RTE Programme: Establishment of Tribunal: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Senator Ó Maoláin:

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance:

1. The planning, preparation, arrangement, production and presentation of the recent television programme on illegal moneylending, that is to say, that part of the "7 Days" feature broadcast on television by Radio Telefís Éireann on the 11th November, 1969, which related to unlicensed moneylenders and their activities.

2. The authenticity of the programme and, in particular, the adequacy of the information on which the programme was based, and whether or not the statements, comments and implications of the programme as to the number of unlicensed moneylenders operating in the city and county of Dublin and the scope of their operations, and the use of violence, or threats of violence, to secure repayments of moneys illegally lent, amounted to a correct and fair representation of the facts.

3. The inquiries on behalf of Radio Telefís Éireann, and the films, tapes, statements, scripts, records, notes and other material in their possession, which relate to the programme.

4. The inquiries on behalf of the Garda Síochána, and the statements, taken by the Garda Síochána, which relate to the programme.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete paragraphs (1) and (2) and substitute:

"(1) The authenticity of the recent television programme on illegal moneylending, that is to say, that part of the "7 Days" feature broadcast on television by Radio Telefís Éireann on the 11th November, 1969, which related to unlicensed moneylenders and their activities; and, in particular, the adequacy of the information on which the programme as journalism was based and whether or not the statements, comments and implications of the programme as to the number of unlicensed moneylenders operating in the city and county of Dublin and the scope of their operations, and the use of violence, or threats of violence to secure repayments of moneys illegally lent, amount to a correct and fair representation of the facts."

— (Senator Mary T.W. Bourke.)

Mr. E. Ryan

Last night I was dealing with the amendment put down by Senator Bourke and with the apprehension which she expressed as to the way in which the paragraphs were set out. Apparently her concern was that the inquiry might proceed to consider paragraph 1 first, to consider it in isolation and apparently make its findings on that paragraph before it went on to consider paragraph 2. It seems to me this is not a realistic apprehension. If I thought there was any validity in this point of view I certainly would consider it because I agree it is necessary to look at the picture as a whole; but undoubtedly the tribunal would look at the whole picture and would not make any findings on that particular paragraph without having considered all the paragraphs which form the basis for inquiry.

I am not aware of any legal procedure or any legal precedent which would lead the tribunal to approach their problem in that way. Although inquiries of this nature are not very frequent, nevertheless I think they would approach this problem in the same way as a judge would approach any proceedings which would come before him. In normal proceedings there are usually many paragraphs in the statement of claim, or whichever way the legal proceedings are set out, and it certainly would be most unusual to consider any particular paragraph in isolation without having looked at the problem as a whole.

It would be quite impractical to expect the tribunal to take one paragraph in isolation because it would mean, for instance, that the witnesses coming before them would be called and examined on paragraph 1 and a few days or a few weeks later they would be called back and examined on paragraph 2 and possibly on paragraphs 3 and 4. From a practical point of view, it seems to me quite unrealistic to expect a tribunal to approach their problem in this way.

The principal reason why the tribunal have been asked to consider this matter under various headings is that they will be asked to make findings under each one of the headings. The importance of the four paragraphs is that there would have to be, in the normal course of events, a specific finding under each paragraph. That, to my mind, is the reason for the paragraphs and not any question of approaching the problem under paragraph 1 first, making a finding, and then moving on to the second paragraph.

It is necessary to have paragraph 1 as it stands because it is not the important part of the inquiry. Obviously the real gist of the inquiry is paragraph 2: paragraph 1 to my mind is merely the lead-in to the inquiry. It is necessary that the tribunal should, first of all, have a look at the programme and having worked out the programme, having planned, prepared, arranged and produced it so as to get the background, to get the structure and context of the programme, then to go on to consider whether it was authentic and to consider whether the information was sufficient to enable an authentic programme to be produced.

But it is not merely desirable that the inquiry should first of all be familiar with the kind of programme it is but it is also only fair to the "7 Days" producers that they should get an idea of the context in which this programme was made. It would be unfair if the tribunal were merely to approach the problem on the authenticity of the programme and the adequacy of the information without thoroughly familiarising themselves with the kind of programme it is, with the kind of preparation that goes into it, with the extent to which the producers associate themselves with the statements that are made, with the views that are expressed, and certainly I agree that it is unlikely that the tribunal would approach the inquiry without familiarising themselves with the kind of programme it is, but this is merely one thing that makes sure that they will do that, and on the other hand, in case any question should arise, it authorises them to get all the information and to do all which is necessary to enable them to understand exactly what kind of programme it is.

I feel therefore that there is no validity in the concern which Senator Bourke has expressed as to the way in which these paragraphs are set out, and in fact the way they are set out will achieve the most desirable result and the fairest result to all concerned. It is true, I suppose, that every Member of the Seanad could draft these paragraphs in a different way, and probably there are a dozen other ways in which they could be drafted which would be equally good, so that we could go on arguing all day as to changes in the way the paragraphs are set out, changes in the wording and so on. This is not the only way in which it could be done, but to my mind it is well set out and it will enable the tribunal to make a fair and thorough examination of this programme and will enable the tribunal to bring in findings which will get to the roots of this problem.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I should say at the outset that I have the gravest doubts about the validity, the propriety, the wisdom or even the constitutionality of what is proposed to the House, by implication, in this motion. I should like to say as a preliminary to that that Senator Keery referred to Senator Bourke in introducing her amendment yesterday as a lawyer. I understand and I think that most Members of the House understood what she meant by that. She was emphasising her independence of any party connection in addressing herself to this motion, a proper moment, I think, for university representatives in this House to emphasise their independence; and a graver issue, graver even than the future existence of this House, is there for consideration — the question of the continued vitality of academic freedom. I do not propose to address this House either now or at any time as a person practising the profession I do, nor do I think that this is something which any Senator will wish to do. He will be speaking here as a Senator, and if as a Member of the Seanad he draws some inspiration or ideas from any training he may have received, he does so merely making it available for the benefit of this House in the consideration of whatever matter is being debated.

Perhaps I should say immediately that of course I do not question the ability of this House to pass this resolution either in the form proposed or in an amended form, but I will question with great seriousness whether it will be open, within the ambit of our Constitution, to appoint or to apply the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 to this motion as proposed. I speak as one — I wish to emphasise this because I may have some reservations to express later in the context of the times in which we live — who regards the freedom of the press as necessary to restrain the political power whose jealousy of criticism is a source so often of mischief.

In opening the argument, which I hope will not be too tedious for Senators to hear but which I feel it is my duty to offer, I have to refer to and to read fully the provisions of Article 40, Clause 6, subsection 1 (1) of the Constitution which reads:

The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:—

(1) The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions. The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

It can be said of that Article that at least it strengthens the prior existing rights of the free expression of public opinion. These rights were then, and remain still, hedged in by various safeguards well known to everyone who is practising the profession of journalism or engaged in the utilisation of any of the media of communication — hedged in by safeguards such as the rights of citizens whose activity comes within the range of the expression of opinion in question, the right to protect himself by actions in the courts for slander in the case of oral communications, and, in the case of the press and television, to libel.

Every journalist receives his information, writes his articles and expresses his views knowing this. It is also possible that he may be criminally liable if the language he uses is an incitement to a breach of the public peace. I submit to this House that the only restrictions on the free exercise of citizens' convictions and opinions are the safeguards of the individual to preserve his own reputation and the safeguards of society to protect itself against breaches of public order such as would result from incitements to breaches of the public peace, and such safeguards as the State is entitled to impose by law under this Article, when it is required by the Constitution enacted by the people, that the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of opinion shall not be used to undermine public order or morality.

I look at the text of this motion. I do not find in this motion any reference whatever, or any suggestion whatever, that the organs of opinion have been used to undermine public order or morality. If the Government decide, as they have indicated publicly by the Taoiseach in the Dáil and, I think, by the Minister in opening these proceedings and as is now implied by the language used, which is taken from the Act, that it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into definite matters of public importance, I suggest that it will set in motion a proceeding which is calculated to interefere with the rights of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

Mr. B. Lenihan

We were asked to do it.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

The Minister might note that I am endeavouring to make a serious contribution to this debate, which will be no less in aid of the Minister and the Government than anyone else. I might be listened to patiently because it is still possibly open to the Government to amend it and it may be open to them to adopt a proper proceeding. If a tribunal are appointed to pursue an investigation into opinions which have been expressed on television, with all the powers of the High Court to compel, perhaps Members of the House would like to be told what was enacted by "The King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords of the Temple and Commons" on 24th March, 1921.

It was enacted that the Court Tribunal would have power in "enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise", and of compelling "the production of documents," and if any person "being duly summoned as a witness before a tribunal makes default in attending", or, "being in attendance as a witness refuses to take an oath legally required by the tribunal to be taken or to produce any document in his power or legally required by the tribunal to be produced by him" the chairman may certify the offence and the unfortunate witness may be sent to jail.

How can one be sent to jail if his right to express his opinions freely is enshrined in the Constitution, subject to the restriction that he complies with the law requiring him not to express opinions which undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State? I am not seeking to argue more than to the limited extent to which I am arguing that the law enforced in 1937, the date of the enactment of the Constitution, in Article 50 is as follows:

Laws enacted before, but expressed to come into force after, the coming into operation of this Constitution, shall, unless otherwise enacted by the Oireachtas, come into force in accordance with the terms thereof.

I do not seek to argue that the Act of 1921, as applied to a proper matter, is inconsistent with the Constitution.

I shall ask Senator FitzGerald to continue his speech without interruption.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

The fact that it was introduced in a war situation is entirely irrelevant to the case I am making as I am sure the Leader of the House is well aware. I do not want to pursue this at the moment because it might have the effect that the argument which I shall put to the House, to be conveyed through the Minister here to the Government, might be lost.

I have grave doubts, based on the provisions of the Article of the Constitution I have read out, when it is directed at an inquiry concerning the question of free expression of opinion, whether that Act would be held to be properly applied under the Constitution to such matters. My doubt is increased very considerably by the fact that the Oireachtas has already directed itself very thoroughly to the question of regulation of broadcasting. It was contemplated in the Constitution that this might be so. It had already been done in relation to radio broadcasting in the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926. We had the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, and I suggest that there is a law, the only law enacted which is constitutional, which deals with this matter of ensuring that organs of public opinion such as radio shall not be used to undermine public order or morality, and that is the Broadcasting Act, 1960.

