Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 12 Dec 1958

Vol. 171 No. 15

Private Members' Business. - Office of Taoiseach—Motion.

Dr. Browne

I move:—

That as the Taoiseach, in continuing to hold the post of controlling director of the Irish Press Ltd. While acting as Taoiseach, holds a position which could reasonably be regarded as interfering or being incompatible with the full and proper discharge by him of the duties of his office and further as he has not considered it necessary to indicate the position to the House, Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that he has rendered a serious disservice to the principle of integrity in parliamentary government and derogated from the dignity and respect due to his rank and office as Taoiseach.

I must confess that when I first learned that the Taoiseach, while act, ing as Taoiseach, also continued to act in his capacity as controlling director of the Irish Press Ltd. I was both shocked and surprised. Most of us understand the position of Deputies who come into this House and take up office of one kind or another. We are not elected here as members of a vocational assembly. We are elected in our capacity as independent individuals and it is our function, as Deputies, to try to represent as far as we can the cross-section of opinion which sends us here, rather than continue any adherence to outside personal loyalties, business loyalties or professional loyalties. This is not a vocational assembly and we have, therefore, a responsibility to act as impartially as possible and independently as possible in deciding the issues that come before us from time to time.

Now, if that is true of Deputies, it is clearly even more true of those who take up office of one kind or another, be it Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Minister or, above all, Taoiseach. There can be no question as to the ideal at which one should aim. Above all, and beyond all, the Taoiseach must quite clearly be in a position to act in a completely impartial judicial capacity in relation to the many difficult and complicated matters which come before him from time to time, both as Leader of the House and as Leader of the Cabinet.

In relation to the latter category, it is important that his position should be clearly understood. In the Cabinet, he is faced with conflicting loyalties and different points of view. Ministers are trying, each in his own Department, to win advantages, possibly at the expense of another Department, and, ultimately, perhaps, at the expense of the country generally. There are the conflicting demands of the different interests— large industrial vested interests of one kind or another, professional interests, trade union interests, workers' interests and State pensioners' interests. The Taoiseach must, in his capacity as Taoiseach, be above and outside all these groups. When he gives a decision, he must be in a position to demonstrate fully and clearly that not only has justice been done but that justice appears to be done.

It has been suggested that everybody knew about the Taoiseach's associations, that everybody knew that the Taoiseach continued to hold these posts in the Irish Press newspapers, that it was common knowledge. I think it is true that it was common knowledge that the Taoiseach acted as controlling director of the Irish Press newspapers, but what was not common knowledge—certainly, I was not aware of it until very recently— was that he did not adopt the usual practice in this type of case of either resigning or asking for leave of absence without pay from these posts, while acting in his capacity as Taoiseach. That was the general principle that most of us assumed he had accepted and was acting upon.

I believe that the principle has been reasonably clearly established here by precedent, with the exception of the Taoiseach's particular behaviour, that a Cabinet Minister does resign or in some way or other divests himself of outside responsibility, on taking office as Minister.

There is the general consideration of the very considerable responsibilities of the Taoiseach and the necessity for him to be utterly independent of any outside capacity in all these matters. There is the other very important consideration that this group of newspapers is a chain of national newspapers which has become a very important and very influential industry. It comprises the three papers, Evening Press, Irish Press, and Sunday Press, all of which have a very considerable circulation and are extremely prosperous as far as one can see, in so far as they have expanded over the years. Because of that, it is not as if this job were a sinecure or as if the Taoiseach were in a position to delegate his responsibilities and allow his full time to be taken up with his responsibilities as Taoiseach. This post of controlling director is, as I have shown, a post of very wide responsibility, involving very important functions and very considerable powers.

The Taoiseach is morally bound, as far as we know, to discharge these very considerable responsibilities to this group of newspapers. He is morally bound to the shareholders in these newspapers and to his other directors in these newspapers to discharge these functions fully, to the best of his ability and capacity, and, on the other hand, he is morally bound to discharge his functions here as Taoiseach, that is, as the Leader of the Government, Leader of the House and the person responsible for defining national policy from time to time, foreign policy and so on, and all the other responsibilities that have to be discharged by the Taoiseach.

It seems to me, even if you leave aside the first point I raised, that the second point, the question of no man physically or intellectually being competent to do it completely efficiently, must recommend itself to anybody who gives this matter objective consideration.

While he is the controlling director of a very large commercial concern that is attempting to make a profit and to expand its business, with responsibilities to shareholders and to the employees of these newspapers, I cannot see how any man could at the same time discharge the other multifarious responsibilities of a person upon whom the people conferred the great honour of Taoiseach and the great responsibility of Taoiseach.

