here and by his influence with the judiciary, in getting three or four judges to discuss this matter in a fact-finding spirit, he ought, in the public interest, in the interest of the Ministry and Parliament generally, open the task of these judges in the widest possible way so that when the inquiry is finished, whatever we may think of the manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Government in taking it out of the hands of the Oireachtas, and whatever people may be left who will suggest that something has been hidden and that facts have been left undisclosed, there will at least be a number who will be able to say: "Three judges have looked into this particular matter; there was nothing surrounding the case that they had not power to inquire into". Give some section of the people the chance of saying that, even if they are only supporters of the Government.

Deputy Norton indicated—and so did Deputy Costello—that from tradition and from experience of the general functions that type of machine would have, a judicial inquiry was not a body that could find out even the facts, because it would have no training or general function in acting as the aggressor, if not the prosecutor, in finding out facts, and they suggested that the judges would be put into a position that they did not normally occupy and, in fact, that they would be powerless to occupy. The Taoiseach went over a number of inquiries that were held and he read extracts from the findings and endeavoured to paint all these reports as complete exculpations. The exculpation of the people who have been involved in an unsavoury way in this attempt to get possession of Locke's Distillery, an exculpation brought out by unsatisfactory machinery and after a restricted inquiry, is going to have a very disastrous effect on public opinion and on public confidence in our institutions here. I submit very earnestly to members of the Dáil that to support the Taoiseach's motion, even amended as the Taoiseach would have it amended, would be a very great disaster to public opinion and to the public life of this country at the present time.

Mr. Morrissey

I formally second the amendment.

Mr. Dillon

I regard the amendment standing in my name as being substantially the same as that in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. The case for this motion by the Taoiseach is that, inasmuch as the conduct of persons other than persons who are members of the Oireachtas may be impugned, a Parliamentary committee would be unsuitable and three judges should be provided. That was his case when opposing the motion of the Leader of the Opposition last week. Now he proceeds to justify his own motion and he says: "The terms of my new motion are so drawn as to guarantee that this commission of three judges will not inquire into the activities of anybody who is not a member of Oireachtas Éireann." Is not that so.

Mr. Flanagan

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Was not the case made last week:—

"If we were dealing with members of Oireachtas Éireann, a select committee of Parliament would certainly be proper".

The Taoiseach

I never said that.

An Tánaiste

Give the reference to it.

Mr. Dillon

Well, two and two make three and 31/32nds, of course, to the Taoiseach, but to the simple it makes four. That was the argument last week. Now the argument is different. Of course, the boys beyond—they all turn when Pop turns. I have no objection to a tribunal with three judges. Any tribunal which will clean up this mess is acceptable to me and three High Court judges, given the proper facilities and terms of reference, will probably clean it up just as well as a Parliamentary committee. I want to remind the House that, though we here in Dáil Éireann are bound by no precedents, whether they be drawn from the Congress of the United States or the House of Commons in Great Britain or the Chamber of Deputies in France, we would be fools not to look to these more experienced legislatures for advice by their procedure—and, of course, we habitually do so.

Only last week, the British House of Commons had to question the conduct of two of their members and of a number of outside persons and the whole matter was dealt with by the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, before whom the members themselves were summoned and before whom the outside persons were summoned. When the findings were made and reported to the Parliament, the British House of Commons first dealt with its own members by expelling one and publicly reprimanding the other, and then called to the Bar of their House the outside persons and heard from those outside persons what retribution they were prepared to make, and until they had made ample retribution, the House reserved its decision as to whether they would impose a punishment or not. But, of course, that procedure does not commend itself to the Taoiseach of this House, the implication being that he does not believe that Deputies of this House would do their duty conscientiously. Though the Leader of a Socialist Party in Great Britain cheerfully accepts the verdict of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges of the House of Commons and of the House itself, freely given, without the Whips being on, our Taoiseach, the Leader of our House, publishes to the world that he would not trust the elected representatives of our people to do justice. The Leader of a Socialist Party in Great Britain is prepared to admit that the most unreconstructed Tory, where it is a matter of the honour of the House of Commons or of his own Legislature that is in question, may be depended upon to act fairly, no matter from what source the defendant may be arraigned.

The Taoiseach's motion to-day proposes to "refer certain matters"—and I ask the House to note these words—"to a tribunal of three judges"; and the Taoiseach's motion, as it first appeared, manifestly restricts the terms of reference in such a way as to make absolutely sure that the three judges will not be allowed to examine the real evils in connection with this transaction at all. The Leader of the Opposition puts down an amendment to give the judges terms of reference which would permit them to inquire into the real evils and I put down an amendment to the same end. The Taoiseach, being a skilful old campaigner, recognises that his first bluff has been called and accordingly he applies his subtle mind to the drafting of an amendment, which is to be moved by the Tánaiste, and that amendment reads:—

"To add at the end of the motion the words `and any other facts or circumstances connected with such disposal or proposed disposal...'."

Now, it was confidently anticipated that the majority of people picking up that amendment—which was handed to us after the House had sat—on getting thus far would say to themselves: "Oh, the Government have accepted the Leader of the Opposition's amendment and Deputy Dillon's and there need be no discussion about it." I certainly have not been sitting for the past 15 years in front of the Taoiseach in order to fall into that trap. Two and two never make four for the Taoiseach. Always look for the nigger in the woodpile, because his amendment does not stop where I stopped; it goes further:—

"and any other facts or circumstances connected with such disposal or proposed disposal which, by reason of the exercise or non-exercise, in relation to them, of any Governmental or Ministerial function, are, in the opinion of the tribunal, of public importance."

What Governmental or Ministerial function was involved when Sweeney brought Sachael into Árus an Uachtaráin?

An Ceann Comhairle

If we omitted such discussions from the debate, it would be better for the debate.

Mr. Flanagan

That is what we want to discuss.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not discussing what the Deputy wants to inquire into. We discussed that matter for hours before in a very unsatisfactory manner. To-day we are discussing the type of tribunal required.

Mr. Morrissey

And what they may inquire into.

Mr. Dillon

I cannot prevent the Chair making me sit down. I am dealing with the proposal of the Tánaiste on the Order Paper—that and nothing else. I am alleging against it that he seeks to destroy the Parliamentary immunity of a Deputy of this House who did what he conceived to be his duty. I am saying, and I submit to you, Sir, that I am entitled in defence of Parliament to say, that when the Taoiseach's motion reads that this inquiry is to inquire "into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say, the allegations affecting..."—"allegations"— this commission is not to inquire into the fact that criminals sat in the President's drawingroom. It is to inquire as to why a Deputy of this House dared to say so. Will the Chair now let me make my answer to that? I will answer to no tribunal set up in this country or outside it for anything I say in Parliament. I know there are cheap traitors to the principle of democracy who would misrepresent that statement as suggesting that I would recoil from repeating before a tribunal on oath every syllable I have uttered here. They need not worry. I will repeat here or anywhere, where proper inquiry falls to be made on oath, every syllable I have uttered here but I will do it because I choose to do it. But there is no court, there is no tribunal, and there is no power in this land that can compel me to answer for any act or word of mine uttered in Dáil Éireann in the discharge of my public duty. If any tribunal or anybody seeks to enforce such a claim against me I will reject it in the confident knowledge that I will have no more resourceful protector in defence of that fundamental right than the Ceann Comhairle of this House, and I will protect it in so far as within me lies in the person of Deputy Flanagan or the person of any other Deputy of this House where those who hate that privilege, where those who resent that independence, would seek to destroy it. There will be no judicial murder of reputations done in this country, and do not let anybody try.

When the matters relating to this business of Locke's Distillery came before this House at first the gravest, to my way of thinking, was the reflection that had been cast upon the President's household.

An Ceann Comhairle

We have had that twice already and the Deputy should not refer to it any more.

Mr. Dillon

I do not propose to refer to it any more, Sir. When the debate proceeded, to my horror and consternation, other facts emerged, mainly in the speech of the Tánaiste, which will call for examination. I exhort the House, without regard to Party or to anything else, to combine one with another in a declaration that they want this tribunal to have the widest possible powers of reference and that we confidently leave it in the hands of the three judicial commissioners whom we appoint to limit the scope of the inquiry to what they think necessary in order to clear up the evil that has been done and now exists. I want our people to have an assurance that we are prepared to do that. I do not care what anyone outside this country thinks of us or does not think of us so long as we ourselves know that we are right. But I want our own people to know that.