Section 18 of that Act which, I imagine, is well known to members of the Government, states that it casts the duty of impartiality on the authority: it shall be the duty of the authority that when it broadcasts any information, news or feature which relates to a matter of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate, the information, news or feature is expressed objectively and impartially and without any expression of the authority's own views. Section 16 gives the authority all the powers necessary for or incidental to the establishment and maintenance of a national television and sound broadcasting service. I cannot see how these two sections, read together and read with section 31, could be seen as doing anything other than regulating under the Constitution how broadcasting — by television in this case — is to be conducted without undermining public order, morality or the authority of the State.

There is a series of provisions in subsection (2) of section 16 which is worth looking at. They show that the Oireachtas contemplated that the authority might require sanctions appropriate to achieving this purpose. The authority is empowered to originate and to procure programmes from any source, to make contracts, agreements and arrangements incidental or conducive to the objects of the authority, to collect news, information and so on. I am not familiar with their procedures except in an incidental way arising out of an occasional case, but I doubt very much if an authority given such a heavy responsibility has not elaborated procedures whereby it may secure protection for itself in the matter of impartiality by contract. I should be very surprised if it has not this, and if this is so it is not the fault of the Oireachtas. It is, or ought to be provided that this extraordinarily powerful medium — and here I differ from Senator Keery — would not be used to undermine public order, morality or the authority of the State.

There were a number of courses open to the Government when faced with this situation. I am capable of saying the hard word as well as the soft word, but I have some sympathy with those members of the Government who are obviously hard-working and dedicated men and who must have been extremely disturbed with this conflict which arose recently between one of their colleages and the RTE Authority. The Government could have adopted any one of a number of courses which would have avoided much of the trouble that followed.

The first course might have been that the Minister might have exercised his power, which is quite an extraordinary power. We see that he may direct the authority in writing to allocate broadcasting time for any announcements by or on behalf of any Minister of State in connection with the functions of that Minister of State and the authority must comply with this direction. There is no limitation on the time which shall be made available; we could have a weekly programme on the activities of the Minister for Justice, on the code of moneylenders, how it is enforced, the difficulties of enforcing it, and the information available. Appeals could have been made to the citizens to cooperate and so on. If the present Minister for Justice had been the Minister concerned, I am sure he would have gone on television, merry as a bee, and would have gained more votes for his party than he would have lost. But for some reason the Minister for Justice did not choose to exercise that power.

Under section 6 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, when the Government found themselves faced with a conflict between a Minister of State and the authority, if they decided they had lost confidence in the authority, in its impartiality and in its wisdom in the administration of its affairs, they might have removed the authority. But they did not do that. I do not see how they could have made that choice but it was a way of operating which would have at least faced us squarely with the whole question of the relationship of the Government with the authority.

Another method might have been to have made an inquiry, not into the manner in which these gentlemen collected the information which led them to form the opinions they expressed — which seems to me to strike at the root of the free expression of public opinion: people being possessed of their ordinary rights in law to protect themselves and the duty of the authority being there to require that these expressions should be impartial — but into the impartiality of the authority, and this would seem to be a legitimate constitutional inquiry. Such an inquiry would appear to be possible without striking at the confidence of those people who had to prepare that programme and other programmes.

The Leader of my party used good and wise words which I adopt in referring to this whole affair. He referred to the state of public uneasiness. This is true because great public uneasiness was caused by that programme. People whose judgment I greatly respect came to me the following day and expressed utter shock at what they saw. Some of them said there must be awful people in RTE because they were horrified at the possibility that a social evil of the kind alleged could exist. The Government could have taken a course which I and Members of my party would have supported. They could have had an inquiry into the social evils alleged and this would have been a very appropriate step to take when one has regard to the terms of the Preamble to the Constitution, of which some of the language is very ennobling. I quote:

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained,

and so on.

True social order shall not be attained while any substantial segment of opinion believes there are practices directed against the poorest of our people which are not being tackled. There was some indication from the remarks made by the Minister in Dáil Éireann that it was difficult to get proof. We understand this but there may be a case for strengthening the powers in relation to matters of this kind. There are strange and strong powers in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. If one is caught with a salmon he starts off with the onus of proof as to where he got it from. There could be a strengthening of the moneylending code which, may I remind Members of the House, apart from a minor amendment in 1929, is precisely the same as it was in 1900.

We have been busy these past 69 years, have we not? There is a social evil and why do Governments not see to it that fresh powers are enacted to tackle this evil? Each of the other parties in the House would be with them on that.

There was another action possibly open, depending on the information available to the Minister and to the gardaí. If the producers of this programme behaved as the Minister alleged they did, it would seem that they could be prosecuted for corrupt practices. It cannot be in accordance with public policy that, as the Minister alleged, people were paid to tell lies to the public.

The gravest consequences seem to follow from pursuance of this line, that is to say, the line that it seems to be proposed to pursue. If this line of inquiry as to the preparation of the programme and the opinions expressed on it is applied and constitutionally permitted, which I doubt, it strikes at the authority of the authority and henceforth their ability to maintain impartiality. The extraordinary thing is that the inquiry is not directed at the authority. It is directed at a programme. It is directed at the people employed by the authority.

I have not thought this out any further but I invite the Minister and Members of the House to open their minds to the dangers of this. Here is an inquiry into the activities of particular employees of one State body running right through the representatives of the authority, ignoring them and rejecting their statement that the programme was impartial, correct and authentic. What are employees of other State bodies to think on any matter? What precedent are we setting for similar inquiries?

Not in the slightest degree to protect myself from anything that anyone may care to say about me in relation to what remains to be said, I should like to say that I am not one of those people who think that his particular party carry some extraordinary virtue which other parties do not carry. I do not think that virtue is divided in this Assembly in any particular way, and if one of my friends were sitting where the Minister is I should like to think that he would consider himself as free as I do to say what I am not going to say. Obviously, there are Deputies, Senators and Ministers with at least as high a view of what should be done for the country as have any of the Opposition, but we must look at the order of events which preceded this inquiry proposal.

I am shocked at the implications of the extraordinary political skill shown by the Minister in this matter. I take it that we are discussing this resolution to prevent us discussing another one, but let us have a look at the events.

Do not press me for dates but I assure the Senator I know about those things. I sat through one of them with great interest as a very young person. I knew all about the first in a professional way before it was published and I acted for the much-maligned Member of the Fianna Fáil Party who was the subject of the third inquiry and whose sole executor I was subsequently.

I know a lot about those affairs. The point I want to make is that the then Taoiseach did not count the cost in terms of the interests of his own party. He saw the long-term dangers of having Ministers of Government subjected to charges which were not being investigated in a manner which would satisfy the public.

I think I belong in a tradition which would naturally be sympathetic with the right to dissent but not unaware of the necessity to have that right to dissent subject to some sort of restraints or controls. I find it difficult to find the language appropriate for what I want to say. I think it was Lord Justice Holmes who said that the test should be that it should not be right to cry "fire" in a crowded theatre. It is a sharp phrase. It indicates the sort of thing I am getting at.

We must recognise that we are living in a time when there is taking place a revolution of rising expectation everywhere. This is associated with the matter of economic growth which tends sometimes to separate classes, to create classes, to create divisions. Even the classes of persons or economic groups who are far better off than they were ten years ago — and let us face it, this is true of the great mass of people here — are still wanting more. This tends to make them more critical, I think, than perhaps they ought to be. I feel the word "complacent" is too quickly used when a Minister gives an account of an achievement that he is perfectly entitled to be proud of or to have been associated with.

The word "complacent" is too easy to say. We are a new State. I do not think I am wrong in saying that we are the only State that emerged out of the 1914-18 War that still sticks it in Europe. That is a remarkable fact and I adopt the remark of my colleague, Professor Kelly, here yesterday when he objected to the bad manners of some Ministers, the general attitude of others and so on, but said that it cannot be said, that it is impossible to say, there has been any persistent effort by the Fianna Fáil Government to deny free speech up to this. However, this could have consequences that perhaps are not even being contemplated by the Government.

Senator Keery referred to the desirability of a press council. I know little enough about it. I have no complaint about the way the press go on but I feel that there is insufficient disagreement among the papers: they all too readily adopt the same point of view. I feel they are of accord and that they tend to be interested in what is exciting, interesting, in what is news. If a man murders his wife with a hatchet, that is news. If he sits down comfortably with her for the afternoon that is not news, and does not appear at all. The balance gets disturbed accordingly.

I feel we should be trying to nurture in our people pride in our past and in our own achievement in self government, while being aware of the necessity to criticise very vitally, strongly, unrestrainedly. There should be a deliberate policy to appreciate what has been handed down to us. There are people here who know much more about education than I do but I have taken in a simple way the following phrase as being what education is about. Education is much more about understanding the achievement of the past than it is about criticising it and criticising its defects. Criticism is appropriate but an understanding of achievement is also appropriate. I think the achievements all over the world of the reformed capitalism, of capitalism reformed by Lord Keynes, have made that system one which has utterly belied the prophesying elements in Marx. There is a lot of truth in Marx. Those truths remain in the social insights more than anything else.

To summarise my position, it would be this: I emphasise the importance of liberty which I would extend to include the dissipation of want. I cannot accept any theory of liberty which does not demand strong efforts to help the poor, whose interests are sacred. The phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution is good and I am happy to adopt it: "True social order attained". True social order will not be attained unless, when allegations of the kind recently made are not received with suspicion as if they had come from Maoists or Trotskyites or anyone else who represent a long trend of wise discontent with modern civilisation, even if some of them may constitute a security risk to be coped with on its proper level, those people's interests should be of first concern. Their interests will not be served when liberty is endangered. It will be endangered unless the right to free expression of opinion is guaranteed, recognised, preserved and energetically protected.

I see great danger in the course proposed here. The Government cannot expect the people here to have continued confidence in them or in the Oireachtas which permits it, if they allow charges of the kind which have been made in Dáil Éireann by people of standing, former Ministers, men engaged in professions which make them aware of what they are entitled to say or what they are not entitled to say, go without reproach. I will end with a phrase taken from a man, who is frequently quoted, but whose name is rarely given, Lord Acton. His phrase is about power corrupting. It does not always corrupt. It has improved a few people. I can think of a few in the early 1930s who were improved by it anyhow. The phrase is: "Democracy without a moral standard can no more stand than a republic governed by Marat," the French revolutionary who, I think, died in his bath like I hope no member of the present Government dies.

