Vol. 218 No. 11
asked the Minister for Justice if any discussions were held by him with members of the editorial staffs of the national newspapers during the present ITA dispute; and if he will indicate the nature of these discussions, their frequency and the venue or venues of the meetings held.
66.
asked the Minister for Justice whether any advice was given during the present ITA dispute to the editorial staff of the national newspapers outlining a certain approach in their reporting on events connected with the dispute.
With your permission, a Cheann Comairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 65 and 66 together.
As a matter of principle, and in accordance with long established practice, I must reserve the right to feel free to have a personal discussion with any person or group of persons without being required, subsequently, to give a public account of what was said—or, indeed, whether or not a discussion took place at all.
I am not normally interested in any private discussions or interviews which the Minister may have with, say, his constituents but, in this particular dispute, I think it is a bad practice. It would be in the best interests of the tradition of this House that the Minister would indicate what kind of discussion he had with newspaper staffs in this city.
That is an argument, not a question.
We do have an idea in this country that the press should be free to comment in any way it likes on a dispute.
That is still an argument.
That is the reason I asked the Minister what discussion he had had during this dispute.
First of all, the reference to constituents is irrelevant. As Minister for Justice, I feel entitled to have discussion concerning the administration of justice and law and order in this country. I feel quite free to discuss it with any individual, groups of individuals or categories the Deputy would care to nominate within the State.
Would it come within the scope of the Department of Justice, if it did not like the particular issue of a particular newspaper, to ask the people to go back and change their slant in the next day's issue?
It might, conceivably.
Would the Minister agree that the discussions which took place were held by him in his capacity as Minister for Justice? If that is so, is it not his duty to answer to this House any questions put down as to the discharge of his duty as Minister for Justice? Did he, in these discussions, endeavour to influence the press in their manner of reporting this particular dispute and was that not the purpose of the discussions?
In no circumstances did I seek to influence newspaper reporters to any degree whatever but, as I said to Deputy O'Leary, in certain circumstances, that might conceivably be my function but in this particular one it was not. I feel quite free to have open discussion with these particular people on a problem which had arisen. I conceive this to be within my function as Minister for Justice and certainly not a matter this House should discuss.
Certainly Deputies are entitled to know what the Minister does as Minister for Justice.
(Cavan): On another occasion the Minister claimed the right to advise judges as to how they should carry out their duties.