I want our own people to have an assurance to-morrow morning that Deputies on both sides of this House are united in an effort to institute an inquiry designed to ensure that no wrongdoing will go unmasked and that no innocent person will remain unjustly aspersed. So far as I am concerned, give me a commission of three High Court judges, or any three judges in this country, charged with that task but left with the virtual right to fix their own terms of reference in order to attain that end and I will accept it, whether it comes from the Taoiseach or the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else. I for my part now volunteer to give that commission all the help I can and all the knowledge I possess. To date every syllable is in the hands of the Minister for Justice. I insisted on his receiving it. This silly little man, the Minister for Local Government, in violation of the most elementary decencies of personal honour, betraying the confidence of his own colleague, burst into the room of the Minister for Justice on last Thursday or last Wednesday when, in the discharge of my public duty, I had occasion to interview him on business. This silly meanminded little man jumped to the conclusion that I had gone there to unburden my soul about the Locke Distillery case on the eve of the debate. Had he been right he would have gloried in that base betrayal of a colleague's confidence and of a decent man's honour. But, having prostituted his personal honour, he did not even get his price for his presumption was wrong, and he not only disgraced himself in the eyes of honourable men but made a fool of himself in the eyes of the meanest member of his own Party. If that be the standard of decency that obtains in the Executive Council, God grant that that Executive Council may not long endure.

I want nothing but the vindication of those entitled to vindication and the exposure of those who have betrayed their colleagues or who, coming here from abroad, dare to imagine that they can carry their dirty, crooked practices with them. I want these proceedings to be a standing notice to the international crooks of the world that they come here at their peril. I want these proceedings to be a reassurance to our own people, no matter what opinions may divide them, that the honour of our own people and the honour of our country are equally dear to all. I hope and pray that the Government will see its way to taking whatever steps they deem expedient—even a new motion if they cannot accept mine or the Leader of the Opposition's amendment —which would give to the tribunal the discretion I want it to have so that our people can once again lift up their heads and look at their own representatives, unworthy as they are, and say: "At least, they are honest men."

Mr. Flanagan

I second the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

Mr. Morrissey

Let the tribunal determine it.

Mr. Lemass

The motion proposes:—

"That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiry into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say, the allegations affecting members of either House of the Oireachtas made in Dáil Éireann on the 22nd, 29th and the 30th October, 1947, in reference to the disposal or proposed disposal since the 1st January, 1946, of the distillery of John Locke and Company, Limited, of Kilbeggan."

Deputy Mulcahy proposes to delete all the words after "say"—the words he is proposing to delete are:—

If you do not want me to answer the question, I will not answer it. If you do, I will.

The Deputy can, of course, continue this blackmailing process indefinitely. Every man is sensitive about his honour. Every Government would be sensitive about its reputation and when Deputies, by insinuation, imply that their reputations have been besmirched or that their characters have been impugned, they will be concerned naturally to afford every possible opportunity to themselves to vindicate their reputation and their characters. But we cannot keep up with Deputy Dillon's capacity to slander. We will have to stop some time. In this particular case allegations were made. Every Deputy in this House knows now that there was no foundation for these allegations. Deputy Dillon tells us the name Sachael will not be mentioned at this tribunal if these terms of reference are mentioned. Was it not alleged here that this Sachael was a friend of the Minister for Justice and because he was a friend of the Minister for Justice got a licence to export 25,000 yards of cloth? Was not that alleged? Every Deputy knows there was no truth in either allegation but it was alleged here and is the Minister for Justice to be given no opportunity to prove that that was a slander, that the Deputy who made the allegation had no foundation for making it?

Other foreigners were mentioned here, some of whom I never heard of. Was it not alleged here by Deputy O'Higgins that these foreigners arrived in this country and within 24 hours after their arrival were able to get access to a Government Department and were given facilities there? Was not that alleged? Cannot that allegation be investigated? If the investigation shows that these foreigners were never in a Government Department, is not it just as well to bring that out. But the allegation was made here and the suggestion that some attempt has been made in drawing these terms of reference to prevent any of these facts being inquired into by the tribunal is without any foundation of any kind.

We have been deluged with a lot of insinuations and allegations against the Government in the course of the last week. Deputy Dillon appears to think it strange that we resent it. We do resent it. No words in the English language could express the fullness of my contempt for Deputy Dillon. We are asked to consider here, not a tribunal of judges to investigate these allegations, but a committee comprising of Deputy Dillon, and Deputy McGilligan and Deputy O'Higgins, and all the other men who hope to sweep into office in this country on a wave of slander. Does anybody in this House believe, does anybody in this country believe, that a committee comprising of these men would give an impartial verdict on anything affecting the reputation of their political opponents? Deputy Dillon referred us to what happened in the English House of Commons. There is not a man in this Dáil who would believe that any of these three men I have mentioned or many other people on the benches opposite would give a fair and impartial verdict based upon the facts, if they thought that there was some political advantage to be got by besmirching their opponents.

Mr. Morrissey

Who is indulging in the slander now?

Mr. Lemass

The Great Southern and Western Railway shares. You fought an election on these allegations.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Mr. Morrissey

I know that, but I want to call his bluff. If we put it down in black and white, will he accept it? Of course he will not. The Minister for Industry and Commerce still believes that he can fool this House with his little petty playacting here as he fooled the country for so long. In passing, I should like to know if the Taoiseach is in a position to tell us whether he has secured the services of three judges, and, if so, who they are?

The Minister for Industry and Commerce started his speech by talking about a campaign of slander and he uttered against members of this House, and very distinguished members of this House, as dirty a slander as I ever heard uttered in this House. He made a statement which not only was not true, but which he knew when he was making it was not true, which he does not believe himself. He tried to convey to the House and to the country that the committee of the House which was talked about would be a committee composed entirely of people in opposition. That is not so. On any committee set up by this House the Government has a majority. I would be just as entitled to say that we could not get a straight verdict or an impartial verdict from, say, Deputy MacEntee, Minister for Local Government, if he were a member of the committee. Most people in this House, and indeed a few people outside, know what I think about the Minister for Local Government; but I believe that if that Minister were a member of a committee dealing with an important matter like this, in which people's personal honour and reputations are at stake, he would be as impartial as any man could be, and I would say that there is no person whose name has been dragged into this matter who would not get an absolutely fair and impartial hearing from any member of the House sitting on any side of the House. It is not doing any service to the Tánaiste's case and certainly not doing service to the House to state here emphatically, and to repeat for the purpose of giving emphasis to it, that some of the leading men in this Parliament are entirely bereft of any sense of honour, decency or fair play.

The Taoiseach was concerned, and rightly concerned, about filthy slanders. The amazing thing about the Taoiseach is that he is never concerned about slanders which issue from his own side of the House. I do not want to go over all, or indeed any, of the ground which was covered last week, nor do I want to prolong the debate one minute longer, but I do want to say emphatically that, whatever the Taoiseach or his colleagues in the Ministry may think, if he insists on putting this motion of his through, without either of the amendments, if he insists upon hamstringing the judicial commission before it sits, unfortunately it will not matter in the eyes of the public what verdict they bring in. If they bring in a verdict completely exonerating all the people whose names have been mentioned, it will not be believed in this country and that is not fair to the parties whose names have been mentioned, whether they are members of the Oireachtas or people outside. Let me finish by saying this again: The issue to be decided by this House is quite simple. There need be no confusion between the motion and the amendments. The only issue to be decided is whether this judicial tribunal is to be given the power and the authority to inquire into all the facts, or only into some of the facts.

Mr. Cafferky

One thing which emerges from the discussions of last week and to-day is that whoever purchases Locke's Distillery should be very grateful to this House for the advertisement it has received over the past few days. With regard to the motion by the Taoiseach, there is not such a very wide difference between it and the amendment tabled by the Opposition, and I think that, in order to bring the discussion to an end so that we may get down to business of perhaps more importance to the nation, it would be possible to meet both the Government and the Opposition.

The Taoiseach is of the opinion that the Opposition Deputies who referred to the sale of Locke's Distillery and the circumstances surrounding it are not desirous of having their allegations inquired into. I feel that that is not the position. What seems to be troubling the mind of the Opposition— and the Taoiseach must be aware of it from the case they have made—is their anxiety that not only the Deputies who made the allegations in this House should be brought before the tribunal, but everybody else who is supposed to be connected with the sale or the circumstances leading up to the sale of this distillery. I cannot understand why the Government should be opposed to the people who have been mentioned here by Deputies, such as Mr. Sweeney and others, coming before the tribunal. If these people are in the country and if it is possible to have them brought before this tribunal to give evidence and to be questioned, I cannot see what would be wrong with it. It would, in fact, help to satisfy not merely the House but the people outside. It is the people outside who are anxious to know whether the things alleged to have happened have happened or not.