Professor Quinlan

I will make just a few brief observations on the inquiry as suggested. I have listened with great attention to Senator Alexis FitzGerald's excellent contribution and I think the Government would be very wise, even at this late stage, to take full cognisance of what he has said. It was given, as we would have expected from him, in the highest tradition of his profession and certainly, listening to it, it fell very much in with many of my own reactions to what has been suggested of this inquiry, because I think the whole point of it is wrongly planned.

There are three issues, to my mind, that have arisen. One partially comes into this proposed inquiry but is of relatively long standing, that is, how are the RTE Authority discharging the duties we committed to them under the Broadcasting Act, 1960? Having taken a considerable part in the framing of that Act, or at least in the discussion on it in Seanad Éireann, I have had many moments of unease since then and it would seem that a look into RTE should be on a much broader front. Indeed it is setting a very dangerous precedent that the Government should claim on the one hand when we put up a semi-State authority that it has been endowed with all power, that we cannot question it, and we get the reply: "It was enshrined in the Act, you were a party to that Act setting that body up and its terms are to act in accordance with that".

Now the Government will be able to go through that Act and actually have a go at an individual team of employees of that body. That is against every ideal we have had about the relationship between a Government and a semi-State body. Surely the authority of any semi-State body is fully responsible for the activities of the employees within the body. If anybody is to take a rap for a breach of the Act it is the authority and the authority alone. If the authority in any semi-State body is found to have acted ultra vires then it is time for the Government to remove that authority, and a new one, on being taken on, has a duty as the first task to investigate whatever went wrong down the line and to take appropriate action in regard to it. Surely that is the ordinary procedure in regard to this.

The part of the Broadcasting Act quoted by Senator FitzGerald is the one of course which we are all concerned about, that is the question of this mighty powerful medium and that it should be impartial — that it should be seen to be impartial in accordance with the terms of the Act. A broad inquiry on that basis would probably be not of this type but a study preparatory to amending the Broadcasting Act or setting our course for the next ten years based on our present experience. That would be highly opportune.

To my mind the first task suggested here in the proposed tribunal, the planning, preparation, arrangement, presentation of the recent television programme et cetera in accordance with the 1960 Act is something which should be committed to the authority. If their planning was too little or too skimpy it is not for us here to criticise it. It was intended it would be able to carry criticism in any particular sector, so I cannot see that paragraph 1 of the motion is important. In fact I cannot see that the authority have anything to answer in regard to this. That is their job, and provided that they have not contravened the section of the Act then I do not see what they have to answer.

But what they are interested in, I take it, is the broad question I have mentioned about impartiality in newstalks, features et cetera, and doing nothing to undermine public order, morality or the authority of the State. But an inquiry into that could not be based on a particular programme. Many of us have been very disturbed by many programmes we have seen but that is a judgment on the authority and can only be a judgment based on action over a much wider front than what is contemplated here.

The Senator should not attack or discuss proceedings in the other House.

Professor Quinlan

Paragraph 4 of the motion states: "The inquiries on behalf of the Garda Síochána and the statements taken by the Garda Síochána which relate to the programme." Are the Garda Síochána to be made the scapegoat in this? If we find that Radio Telefís Éireann is right, then, under paragraph 4, are the Garda the scapegoats? The Minister for Justice who is responsible for the Garda would have fallen down on his job and obviously this Minister must take the responsibility and take the rap for it just the same as if the "7 Days" team fell down in their job it is the Radio Telefís Éireann authority who would have to take responsibility for that.

Looking at it I cannot see what the inquiry can solve. One problem we are interested in certainly, is establishing paragraph 2, but I do not see that the tribunal as set up it can really establish that. As for the other, No. 1, I think that Senator Bourke's amendment quite rightly shifts the inquiry, and the whole goes away from that. At least if the tribunal are to take it in its present form, the inquiry would be much better for this amendment, but I think that the Government would be wiser, even at this late stage to withdraw it, think about it again over Christmas and come back with something that would be much fairer and much more comprehensive after Christmas.

Mícheál Cranitch

After all that has been said, maybe it is time for us to come down to earth and take a short, incisive, searching look at what is before us. In order to do that, let us go back for a moment and see what caused all this rumpus, what gave rise to this dispute, disagreement or disquiet, and what led up to the need for this inquiry in the first instance. All we need do is to go back to the night of the 11th November. On that night an excellently produced feature was screened on Telefís Éireann which proposed to expose the disgraceful behaviour of unlicensed moneylenders in Dublin.

The public were given the impression that many of these unlicensed moneylenders actually operated in Dublin and that the methods used by them were a disgrace in any Christian country. Some of those who saw that feature told me about it in Cork the next morning. People all over the country saw this programme and accepted it as a portrayal of something that actually existed. Nobody seemed to have any doubt about it. People said to me that they saw on the screen a portrayal of a state of affairs which should not be allowed to exist.

What is to be done about it? It never occurred to me that there was something missing from that programme, which shows how much we are under the influence of the screen. Television is the most potential developer of our line of thought in this country at the moment. It comes into our homes and we are subject to the presentations and slants it wishes to convey. The greatest danger of all television or radio programmes is their selectivity. It cannot be said that certain things portrayed on the screen or given to us in newspaper articles are false but, by presenting certain facets and viewpoints, impressions can be given and the overall effect will be that a false image or picture is given.

Let us refer now to the feature on the 11th November. It would appear from the statement made by the Minister for Justice in Dáil Éireann that something was wrong with that feature, that something was missing and that the situation was not as bad as we thought it was. The Minister for Justice had made inquiries, because he is responsible for the men whose duty it is to see that such things do not happen. The Garda Síochána are as fine a force as any police force in the world. They are aware of anything wrong which is going on. That is generally accepted throughout the whole country. They are definitely well-informed. I will not go into the allegations and counter-allegations mentioned in the Dáil. It appears to me that the people who were most vocal in demanding that an inquiry should be set up were not the Members of the Government or the Members of the Fianna Fáil Party but the Members of the Labour and the Fine Gael Parties.

We have heard much about the freedom and liberty of the press, radio and television. We are all for freedom in these media. Freedom of expression and of speech is a thing which is very dear to Irish hearts but liberty should not be allowed to degenerate into licence. We can twist the truth by over-selectivity in our presentation. If we want freedom of expression we must have a very high standard of integrity. We must present not only our own viewpoint but the viewpoint of men who disagree with us.

From time to time we can find fault with many of our TV presentations on this account. On many of the regular features of RTE, viewpoints have been expressed which alarm us and which are not in keeping with our standards. Unfortunately, viewers come away from their screens with the impression that there is no answer to the points raised. A television authority must be careful to see, when allegations are made against a State service or against businesses or people or movements and especially against national movements, that somebody must be there who is competent, able and willing to refute these statements. There is a great danger in the media of television, radio and newspapers that there could be distortion of the truth inasmuch as the two sides of the story are not presented.

Much has been said about the proposed terms of reference. Some of the speakers on the other side of the House want to have it both ways. Some of them say the terms are too wide and others say they are not wide enough. A particular programme started all this discussion. Let us examine that programme under the four headings of the motion, which include everything that is required to examine that particular programme fairly, honestly and quickly. Suppose that a Senator on the other side were taken seriously and it was proposed to have an inquiry into the television authority. I can see that perhaps six months or 12 months would elapse before we got anywhere. The TV authority would have to be inquired into and, in turn, the tribunal would have to inquire into those programmemakers with special reference to the programme of 11th November last.

It may be years before they get finality. It is extremely urgent that this tribunal be set up as quickly as possible and get down to work as expeditiously as possible. This affair has indeed captured the imagination of the public; for many it is a godsend because there seems to be nothing exciting in the newspapers at the moment. Others are worried about freedom of the press, television and radio and the sooner these doubts are settled the better. For that reason I am very glad that the Government have decided to set up this tribunal. I commend the terms of reference and I hope we will have results as quickly as possible.

Mr. Dunne

We are supporting the amendment of Senator Bourke and we do so for the excellent reasons she gave in putting forward the amendment. We believe if this tribunal is to inquire, as is set out in paragraph 1, into the preparation and planning of this programme, we shall be setting a very undesirable precedent of such a tribunal entering a field where initiative is very necessary. If the tribunal are to keep on these lines we shall not alone inhibit the young men and women of RTE, who to date have shown commendable initiative, but we may succeed in intimidating them.

Much has already been said both in this and the other House on this matter. We should be proud that such a debate could take place in our national Parliament because this is proof that we are a free country. In countries that are not free there can be no quarrel between the Government and the national radio and television service because they all speak with one voice. I would suggest that we tread very carefully unless we want to bring about that situation here, and I do not think that anyone wants that.

What we are faced with here is yet another problem of democracy; democracy, excellent form of Government though it is, presents problems not the least of which is the constant attempt to reconcile the interest of one or a group of individuals with the interests of the majority. These are the classic problems of a democracy and in the field of communications we have been successful to a large extent in solving these problems in relation to the older forms of communication, for instance, the newspapers. Our newspapers indulge in a fair amount of speculation and much of this speculation is often covered in anonymity. In the comparatively new field of television it may be that we have yet to establish a correct relationship between the Government, the community and that service.

It has been obvious for some time that there are problems or at least the Government seem to think so between them and RTE. It might have been better if the Government had taken another way of examining these relationships, how they exist and how they should exist rather than the course of action they took. It honestly seems to us that the Government have literally seized on the opportunity given to them by this programme on 11th November, 1969, and it must remain a matter of very wide regret that the greater social issues involved or implied in that programme are now apparently being swept aside. The terms of reference have been examined in this House by lawyers and I do not propose to try to cover the ground they have so adequately covered, but it seems to me, as a layman, that these terms of reference are directed in a relatively narrow way against this programme and the people who planned it.

We must state that the "7 Days" team did not create this problem of illegal moneylending and its abuses, nor did they discover it. They merely did what to their credit they have done on other occasions — they brought the problem to our attention. It was a problem, like many others in our community, whose existence we are conscious of but we shrug our shoulders, we say it does not concern us and we hope it will be forgotten. A similar problem in this connection was that of itinerancy and how much we owe to the workers in RTE for the situation we now have where itinerancy is recognised as a national problem.

Public reaction to the programme we are now discussing was tremendous and I think was unequalled by any other similar programme ever put out by our broadcasting service. There is now public uneasiness but I do not think it is with regard to the planning and presentation of the programme nor with the manner and means in which interviews were obtained, or alleged to have been obtained. There is uneasiness that this controversy, this debate and this inquiry may shunt this problem on to the sidelines. It would be a pity and a tragedy if the crusading spirit that so distinguished this programme were to stand in danger, as I think it does in this inquiry. These remarks are not directed to the eminent gentlemen who no doubt will form this tribunal but it must be accepted that if the tribunal go ahead and, however charitable they may be in their findings, that if in the future the men and women of RTE think of a similar programme concerned with a social problem they will have to think twice before they embark upon such a programme.