I believe that the Taoiseach was ill-advised to have established this precedent. It is one which has very dangerous possibilities, perhaps not even with him in the present position he holds, but it is a precedent which could be very seriously misused in the future in certain circumstances. The Taoiseach was wrong in holding these two posts at one time, in leaving himself open to the charge: "Whom are you working for; are you working for the Irish Press or are you working for the Irish People?” That is a reasonable question that he must be asked and that he must be in a position to answer. He has weakened his position very much in the country, and must weaken it very much, in putting himself in the invidious position in which that becomes a fair and reasonable question.

If the Taoiseach is quite happy in his mind, as he appears to be, that this is a perfectly permissible practice on the part of the Taoiseach or a Minister, I think it is wrong of him to have—well—failed to disclose— that is the way I put it. I believe it goes further than that; it amounts to concealing the fact. As far as I have been concerned, at any rate, it was concealed. However, I leave it at "failing to disclose"—to this House that while acting as Taoiseach, he was at the same time controlling director of these three newspapers.

I have on a number of occasions asked questions in the House in order to try to find out what the particular position was. There have been other people in the past who have also asked questions in regard to this matter and, to the best of my ability, I have tried to establish the principle which has guided the several Taoisigh in their decisions as to what is the wisest thing to do in the particular set of circumstances where the Minister or intending Taoiseach holds other posts, company directorships and such, prior to taking up office. Such questions were asked in 1947, 1948, 1951 and 1957 and they all took much the same pattern:

"To ask the Taoiseach whether any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was, on his appointment as such, connected with any public or private company or business interest, and, if so, if he will state the name, style or description of the company or interest involved and the capacity in which such Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was connected with it, and whether he is still so connected."

That is the gist of most of the questions which have been asked. I do not want to weary the House with long quotations from questions which have been asked. I shall try to refer merely to the relevant section of the question because some of them are very long. The Taoiseach, I have no doubt, will be in a position to refute it, if I am in any way misquoting, which I do not propose to do, of course.

On 11th December, 1947—Volume 109, column 722 of the Official Report, Deputy Cogan asked the Taoiseach:—

"...does the Taoiseach not realise that there is a definite restriction established by custom on Ministers taking active part in business concerns and does he not think that the same restriction should apply to Parliamentary Secretaries?"

The Taoiseach replied:—

"I do not know what the Deputy means by ‘custom'. We are just as strict here as, for instance, in Britain. Here no member of the Government or Parliamentary Secretary holds a company directorship carrying remuneration."

That is the fairly consistent answer of the Taoiseach on occasions on which I have since asked similar questions. That is the straight answer to the particular question.

There was a question as to whether farmers should divest themselves of their farms. I think that it was agreed amongst both sides that it would be unreasonable to expect a farmer to do that, but, outside that, I think the general principle in that answer was "No company directorship carrying remuneration". That was the point raised by the Taoiseach.

The next question on the matter was asked in March, 1948. In column 157 Deputy Cogan asked the then Taoiseach if it was the intention of the Government to see that every Minister and Parliamentary Secretary would refrain while in office from active participation in any business or profession for reward. Deputy Costello, who was then Taoiseach replied at some length, but wound up:—

"In particular the rule is being observed and will be observed that a member of the Government or a Parliamentary Secretary should not hold a company directorship."

There is a significant difference between those two answers. Deputy Costello's answer was that they should not hold a company directorship. Deputy de Valera's, the Taoiseach's, answer was that they should not hold a company directorship carrying remuneration. That seems to be a very important question.

In March, 1948, the then Deputy Lemass asked:—

"Will the Taoiseach express a view as to whether he thinks it proper that a member of the Government should act as a committee man of a trade union having business with Government Departments?"

He was rather anxious at the thought that a Minister should hold any job other than his job as Minister or that he would be a trade union official. While I do not want to attach more to the statement of Deputy Lemass than is actually in it he could reasonably be said to disapprove of that suggestion. I am just mentioning that. The main point is that the difference between the two Governments is that one will permit company directorships not carrying remuneration and the other will not allow company directorships at all. The present Opposition would not allow a Minister to hold a company directorship at all.

Another question was asked by Deputy Flanagan in 1957 when the question of whether a person should get leave of absence without remuneration came up. The then Taoiseach reiterated the point about company directorships carrying remuneration and said that there was no Minister holding a company directorship which carried remuneration. I asked another question on the 24th April, 1957. This question was asked in order to elicit the position concerning the holding of a directorship by any of the members of the Government. I shall be obliged to read it at some length because it does cover the whole question. It was:—

"To ask the Taoiseach whether any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was, on his appointment as such, connected with any public or private company or business interest, and, if so, if he will state the name, style or description of the company or interest involved and the capacity in which such Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was connected with it, and whether he is so connected."

The reply was:—

"On the general principle underlying the subject of this question and its application, I would refer the Deputy to the replies given to similar questions in this House by me on the 11th December, 1947, and the 19th July, 1951, and by the then Taoiseach on the 9th March, 1948.

