asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state the full name and official grading of the Mr. O'Driscoll of the Department of Social Welfare who lectured in Longford recently and whose statements were reported in a weekly paper for May 25th, 1950, and whether the official's speech on the occasion was arranged for by the Minister, whether it was read from a manuscript prepared in the Minister's office or in his Department, and whether the attacks referred to in the report in question upon citizens who had criticised the Minister's proposals were made on his instructions or, on the contrary, were made by the civil servant concerned on his own initiative and responsibility.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Speech by Civil Servant.
The officer referred to is Mr. Seán O'Driscoll, information officer of the Department of Social Welfare. The lecture, which was prepared and delivered by him, consisted of a factual explanation of the provisions of the social security scheme outlined in the White Paper issued by me in October last and was arranged at the request of a local committee.
From inquiries which I have made, I am satisfied that there is no basis for the Deputy's suggestion that the lecture contained an attack on any citizen and the remainder of the Deputy's question does not, therefore, arise.
Am I to take it from the Minister's statement that the officer concerned in this matter is a member of a new grade known as "information officer"—more appropriately described as "political propagandist"—and that the lecture was prepared and delivered by him——
On a point of order.
Deputies
Sit down.
This is a point of order. The Deputy is entitled to put a point of order. I do not yet know what it is.
Is it proper for a member of the House to refer to a member of the Civil Service as a "political propagandist"?
Yes.
That is the issue.
That is the question at issue by the Deputy.
Arising out of the Minister's statement that the lecture to which objection was taken was prepared and delivered by the officer in question, is it the Minister's intention in future to devote public funds to the purpose of making propaganda for his political Party?
The suggestion made by the Deputy is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. In so far as this officer was concerned, he delivered an intelligent lecture of a factual character relating to the provisions of the White Paper on Social Security. Unless Deputy MacEntee wants to suppress explanations of the scheme, I do not know on what grounds he can take exception to these lectures, no matter by whom they are delivered.
Mr. de Valera
"No matter by whom they are delivered." Does the Minister suggest that it is proper to use civil servants in that way? Is it not quite clear that the line within which they would have to keep would have to be so tightly drawn that it would be almost impossible to say whether they would be doing their duty or not? It is a bad system, surely.
I would welcome a lecture by Deputy de Valera or by anybody else on social services.
Mr. de Valera
That is not the point. I am not a civil servant.
So far as a civil servant is concerned in this instance, the lecture was merely a detailed factual explanation of the provisions of the White Paper.
It was not. Has the Minister read the statement in question and has he read the report of the lecture delivered by this information officer——
Yes, and I see no objection to it.
——in which it is mentioned that the information officer referred to certain criticisms of the scheme?
Probably what Deputy MacEntee is referring to is that the lecturer, when the lecture was over, and in reply to questions which were asked by members of the audience, said that in his view the provisions of the scheme were not the unchristian provisions which they were represented to be. I think that is an intelligent and sensible statement by the officer.
I see. We now have the position in which members of the State service are expressing in public their own personal views in relation to these matters of public policy.
That, again, is another misrepresentation. The officer delivered a factual statement.
It was an ineffectual one.
The material for that lecture was based on officially collated information in the Department of Social Welfare and it is available for Deputy MacEntee or anybody else who wants to examine it.
Mr. de Valera
Is it wise to put a civil servant in a position like that? Surely the question as to whether it is a factual statement or not is a matter on which there are differences of opinion? It is not wise to put civil servants in a position like that. I ask if the Minister would not agree with me?
What about your information bureau?
Is the Minister aware that, no matter how much he might think the officer in charge of this information service might be impartial, the manner in which his replies were recorded in the local newspaper, or the mere editing of the words he used, would give the impression that he was not only giving a factual description of the Social Welfare Bill but was defending politically the Minister under whom he served and that, therefore, a very grave precedent is set in this matter? Even if the Minister sincerely desires to introduce that information service, his own wish may be defeated by the manner in which the speeches were recorded in the local newspaper.
I saw the report in the local paper, and I do not think it bears the construction which Deputy Childers seeks to put on it. I think the statement was a factual, extended explanation of the provisions of the White Paper on Social Security, and I think that the dissemination of information and knowledge generally on that subject is highly desirable if we are going to have an informed public opinion on the whole question.
Is the Minister aware that it would be almost impossible for an officer of the Department of Social Welfare to reply to criticisms in a manner which could not be interpreted by people, however impartial they were, as a defence of the political view of the Minister as distinct from an impartial defence of the actual questions involved?
I think that if the Deputy reads the lecture again, or even the report of the lecture, abridged though it is, he will see that the lecture in this case was confined to a clarification of the many complex matters which were dealt with in the White Paper. The officer sought merely to impart information on the subject. It was no part of my desire, and no part of his desire, that he should in any way pass the border of factual statement and get into the realm of political controversy. I am satisfied from reading the report of the lecture that he kept within the bounds of factual statement on the subject.
We are not.
No one minds the Deputy.
Mr. de Valera
Will the Minister not agree that there are on the opposite benches quite enough people who would be able to explain the details of the scheme without bringing in a civil servant?
It is not a political question. Are we not all agreed on the social question?