In the light of the experience of their colleagues who handled this particular programme, they may not go ahead with this crusading spirit on television. We must acknowledge that we have been embarrassed at times when the spotlight of television has been turned on our activities; at least this is true in so far as my own trade union movement is concerned. Very often RTE have carried out searching and probing examinations of our activities and however embarrassed and, indeed, hurt we may have been on occasions, we have not complained; to use an American term, "We have got to learn to live with it". There are many complaints about what are described as canned programmes on Telefís Éireann but, of course, the answer to this particular problem would be to have an extension of home produced programmes but these must and should include programmes of a social nature and in this respect great credit is due to RTE.

Unlike the cinema where a particular production may run for many months, the people who plan and prepare these television programmes must work not on a weekly or a daily schedule but on an hourly schedule. To the extent that I have had experience of RTE, either as a participant or as a viewer, I have often been impressed by the obvious depth of research and homework that has been done by those in charge of such programmes.

Senator Bourke has emphasised, and I have already accepted, that her amendment is so designed as to highlight the importance of the tribunal examining the authenticity and accuracy of the programme and its information. In so far as I can make out from the welter of statements and counter-statments, charges and counter-charges that have distinguished as well as doing the opposite to this debate in the House, the real issue in this whole controversy is whether the programme was genuine. I did not see the programme but it seems to me now, as to many others, that it is not important as to whether the participants were genuine. I suggest that if they were not genuine this would not be the first and certainly will not be the last occasion on which fiction and fictitious characters have been used to draw attention to social problems which are nevertheless real. To what extent did this happen in the novels of Charles Dickens and who can measure the contribution that our own Brendan Behan made to the case against capital punishment? What remains of this particular programme in the public mind is the uneasiness caused by the programme as to whether such an evil exists within our community.

It has been stated elsewhere that there are not more than 12, 15 or maybe 25 unlicensed moneylenders in the city of Dublin. As a native of this city I should like to accept that in a city of almost three-quarters of a million people there are not more than 25 unlicensed moneylenders. If we could believe this I would be proposing that we change the name of our capital city to Utopia. There are streets in Dublin in which there are more than 25 unlicensed moneylenders and for anybody to suggest otherwise is to show lamentable ignorance of our city.

There has been doubt if not denial that violence or threats of violence are used in the collection of these illegally lent moneys. We are dealing with illegal moneylending and there are no legal sanctions to those illegal moneylenders if there is a default in repayment and, therefore, it surely is obvious that not merely at this despicable level but even at a higher level when there are no legal means open to certain people there will be recourse to violence or some such tactics.

I am proud of this city and of the people of the city, but I do not deny that there is a very small group of people engaged in illegal moneylending and that at least some of these are prepared to use violence when there is default of payment. We have not here a lasting city and we certainly have not a heavenly city. We have a metropolis and, as in every other metropolis, there will inevitably be cases of this kind.

As bad as illegal moneylending, as a Dubliner will tell one, is the practice in regard to dockets where vouchers are purchased from firms and sold and resold at an enhanced value. We know, too, that there is an illegal, but thank God, very small trade in children's allowance books. We would all like to think that these practices are not carried on but they are and we have always known that they have been carried on and the merit of this particular programme is that it reminded us of these evils and pricked our consciences so that we knew something must be done about them.

The implications of this programme are not critical of and do not cast any reflection on the Garda Síochána. They cannot be expected to know everything. Indeed the Minister for Justice rightly stressed the peculiar difficulties concerning a true and accurate assessment of the extent of this particular problem. This is obvious when one pictures the two main characters involved. The lender, if that is the correct term, will certainly not report this matter to the gardaí and the unfortunate debtor, for very many reasons, will not repair to the gardaí. I believe this is a chronic habit, almost like alcoholism. They get into this web and they cannot get out of it for many reasons, not the least of which may be the threat of violence.

I repeat that there is no criticism or reflection on the gardaí in this matter. There should be, in fact, no resentment of the gardaí, because it is the duty of each and every citizen to assist the authorities. It is not the first time, and one would hope it will not be the last time, that the communications media, television, press or radio, have drawn attention to and highlighted social problems and inadequacies and brought them to the attention of the authorities.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Hear, hear.

Mr. Dunne

I am satisfied that the evils, and they are evils, highlighted in this programme are real, are present in our city and are probably as extensive as the programme indicated. It is a matter of regret that all the events which have flowed since the 11th November are apparently tending to obliterate, if not entirely, to a great extent, the issue rightly and properly raised by RTE. All of us have been shaken out of our complacency and our sometimes unconscious acceptance of things as they are.

I hold, with Senator Cranitch, that freedom of expression must not deteriorate into licence. I do not go along with those who hold that freedom of expression should be completely unqualified. If this is the voice of the minority it is also the voice of the majority which holds that such freedoms must be qualified not least by the moral law as we understand it and will continue to hold dear in this country. However, in this case I believe that RTE and the planners and practitioners of this "7 Days" programme deserve not the censure which is implied by a tribunal but the thanks of all who wish well to our country, the thanks of all who are pledged to the elimination of our existing social evils. However much we would like to think that these evils do not exist they do exist and the best thanks of the community are due to RTE for highlighting them.

I shall not, obviously the tribunal will do that, pass judgment on whether the participants in the programme were genuine. There can be no doubt, however, that the evil highlighted by that programme and brought to the attention of every citizen is real. We should not attack the possible shadow of the participants and lose the substance of the real problem.

Acting Chairman

Professor Crinion.

Mr. Crinion

Thank you for the compliment.

Mr. Malone

Come over to this side of the House.

Mr. Crinion

We have our professors too. This motion is concerned with whether the "7 Days" programme screened on November 11th was genuine. In "7 Days", like the news, we accept what we are told as true and we expect that the characters we see are the real people concerned. We have been led to believe by reports from the Garda authorities that people were paid to be interviewed on this programme who were not involved in this problem.

It is a very dangerous precedent to pay a person for an interview on a programme like "7 Days" or the news because there is the danger that if certain people are paid enough they will give one the report one wants. If we had been told at the beginning of this programme that some of the characters were fictitious I do not think we would be debating this motion today. Since the Opposition have called for an inquiry and the RTE Authority has claimed that everything in the programme was genuine it is amazing to hear so much discussion on it. It is strange that the people who asked for the inquiry are trying so hard to change the terms of reference. The terms of reference set out provide for a public inquiry in the fairest possible manner before the judiciary. From that inquiry we will find out whether the programme was genuine and whether those who gave interviews were genuine.

I have heard people speak today of books and films. It is accepted in films and in story-books that you have a poetic licence and even in the case of an autobiography, but in a programme where you are given the news or in a programme which is taken as genuine and of the same quality as the news we expect what we see is reality. It has been known in radio programmes where a person wants to highlight some grievance that they have to take somebody from the other side or from the body responsible for the grievance so that they can give their views on it. I have even seen people who wanted to air a grievance not too long ago receiving cheques afterwards for this, but there was never any mention of the other side giving their views on the particular point.

Programmes like "7 Days" should be able to stand up to an inquiry if the case arises. If what they said, and what came through from the authority, is true they should have nothing to fear. At least we must guard the public in seeing that programmes like this are of a genuine nature. I suppose one of the first programmes on what we might call an awakening of public conscience was the Hospitals Trust programme. I was amazed at the slant which was put on that programme by the team producing it. They never interviewed any of the people concerned in Hospitals Trust but they tried to make them guilty in the public eye when there was nobody there to defend them and to show what had been done by the Hospitals Trust since they were set up more than 30 years ago.

It is all very well to take facts and figures and to portray them, but I feel every side should be heard on a programme like that. If we are going to screen something which will awaken the public conscience, all sides must see it, all sides must be heard because it is very easy to give a biased account.

Not in the least but when the Senator interrupted me I mentioned the programme last night had all sides on it. In the "7 Days" programme on moneylending only one side was represented. I heard Senator Dunne mention that unions were probed in a particular programme by Telefís Éireann. I am not sure which programme he had in mind but I would imagine that some members from the union involved were on the programme as well as the ordinary members who had a grouse or the general public who were objecting to it. Those people were able to answer their case on the programme.

In this motion we are asking that a particular programme, about which we have doubts from what we have heard, should be the subject of an inquiry to decide whether the programme was genuine, whether it portrayed the truth and whether the people who were on the programme were the actual people involved. If that is the case, and if as they say it is genuine, they should have no worries. In programmes such as this, and in the future, as has been mentioned, people should be free to go and portray something if they feel they should. I do not think that the public or people in this House would ever object, if any aspect that should be portrayed was done provided that all the people concerned or all sections of any particular item were represented on the programme and had their say. In that way the public would be able to judge for themselves.

To go back to the programme last night, everybody there, when the programme was over, had heard the different sections involved in it. They had got their views and they could judge for themselves, but when you highlight and go for a one-sided slant or a one-sided report on any programme you are going into very dangerous territory.

Mr. Horgan

So is the Senator.

Mr. Crinion

Maybe, but it is amusing the way the Opposition hate to hear; when you have to go through a public inquiry into any particular programme they must be very much afraid of what will come out of it. That is what we are asking, that we will have a fair report on that particular programme. For my own feeling it was, after seeing what had happened in the Hospitals Trust and other programmes done by this particular team, that they were taking their leads particularly from some programmes from abroad and that it was fair game whatever they could say without giving all sides a chance to air their particular views.

Here we are asking to see how bad this moneylending is. We have heard different reports on it, but in this House all sides will get their say in alternating one after the other across the House. The "7 Days" programme is like that. It is an open discussion on any particular item, but the way it has been heading, particularly in this particular programme, you could feel that the producers of the programme had their minds more or less made up what would be the outcome.

Miss Bourke

The Senator is prejudging the issue.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McDonald)

I should like to remind the Senator that I do not think it would be proper to prejudge the matter. I do not wish to hinder him in any way but at the same time he must keep as near as possible to the motion.