The general principle, the observance of which is what concerns the Dáil and the public in this matter, is that no Minister or Parliamentary Secretary should engage in any activities whatsoever that could reasonably be regarded as interfering, or being incompatible, with the full and proper discharge by him of the duties of his office—for example, acting in a position such as a company directorship carrying remuneration. I might mention, for the information of the Dáil, that the new Government, at one of their first meetings—on the 28th ultimo— formally decided that the principle would apply to their members and to the Parliamentary Secretaries.

As happened on the occasion of the change of administration that took place in June, 1951, most of the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries who, immediately before their recent entry upon office, held positions that would conflict with the principle I have just mentioned have already complied with the principle, by resignation or by being given leave of absence without remuneration. In the remaining few cases in which full compliance was not immediately practicable, steps are being taken to comply with the principle as soon as possible."

A further question on the 5th June, 1957, elicited the same response. In a supplementary question on the 24th April, I asked for further information and the Taoiseach said:—

"These are private affairs of Ministers—what they have been doing before they became Ministers. It is what they do as Ministers that matters."

My question had asked what connection the Ministers at that time had with business and whether they were still connected with business; if they had resigned from such businesses, companies or concerns, I had better read the question:—

"To ask the Taoiseach whether all the Ministers in the present Government who, on taking up office, were either directors of, or had any other controlling or business association with any exporting company or corporation or any manufacturing business or other industrial or shipping concern, have resigned from such businesses, companies or concerns."

The answer, I suggest, was an evasive one in so far as I was not given to understand whether the Taoiseach had given up his position as controlling director of this particular concern— the Irish Press, Limited.

In a further question on the 12th March, 1958, I asked the Taoiseach:—

"If members of the Government who held directorships or had controlling interests in firms with which they were connected immediately prior to taking up their posts as members of the Government have resigned such directorships or divested themselves of such interests."

The first part of the reply is the usual and says that no Minister holds any position that could be reasonably regarded as interfering, or being incompatible, with the full and proper discharge by him of the duties of his office. The answer then goes on:—

"It is, perhaps, right that I should add, however, that, as the culmination of work which was begun by a Minister over two years ago—that is, about a year before his entry upon office as a Minister—a certain private company was formed and recently registered. In the articles of association of that company, the Minister was named as one of the first directors. He has, however, resigned from that position."

Prima facie it looks as if the Taoiseach adheres to the general position that no Minister will hold the post of Taoiseach and at the same time hold a company directorship carrying remuneration. That is different from Deputy Costello's point that Ministers should not hold any company directorships at all. The Taoiseach appears to me to have parted to some extent from his general principle here when he explained why a particular Minister held a directorship in a private company and why it was difficult for him to rid himself of that directorship but that he was making all possible speed in getting rid of that directorship.

It would seem to me that the Taoiseach would like to adopt two different standards of behaviour for Ministers and for the Taoiseach. One position is that he himself can adhere to this very important Jekyll and Hyde existence as Taoiseach and controlling director of a chain of national newspapers and on the other hand, as far as his own colleagues are concerned, it is desirable for them to rid themselves of their directorships or ask for leave of absence without remuneration.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach why he did not adopt this course in his own case. Why did he not decide to ask for leave of absence without remuneration or resign his controlling directorships temporarily upon taking over the position of Taoiseach? If he believes it is permissible for him to retain these very important posts, then surely the same principle must apply to his colleagues? I should like to ask him further whether his colleagues exonerate themselves from any charges that might be made against them here by refusing to take remuneration during their period of office. Is that so? Have all his Ministers resigned their directorships?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion does not deal with directorships.

Dr. Browne

I am sorry; it was the general principle with which I was concerned. If it applies to all his Cabinet, I should be interested to know whether he applies it to himself. Does he exclude himself from that general principle? I think it is important to show that in raising these points we are not being irresponsible, captious or anxious to create difficulties for the Taoiseach in any kind of thoughtless or precipitate way. We have been moved by an examination of the responsibility of the Taoiseach as controlling director. We know his position as Taoiseach. There is not a more responsible position in the country. There is not an individual with wider powers and functions or with a greater burden of work, if he does this work conscientiously.

In order to find out whether it is compatible with his position as Taoiseach to hold these controlling directorships, I think it is necessary to examine the articles of association. It is quite obvious that there are directorships, sleeping partnerships, where there is little or no work to be done by a director, in which case, although I would object to it, I suppose a case could be made for a Taoiseach or Minister holding directorships which involved only attending the annual general meeting once a year and that being the end of his responsibilities and functions, but that is not so in this case, unless the articles of association are wrong.

The functions of a controlling direc-to are these: "The controlling director shall have sole and absolute control of the public and political policy of the company and of the editorial management thereof and of all newspapers, pamphlets or other writings which may be from time to time owned, published, circulated or printed by the said company." That is a fair responsibility in itself, it seems to me. It goes on to say that he may "appoint and at his discretion, remove or suspend all editors, sub-editors, reporters, writers, contributors of news and information and all such other persons as may be employed in or connected with the editorial department and may determine their duties and fix their salaries or emoluments. Subject to the powers of the controlling director the directors may appoint and at their discretion remove or suspend managers, editors" and so on.