One month ago yesterday, I entered Tipperary for the first time. I was told the most astounding stories by very prominent citizens there. These men were careful to ask me to treat the information as confidential and not to mention their names or refer to the matters in the House. I did not refer to these matters here, although I was in possession of the information before Deputy Flanagan tabled his question which gave rise to all this discussion. For that reason alone, that citizens of that type who mentioned the sale and the circumstances of the sale of this distillery were of the opinion that there was something in it, it would be well that, in order to convince me and others to whom these gentlemen have spoken, we should have the broadest possible judicial tribunal.

No doubt a lot has been said and many rumours have been spread which are not true, but there is the old saying: "Where there is smoke, there is fire", and one can hardly understand why all this talk and all these rumours started, unless there is something at the back of them. If the Taoiseach and his Government refuse to accept the amendment tabled by Deputy Mulcahy or Deputy Dillon, I will feel—and, as I say, I am one of the Deputies who did not take part in the debate, first, because I was asked to treat the information I received as confidential, and, secondly, because the gentleman who told me was not sure whether the information was genuine or not—that he is sheltering somebody, protecting somebody or some group of persons. The Tánaiste says that the Opposition seek to cut out the whole of the motion from the word "say" and to substitute—

"all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding any proposal made or attempted to be made at any time since 1st January, 1946," etc.

If the Taoiseach feels that that amendment will not cover Deputies in relation to their allegations here, let him follow it up with everything after the word "say" in his motion. He then will have it in a nutshell and will please everybody. It will not lead to the wasting of the time of the House and the judicial tribunal will be in a position to call on everybody and anybody whom they think should be called on, and who they believe will be of assistance in finding out anything connected with the improper disposal or sale of this concern.

Mr. MacBride

I read, before coming into this House, the debates which took place here last week in relation to the other motion dealing with this subject. I regret that a more fundamental and wider view was not taken by this House of the issues involved. I do not think that this inquiry, or a dozen inquiries of the kind, will serve as a remedy. We have had inquiries before. I think that this House should search for the fundamental cause for inquiries of this character and if we find the fundamental cause, I think the House should seek to limit the occasion of such inquiries. I might suggest two alternatives or possibly cumulative causes for inquiries of this kind. In times of war or stress in any country in the world Governments quite naturally have to take wide powers, powers which have to be administered by the Executive, by a Minister or by an appointee of his. That is inevitable; it is bound to happen in the course of every war. These powers are in themselves dangerous and destructive of democracy. They are dangerous because they inevitably involve the granting or the withholding of licences and permits of one kind and another. These licences and permits very often involve vast financial interests.

We have gone to the trouble of setting up a system of courts, a very fair and impartial system, to administer justice as between one citizen and another. A citizen if he thinks he is wronged to the extent of 5/- or £5 by a fellow citizen can have his case decided by the courts, but when it comes to the question of the granting or the withholding of a licence by a Department of State, there is no safeguard. It is done behind closed doors. It is done by the bureaucrat behind his closed doors, his iron curtain. As I have said, that is more or less inevitable in time of war, but when war or a period of emergency ends, there is always a difficulty in trying to wrest that power back from the bureaucrat.

Coupled with the system of bureaucracy which we adopted during the course of the war, the practice has developed whereby members of the Oireachtas have, as part of their normal functions, mind you, power to get the ear of a Minister of State. That lends itself to great abuse. If a Department of State has the power to grant or withhold a licence, very often involving vast sums of money, the granting or the withholding of that licence comes to be at the mercy of a member of the Oireachtas, who has the ear of the Department or of the Minister. It seems to me that that is the fundamental fault and the House should see whether there is any remedy for that situation.

I say in all sincerity to all Parties in the House that you can have inquiries week after week, but you will not kill the suspicion which exists in the public mind. So long as you allow the granting or withholding of rights, the granting or the withholding of licences to be carried on behind closed doors, either by Ministers or their appointees, there is bound to be suspicion, bound to be abuse. A Minister may not be a party to the abuse of these powers, but those who have the ear of the Minister may well be a party to the abuse of the powers. It is a most unfair position in which to place a Minister. It is a most unfair position in which to place any member of the House that it should be possible for him, by the use of his influence, to obtain rights involving vast sums of money, just because he happens to have the ear of a particular civil servant or a particular Minister. I would appeal to the House and the Government to consider that position seriously. That, in my view, is the fundamental cause of this particular piece of scandal or trouble and of those others which have occurred from time to time.

I do not think any useful purpose can be served by discussing the details of these matters in this House. I think the function of the House should be more to seek the fundamental remedy, perhaps by setting up a committee of the House to deal with it. I think a practice has grown up whereby legislators have misconceived their functions. I am not saying that in derogation of any particular Party in the House, but I do think legislators have come to look upon their function as being one to try to obtain favours or rights for their constituents or particular friends, rights or favours which have been withheld from them and which they believe they are entitled to—even sometimes to obtain favours for their constituents and friends to which they are not entitled at all. The function of a member of Parliament is to legislate, not to go behind closed doors to obtain favours for constituents or friends. Deputies' duties should be confined to the purpose for which they are elected to this House—to legislate in public. If you once allow the practice to develop—and I am afraid it has developed—whereby members of the Oireachtas are entitled to interfere with civil servants, to go and use influence with Ministers or civil servants, you are bound to have corruption. You are bound to have inquiries of this kind. That is inevitable when you are holding out temptation to civil servants, temptation to Ministers, temptation to members of the Oireachtas. Therefore, the proper thing to do is to limit the duties of members of this House to their functions as legislators. I think if you do that, you will have a better type of legislator in this House. You will have people who are interested in legislating rather than in looking for favours of one kind or another.

As to the actual amendment before the House, I had a rather open mind before I came in here, having read the various motions, but I do think that Deputy Dillon made a very good case for his amendment. I would make this appeal to the Taoiseach. This inquiry is being set up because of accusations made in this House last week. These accusations may or may not be well founded. I know nothing about them except that they have been made. The Taoiseach has decided that this matter should be investigated by a tribunal but there is some disagreement as to the form of the tribunal. There again the Taoiseach was inclined to take the view that it should be inquired into by a judicial tribunal but, the Taoiseach having so decided, I would appeal to him not to limit the functions of that tribunal especially in view of the attitude taken up by the Opposition and in view of the statements made by Deputy Mulcahy, Deputy Dillon and other Deputies. If he limits the scope of the inquiry, he will then add fuel to the flames of suspicion in the country. Apart from that, it did occur to me that the tribunal would be set a difficult task under the terms of the motion. They would have to take the Dáil debates for three days and go through every single allegation made in the course of those debates. I read those debates last night in bed. There were a great many allegations made, many of which had no real bearing on the issue. I should say that the tribunal would have to make a list of at least 40 different allegations and investigate each and every one. I do not think that would be very satisfactory. If the Taoiseach would accept the amendment submitted by either Deputy Dillon or Deputy Mulcahy, he could then rely upon the good sense of whatever tribunal was set up to decide what the really important issues are.

As to the amendment put forward by the Tánaiste, I think that limits the scope of the inquiry; it certainly does not widen it. It makes it subject to two separate limitations. I would urge the Taoiseach to accept either Deputy Mulcahy's or Deputy Dillon's amendment—I think Deputy Dillon's amendment is better worded.

Mr. Flanagan

I should like again to make a very sincere appeal to the Taoiseach—as I did last Wednesday and last Wednesday week—to have a thorough inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the proposal to sell Locke's Distillery at Kilbeggan. When I rose in this House on 29th October and made an appeal to the Government to hold an inquiry, I did so in the hope that, if the Government were anxious to establish a tribunal to investigate the proposed sale of the distillery, they would be prepared to have all the circumstances examined. To my amazement I find that the Taoiseach has decided to place the terms of reference before the tribunal to be appointed, which will deal only with the accusations made against members of the Oireachtas or the Ministers concerned.