Mr. Crinion

Fair enough. In the four items, we are asking that in a public sworn inquiry of this nature all the facts relating to that particular programme will be discussed, with all the records and scripts and even notes that the reports and directors made before the programme was screened, and the actual script, the tapes and films of the programme will be all made available to the inquiry. The people who made them will be giving their evidence so that the public can see in what manner the programme or programmes were devised, produced and what they had in mind before they started filming the programme. As we see here in paragraph 4, the statements that the Garda Síochána made as a result of the particular inquiry — because they were awakened and they knew quite a number of the people concerned and interviewed them immediately after the programme. All those statements will be brought to life and are brought forward on oath before the tribunal.

It will give the public an awareness of what is happening. It will also give them a feeling of how programmes such as "7 Days" are produced and whether they can rely or not on what they are seeing on the screen or in those particular programmes. In that manner we will know in future whether we can take it as if it is being portrayed as being more or less a news or a genuine programme, whether we are getting what we are expecting from a programme like this. On that account I commend this Resolution as put down by the Government to the House.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I want to support this amendment. I thought that Senator Bourke made a very strong point when she said that unless the opening paragraph be rephrased — and I do not think that her amendment alters the phrasing very much, it coalesces two paragraphs into one — the point she made was that unless that were done there would be at least a tendency on the part of the tribunal to concentrate primarily on the paragraph which related to the "planning, preparation, arrangement, production and presentation" of the programme rather than on the major questions which are really of concern. We ought to remember in this House that the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority has already under its own authority inquired into the whole programme and has publicly pronounced itself as being satisfied with the way in which it was produced, which, after all, is ultimately its responsibility, and has publicly stood over the planning, arrangement, preparation presentation and so on. Therefore by asking another tribunal to go into all this again, it is in fact the very basic authority and competence of the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority that is being challenged.

I would like to look at the balance of the terms of reference of this motion as put before us in the name of Senator Ó Maoláin on behalf of the Government. There are four terms of reference. The first one deals with planning, preparation, etc. The second one deals at some length with the "authenticity" of the programme, which is what we want to find out. Then very briefly there are three and four relating to the "inquiries" on the part of Radio Telefís Éireann and the "inquiries" on behalf of the Garda Síochána. Now I feel that it is not enough just to say that the tribunal should look into the inquiries on the part of the Garda Síochána and the statements taken by the Garda Síochána, because it is quite clear that the Garda Síochána not only took statements, but made statements, and furnished the Minister with information.

I would feel happier if, in relation to this fourth point, there were to be, in the minds of the tribunal, an obligation to examine the thoroughness of the inquiries by the Gardaí into the actual scope or extent of the unlicensed moneylending in the city and county of Dublin. The Minister informed the Dáil that the number of such unlicensed moneylenders is "undoubtedly below 25". This figure should be incorporated in the terms of reference in relation to what was inquired into by the Gardaí. The Gardaí should not have merely inquired into the statements made on the programme, but should have inquired also into all the implications thereof. It is a pity that the tribunal is not asked to find out what the Gardaí know of the scope of unlicensed moneylending. Senator Dunne has told us, in a very good speech, that in his opinion the extent of unlicensed moneylending is much greater than the Minister stated. The Minister stated that the number is below 25 in the whole area of Dublin city and county. Senator Dunne feels there were as many as 20 moneylenders in a single street in Dublin.

I should like to refer to a point made in support of her amendment by Senator Bourke that if every such survey programme or journalistic survey in any of our newspapers had to be prepared and a case presented which would, if necessary, satisfy a court, the amount of news items and survey results that could legitimately be printed in newspapers would be practically nil. Few items would be presented, if every item were to be subjected to such stringent tests to ensure that it would be capable of satisfying a court. Sampling techniques are perfectly legitimate. Sometimes implications or deductions therefrom are not satisfactory. If they were ruled out, and if every item had to be proved before saying anything, this would deprive newspapers, television and the radio of a very useful function in drawing public attention to things which the public should further examine.

I want to say clearly now that the Government amendment which was brought in, in answer to opposition suggestions in the Dáil, by Senator Ó Maoláin, constitutes a considerable improvement. It suggests the addition, in paragraph 2, of the words:

and whether or not these statements, comments and implications reflected reasonable journalistic care on the part of those responsible for the programme.

This makes a clear improvement on the original wording. We should consequently say something to welcome this Government amendment, which will of course be passed.

I return now to the question of what I would call the procedural approach. The tribunal is being asked to examine the procedural aspects. It is at least conceivable that the conclusions of this, or any such programme, might be correct on evidence which a court would consider insufficient. We should reflect on that point. The conclusions might be based on evidence which a court would be bound to deem insufficient. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that such conclusions might be correct. Indeed, I recall with horror one case of a man being executed in this country in those conditions. There was a temporary suspension by Government Order of the rules of evidence, which rules came into being again, after the execution. It is possible, then, to act on a conclusion based on evidence which a court would not consider sufficient. The conclusions might be true, though it might be difficult to establish their truth in court.

The Minister for Justice has made many statements. We know, from our own personal experience, that this particular Minister for Justice is not overloaded with scruple in his statements. He quite boldly and brashly says things which turn out to be quite groundless. I mentioned before the fact that he stated, publicly, confidently and persistently that I visited a prisoner of his in Mountjoy Jail. The Minister was so ignorant about his own jail, over which he is supposed to have correct information, as to state unchecked what had been told to him, unless he just invented it. He persisted in that statement that I had visited the prisoner. He withdrew it only after I had denied it three or four times. The statement was clearly improper and totally untrue.

Mr. McGlinchey

Are we discussing the motion?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am making a point that this particular Minister is capable of statements which turn out to be untrue, even in circumstances where the Minister ought to have known the truth of the matter in relation to his prisoner, and the prison under his jurisdiction and control.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McDonald)

Would Senator Sheehy Skeffington get back a little closer to the motion?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Speaking of certain TDs who have worked for RTE, the Minister referred in the Dáil to "ex-inmates of that institution." I should like to feel in relation to this particular motion that there will be some concern not only about the accuracy of the programme in its conclusions, but about the accuracy of the Minister for Justice in his public statements. He speaks with presumed authority when he says that it is "clear beyond question that the evidence presented in the programme is valueless". I feel that not to examine the validity of the evidence on the arrangements for the planning, preparation, arrangement, production and presentation, of such Ministerial statements, is to fail to follow all the implications which ought to arise in connection with a tribunal like this. The very definite official view expressed officially in the Dáil has been mentioned by others. At column 1265, number 8 of volume 242 the Minister says:

What is a certainty, however, is that if people like this are paid fees for making statements on television, these statements are, at best, quite valueless as evidence and, as I have explained, are according to themselves now, nothing more than a tissue of lies.

The Minister had said a number of these people had agreed that the statements were not true. The Minister says at column 1266 that he trusted the authorities in RTE would appreciate that:

they have incurred certain obligations, including the obligation to disclose honestly whether the programme was deliberately contrived for television.

Was there any such programme about which this could not be said? What does the Minister think programmes are? Does he think they are made for the home cinema? I find it disturbing that having mentioned that the gardaí found "one man" who went back on his statements, the Minister felt justified at column 1267 in saying "all these people", with reference to the statements they had got from "all these people" supposed to be described in the programme.

Mention has been made of fictitious characters. I feel that some of the Front Bench of the Government — and I do not include the Minister at present before us in this observation — appear to me to be fictitious. I can hardly believe in their genuine existence.

Acting Chairman

We have now reached the usual time for the luncheon adjournment.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

And you will again.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I notice that although he made some strong, affirmative and categorical statements in the Dáil the validity of the Minister's statements was not to be questioned by the tribunal; it is only RTE that is being indicted before this tribunal. I refer to column 1745, Volume 242, when the Minister said:

The fact is, there is no such thing as a strong-arm racket as suggested.

and at column 1746 of the same volume the Minister said:

The people who appeared on the show were "phonies" and we proved they were "phonies".

At column 1748 the Minister went on to say:

There are approximately 12 to 15 unlicensed moneylenders. There is no strong-arm protection racket, as alleged in the show. All that is "phoney".

I find it disturbing that this kind of thing can be said, apparently, not only with impunity but without any necessity for the information behind it being examined by the tribunal we are being asked to set up. My disquiet is increased by the statement at column 1859, Volume 242, when the Minister said:

The presentation of such a programme is of direct interest to me as Minister for Justice, because if the evidence was genuine, and if this criminal activity was in fact going on on the scale suggested, and going on openly at that, there could be no avoiding the conclusion that the Garda Síochána would stand indicted as hopelessly incompetent.

I find this disquieting, and I feel that this statement should be examined by the tribunal. The Minister went on to say in column 1861 of the same volume:

...objectively speaking, the evidence was worthless. And when I say worthless I do not mean just that the witnesses exaggerated — I mean that nobody could rely on a word they said on that programme.

This is an extreme statement which one would like to assume to be based on evidence at the Minister's command, but in the terms of reference before us we are not asked to have the evidence on which the Minister based such statements placed before the tribunal. At column 1866 of the same volume the Minister is quoted as saying:

It is clear, beyond question, that the evidence presented in the programme was, as I have said, valueless.

At column 1867 he said about the Garda Síochána:

Their answer is that they neither know of nor suspect the existence of anything in the nature of a moneylending racket backed up by strong-arm tactics of any shape or form.

The Minister further said:

The Garda estimate — and I emphasise that this relates to the number of people suspected of probably being in the business and not just people who could be proved to be in it — is something of the order of 12 or 15. Giving themselves adequate margin for error they say the figure is undoubtedly below 25.

Nor should the Senator encourage interruptions.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I never do that, but when they come I try to deal with them. As I was saying, unknown to a certain person or persons, certain things will be possible before such a tribunal which I think would horrify anybody who is concerned with the freedom of journalistic inquiry and journalism. What is being done in this kind of programme is of course an operation in free inquiry, and I feel that what is implied by such a tribunal in the original Act, with which certain people have not up till now been very fully informed, implied in the 1921 Act, give to the tribunal powers which we must really realise before we pass this Motion. It would be absurd for us to set up a tribunal and to say afterwards: "We did not know that it would have these powers." This I am afraid is what is suggested. We must realise that we are setting up a tribunal which will have the power not only to require that all the sources of information and all the documents and tapes shall be brought before it, but have the power also to jail for contempt any journalist, or inquirer, or research worker, of RTE who, on professional grounds, insists on protecting his sources of information. I do not know whether it is sincerely claimed by some Senators that they did not realise that, but I feel it my duty if there were any others than those who have said that they were ignorant about such tribunals, to inform them of the facts.