I do not know if anybody has wider powers than those in any business concern. The controlling director has absolute and sole control of public and political policy and editorial management. I understand that this is the second largest chain of newspapers in this country. It consists of a daily newspaper with a very considerable circulation; and evening newspaper and a Sunday newspaper also. They are very widely read.

The position of Taoiseach implies practically everything that any one of us could conceive of trying to do in our lifetime. While acting as Taoiseach, with all its responsibilities and acting as controlling director of three newspapers—a very important commercial concern—it seems to me that it would be impossible to do this job well. Either one or the other must suffer. I think the Taoiseach has placed himself in a very false and serious position in allowing it to be suggested that he has either furthered the interests of the people and the Government at the expense of the shareholders of the Irish Press, Limited, or has furthered its interests and prosperity and the expansion of the Irish Press, Limited, at the expense of the national wellbeing.

If you look at it, you can see on one side, a fairly prosperous continually expanding and widely read chain of newspapers with an increasing circulation and, on the other hand, you have a position of almost national bankruptcy and social decadence of one kind or another, with emigration, unemployment and all the things we talk about from time to time and which are equally the responsibility of the Taoiseach in determining national policy.

And so it seems to me that either the Taoiseach has devoted too much of his time to this expanding industry, this commercial project, Irish Press Ltd., consisting of one daily paper, an evening paper and a Sunday paper or too little of his time, in which case the shareholders would have a grievance. If he is responsible as controlling director for the prosperity of that newspaper, then he does leave himself open to the charge that he has neglected the national wellbeing, the welfare of our people in order to create the prosperity of a commercial enterprise, which, no matter how important it may be to him, is not as important as the welfare of our people as a whole.

If he is not responsible for that prosperity and for creating that expansion of those newspapers, then whoever is responsible is a competent person to leave in charge of those newspapers when he takes over the position of Taoiseach. He could have no worries that anything would happen in his absence.

On this question of company directorships carrying remuneration, I think the Taoiseach attaches rather to much importance to those two words "carrying remuneration". I myself believe it was a device used by the Taoiseach, to obfuscate or mislead us here in the Dáil and the public generally, on this question of whether he or his colleagues hold directorships. His remuneration as controlling director is £250 a year, a negligible sum, I am certain, to the Taoiseach. In refusing that sum, as I assume he has refused it, because he gave us his word that he has refused, I think everybody must agree that is no sacrifice, in the circumstances of the particular case and the position of the man concerned.

It is quite clear that £250 a year is not a remuneration one would get as pay for running a chain of national newspapers. Publicity and propaganda, the ability to put one's view across, are the life-blood of a politician and there is no money—£250 or £250,000 —which would pay for the position which the Taoiseach enjoys as a controlling director of a chain of national newspapers and as a politician. He must think we are very native, very ingenuous, if he thinks he can fob us off with this simulation, with this hairsplitting, on the question of whether he does or does not take his £250 a year. If one is allowed to continue as controlling director of an evening newspaper a Sunday newspaper and a daily national newspaper, as a politician, one does not need any remuneration after that. Therefore, I think there is no real substance in those two words "carrying remuneration".

It is clear there are much more important considerations involved in being a Prime Minister of Taoiseach, head of a Government and a company director, particularly a company director who controls the activities of three vast newspapers. He is remunerated by having his speeches reported at great length; his photograph appears on page one, page three or page five—everything he does from the time he gets up in the morning till the time he goes to bed at night, everything he says here, every time he leaves the country or returns to the country—all this is reported and, of course, that is the essence of a politician's existence—his ability to make contact with the community as a whole, and the people as a whole, and maintain contact with the people and the community as a whole, so I do not attach much importance to that particular point.

There is, however, one serious matter which arises out of an answer I received from the Taoiseach to a parliamentary question. I asked a question concerning the duty on newsprint and the Taoiseach's answer is given at column 576 of Volume 171, of the Official Report, of 12th November. I asked a supplementary question:

"In view of the very close personal and financial interest which the Taoiseach has as controlling director...."

The answer the Taoiseach gave me was:

"I have no financial interest."

Now, that is a very important matter. It is possible for him to say he gets no remuneration. I think it is quite unimportant whether he gets remuneration or not. As I say, he is making a mountain out of a molehill in that regard. I think these words were put in to allow him to carry on as controlling director and change a general principle established by the Opposition or maintained by the Opposition, if you like, or a principle which the Opposition had observed. I do not think it had any other purpose at all.