Does the Minister realise that the charges made here are very tiny compared with what is playing in the wind outside the House? I believe if the Government tie the hands of those judges, no matter what the result of the investigations may be, it will not have the confidence of the people or the confidence of this Parliament. I believe that if the Taoiseach does not accept either Deputy Mulcahy's or Deputy Dillon's amendment, being the clever, shrewd man that he is, he has some definite reason for doing so. Perhaps the reason why he refuses to allow a full investigation is because he is anxious to save certain people who would be involved in this great scandal should the judges have full scope to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the proposed sale. The allegations I made here cannot be fully investigated without bringing outside people into this.

"That may come"; I want to make sure they will.

Mr. Costello

And I suggest they ought to. The argument by Deputy Flanagan is that these matters ought to be within the terms of reference and they are not, and therefore he is objecting.

The Taoiseach

They are within the terms of reference, of course. The Deputy knows that quite well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy knows that the tribunal will have very wide terms of reference, to include all these things, and there is no necessity for him to go into the things that may or may not come before it.

Mr. Anthony

I want to appeal to Deputy Flanagan not to bring in the Taoiseach's son at all. It is not good form and reacts very badly on him. He should be amenable and observe all the customs and decencies of public life. I would ask him, as a favour, not to mention this incident.

Mr. Flanagan

The Tánaiste in his speech a few moments ago made certain references to slander which I believe I am fully entitled to refer to in this debate. If there is anybody who knows what slander is, it is the men sitting opposite in this House to-day, men who were engaged in nothing else throughout any election campaign they ever fought, men who were engaged in one of the greatest slander campaigns of history in my constituency at the last general election. If the Taoiseach wants to hear something about the slander that his Party participated in at the last general election, which involved a Catholic priest, I will tell him all about it. It does not arise here, but the men on the opposite side of the House should be the last to talk about slander.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is out of order in referring to matters of that kind.

Mr. Flanagan

I am endeavouring, if I may, to draw the Taoiseach's attention to the fact that he made reference to slanderous statements made inside and outside this House. If he condemns people who, he believes, are making slanderous statements, he has the slanderers in his own Party. Deputy Maguire accused the Taoiseach himself of being a slanderer in this House; and that is reported in the official records of the debate on last Thursday night. If any attempt is made to curtail the investigation, it will do more harm than good. I am anxious to help the Government and want to assist them to see this unfortunate racket cleared up and if I am to be permitted to assist the Government as I would wish, I should like to have at my disposal the widest possible means of assisting the Government to have all the information at my disposal for the tribunal. If the motion is passed as amended on the Tánaiste's proposal, such a tribunal will do more harm than good.

I again appeal, as Deputy Seán MacBride appealed, to the Taoiseach, in the name of goodness and decency, and as a sincere effort to show that he is anxious to clear up this unfortunate mess, to have this unfortunate scandal investigated, to enable people to come forward with evidence which will assist the judges, and let him not stand as a barrier against people coming forward who may be in a position to throw light on the whole situation. It would be far better for the three judges to be appointed and left to make the terms of reference for themselves, to let them go very fully into the matters surrounding the proposed sale of the distillery and find for themselves the whole outcome of it, as to whether there were irregularities or not.

We certainly know that there were irregularities and the House was informed last week of this one irregularity—that the moment a member of the Oireachtas, from a particular side, visited the Department, an export licence for 4,000 gallons of whiskey was granted on the spot, despite the fact that, prior to that, when a number of other people called about the sale of the distillery, there was no question of granting a licence. That did not arise until they were accompanied by the right and proper political escort. Surely this is something which may involve the attendance of civil servants at the inquiry and may involve the attendance of the Minister himself, with the Senator and the responsible citizen who accompanied the Senator? Therefore, I join in a very strong appeal to the Government, with a final warning that they will be doing a very wrong thing if they restrict the terms of reference of this tribunal.

I again appeal to the Government to accept either Deputy Mulcahy's or Deputy Dillon's amendment, so that it cannot be said but that this House was in full agreement and had full confidence in the tribunal about to be appointed. If he does not do it, the general public will see that this House has not confidence in the tribunal that the Taoiseach is anxious to appoint to investigate the activities of certain citizens. Furthermore, we shall believe, and have reason to believe, that the reason why the Taoiseach will not accept Deputy Mulcahy's amendment is that he is anxious to hide and shade certain people who would come out in one of the greatest scandals this country has ever seen.

Mr. Davin

The members of this group consciously and deliberately voted last week for the reference of this whole matter to a judicial body and I have not heard anything to-day that would make me feel that my vote on that occasion was wrong. However, in view of the speech made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce this evening, I would like the Taoiseach, if he speaks before the conclusion of the discussion, to make certain points quite clear. Certain things arising out of his speech make me feel that private citizens will not be allowed or should not be allowed to come before this tribunal to confirm, if needed, charges that it is stated will be made by Deputies or others. The Minister for Industry and Commerce made it quite clear to me by his speech that it would not be correct for the members of the tribunal to send for the owners or representatives of the owners of Locke's Distillery or other citizens in particular who may be associated with the proposal for the purchase of that distillery.

If Deputy Flanagan has in his possession contract documents, as he says quite definitely here this evening he has, he has to prove that it was proposed by so-and-so to purchase such-and-such a quantity of whiskey, to be sold in the black market at such-and-such a price and it would be necessary in an ordinary court in a case of that kind, provided that Deputy Flanagan was the person who produced the document, to have confirmation that such a document was the property of the proposed purchaser and that it was conveyed to the proposed seller—in other words, the proposed purchaser and representatives of Locke's Distillery would have to be brought before the tribunal to confirm an allegation of that kind. I want to know from the Taoiseach if that will be permissible under the terms of reference.

The Taoiseach

Of course.

Mr. Costello

Three fundamental matters, it appears to me, arise out of this motion which has been sponsored by the Government. I propose to confine my remarks very shortly to these points. I adverted to two of them in the discussion last week on the motion to set up a select committee of the Oireachtas. The first point is a question of Deputies' privileges. The second regards the immunity of the Parliament to investigation of its affairs by an outside body. The third question is: does the motion proposed by the Government, even with the amendment suggested, allow of such full investigation on all the facts and circumstances connected with the sale of this distillery as the public interest requires and as the public demands.

In regard to the first question, I do not propose to repeat what I said last week.

The second is of utmost importance: that Deputies' privileges be safeguarded so that the independence of Deputies in a discussion in the House may not be impaired or vitiated in any way. It is the constitutional right, I, submit, of Deputies, and it is the Parliamentary duty of Deputies, where it is in the public interest, to raise in the House matters given to them, whether in confidence or otherwise, which require ventilation in public, without the possibility of their being brought before any outside body to answer for anything they said or to disclose their sources of information. If that is allowed, it will put an end to the independence of Deputies. I want to know if the Taoiseach proposes to refer to that very fundamental point which I referred to last week. While I was speaking, the Minister for Industry and Commerce interpolated, by way of interruption, the comment that no person would be forced to go to this tribunal except by his own consent. I take the liberty to doubt the soundness of that suggestion and I want to know the Taoiseach's comment on it. It is a matter of such fundamental importance that I spoke as I did not intend to speak. It is not a matter that affects this Parliament or any Minister or Deputy, but it affects all Deputies and all Ministers in all future Irish Parliaments, this question of whether they are to be independent in debate.

The second point is somewhat related to the first, as to whether the proceedings and speeches of the House are to be canvassed, inquired into, discussed or debated by an outside body. It is essential for the independence of Parliamentary procedure that nobody outside the House should be able to inquire into the procedure of the House. This is safeguarded from abuse by the power which the House has of dealing with any offender against morality or against Standing Orders. It is a matter of great national importance that that position should be strongly safeguarded in any procedure of the tribunal which it is proposed to set up, by way of amendment if necessary.

The third point is the one to which most of the speakers have referred. It is the question of whether or not there has been any cloaking of facts. There is no doubt whatever that the motion of the Taoiseach, even with the amendment, undoubtedly will restrict an investigation of all the facts in connection with this sale. I have no intention of going into any of these facts. I can envisage and I can state facts, but I will not do so because I have a firm resolution not to go into any of these facts. There are numbers of points and circumstances that can be ruled out on these terms of reference. Are we to set up a tribunal with judges whose training most inevitably will bring them to the point where this, that or the other which a person wants to ventilate will be ruled outside their terms of reference? Once any fact, matter or thing is ruled as being outside the cognisance of the tribunal, once any fact, matter or thing which the public think relevant is ruled out as being outside the terms of reference, then immediately public confidence in the tribunal falls. I want to make that point conscientiously and in as strong language as the necessity of the case requires. Public interest has been roused to such a point that every decent person in this country wants to know the facts. It is only one aspect of the affair whether any members of this Assembly or of the other House of the Oireachtas had any improper part in the transaction, but inevitably the result of these terms of reference will be to confine the inquiry to that aspect. It is an aspect that nobody in this House wants to keep out, but we must see that no private individual would be precluded from making any case he wants to make or from giving any evidence he wants to give because the body of judges rule it out of order as not coming within their terms of reference. Once their power is exercised to declare any matter as being outside the terms of reference then public confidence at once falls.