It is possible of course that if, as Senator Alexis FitzGerald seems to suggest, the way in which this Act is being used should contravene certain basic principles of our Constitution and that somebody who considers himself wronged under this tribunal, and under the Motion we are now passing, might have recourse to the courts to have the tribunal declared unconstitutional under the 1937 Constitution. However, one thing we cannot contend, is that (a) this British Act of March, 1921 is invalid because it was produced "in a war situation", and (b) it is perfectly valid because we are going to use it now to set up this tribunal.

I wonder, consequent on the inquiry of Senator Ó Maoláin, whether he will, in the light of the knowledge that has been placed before him by Senator Alexis FitzGerald and by myself, he will ask leave to withdraw the motion on the grounds that the war situation of 1921 was such, and the wording of the original Act was such, that we as free Irishmen could not possibly accept it with all its references to the majesty of the King and so on. I take it this is not his intention. I remain, therefore, a bit puzzled about his intentions. He should, unless he intends to ask leave to withdraw the motion, publicly and most emphatically proclaim that this British Act of March, 1921, is a good Act, and that it is upon this Act that he and we are still perfectly satisfied in 1969 to rely, for the setting up of this tribunal.

I do not want to delay the House very much more but I thought it necessary just to indicate that this talk about the "war situation" in 1921 unless the people using this argument are prepared to condemn the Act, is simply eye-wash and hypocritical eye-wash at that.

Under the terms of reference then which it is proposed to amend, and I am supporting all three amendments, the effect of these amendments would be to prevent the focus of this tribunal from being too narrow, on mere procedures, arrangements and so on and not, as the amendments require, sufficiently on the broad question of the major social problems involved in the whole matter of this television show on moneylenders, and of the way in which it was contemptuously dealt with in the Dáil by the Minister for Justice.

Those who came in from the Free State Army were minders of it before 1932.

An Cathaoirleach

These interruptions should cease.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Let us have a civilised debate.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Killilea

If that was Senator Kelly who interrupted me he made a statement yesterday that he came into politics. He did not come into politics. He was brought into politics. He went before the people and was rejected.

An Cathaoirleach

Will Senator Killilea please come back to the motion? These interruptions should cease.

Mr. Killilea

I will.

Professor Kelly

I did not interrupt on this occasion. I reserve my right to do so when attacked across the floor of the House in the way I have just been attacked.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is a most civilised contribution from Senator Killilea.

Mr. Killilea

At least I am giving a plain ordinary non-academic point of view.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is time the Senator brought the matter back to the point.

Mr. Killilea

Mr. Killilea

As a new Senator in this House I am really appalled at this. I thought that when a Senator was making a maiden speech he was allowed do so without interruption. However, I have learned something today and I will know what to do the next time. I will give back as good as I get. Now, coming back to Senator Dunne, I thought he was leaning on the left, if you know what I mean, when he said he is delighted with the performance of RTE. So am I. I am not against it. They have come up very well and they are really satisfying most of the people, but on this motion I fail to see why Senator Dunne said that he believes RTE were right. I cannot understand why he has spoken at all on this motion because if he goes in with his mind fully made up that RTE or the "7 Days" programme in question were perfectly right, what is the point in standing up here and speaking on this motion? I say, as a rural chap speaking for the plain people in the country, I welcome this. The truth will come out and we will welcome it. When the truth comes out we will be delighted with it. Whatever way it may go, that is the important thing.

Mr. Lyons

As another countryman, like my friend the Senator on the other side of the House, I should like to make a countryman's contribution to this debate as well. The legalistic end of it has been very well put by Senator Bourke and the other people who have intervened in the debate but to me this thing is not just as simple as even the legalistic people have made it.

Ruairí Brugha

There is an old axiom in television that when people stop talking about you you had better watch out because you are losing your grip. Certainly, judging by the last couple of days there is no doubt about it that television is alive, and very much alive. It is possibly because of that that this motion has come before this House from the Dáil.

I was impressed by Senator Jessop speaking in relation to this motion and in relation to the amendment, because where the amendment refers in general to authenticity, which is incidentally referred to under paragraph 2, paragraph 1 refers to the planning, preparation, arrangement and production. Surely in the examination by this tribunal the methods of securing information are also important. The Senator referred to the possibility of the machinery being faulty in RTE. I hope I am not going away from the discussion. It is important that this aspect should be examined. Paragraph 1 enables the tribunal to examine this aspect.

Senator FitzGerald doubts the wisdom and constitutionality of the motion. Not being legally informed I do not know what the Constitution side is but I presume that our Constitution would enable the Oireachtas to set up a tribunal to examine any matter which is described here as "a definite matter of urgent public importance". I do not think there is any curtailment of the rights of any individual in the setting up of such a tribunal. Senator FitzGerald suggests also that the Act should not be directed against the free expression of opinion, but this is not intended in the setting up of this tribunal. What we want to find out is the truth and I do not think anybody on the Government side would wish to restrict the free expression of opinion.

Senator Quinlan referred to how the Authority is carrying out its duty and he seemed to think that it should be dismissed if the Government thought it was not carrying out its duty. I believe that the RTE Authority and the executives in RTE are doing their very best in handling this extremely important medium. I do not think it should be assumed that the Broadcasting Act, 1960, which comes up for review next year is a perfect instrument but it was the only instrument available in order to make way for this new medium — an extremely powerful medium as many members of the Seanad have mentioned — and I hope Senator Quinlan will keep in mind if we are discussing possible amendments to the Broadcasting Act that one should try and learn from the experience of the past. I think the Act has worked reasonably well in itself.

We are concerned with the simple matter of truth.

Ruairí Brugha

I maintain that the Government have never abused their power under the Act but I hope I will be allowed to say that there is always the possibility that anybody in Telefís Éireann who is given an instruction by an executive may draw the conclusion that this instruction was coming from the Government when in fact it is merely an ordinary internal discipline. This is worth keeping in mind because there is a lot of confusion with regard to RTE and a good deal of this confusion is unnecessary.

I hope that the question rightly raised by Senator Sheehy Skeffington in relation to contempt of court cannot arise and that any journalist will be entitled to claim the privilege of giving evidence in private. One other point which I should like to make in relation to the amendments is that if any Member of this House was a member of a research team in an organisation such as RTE and if he were instructed to go out and investigate a particular matter while, at the same time, being told that there was one area that should not be examined, I know what the reaction of any Senator would be to that and I know even better what the reaction of anybody in RTE would be. Yet, it seems to me that the amendment was intended to wipe out that side of things in paragraph 1 which deals with the planning, preparation and production of the recent programme. If that is the purpose of the amendment, I could not support it because in this case the tribunal should be entitled, above all else, to examine all aspects and our own people in RTE should be prepared to place all the relevant data at the disposal of the tribunal.

In conclusion, I would say that the freedom which RTE have is healthy for our society, but where any serious doubt is cast either on their programmes or, as in this case, on the gardaí, then as far as possible these doubts should be resolved and that is the purpose of setting up this tribunal. We must not forget that whereas freedom of speech is essential there should not be any danger of abuse of this privilege. I hope this inquiry will result in resolving this matter and that it will throw light on the entire subject.

Mr. McDonald

Because I have only a few minutes in which to speak on account of the agreement to wind up the debate, I shall just make one point and that is that, like most people who have spoken here today, I am anxious that the truth should be established. Shortly before this "7 Days" programme was screened there was a similar programme on the smuggling of pigs and, as a farmer, I was very interested in that programme. An indication that that programme portrayed the truth was that the price of pigs shot up on the home market by 10s per cwt. dead weight, during the following week, presumably because the customs officials had become a little active, which resulted in the supply from the North being cut off or at least greatly reduced. Members of the farming community can at least be grateful to the "7 Days" team for highlighting this problem with which we have had to contend all summer and for many months back. There must be some organ in the country to highlight such rackets.

If RTE embark on this policy we would all like to be assured that the programmes screened were 100 per cent truthful, as I believe they have been up to now. The debate has been eminently successful but most people spoke without going too close to the real problem, which is moneylending. This is what we should be investigating. We should be endeavouring to cut out the bad apple in our society and the Government would be much better employed in endeavouring to launch small loans to help the people who avail of these illegal moneylenders to get out of the grips of the moneylenders in this city.

Mr. Horgan

I wish to treat the amendments before the House in order, starting with the one in the name of Senator Ó Maoláin. Together with Senator Sheehy Skeffington, I welcome this amendment. A similar amendment which I put down in my own name and that of Senator Bourke still finds expression in a major amendment in the fifth line of the text on the Order Paper. I must add that neither of us has the slightest objection to the elimination of these two words if the amendment as proposed by Senator Ó Maoláin is subsequently to be added to this as the House goes through its procedure. Even at this, I do not consider that Senator Ó Maoláin's amendment does any more than patch up what is essentially a bad job.

The second amendment which is in my name is also part of an attempt to patch up what I consider to be a bad job. It will be noted that relatively few people have spoken on this amendment during the course of the debate. I am glad to say that Senator Sheehy Skeffington welcomed it and I know that I am supported in the amendment by Senator Bourke. I do not know if I should be gladdened by the fact that none of the Senators who spoke on the other side of the House has spoken against the amendment. It seems to be a rather obvious amendment but I should like to explain why I consider it to be necessary. As I understand the tribunal of inquiry, it will not be possible for persons with experience of or knowledge of or information about the habits and practices of illegal moneylending to offer evidence to the tribunal unless they are called to do so.

I feel that this could be a very limiting qualification on the tribunal and on their activities. I may be wrong about this. If so, I should be very glad to have an assurance from the Minister to the effect that the tribunal will welcome submissions under oath, which they consider relevant, from persons and organisations who may be so involved and who may be in possession of such or similar information. I shall give very briefly one or two examples of the type of person covered by this amendment.

There are, for example, a considerable number in the city of Dublin, in Cork, and I am not sure about Limerick, of licensed moneylenders. I do not stand here as their representative but I can conceive it as quite possible that they, too, would like to give evidence under oath to this tribunal about their own practice of their business, about the methods they employ and indeed, as good businessmen, about any unauthorised competition which they feel may be damaging their business. I in no way consider myself as their representative or as holding a brief for them, but I can see that in a democratic tribunal these people should be heard.

Then there are the people who are perhaps most closely involved in picking up the wreckage that is left from the activities of unlicensed moneylenders. I am talking about the organisers, officials and members of credit unions all over the country. These people have a very real interest in swearing evidence to this tribunal. I should hate to think that because of the terms of reference they would not be allowed to do so because somebody did not see fit to call them to do so.