On the question of whether the Taoiseach has or has not any financial interest in this concern, the Irish Press, Limited, clearly he has a personal interest in so far as the fact that so many key positions in the newspapers are held by members of his own family on the personnel side cannot be denied. On the question of financial interest, we must turn again to the articles of association. On page 23, we find:—

"The first controlling director shall be Eamon de Valera who is hereby appointed such controlling director and who shall hold in his own name shares of the company of the nominal value of £500. He shall continue to hold the said office of controlling director so long as he shall hold the said sum of £500 nominal value of the shares or stock of the company."

I do not know whether or not the Taoiseach is still controlling director of the Irish Press newspapers, but I am assuming he is. If he were not, he would have stopped me long ago. If he is still controlling director, he either has £500—quite a large block of shares —in this enterprise or he has not. If he has not, then it seems to me that he is breaking the articles of association and infringing company law or else he has £500 worth of shares, in which case it seems to me that he has quite a substantial financial interest in these three Irish Press, Limited, newspapers. If he has, it was, to say the least of it, grossly improper of him and misleading for him to say that he had no financial interest in those newspapers. It is on matters such as this that one has to judge people in high positions such as that held by the Taoiseach, and also his attitude to this magnificent parliamentary institution—one of the greatest barriers against autocracy and the development of autocratic government we probably have. It can continue to survive only so long as we can be absolutely certain that the highest standards of integrity and honesty are observed by the members of the Dáil and, of course, above all, by the Taoiseach. I think it must be conceded that the Taoiseach has, in fact, a financial interest in this concern. It is quite a sizeable financial interest and he has not rid himself of his financial interest since taking over as Taoiseach. I think it is very improper indeed for a person in his position to continue to retain this financial interest in his circumstances of being Taoiseach.

If this is all as I have put it, and I assume it is, the Taoiseach has placed himself in a position which must lead to serious embarrassment. He has the very wide responsibility and function to supervise, control and direct the Irish Press Ltd., this big commercial concern, on the one hand, and to act as Taoiseach, on the other. He is faced with responsibilities in the Cabinet of considering many matters from time to time on which I think he would be in a very much stronger position to arbitrate, were he a completely independent person with no ties whatsoever with industry or commerce.

In the very near future, there will be a review and a redrafting of legislation relating to company laws, trading practices of one kind or another. These are very important and very complicated matters on which the Taoiseach should be able to sit back, as I said in the beginning, in a judicial capacity to try to weigh up the interests of the company, business men, industrialists, on the one hand and the consumer, the ordinary man in the street, on the other. He should not be a judge in his own case; he should not have allowed himself to be placed in the position where he is a judge in his own case, thus contravening one of the first principles of simple justice.

He is also, as Taoiseach, a person who should try to be objective about all the questions arising out of trading and commerce, business concerns of one kind or another, trading practices concerning rings, cartels, price agreements and arrangements of one kind or another. His own company, presumably, must from time to time be faced with such agreements and arrangements with other companies. He has the question of pools and lotteries to consider which also are matters of very great import to him, particularly in his Sunday newspapers. He has to consider the question of the imported Press.

There is the question of whether or not the Government's attitude to the imported Press is motivated in its attempt to tax imported papers and periodicals of one kind or another by any personal interest. I may say that some of these imported papers are excellent and their distribution should be encouraged in this country rather than restricted. Or, on the other hand, some of the printed matter imported is just rubbish that should be taxed out of existence. The general principle that arises is whether the newspaper-owner or the Taoiseach is deciding on the question of whether these papers should be penalised, whether their admission into the country should be penalised and obstructed. Is it that, from a national point of view, you do not like these imported papers or that, from a business point of view, you do not like their competition? Whose interests are you deciding and how are we to know if you do not divest yourself of your responsibility as a newspaper controlling director, or whatever the title is?

There is then the question of the settlement of strikes and trade disputes of one kind or another. It seems to me invidious that a person in the Taoiseach's position should be the controlling director and possibly at loggerheads with one or more of his employees and should have to try to arbitrate and decide on hiring and firing editors, sub-editors—journalists and employees of one kind or another. I suggest it is very wrong that a Taoiseach should retain these powers in respect of a commercial concern, while being Taoiseach, that he does derogate considerably from his very high office in putting himself in such a position.

I shall not refer to it at any great length but I might stress "The controlling director shall have sole and absolute control of the public and political policy of the company...." in relation to the extraordinary method followed, particularly by the Sunday newspapers, in which a series of articles have from time to time been pervading this newspaper glorifying the gun. Then, when the young lads accept that glorification of the gun of politics, of whatever you like to call it, they are locked up.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise now.

Dr. Browne

It is very wrong that the Taoiseach, as Taoiseach, should be in a position where he is permitting a political policy in relation to his paper, that is, allowing these articles glorifying the gun, on the one hand, as newspaper director and, on the other hand, as Taoiseach, locking these young lads up who read his paper and think that a gunman is a very fine person.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A discussion of the articles in the paper is not relevant.

Dr. Browne

"The controlling director shall have sole and absolute control of the public and political policy of the company...." He is in absolute control.