We heard the Taoiseach last week giving list after list of all the various tribunals and commissions that have been held. He gave the findings of some of them—not of all of them—but of those that suited him. He said they exonerated the Government or members of the Oireachtas from any charge of corruption—and then mentioned plaintively that in spite of that nobody believed them. If that is a fact, and if there is a strong body of opinion on all sides, with the exception of the Government side, that the terms of reference are such as to restrict the investigation, what possible confidence will the public have in the tribunal? The question of whether the terms of reference should be wide or restricted is of such fundamental importance that it should be impressed on the Government until they see reason.

A subsidiary matter that arises in the terms of reference is that we are to tell these three judges—we assume that it is going to be a judicial tribunal though nothing to that effect is stated in the terms of reference—that they are to go and browse among the leaves of three or four volumes of the Official Reports of this Assembly with a view to finding out what may or may not be charges or allegations. Such a task ought not to be put on a judicial, or on any tribunal. It is wrong in the Parliamentary sense that the judges should be given these copies of the Dáil Reports and be told to find out for themselves what the charges are: "We do not know what the charges are, but look through them and see for yourselves." These judicial gentlemen with their technical training and knowledge of criminal law-and who are perhaps completely divorced from public affairs through their long isolation on the judicial bench-may say that they see nothing which they can frame into a charge, or they might see some charge which no one else sees.

In the first place, an investigation into the proceedings of the House is unsound, and it is a wrong thing to tell them to go through the volumes of the reports to find out the charges for themselves, to say: "We of the Government cannot find them for you." That is wrong.

I raised on the last occasion the question of the procedure before this tribunal. I pointed out that there is not in this case, as there may have been in the case of some of the other tribunals which we set up, somebody who could be regarded as plaintiff and somebody who could be regarded as defendant, somebody who could be regarded as prosecutor and somebody who could be regarded as accused. I stated that it was fundamentally wrong and quite unsound to set up a tribunal in which the judges will be merely investigators of facts, in which they themselves will have to put the questions, as members of foreign tribunals are in the habit of doing in investigating criminal charges. That is not the function, nor is it in accord with the training, of our judges. There should be before this tribunal some trained lawyers—solicitor or barrister or both—independent of the Government and of everybody interested in this controversy, whose duty it would be to put before this tribunal every relevant fact and as many documents as he can possibly get—irrespective of any plea of privilege by the Government—to enable the judges to investigate the facts. He should produce all the relevant documents and witnesses for both sides, whether for the people who are making these allegations or for those people who may think they have to answer allegations. Every fact, matter and thing connected with this entire transaction from its inception-the arrival of those foreign gentlemen who tried to purchase this distillery, the occurrences during their stay and subsequent to their departure, and the incidents that occurred in connection with the power of attorney—should be forthcoming so that the public may be satisfied with whatever finding or verdict is given by this tribunal.

That is the real matter to which we, as Deputies, should direct our attention—the setting up of such a tribunal as will command public respect and whose findings will be regarded, not as the findings of a technical trio of judicial gentlemen, acting within limited and narrow terms of reference, but the findings of independent judges who have been given all the facts. Such a finding will commend itself to the people. If we do not do that, we shall be doing a bad day's work for decency in public life. I think that it is a very wrong thing on the part of the Government to be having a long debate, on a matter which is to be inquired into judicially, merely for the purpose of having restricted terms of reference. That is the issue. Are we to have restricted terms of reference or the fullest inquiry into all the facts? There are facts which the public want to be informed upon in connection with the inception, initiation, progress and final determination of this Locke Distillery purchase which are not connected with any charge or which are only incidentally connected with any charge. Those should be inquired into. Decent people want to know the facts. If the Government insists on restricting the terms of reference, the public will believe that they have something to hide. They will have no confidence in this tribunal and the findings will have the same fate as those to which the Taoiseach referred in the case of other tribunals. Notwithstanding that people were charged before these tribunals and that, the facts having been inquired into, they were found to be guiltless, the public did not, and does not yet, believe in the findings.

Mr. Cogan

While I agree that the terms of reference in the motion by the Taoiseach are not sufficiently wide, I think, notwithstanding what other Deputies said, that they are fairly wide. They cover quite a large field of Governmental and Departmental activities. The subject to be investigated is, however, of such importance that there should be no restriction whatever on the powers or terms of reference of this tribunal. I am not enthusiastic about an inquiry by a judicial tribunal into statements made in this House. The attitude taken up by the Tánaiste does not impress me. As a matter of fact, it would put me and, I think, other Deputies against a judicial tribunal inasmuch as the Tánaiste threatened Deputies with the drastic and extensive powers of such a tribunal to such an extent as to restrain Deputies from exercising their rights as representatives of the people to express their views here. Since we are to have a judicial tribunal, I think that it is fundamentally wrong to tie the hands of that tribunal in the way indicated in the motion by the Taoiseach or the amendment by the Tánaiste. It is wrong to confine the investigations of this tribunal to one aspect of the case—allegations made in this House and the failure of Government Departments to exercise their proper functions. Neither the motion nor the amendment in the name of the Tánaiste, would give to the tribunal powers which it ought to have to find out not only if Deputies made statements which were not justified, or if Government Departments were not exercising their functions properly, but also whether, in this country at the moment, we have sufficient protection for lawful Irish industry. That is an aspect of the question which must be investigated. Is it possible for foreigners to come in here, buy an established industry, sabotage it and dissipate its stocks? Is it possible for the means of livelihood of Irish citizens in an Irish industry to be torn from them by international speculators? Is our legislation sufficiently comprehensive to protect an industry such as John Locke's? These are aspects of the case which require investigation. They can be investigated only if the judicial tribunal is given wide powers to ascertain the activities of the various people who sought to purchase this industry, why they sought to purchase it, and whether they intended to work the industry or merely dispose of its stocks on the black market. All these things require investigation.

I think that the Taoiseach's motion is not sufficiently wide to provide for that investigation. I was impressed by the maiden speech of Deputy MacBride, particularly his reference to certain abuses that have grown up in this country over a long period—the abuse which was inherent in the emergency situation of having too wide powers vested in bureaucracy; too wide powers in making decisions in regard to licences for import and export and for the running of industries. He also referred to what is, I think, generally recognised as an abuse, that is, to the tendency of Deputies to regard as their main function the importuning of Government Departments on behalf of their constituents and various interests that approach them. The main function of Deputies should be legislation, and the main work of Deputies should be done in this House. Unfortunately there has been a growing tendency to depart from that position. There is also room for investigation, and I think it is covered to a certain extent by the Taoiseach's motion, into the close connection of permanent members of the Government with various commercial concerns. I am one of those who frequently agitate that Parliamentary Secretaries should not have any direct connection with business concerns. It is equally important that the Leader of the Government Party-certainly in this House he is not permitted; I am referring to the other House—should not be permitted to have commercial——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be going a long way from the motion which deals with one distillery or amendments to motions in that connection.

Mr. Cogan

I am pointing out how necessary it is that this tribunal, once it is established, should go over a fairly wide field with particular emphasis on the sale or proposed sale of this distillery. Perhaps the sale of one industrial concern is a comparatively small matter in the life of a nation, yet there are so many factors in connection with this whole transaction that require investigation, that the matter is one of supreme national importance. The matters I have raised are, in your opinion, Sir, fairly wide, but they definitely arise out of the sale or proposed sale of this distillery. The tribunal must not only have terms of reference but it must be guided in certain directions in finding out what is wrong and in exposing what is wrong. That is why I say it is necessary to refer to various abuses which have grown up in this country and which are directly or indirectly associated with this commercial transaction.