There is a third category of people whose interest in this is very real. I am speaking about the great number of religious and welfare organisations who are very active in that part of the community's life which is at or below the subsistence level. It may be presumed that they would have evidence, often first hand, of the kind of activities which this tribunal will examine. Again, I should like my amendment passed to make it absolutely clear that people in this kind of position, public-spirited people, will have every opportunity, if the tribunal consider it relevant, to offer evidence on the subject which is very close to their normal lives and to the normal activities of their organisations. Indeed, as I understand the terms of reference at the moment, they should act even to exclude, unless he were expressly called by the tribunal itself to give evidence, Senator Dunne, one of whose more remarkable statements here this morning was that there were streets in Dublin with more than 25 unlicensed moneylenders in them. I want this position cleared up.

We have been assured by the Government that this tribunal will go fully into the facts of moneylending. There is a reference at paragraph 2 of the Government's motion and at No. 1 in the motion as amended to a correct and fair representation of the facts. If one is to find out whether a television programme amounted to a correct and fair representation of the facts, it follows as night follows day that one must find out what the facts are. I am concerned to widen the scope of the inquiry in this way to ensure that every possible way of finding out what the facts are is available to the tribunal.

Having dealt with these two amendments, I should like to move to the substantive amendment in the name of Senator Miss Bourke and myself which I am now seconding. I do so with some sadness and in a very real sense, also together with Senator Miss Bourke, as a person who is not a member of a political party. I do so as a journalist and as a parliamentarian who has never been convinced and who has never asked for the institution of an inquiry of the kind that is envisaged in the Government's proposed terms of reference. I shall not get tremendously rhetorical and worked up about freedom of speech but I am sickened and disgusted that the Government should have seen fit to bring in a motion proposing these terms of reference.

I am also saddened by the fact that it took the many members of the other two parties a considerable time to realise exactly what were the implications of asking for an inquiry without making clear, except I believe in the case of the Labour Party, what exactly they wanted to inquire into. We have even had from the Opposition side in this House and in the other House the statement that the Minister for Justice had "ambushed" the situation. Senator Alexis FitzGerald this morning complimented this Minister on his cleverness in acting in the way that he had done. As somebody who likes to approach this from a reasonably independent point of view, I think it is a very poor defence for one's lack of foresight to complain that the other fellow was more clever than you were. I am glad to see that there has been a distinct hardening of attitude on this side of the House and indeed on the Opposition side in Dáil Éireann on this matter and I would urge the Government to give it more consideration than they have given to it up to now.

The first main point I must deal with as a reason for this amendment in our names is that it creates a precedent of extraordinary gravity. I do not know whether Members of the House are aware precisely of the kind of precedent that is involved. It may be urged from the other side of the House, indeed I am surprised it has not already been urged, that this House does not create precedents, that this House does not bind itself, that the Oireachtas is a sovereign assembly. So it is, but to speak about precedents in this way is altogether too abstract, too unreal and, dare I suggest it, too academic. It is quite in order for this House to say in the morning that black is white, but because for years this House has acted on the assumption that black is black it is very unlikely that it will do so. This is what is meant by precedents. Precedents are established not only, and in some cases not at all, in the dry pages of legal textbooks but in the sweat and battle of political and social encounter, and this is the kind of precedent that we are running the risk of establishing here.

May I refer briefly to something Senator Keery said. He implied in his speech that no precedent was involved. He is reported in this morning's paper — which does not give the full text but is reasonably accurate — as saying that any journalist is always aware that at some stage some part of his work might bring him before a court of inquiry. So he did not see that this was any new form of threat. If Senator Keery does not see that the terms of reference of this inquiry do not post some new form of threat to journalists as a whole, and not only to those in Radio Telefís Éireann, I am very sorry because I believe passionately that they do.

Miss Bourke

Hear, hear.

Mr. Horgan

To take one very simple question, to say that there are 500 unlicensed moneylenders in Dublin, whether this statement be true or false, or partially true, is not actionable we have now created a situation in which a person by virtue of making a statement that is not actionable in any court of law is hauled before a tribunal of inquiry with powers of the High Court. This can have and will have a most intimidating effect on freedom of expression, not only in the station but indeed outside it. Again, I wonder, and I should be glad if the Minister can enlighten me on this, to what extent procedure as adopted in other countries has been followed or even examined in the drawing up of these terms of reference by the Government.

——this implies to me that "after" is almost as good as "because". I will not equate them precisely but I think this is fairly adequate.

We have the position in which RTE issued a statement. The Government, we in this House, and every Member of the Oireachtas would be perfectly justified in criticising severely the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority if they had not made the investigation as a result of which and on which they based their subsequent statement. If they had failed to make this inquiry, whatever about issuing a statement, which they so obviously made, they would have been in grave dereliction of their duty under the Broadcasting Act.

We now have the situation in which the Government are not satisfied with the activity which is carried on by one of their statutory authorities in a statutory manner and are setting up another organisation to do the same thing by other means. It looks to the plain people of Ireland, as indeed it looks to me, as if the Government, unsatisfied, are trying to have a second bite at the cherry, and I do not think that this should be allowed.

To me, though I may be wrong about this but I doubt it very much, the source and origin of this inquiry were the statements made by various persons in a privileged position in Dáil Éireann, and I feel that if, for example, the Minister for Justice had taken the Labour Party's original questions in the sense in which they were intended, and instead of attempting to refute the suggestions made in the programme, had offered to investigate them in an ordinary and democratic kind of way, none of this would have happened. But it has happened and I am very sorry that it has happened in this way.

Again, there is a whole history of matters into which I will not go in any great detail because they have been gone into in both Houses, which leads one to suspect that the attitude of the Government to broadcasting in general is not at all a healthy one. It is an attitude which influences me very much when I am trying to decide what kind of attitude to take to this motion and what form of amendment to put to it.

We have had the statement by Deputy Lemass which has been reported already. We have had the statement by the Leader of this House in the very recent past. We have had the almost complete failure of the Government to exercise the orthodox machinery of communication with the broadcasting authority as laid down in the Broadcasting Act. All these things have been gone into in some detail, but there is a final one which I think is just as important, and this is the almost Pavlovian reaction — and I regret this — evidenced by members of the Government and of the Government Party in the Dáil and Seanad when any question about television comes up.

To show how Pavlovian this is, and how much a conditioned reflex it is, I would ask Senators, and Members of the other House, how many of them even know of, much less heard, a programme on the radio about moneylending in the past? How many of them heard the broadcasting of a letter from a social worker in Mr. John O'Donovan's programme, the name of which I cannot remember, within, as far as I remember, the last fortnight——

Mr. B. Lenihan

I heard it.

Mr. Horgan

——in which this social worker stated that religious orders were keeping the family allowance books of persons to whom they had made cash advances? We have had no reaction in the Dáil or Seanad to this kind of statement, while we have this extraordinary reaction on the part of Deputies, I am afraid of all parties, to the question of television. At column 450 in the debate on the Appropriation Bill on 4th December, 1969, the Leas-Chathaoirleach said that "references to people outside the House are to be deprecated." This is a very simple, obvious rule, and a very valid and important one. I would not go so far as to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, and I am including the Leader of the House in that category, but I would suggest that the fear of broadcasting has been responsible for more breaches of Parliamentary decorum and tradition in each of these Houses than any other subject since the end of the Civil War. This has created a situation, a consciousness and an attitude, especially on the part of the Government, which has been directly responsible for the present inquiry.

The Government are determined that there should be an inquiry. Very well. What sort of inquiry should there be? The amendment in the names of Senator Bourke and myself does does certain very specific things. In the first place it seeks to cut out completely No. 1 of the terms of the Government motion.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That narrows it down.

Mr. Horgan

It cuts out the first two lines and incorporates the rest of it with No. 2. The legal reasons for this have been explained very adequately by Senator Bourke. Senator Ryan, in an attempt to pour oil on troubled waters, said that the tribunal would not be confined in dealing with the points of the reference to the order in which they appear. That is to say, that they would not have to deal with No. 1 first and No. 2 secondly. On the other hand he did say that the whole point of having these in a particular order and with particular numbers after them was so that the tribunal could report by numbers. I submit that if they are going to report specifically on it as it is done here most of the legal problems envisaged by Senator Miss Bourke will arise very considerably indeed. We object to this for this reason and also because we think that this is the proper prerogative of the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority and we believe that the authority have exercised their prerogative in a most responsible way. We believe that to the extent to which any investigation into this planning, preparation, arrangement and presentation is necessary it is covered, and more than covered, by the terms of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act which will apply to the working of the tribunal. From my reading of that Act it appears that not only No. 1 but Nos. 3 and 4 are irrelevant as well.

Now we have this very important question about proof. Senator Ryan said — and I took a note of what he was saying because I thought it was very important — that the onus of proof does not arise in this tribunal. I should very much like to believe Senator Ryan but he finds himself in a minority of one in his own party. May I read again what the Taoiseach said, as reported in the newspapers. The Taoiseach said: "The issue of the conflict of evidence between these two important bodies could only be resolved in the manner proposed." I give another quotation, from Senator Killilea: "That plain people of Ireland would like to know the simple answer — is it Radio Telefís Éireann or the Garda Síochána that is right?" In a more muted way, Senator Brugha pointed out that the task of the tribunal was, and I quote: "to try to define the difference between the information available to the Garda Síochána and the information available to the production team of this programme".

So there you have the extraordinary situation that on the one hand you have Senator Ryan saying that the onus of proof is not in question and on the other hand you have almost every other speaker on the Government side turning this whole situation into an absurd and dangerous game of cops and robbers. I think that the tribunal are entitled to more positive and distinct guidance on this than they will receive from reading the debates and the speeches of Government Deputies and Senators in these debates, and this is why we have tried to make such guidance explicit in our amendment.

What is the point of the whole thing? There are, I think, three very important things here. The first is the question of free speech per se. The second is the function of journalism in society. The third is the question of the relationship between journalism and Parliament. We must make the point if we are interested in freedom of speech that no one is in the dock in this tribunal, and that is a point that I suggest is made with far more clarity in our amendment than has been made in the Government's muddled and confused version of the same thing. We must also make the point that if people of conscience and integrity and professional training and skill go to the lengths of making statements about this in good conscience, then I submit we should examine, not their consciences, but the statements they make. The terms of reference of the motion as presented by the Government do that. They try to examine the consciences of people in full possession of their faculties and who are honest, intelligent and skilled members of a profession at least as old as politics, and the statements which they have made in good faith. In today's paper it is reported that Senator Nash said:

that it was of the utmost importance where there was a difference of opinion between two State bodies — RTE and the Garda Síochána — on the question of the number of unlicensed moneylenders in the city that there should be the fullest possible investigation. It was also important to discover if these moneylenders had strong-armed men who would go so far as to break the limbs and bones of people and burn their cars or even, perhaps, burn their houses.