Mr. McQuillan

Surely, in view of the fact that, as controlling director of the chain of newspapers and that, as such, he has full power in connection with the political slant given in these papers, it is in order to refer to that slant and how it reacts on the young people of the country?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy would not be in order in entering into detail on articles appearing in the newspapers.

Dr. Browne

I am not repeating them in detail. If I were to do so, I think it would be much more derogatory to the Taoiseach because some of the articles and cartoons were particularly offensive. I am referring to the general policy of glorification of the gun over the years. Whatever merits it had in the past, it surely should be his policy now, as Taoiseach, to get these young lads into the Dáil, into democratic politics, into the Parliament and try to remove the gun altogether from our reading and our history?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy will read his motion, he will find that the matters he is now mentioning are totally irrelevant.

Mr. Aiken

On a point of order, does the Deputy describe as a glorification of the gun the series relating to the Irish defence of their rights against the Blank and Tans?

Mr. Hilliard

And the R.I.C.

Mr. McQuillan

It is getting under your skin now.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

We know whose skin it is getting under.

Dr. Browne

The attitude of the young people to-day is that we are fighting the R.U.C. and the British military in the Six Counties. I believe that, were I in the Taoiseach's position, with control of a newspaper, my endeavour would be to try to break with that period and to encourage in every way young men to look towards this House as the fountain head of Parliament in which they might achieve their objectives, the reunification of our country. I feel that these other sad pages in our history—which I am not denigrating in any way— should, for the time being, be left to the historians to decide on their merits.

I think that the Taoiseach could have helped to a very considerable extent if he had been able to orientate young men's minds in that direction. I think he would have helped himself and removed many of his very worrying and frustrating problems because I have no doubt that they do cause him worry and frustration. However, many of his worries, I think, are of his own making.

There is also the question of taxation. We had a recommendation by a number of people in relation to the newspaper industry. This is a very considerable industry. There are the three national papers, the evening papers and the three Sunday papers; then there are the provincial newspapers, probably one of the most important factors in helping to retain some life in rural Ireland. All these newspapers have varying functions including the employment of journalists, editorial staff, typographical workers, and so on. Then there is the vast background of the distributive trade which is involved in the circulation of newspapers. The position in relation to this vast industry is that it finds itself in a certain amount of financial difficulty, and some of the newspapers are in greater difficulty than others. The journalists' union have asked that a taxation of 5 per cent. be removed.

The Taoiseach is himself a very important and influential part owner of a chain of newspapers. We all have our own personal, private associations and loyalties before we take up our positions in office. The Taoiseach has his in his newspapers and he could not cease to be a newspaper proprietor no matter how hard he tried. He has now left himself in the position of having to try to arbitrate on this very important question concerning this large industry. He might even be open to misrepresentation if, having been the owner of a newspaper and given leave of absence on assuming the office of Taoiseach, he tried to arbitrate in this manner. It could be said he was interested only in his own newspapers. However, as Taoiseach it would be his duty to come to a decision and say: "I have taken this decision in the interests of the community and I do not care what anybody says."

The Taoiseach has put himself in the very unpleasant position, as controlling director of three Irish newspapers, of having to arbitrate on a question in which he has both a personal and a financial interest. I think it was very wrong and foolish of him to put himself in that position. He is a businessman and presumably he is in business for what he can get out of it. I am not suggesting it is money, but there are more ways than one of killing a cat. I believe he must promote his enterprise to the best of his ability. That is what he was appointed and paid to do.

He has competitors in business and a number of those competitors are in a relatively weak state from the commercial point of view. There is a number of newspapers in danger of going out of business. Is there not a very great temptation there for a person in the Taoiseach's powerful position? In arbitrating on this taxation question he can make the final decision and say: "We shall remove this duty and in that way allow these papers to survive." It may make all the difference between their survival and their going out of business.

It would be ethical for the Taoiseach as a businessman to try to get these people out of business and allow his daily and evening papers to scoop up what was left after the competitors had crashed out of business. As far as I can understand it would be legitimate commercial practice to put the opponents out of business, but to use his position as Taoiseach to do so is grossly improper. It is difficult for him to escape the suggestion that that is what he must do if he is to honour his responsibility to his shareholders, the people who employ him as controlling director. "Get rid of your competition." That is the essence of private enterprise, "Increase dividends to shareholders and increase the circulation of your newspapers." That is his moral responsibility to those people.

There is another consideration. Some of these competitors are distinctly unfriendly and hostile to the Taoiseach. What a magnificent position it is in which to find himself! These are people who harry and criticise him. They do not accept the dogma of infallibility about the Taoiseach that so many seem to accept; they reserve their right in our democracy to criticise him and they criticise him as they see fit.