Deputy Dillon made a good reference in his speech which, I think, stirs the feelings of every patriotic person in this country, when he referred to "banana republics", namely, self-governing nations which allow themselves to be influenced to too great an extent by foreign money. We are a small and a comparatively weak nation, situated quite close to huge commercial and industrial nations such as the United States and Great Britain. We have to be very careful in the management of our internal economic affairs to prevent foreigners with vast financial resources behind them coming in and kicking our Government and people about whatever way they like by the sheer weight of their financial resources. The insolence and the arrogance of the international speculator are unlimited. That type of individual usually believes that he can buy everything and anything for money. He believes that he can buy Governments, buy Ministers and even the highest citizen in the State. I think it is time we in this country indicated quite clearly that we will not tolerate any flirtation between high politics in this country and big business either inside or outside this country, and that we will insist upon the most thorough and complete investigation of every circumstance surrounding the proposed purchase or sale of John Locke's Distillery.

Sometimes, when matters of high technical importance are before this House, samples of the product under discussion are handed down. In a discussion on the subject of turf, samples of turf, wet and dry, were handed to Deputies. In a discussion on industrial development some industrial products were handed round—I think a spade was introduced into this House. I am not suggesting that a sample of the product under discussion should be handed round but I think it might, if it would have had the effect of softening the course of discussion up to the present. If we are to maintain the dignity and the decency of public life we ought to avoid undue bitterness of the type introduced into this debate by the Tánaiste. We ought to approach these matters with a view to finding out if anything is seriously wrong and, if there is, to apply the remedy. Remedies are possible, but if our legislation does not provide our Government with the necessary powers to protect Irish industry they should seek those powers. If, on the other hand, abuses have slowly but surely crept into our administration or Parliamentary system we ought to have those abuses exposed and uprooted. We ought to do that in a decent and business-like way, with a full sense of our responsibility and without indulging in any personal abuse or making charges and counter-charges across the House. The Tánaiste referred to a campaign of slander against the members of the Government. I think he should be very slow to mention such a thing. I think he should be very slow to make the statement he made in regard to the proposed committee of inquiry of this House to inquire into this whole subject when he most emphatically declared that certain members of the Opposition were incapable of giving a just and a fair decision. I think that is the most outrageous slander that can be offered to any member of this House.

Dr. O'Higgins

We take it as a compliment because of its source.

Mr. Cogan

The Deputy can take it any way he likes, but I think the public ought not be led into the belief that there are men in prominent positions in this House so blind to their responsibilities, so biased and so prejudiced in the field of Party politics that they would not uphold the honour and dignity of the House if called upon to give an impartial decision. I think that is an outrageous suggestion and one which should not be made.

Dr. O'Higgins

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please now come to the motion?

Dr. O'Higgins

In his lengthy point of order the Minister pointed out that the only matters before the House for discussion and consideration were the allegations made by Deputies with regard to this affair. That is exactly what the motion is trying to pin this House down to and what the motion is trying to pin any judicial inquiry down to; but the Minister, in his desire to interrupt, completely overlooked the fact that there is also an amendment before the House for consideration. That amendment asks the House that a tribunal, judicial or otherwise, should be set up to inquire into all the circumstances associated with the proposed sale. Last week we had a motion asking for a Parliamentary tribunal to inquire into all and every circumstance associated with the proposed sale. We had that motion on paper because of allegations made in this House by Deputies on information received. There was on that occasion a case made by the head of the Government that a Parliamentary tribunal would not be the right type of tribunal and that it should be a judicial tribunal. On that case, be it a genuine, sincere and honest case, or otherwise, the proposal to have a Parliamentary tribunal was defeated on the ground that it would be more proper to have the matter dealt with by a judicial tribunal. But there was no question whatsoever as to whether one type of tribunal or another should not inquire into all the circumstances associated with the proposed sale.

We have been given now by the head of the Government his idea of a judicial tribunal. Is it to inquire into all the circumstances associated with that sale? By no manner of means. It is limited to inquiring into allegations made by members of the Oireachtas affecting other members of the Oireachtas. That is number one. Number two, to inquire into the activities of members of the Oireachtas with regard to this particular sale or proposed sale. Nothing else. Nothing else can be inquired into.

The activities of these notorious foreigners, their associations in this country, how they utilised the highest establishment in the State—all that is completely ruled out under the motion proposed here. At the same time there is an amendment before the House to-day to the effect that, if there is to be a judicial inquiry, all the circumstances associated with this sale should come up for examination. We have not heard from any Government spokesman why they object so heatedly and determinedly to allowing the judicial tribunal to inquire into all the circumstances associated with the proposed sale of Locke's Distillery. They would not have all the circumstances inquired into by a Parliamentary tribunal. On the wording of the Taoiseach's motion, they refuse to allow all the relevant circumstances to be inquired into. Why? All the white hysterical heat of the Tánaiste and all the lengthy interruptions of the Minister for Local Government will not disguise the fact that the Government, by their very terms of reference, are running away from a full and adequate investigation of the circumstances associated with that particular transaction. The stamp of guilt is written boldly across the face of the Taoiseach's motion.

The smallest part of the rumoured scandal is the activities of members of the Oireachtas but, on the terms of this motion, all that the judicial tribunal can inquire into are allegations made by members of the Oireachtas with regard to the activity of members of the Oireachtas and the part played by members of the Oireachtas in the sale. The activities, the associations, of Maximoe are not to be touched on except in so far as Maximoe engaged in any activities arm in arm with a member of the Oireachtas. The activities or proposals or plans or contracts of Mr. Eindiguer with regard to the disposal, legitimately or illegitimately, of the stocks of Locke's Distillery are not to be inquired into except in so far as he was directly associated with a member of either House of this Parliament.

Why is the lid put on? Why is the snuffer put on the candle to put out the light? Why this deliberate attempt to throttle down and limit the subjects to be inquired into? What is the Government afraid of? What are they running away from? What big scandal is there that might be unearthed if all the activities associated with the proposed sale were inquired into and, if there is nothing to hide, why the determined objection last week and to-day to having a full inquiry into all relevant circumstances associated with the proposed deal and a court of competent judges to determine what is and what is not relevant?

Deputy Davin raised the point that if Deputy Flanagan had in his possession documentary evidence that there was a contract entered into for the sale of the stocks of Locke's Distillery outside this country, and had that document in handwriting, and signed, but not in the handwriting of or signed by a member of the Oireachtas, and not being sold to a member of the Oireachtas, the terms of that motion there definitely rule out an inquiry into that particular phase of the activities. That phase with regard to the price for the export stocks affected directly the price and affected very directly the interests that were involved in this particular dispute.

I demand that, before this debate is closed, a reason should be given to us by some Ministerial speaker as to why this motion limits the judicial tribunal to inquiring into (a) the allegations affecting members of either House made in the Dáil and (b) the nature and extent of the connection which any member of either House had with the transactions. That is burking the whole issue. That is inquiring into the fringe of the whole matter. It is prohibiting discussion on the full substance in which the people of this country are interested. That is being done in violation of the feelings and views expressed by every Party and independent Deputy in the House other than the regimented troops opposite, very many of whom, probably, share the views of Opposition Deputies in this matter and want the whole thing cleaned up and want the fullest possible inquiry but, because they are regimented and disciplined, dare not say so and dare not vote according to those views.

All the heat of the Tánaiste and all the interruptions of the Minister for Local Government must not be allowed to obscure the fact that there is a deliberate attempt in this motion of the Taoiseach's not to invite investigation and inquiry, but to suppress investigation and inquiry. Not only members of this House, but the public, are entitled to know what is the Government running away from, what are they attempting to suppress, what are the associated factors or agents that were concerned in this proposed deal that it is necessary to exclude from investigation by an impartial judicial tribunal. These are questions that have got to be answered.

The Taoiseach establishes a judicial tribunal. As has been pointed out, and has been experienced previously by this Parliament, he establishes a court of judges. The duty, responsibility, training and experience of judges are in the direction of weighing up the evidence before them—the pros and the cons—and conscientiously and legally giving a decision on the case made for and the case made against the particular matter being inquired into.

It is not any part of the responsibility of judges in any court to act as prosecutors, or as investigators or as cross-examiners. Whose responsibility is it? The Government does not send anyone in to act as prosecutor. We had the experience of the Railway Tribunal. Learned counsel were there representing different people whose names or interests might be involved, but there was nobody there as prosecutor, there was nobody there as crossexaminer and there was nobody there to bring direct evidence against anybody. It may be asked, why? Because individuals who act here in good faith on information supplied which they believed to be reliable, are not always gifted with a banking account of the type that can stand representation by leading counsel in a case covering a couple of months.