Let us get this into perspective. First of all, what has happened here is that there is a conflict between two organisations which are important so far as the community is concerned, the Garda Síochána and RTE. There is conflict in regard to the presentation of a particular programme. Because of the proper and democratic pressure exercised on the Government by public representatives, the Government have seen fit, in response to that pressure properly exercised, to establish the tribunal which we are seeking to establish here this evening. I want to go into this point because it is germane to what was said by Senator Horgan to discount the whole motion of establishing a tribunal at all. Senator Miss Bourke bent her mind towards the details of the actual terms of reference. The Government are establishing a tribunal in order to allay public unease and in order to ensure that the public, to whom we are all responsible, would get the facts and truths that we had to establish the tribunal. The doubts were initially raised by Deputy Barry Desmond and I quote from column 1570, Volume 242, of the Official Dáil Report dated 20th November, 1969:

I submit to you that the matter is of serious public importance and is very urgent.

Furthermore, Deputy Desmond on the same day, following further remarks which are not germane to our debate here, said:

On a point of order, the question I addressed to the Taoiseach has now I note been referred to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs by the Taoiseach. I would point out I asked the Taoiseach if he would hold a public inquiry. Now that question has been referred to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who presumably will deal with it next week. Frankly, this kind of shuffling off of Ministerial responsibility is a matter of grave concern.

Deputy Desmond was the first to request the holding of a public inquiry.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Into illegal moneylending.

Mr. B. Lenihan

At column 1644, volume 242, of the Official Dáil Report dated 21st November, 1969, Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick of Fine Gael thought that this matter should be dealt with by way of public inquiry. I shall not go into details, but he and Deputy Desmond thought that a public inquiry should be held. On 26th November, at column 1858 of the same volume, Deputy Liam Cosgrave asked the Minister for Justice the following question:

If, in view of the terms of his reply of Wednesday, 19th November, concerning a recent RTE "7 Days" programme regarding unlicensed moneylending and in order to allay public uneasiness, he will consider holding a full public inquiry into the whole matter.

I cannot prejudge the issue but the facts are that responsible Deputies of various political parties in the Dáil thought this matter warranted a public inquiry, and the Government, having regard to their representations and to the general public unease referred to by Deputy Cosgrave, acceded to their request. The matter is quite plain and simple: it concerns the truth as to whether the allegations made on this programme were right or wrong or whether the Garda Síochána in the information furnished by them to the Minister for Justice were right or wrong. It is as simple as that and I do not think there is any need for the clouding of the issue which has been made here today.

I come to a point made by Senator Horgan, and also I think by Deputy Thornley in the other House, and I wish to say that so far as the Government are concerned there is no question of any investigation into the independence of journalists in the ascertainment of information by them, in the pursuit of information or data they feel may be in the interest of the public. This does not arise and I want to make it clear because it has been used to cloud the issue. I also want to put a stop to another kind of what I might call counter witch-hunt raised by Senator Horgan, Senator Sheehy Skeffington and others. As far as I and my colleagues are concerned we want to see the fullest possible expression of opinion in our newspapers. I think the "7 Days" programme is an excellent one; I think RTE are doing an excellent job. The Government view is that the "7 Days" programme is doing an excellent job. I wish to put on record that the various organs of public opinion here, newspapers, magazines, radio etc. have total freedom of expression.

Mr. Horgan

Why did the Minister for Justice threaten to investigate the programme?

Mr. B. Lenihan

I shall come to that.

Mr. Reynolds

Why did you stop the advertisements in the Farmers' Journal?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We have not heard about farmers all day.

Mr. J. Boland

I hope the Minister's assurance will be as good as the assurance on the Roscommon Hospital.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister to conclude on the Motion.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Because of the points raised in the other House by Labour and Fine Gael spokesmen, we in the Government felt it incumbent on us first of all to have this out in the open, to have a full public inquiry on the matter so that there would be no doubt about where the truth lay. If the truth lies against the Garda Síochána or against the Minister for Justice or the Government then let it lie there but let us have some attempt to ascertain where it does lie. If it lies against RTE or particular people concerned with the management or reporting of this programme then let it lie there.

Frankly I was rather disappointed by the wording of the amendment. In my view on a reading of the amendment it appears to be unduly restrictive rather than open and the nub of the issue between the amendment and what the Government propose is that in effect the amendment proposes to delete the first three lines of paragraph 1 of the motion, which is the planning, preparation, arranging, production and presentation of the recent RTE programme on illegal money-lending. That is fundamental to the whole investigation; unless one investigates thoroughly the entire background in regard to the planning, preparation, arranging and production of the programme one is tilting at windmills. Paragraph 2 which is more or less the gist of the amendment — investigation into the authenticity of the programme — is not a practical investigation without giving precise terms of reference as outlined in the first three lines of paragraph 1. If one deletes the first three lines the rest is superfluous verbiage.

If we must have this thing out in the open, let it be out in the open and let everybody's rights be protected. The truth may not eventuate, as often the truth does not eventuate, but at least as far as the public are concerned it will be seen that the gulf that exists at the present time in regard to the case made by the RTE Authority and the producers of the "7 Days" programme as against the case made by the Garda Síochána as presented to the Minister for Justice and as given to the Dáil in answer to a question put down by Deputy Corish, might be bridged by investigation on the part of trained minds who are geared to assess the truth in so far as it can be assessed so that this tribunal which will be established — and the motion which I am moving here to establish it is in my view the best that can be done in the circumstances — will be enabled to ascertain the truth. After all, it is the public about whom we are concerned. All of us, whether Members of the Dáil or Seanad, are here as tribunes of the public and we must accede to the request from the Labour and Fine Gael Parties to bring this matter out into the open.

There is not very much more I wish to say because, in my view, this fundamentally is a matter that can be resolved by impartial people hearing evidence in a proper way. An attempt has been made to escalate this debate into something sinister or something that would involve a contretemps between the Government and the free press, between the Government and RTE and between the Government and the people. This does not arise.

What is concerned here is that we as the Government appointed by the people are concerned in ascertaining the truth for the people and this motion is concerned with having as broad as possible an investigation within limitations without going to the extent of Senator Horgan's and Senator Bourke's second amendment of having everybody and anybody come in before the tribunal, a tribunal that would be established with reasonably precise terms of reference. On that basis, we can have elucidation for the public mind. I would welcome this sort of investigation in general in the hope that as a result of it, apart from the precise investigation involved dealing with a particular subject, that it will in general emphasise again the fundamental freedoms that exist in this country — the freedom to investigate on the part of radio and television or newspapers and the freedom to investigate within reason.

It seems that there is public unease in regard to this and if matters are raised in the Parliament of the people which cause unease in the public mind as between two institutions of the State they must be resolved through a properly instituted legal tribunal where evidence can be called and properly assessed by trained people. This investigation will not only re-emphasise the fundamental rights of our various institutions but it seems to me that we will preserve what is all important from the public point of view, that is, that the truth is ascertained in any particular situation where the public have cause for unease and want to know what is the truth in a particular matter.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the motion."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 24.

Tá

Brennan, John J.
Brugha, Ruairí.
Cranitch, Mícheál C.
Crinion, Brendan.
Doyle, John.
Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
Farrell, Joseph.
Farrell, Peggy.
Fitzsimons, Patrick.
Flanagan, Thomas P.
Gallanagh, Michael.
Garrett, Jack.
Hanafin, Desmond.
Honan, Dermot P.
Jessop, W.J.E.
Keery, Neville.
Killilea, Mark.
McGlinchey, Bernard.
McGowan, Patrick.
Nash, John J.
Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
O'Sullivan, Terry.
Ryan, Eoin.
Ryan, Patrick W.
Ryan, William.
Walsh, Seán.

Níl

Belton, Richard.
Boland, John.
Bourke, Mary T.W.
Butler, Pierce.
Dooge, James C.I.
Dunne, James.
Farrelly, Denis.
FitzGerald, Alexis.
Fitzgerald, Jack.
Horgan, John.
Kelly, John.
Kennedy, Fintan.
Lyons, Michael D.
McDonald, Charles B.
Malone, Patrick.
Mannion, John M.
O'Brien, William.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
Owens, Evelyn P.
Prendergast, Micheál A.
Quinlan, Patrick M.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Russell, G.E.
Sheehy Skeffington, O.L.

Tellers: Tá, Senators J. Farrell and Brennan; Níl, Senators Bourke and Horgan.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I move amendment No. 2:

In paragraph 2, to add at the end of the paragraph:

"and whether or not these statements, comments and implications reflected reasonable journalistic care on the part of those responsible for the programme".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Horgan

I move amendment No. 3:

To add to the motion the following paragraph:

"5. Further relevant evidence that may be submitted to the tribunal by persons or organisations."

Mr. O'Higgins

This is the amendment which seeks to broaden the scope of the inquiry. I think it is necessary to remind the Members opposite of that.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 27.

Tá

Belton, Richard.
Boland, John.
Dooge, James C.I.
Dunne, James.
Farrelly, Denis.
FitzGerald, Alexis.
Fitzgerald, Jack.
Horgan, John.
Kelly, John.
Kennedy, Fintan.
Lyons, Michael D.
McDonald, Charles B.
Bourke, Mary T.W.
Butler, Pierce.
Malone, Patrick.
Mannion, John M.
O'Brien, William.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
Owens, Evelyn P.
Prendergast, Micheál A.
Quinlan, Patrick M.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Russell, G.E.
Sheehy Skeffington, O.L.

Níl

Brennan, John J.
Brugha, Ruairí.
Cranitch, Mícheál C.
Crinion, Brendan.
Doyle, John.
Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
Farrell, Joseph.
Farrell, Peggy.
Fitzsimons, Patrick.
Flanagan, Thomas P.
Gallanagh, Michael.
Garrett, Jack.
Hanafin, Desmond.
Honan, Dermot P.
Keery, Neville.
Killilea, Mark.
McElgunn, Farrell.
McGlinchey, Bernard.
McGowan, Patrick.
Nash, John J.
Norton, Patrick.
Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
O'Sullivan, Terry.
Ryan, Eoin.
Ryan, Patrick W.
Ryan, William.
Walsh, Seán.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Bourke and Horgan; Níl, Senators Brennan and J. Farrell.

Amendment declared lost.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 18 Dec 1969