What is to prevent the Taoiseach's saying: "This is the simplest way out of my dilemma. These people are in financial straits. I can tighten the knot. I can drain the life-blood of these hostile newspapers. I can end this undesirable criticism of myself and have the continued unadulterated adulation of my own editors and correspondents. They will dominate the minds of our people and I shall continue to rule unworried by legitimate criticism."

Assuming he believes he can keep on these two posts at the same time, many politicians would say he was justified in getting rid of his opposition in that way. As politicians, most of us believe that the essence of truth and right lies with us, and I am sure the Taoiseach is no exception. Is it not feasible that he could use his position to rid himself of this hectoring opposition from these newspapers?

I think that is one legitimate criticism and a legitimate analysis of the very foolish position in which the Taoiseach has put himself by his decision to retain his position as controlling director, and to retain the power these newspapers give him in our society. He has power and advantages, on the one hand, but he must face the fact that he has created these very serious, complicated positions for himself, on the other hand. He has left himself open to what I believe is this perfectly legitimate criticism.

What if he decides that his own newspaper is hard up and could do with this concession? Should he put himself in the position that he would decide, as a newspaper proprietor or a major executive in the newspaper business, or controlling director? Should he have taken the opportunity, on being made Taoiseach, to retain this position of controlling director, and so decide on this very important question in relation to his own financial position in the Irish Press Ltd., because he has the financial interest in making this decision? Should he ever have left himself open to that suggestion? It is a legitimate suggestion that anybody would make, and were you here on the other side of the House, you would certainly make it about your opponents.

Let us say there is a good case for this 5 per cent. reduction—I do not know whether there is or not—and say the Taoiseach decides that he has left himself open to this charge, that he has, as Taoiseach, put himself in a position where he can arbitrate on a matter which too closely and financially concerns himself, and say he decides to run away from it politically —surely that would be a very serious thing for him to do, if there is a just case for the remission of this taxation duty? There are many people involved in this question, in the newspaper industry, and they should not be made the pawns of political decisions by the Taoiseach, be they wrong political decisions, or ill thought out political decisions of the Taoiseach. If they have a legitimate grievance, if they demand for a remission of this taxation is permissible, is acceptable, and is badly needed to keep the greater part of this industry on its legs, then the Taoiseach has no alternative but to grant it, no matter what political consequences may arise for himself. Those political consequences would not arise at all if he had acted as I understand so many of his colleagues have acted, in shedding their directorships, and in that way he would do the best he possibly can do to show that not only is justice being done but, as well, appears to be done.

I think it is unfortunate, in many ways, that these questions are now being examined and considered in this atmosphere and I hope that the Taoiseach will bear that in mind. If serious financial reverberations were to follow his failure to remit this taxation, I hope he will have the courage to take whatever is the just, correct, and right decision, no matter what the consequences may be to himself.

As I say, I think that probably the most serious thing of all is that the Taoiseach, in holding on to this post of controlling director, has established a very dangerous and very undesirable precedent for the future, whatever he may or may not do as Taoiseach himself. He may do none of the things I have suggested at all, but, at the same time, he has created this precedent which will conceivably allow us to have part-time Taoisigh and part-time Ministers. There could be the position where a barrister might decide to keep on part of his practice when he is Taoiseach, and the same could apply to a solicitor, or a shopkeeper or an industrialist, or a soldier, for instance. A military man might decide that he could stand to become Taoiseach, to become the Leader of a Government, and in that way wind up as a military dictator of one kind or another. I suppose that is conceivable.

Why not have a trade union leader as Taoiseach, keeping on his job as a trade union leader? The Tánaiste referred to this earlier when I put supplementary questions to him. He was concerned about the question of a trade union leader being a Minister, but, because of this precedent set up by the Taoiseach, there is no reason in the world why a trade union leader should not be Taoiseach and carry on with his responsibilities to his union. Clearly, that would be grossly improper as a Taoiseach's responsibility is towards the mass of the people, and, therefore, he could not retain his trade union leadership and at the same time decide, in an independent way, or ostensibly independent way, on the complicated questions coming up for consideration before him.

So it is I think that the Taoiseach has done a very grave disservice to the whole conception of our parliamentary democracy here by continuing to hold on to his two posts. I do not think it matters very much, should such a post not be big, but this happens to be a big post and is not a nominal directorship. I think the general principle is a bad principle and the Taoiseach, above all people, should have been particularly conscious of his very grave and serious responsibility, as one of the major leaders in our society, to establish the principle that the Taoiseach has one loyalty, and that is to the people as a mass, as a whole, and cannot have a divided loyalty. He cannot serve two masters.

The point which will probably appeal most to the ordinary people is the fact that here now in this country we have never been in a time of greater national crisis. There has never been a time when dynamic leadership was more needed, when a Taoiseach was needed who would have all the time in the world to devote himself to the very vast, considerable and worrying problems which he must have to face from day to day in his office—such problems as unemployment, emigration, and defective social services——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These matters do not arise on the motion and the Deputy may not embark on a discussion of them.