Mr. MacEntee

So that the excuse for Deputy Dillon and Deputy McGilligan is that they have not enough money to substantiate the statements they made in this House.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Minister might be negligible if he was brief and if he would clear his own mind before wagging his tongue. I am making a statement of fact that there was not a prosecutor. We had then the Ward case which arose out of a letter read by the Taoiseach in this House. The person who wrote the letter was not a member of the House. There was any amount of litigation depending on that. There might have been one of the biggest libel actions in the history of this country. A judicial tribunal was appointed. The writer of the letter was represented. His duty, and the limit of his duty was to justify the writing of that letter. It was not to bring charges or to press charges. If any information came to him with regard to the Monaghan bacon factory that had not been written down in that letter, it was no part of his duty, or function, to bring it under the notice of the court and have it inquired into.

That tribunal was a step better than the abortive tribunal held with regard to the railway shares in so far that there was a person so interested that solicitor and counsel had to be briefed to justify the charges made in that letter. The expense of doing that was so immense that the Taoiseach thought it advisable to tax the taxpayers of this country with a portion of the expenses borne by Deputy Dr. Ward and with a portion of the expenses of Dr. McCarvill.

Now, we have another judicial tribunal, but we have no arrangements made with regard to the prosecution of the case. We have every arrangement made in the motion for limiting the scope of the examination. That is put forward as a suggestion by the Government, if we are to believe their speeches, that they want the full light of day on every phase of the activities in connection with this. The light of day that we are going to get is what you could get through a mouse hole into a cellar. That is the kind of light of day they want, and, if they saw the mouse hole, that would be blocked, so that even that much light could not get in.

The inquiry is to be limited to the activities of members of the Oireachtas. The Dáil was asked to establish a tribunal to inquire into the sale of Locke's Distillery. A week ago the Taoiseach said that he would have the very fullest inquiry. A week ago the Taoiseach was wagging his head and shaking his fist that we were going to have the very fullest inquiry—the heaviest type of inquiry that the country ever saw—and that we were all going to be put in the jitters before this pompous and this very full inquiry. Now where are the jitters? Opposite. But seeing that they were committed to some inquiry, in order to spike the motion before the Dáil last week, the Government now come in with what they call a judicial inquiry and make certain that it will inquire into a fraction only of the activities associated with this particular thing. The black-market operations, the export operations and the use of Arus an Uachtárain, so as to strengthen one hand against another hand—every one of these operations is to be definitely ruled out except in so far as a member of the Oireachtas was a party to them.

Political influence was the allegation made last week. Political influence is not limited to members of the Oireachtas. There were indications and references made to very great political influence by people who are not members of the Oireachtas, but that type of political influence, or that type of political activity, is not to be inquired into. The Taoiseach is going to see to that by the terms of his motion. The Tánaiste is going to see to it by his bad temper, and the Minister for Local Government is going to see to it by calculated interruptions—every interruption calculated to obscure the one net issue: why not allow all the circumstances to be inquired into, and why are only a fraction of the operations to go before the court, and all the rest to be withheld from the court and the public?

Mr. Bartley

I think that rather than wanting to cloak the matters in these two motions it is quite obvious that the reverse is the case. Amongst the allegations made last week was one whereby the Minister for Justice was charged with having given a permit to a man to sell £25,000 worth of tweed in Switzerland. From my reading of the Opposition amendments it would not be possible to inquire into that allegation. It does seem to me just possible that it might be inquired into under the Taoiseach's motion. I think that is a very important allegation. I heard more talk about it in the west of Ireland than I did about the distillery. I would be very anxious that it should get the very fullest possible investigation, particularly as it seems to affect a commodity which is of first rate importance to the welfare of the Gaeltacht. I am sorry to say that supporters of the Government seem to think, well, that, possibly, there might have been something to it. Therefore I think it would be a great pity if, as I suspect, under either of the two Opposition amendments an investigation into this charge or allegation were to be ruled out. I do not think that the effect of this tribunal will be any more lasting than that of the other tribunals.

Outside the County Monaghan, there are very few who remember what the findings in that case were—the Monaghan bacon case. The thing was revived by the recent elections and a great deal of damage was done. A man who is not a supporter of the Government, though a very decent man, expressed the view that this mud-raking is reducing the reputation of the Dáil to a very low ebb indeed. If there is any apathy shown by the electors to any serious degree in future, I think myself that it can be brought home to this campaign which has very little foundation in fact. With regard to the proposal to have an investigation into the private dealings in connection with this distillery, it may be possible under the Tánaiste's amendment to bring that in. Personally I am, and I know a good many Government Deputies and nearly all the Government supporters I have met will be very interested to find out all the facts in regard to the dealings in whiskey of this distillery during the last six years. Under the Tánaiste's addendum I believe that the tribunal, if they take a reasonable view, will be able to bring in these transactions. To that extent, if that is done, this tribunal will be different from the ones dealing with the Wicklow gold, the Great Southern Railway shares, and the Monaghan Bacon Factory. As the Taoiseach said, I think it is a very undesirable thing to bring the private transactions of a commercial company under the public gaze in this way. But, in view of the emergency, the conditions created by the emergency, and the power which we have given the Government by the united vote of this Dáil, very possibly that could be justified in this case. I hope that the tribunal will interpret the Tánaiste's addendum in such a way as to enable these private transactions to be examined. They cannot be examined over more than the last two years, but, if we get an examination over the last two years, I believe it will be a good thing.

The Taoiseach

I think that anybody who listened to this debate and to the previous debates on this matter must be perfectly clear in his mind as to what is being aimed at by those who are opposing the present motion, particularly the motion as amended. It is a very easy thing for a Deputy to come into this Parliament and, acting under its privileges, to make any allegations he chooses, no matter how ill-founded they are. When such charges are made, there is only one way to meet them, and that is to set up an inquiry to examine into them and let the public judge how far these allegations were justified and how far they were made out of sheer recklessness or malice. Some of the Deputies on the other benches spoke, very rightly, of the privileges of Parliament; the need that representatives of the people here should be free to ventilate anything which, in their opinion, it is in the public interest to ventilate. That is a precious privilege. But I hold that that privilege ought not to be turned into licence: that if there is a precious privilege which, in the national interest, ought to be maintained, it imposes upon every public representative the duty of being careful before he makes charges.

As I said on a previous occasion, the moment charges are made, there is only one way to meet them, and that is by setting up an impartial inquiry so that the public mind may be set at rest and it may be found out how far there was truth and how far there was not truth in the allegations. A public inquiry is not a thing that should be lightly set up. It means considerable public expense. It means taking away those who would be engaged in it from their own peculiar, proper business. But, as I have said, the moment charges are made of the type which have been made here with reference to this matter, no matter what the Government may think about them, no matter how baseless they may appear, they have to be investigated.

What is the type of tribunal that should be set up for such an investigation? Is there any man or woman who is listening to this debate this evening who would say that a committee of this Dáil, composed of members of the different Parties, as it would be, would be a tribunal whose judgment would be respected? It is all very well to talk in high terms and to say that we should be all fine and splendid; but, every day, practically, some Deputies make confidence in their impartiality impossible by their attitude and by their public statements. Nobody could be more interested than I am in the good repute of this institution, and I would deplore anything that in any way would detract from its prestige. Is there anybody who will tell me that, in a case like this, with allegations made, as they were made—not merely allegations, not merely questions to be inquired into, but assertions that such-and-such was true and that there was evidence that it was true—a committee chosen from the different Parties in this House would give an impartial judgment? It could not be done; it is not likely to be done. We would have the same manoeuvring within the committee examining into the matter that we see here-manoeuvring to put the other people in the wrong.

For that reason, whenever a question of this sort comes to be examined I have always felt that the examination should be by an independent tribunal, a tribunal of people who are removed from the political arena and who will have no purpose whatsoever to serve by their judgment except the purpose of arriving at the truth. I believe that the people of the country will hold with me that, if this is to be examined into, it should not be examined into by people who have already taken sides in the dispute and in the arguments about it, but by people who are impartial. It is for that reason that a judicial inquiry is proposed.

Of course, the Opposition—and when I say the Opposition I mean all those who have opposed the proposal—want to discredit in advance whatever the findings may be. First of all, the allegations are made here in public and they cannot be pursued anywhere outside. When the allegations are made here, they cannot be pursued outside, because of the privileges of the House. Then, when you try to get them examined outside, the next move is to try to discredit in advance whatever the findings may be. Deputy Morrissey led off the other evening, making it quite clear what he was aiming at. We are told: "The terms of reference are wrong." I will let the people of Ireland judge whether or not the terms of reference are wrong.

