The full implications of the question I propose to raise to-night cannot be fully exposed in the brief time I have at my disposal. When they are fully exposed to the public, however, they will reveal a sorry episode, a tawdry episode and a disgraceful episode, such as, I am glad to say, never before disgraced the public administration of the State, and, it is to be hoped, such as will never occur again. To understand the full significance of the matter, it is necessary for a moment to stress the fact that the officer who was the centre of this episode and who subsequently suffered for withstanding the pressure which was brought to bear on him was the secretary of one of the great Departments of State.
The post of secretary of a Department is a very difficult one to fill conscientiously and effectively. It is difficult because of the peculiar and intimate relationship which exists between him and the Minister in charge of his Department. It is true that the secretary is the officer of the Minister; it is true that he must be loyal to the Minister; it is true that he must serve the Minister to the best of his ability and the utmost of his capacity; and it is true that, in everything relating to the business of his Department which it is lawful and proper for him to do in his capacity as secretary, he must be obedient to his Minister. But the secretary of a Department is not bound to be the rubber stamp of his Minister; he is not bound to be a mere chiper in his Department; he is not bound to be the cat's-paw of his Minister or to permit himself to be used by the Minister to further his own private interests. The secretary of a Department is bound to be zealous, loyal, active and obedient in all lawful things, but he is also expected to be independent in his judgment, fearless in advising the Minister and firm in resisting anything which would jeopardise the probity and discipline which the people expect to be maintained in their public service.
We must bear all this in mind in considering the subject matter of the question which I put to the Minister for Social Welfare to-day. Briefly, that question asked whether a certain litigant—and, here, in order that there may be no confusion of identity or character, it is necessary for me to mention and to refer sometimes to the Minister for Social Welfare by his own proper name and surname—in these private civil procedings, to wit, Mr. William Norton, of Merlyn Park, Ballsbridge—endeavoured by pressure on the gentleman who was then secretary of the Department of Social Welfare to compel that officer to place at the disposal of Mr. Norton's lawyers certain confidential State papers in order to assist them in the prosecution of their client's suit. The question was addressed by me to the Minister for Social Welfare because it was in virtue of his office as Minister for Social Welfare that this private litigant was able to bring pressure of this particularly despicable and reprehensible kind on a high servant of the State.
The general character of the steps taken by Mr. Norton's agents and representatives in this matter is briefly indicated in the question. They will, I think, on another occasion be expanded and proved in an irrefutable way. The question, however, if I may recapitulate it, briefly asked whether Mr. Norton's solicitor——