Dr. Browne

All these suggestions arise in this way. I suggest that if the Taoiseach could divest himself of his very far-reaching responsibilities as controlling director of the Irish Press newspapers he would, in my opinion, have more time to give to his much greater responsibilities as Taoiseach. Whatever we can hope for from him in the line of dynamic leadership and originality in the solution of our problems, as a full time leader and a full time Taoiseach, it is quite clear he cannot give the people the time and required dedication for that work while he is acting in this dual capacity as a big businessman, the controller of a chain of newspapers, on the one hand, and Taoiseach on the other.

Mr. McQuillan

I wish to second the motion and I reserve the right to speak at a later stage.

The Taoiseach

As regards my being controlling director of the Irish Press there is no question of secrecy about it. I have been that for 30 years, since the Irish Press Company was founded. My name has appeared on the letterheads and on the official communications of the newspaper during these 30 years, and they have been distributed widespread throughout the whole country. That I am controlling director has been known also to the members of the House over a considerable period. References to that fact have been made on many occasions here in the House. I made my position clear in regard to the Irish Press back in the early days when I was president of the Executive Council. My position as controlling director is a fiduciary one. As such I was given all the powers that seemed necessary to enable me effectively to safeguard the interests of those who subscribed the capital, and the purposes for which the money was contributed and to be in a position effectively to prevent the newspaper's policy from going in a direction contrary to that for which it was founded.

I have never received any pay, in office or out of office, or remuneration of any kind for anything I have done for the Irish Press. Over the period in which I have been acting, I have not found at any time that my duties conflicted in any way with the full and proper exercise of my duties as Taoiseach. There is such a thing as delegation. It was never intended, when I was made controlling director, that I should do all the things I was given power to do. I was one of a board. That board originally, and since, consisted of such businessmen as John Hughes, Lyle Stirling, T.P. Dowdall and J.C. Dowdall of Cork, and others who acted as directors without any payment whatever. That had been the position of the directors for a long number of years, while the paper and the company were seeking to establish themselves. A newspaper, as everybody who has read the history of newspapers knows, does not establish itself in a short time.

These men were businessmen of proved capacity and they acted and controlled the paper through their board meetings from week to week. There were other people who continued to serve similarly for a considerable period such as Philip Pierce of Wexford; Stephen O'Mara of Limerick; and T.P. O'Mahony of Cork, and so on. Therefore the business side of the newspaper was in competent hands, and it was not necessary for me always to be there. I did act as chairman for some years before I became Taoiseach and later for a period when out of office, but when Taoiseach I refrained from going to board meetings and from dealing with the day-to-day conduct of the business. I made it clear in this House that I was not responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the newspaper. I had to see that the work was properly delegated and I felt it was right that I should retain the reserve powers given me by the articles of association.

Had it been necessary at any time to exercise any of these powers I would have been entitled to do so, but the suggestion that whilst I was Taoiseach I was part-time Taoiseach is not correct. Neither is it true that I as director was paid on the 500 shares which a director has to hold. The company has not distributed profits and the money was used for expansion so as to achieve the original idea of those who founded the newspaper, which was not merely to have a morning newspaper but also an evening newspaper and a Sunday newspaper.

Profits have not been paid. A sum of £250 a year was suggested as the remuneration which I was expected not to take as it was a trifle. The profit that would come from 500 shares would be still less important.

I have therefore discharged my duty both to the people who subscribed the money by retaining that ultimate power, and I have discharged my duties to the State by giving it my whole time. It is true that if there was a very important development in the Irish Press, if there was some new departure, or, something of that kind. I would expect to be consulted and that if it was a departure which I considered wrong and not for the purpose for which the money was subscribed, I would intervene. Fortunately it has not been necessary for me to do that because the conduct of the paper was in the hands of people who were competent to do the work properly.

There is a story, which members of the House may know, of a certain French ruler who was distracted by his day-to-day problems. He went out into the fields and saw a shepherd. This shepherd was running around because there was danger of wolves coming along. He was distracted. The ruler saw this shepherd trying to save his sheep and, despite the shepherd's efforts, the sheep were being mauled by the wolves. The ruler said: "There go I." That is precisely my case. The ruler later found a shepherd apparently taking things quietly and the ruler feared this shepherd was neglecting his business. He abused the shepherd and said to him: "Why are you behaving like this? Look at your flock. They are open to attack by the wolves." As it happened, some wolves came. But there were dogs there and the dogs sprang to the attack and tore the wolves to pieces. And the shepherd said to the ruler: "See how it is done. I take care that the dogs are well chosen."

This shepherd was able to delegate to his dogs something that the other distracted shepherd was unable to do. By the delegation and reservation of these powers, I am quite satisfied that the interests of the shareholders, whose chief interest was to establish a newspaper which would meet requirements badly in need of being met at the time of its establishment, have been amply safeguarded.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 5. p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 16th December, 1958.