The charges made here were not charges against the character of A, B or C who were engaged as a group in trying to buy or dispose of Locke's Distillery. The charges made here were charges against members of the Government, against the Government, in connection with the matter. Is anybody going to suggest here that the terms of reference are not wide enough to deal with that and to deal with every witness whom the tribunal may wish to bring forward either to substantiate such a charge or to find out what its basis is? Of course, they are wide enough. They enable every charge which has been made against the Government or suggested against the Government, members of the Government, or members of the House, during this long debate of two or three days, to be investigated home. What do the Opposition want? They want to send the tribunal on a wild-goose chase. They want nothing definite. Anything which anybody at any time said or anything which arises in connection with the sale of Locke's Distillery, whether it has been the subject of allegation here or not-they want all these examined into. Under our motion they can be examined into, in so far as they have any reference to public administration, if the tribunal so decides.

It was deplored that the terms of reference were so wide that the members of the tribunal had to read over the debates here for three or four days past. Of course, if we picked out the allegations and dealt with them, as I did the other day when replying to the debate, we would be told that we had left something out. We have left every allegation of every kind, which would suggest anything improper on the part of the Executive or any member of this House, wide open. There is no restriction. All that the tribunal has to satisfy itself about—and it is to be the judge of it—is whether a matter has any relation to public administration and whether it is a matter of public importance.

It is suggested that what the people of Ireland want to know is the character of the gentlemen who came from Switzerland or some of these other gentlemen. In so far as their characters have anything to do with public activities, whether by the fact that some action has been taken by us as members of the Executive—the Executive as a whole, or any individual member of it—or that there has been failure to take proper action, they are all open for investigation. I take it that that is what the public are interested in and not the question of what manoeuvring there may have been between parties in the buying and selling of Locke's Distillery. If any of this manoeuvring has anything whatever to do with public administration, it can be examined into. We have deals taking place in this country from day to day, and we know that frequently there has been a type of cheating, over-reaching by one party in his dealings with another. Is it suggested that it is a function of this House to examine into these? Is it not quite clear that the functions of this House are to make laws which will deal with matters of that sort, if they are of such a nature as require to be dealt with, but that, if they are within the law, they are outside the functions of this House, except in so far as they indicate evils which it is our duty to correct by bringing in new laws?

General Mulcahy

Read Standing Order No. 67.

The Taoiseach

By the Dáil.

The Taoiseach

To have the whole matter examined, to try to get some procedure, some rules in regard to the conduct of members. I wished to have all these things examined by a Committee of the House or by a joint Committee. How was I met by the Opposition? They would not co-operate in the resolution, which would have provided for this and for any other case that might arise, the resolution which would have caused that particular question of approach to Departments by public representatives to be examined. If, when it is examined, it appears that there is no way out of it and that on the whole it serves the public interest that it should be so, well and good; but I had hoped that there would be some examination of it which would limit this practice, or provide safeguards for it.

Deputy Dillon amused me on a particular occasion when he said: "Whenever I go to a Department I take care to tell the person, `Now, this is Mr. Dillon, the trader from Ballaghaderreen, who is talking to you, not Deputy Dillon.' " I do not think anybody will believe that a Deputy can separate himself into two parts like that, and that when he goes to a Department, even though he may give due warning that he is going in a private capacity, the fact that he is also entitled to write T.D. after his name will be forgotten. It is a practice which I have always regretted.

When I was in opposition I mentioned it, I think, and I have regretted it since I came into office. But, apparently, other members of the Dáil, a large number of them, think it serves a good public purpose, that it helps to bring before the notice of administrators who are inclined naturally to administer according to a strict, rigid code, exceptional circumstances which may require exceptional treatment if the spirit and not the letter of the code is to be observed. I would like it to be examined by the Dáil. The resolution which I brought in before was proposed with that as one of its purposes —that that practice might be examined, its value appraised and the evils which attach to it prevented, or that some effort might be made to prevent them.

This series of allegations has been made deliberately. As time went on, some of those who made them persisted even more. Is there anything in the terms of reference which will prevent any of the allegations, or anything arising out of the allegations, in so far as they affect public administration, from being examined by this judicial committee? Not one. I may be foolish in believing that people will examine the matter and see who is right and where there is political manoeuvring; I may be wrong in thinking they will, but if they do, I ask every fair-minded citizen to bear in mind the charges made here, to look at the terms of reference and ask themselves if there is anything in these allegations that cannot be fully exposed before the tribunal. That is what the tribunal is set up for.

Some Deputies on the opposite side did their best to try to dissuade judges from undertaking this task. It is a thankless task at best. It is not a task they are obliged to perform. It is a task which they can be asked to perform only on one basis, and that is, to render a public service, in the particular matter, as citizens above reproach. It is distasteful enough in itself without having Deputies in the House making statements which are calculated to make it more difficult to find a tribunal.

Notwithstanding what has been said, I have hopes that we will find amongst the judiciary three men who will be willing to undertake this task as a public duty of the first importance. We have had to appeal to them in the same way before. There were certain refusals, but there were, on each occasion, three men who were prepared to undertake the task, and they did their work in such a way that nobody has been able to point the finger at them for what they did.

According to Deputy Costello I made a remark that nobody believed the findings. I meant that some people acted, at any rate, as if they did not believe the findings. When the findings came, many of the accusations had been forgotten. When the findings did come, those who did not want to see the thing in its entirety took very good care that only one aspect of it should be considered. I am taking the case of Dr. Ward again. Dr. Ward was not found guilty.

Mr. Flanagan

Then why is he not in the Custom House?

Mr. Morrissey

On a point of order. The rules in relation to this particular debate were laid down very strictly by the Ceann Comhairle at the beginning. These rules were enforced, on a point of order raised by the Taoiseach, very rigorously against Deputy Blowick. Will the Taoiseach be allowed, for the third time, to reopen all he said last week on Deputy Mulcahy's motion, taking full advantage of the fact that he is now replying to the debate and nobody can reply to him?

The Taoiseach

Deputy Costello took a remark of mine—I have not looked at the context—and chose to say that I plaintively said nobody believed the findings. I say that anybody who examined the report believed the findings, but there were people who took good care to deal with only one side of it and from one end of the country to the other they were prepared to hold up the Ward case as a case of political corruption.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Better leave Dr. Ward out of it.

The Taoiseach

My point—and I am ending now—is this, that charges can be made and impartial tribunals set up, but the gentlemen who make the charges think that no tribunal will clear the people of these charges. They are acting on the principle that if they fling enough mud some of it will stick.

General Mulcahy

The remarks of the Taoiseach rather suggest that this Dáil has no power to inquire into certain matters—I want to make a comment on that that may be of importance. I want to say that Standing Order 67——

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order. The Deputy is not permitted——

I must hold with the Minister, as what the Deputy wants to say is tantamount to making another speech.

General Mulcahy

Standing Order 67 still exists and will continue to exist, I submit.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am putting the question on Deputy Mulcahy's amendment: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the motion." An affirmative decision on that will govern the amendment in the name of Deputy James M. Dillon.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 40.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Brian.
Brady, Seán.
Childers, Erskino H.
Colbert, Michael.
Colley, Harry.
Corry, Martin J.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
De Valera, Vivion.
Everett, James.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Andrew.
Furlong, Walter.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Healy, John B.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, James.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Loughman, Frank.
Lydon, Michael F.
Lyncr, James B.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Brennan, Thomas.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin)
Butler, Bernard.
Carter, Thomas.
McCann, John.
MacEntee, Seán.
McGrath, Patrick.
Moylan, Seán.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Connor, John S.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Leary, John.
O'Loghlen, Peter J.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Pattison, James P.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Shanahan, Patrick.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Spring, Daniel.
Traynor, Oscar.
Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
Walsh, Laurence.
Walsh, Richard.

Níl

Anthony, Richard S.
Beirne, John.
Bennett, George C.
Blowick, Joseph.
Browne, Patrick.
Cafferky, Dominick.
Coburn, James.
Cogan, Patrick.
Commons, Bernard.
Corish, Brendan.
Davin, William.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donnellan, Michael.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Fagan, Charles.
Finucane, Patrick.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Keating, John.
Keyes, Michael.
Kinane, Patrick.
MacBride, Seán.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Norton, William.
O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Martin.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Reidy, James.
Reynolds, Mary.
Roddy, Martin.
Sheldon, William A. W.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Ciosáin and Ó Cinnéide; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 5 Nov 1947