Deputy Lemass desires to ask a question on private notice.
PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTION. - SECRECY OF POST OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS.
This is a question on behalf of Deputy de Valera: To ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether it is the practice of the Post Office to supply the Minister with copies of telegrams or cables received or sent by political opponents, and whether it was by direction of his Department that a cablegram recently sent to Mr. Wm. Lyndon, Chicago, by Eamon de Valera was communicated to the Press.
The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. I want to add, for the information of the Deputy asking the question, that it is not the practice, and has not been the practice at any time, for officers of the Post Office Department to divulge the information contained in telegrams or letters passing through the Post Office. In regard to this particular matter, I have received no indication whatever that the telegraphic information mentioned passing through the Department has been divulged except the implication contained in the question put down by Deputy de Valera. If I receive any information indicating that information has been divulged, I will have immediate inquiries made, and if any officer should be found to be guilty of divulging such information, disciplinary action will be taken. But, so far, I have received no such indication, and in view of the lack of information in that direction, I consider that the Deputy ought either to give me some information which would allow me to make inquiries or that he should withdraw the charge that is made, by implication, in this question.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary state what information he expects to receive? A cablegram sent by Deputy de Valera to Mr. Lyndon, Chicago, was handed in at the Abbey Street Post Office on Tuesday morning and it appeared in the "Evening Herald" that evening. That is the only information that Deputy de Valera possesses and the only information he can give.
There is much more information required by me before I can accept it that any fault lies with my Department. I want to be assured by the Deputy asking the question that the information was not divulged before the telegram was handed in. There are also possibilities of information of that kind coming back by telegram from New York in time to get into the Dublin papers. I must have some indication from the Deputy that there has been some dereliction of duty on the part of officers of my Department before I would made inquiries. If I get any definite information in that direction, I will have inquiries made, but in the absence of any definite information, I again suggest that the Deputy ought to withdraw the implications contained in the question.
In view of the very serious nature of the charge that is made, does the Parliamentary Secretary not consider it his duty to make inquiries to find out how this got into the Press?
That is a very reckless charge.
The question was: Was it the habit of the Post Office to give telegrams sent by political opponents of the Government to Ministers? Now, obviously no honest Deputy would make the implication contained in that question unless he had some information. The Deputy has stood up and said that the only information he or the sender of the telegram had was that it was handed in at the Post Office at a certain time, and that it appeared in the "Evening Herald." I suggest that the implication contained in that question, if that is all the information the Deputy had, was very uncalled for.
We cannot debate the matter now.
Can we have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that this serious matter will be investigated? No matter what Ministers may say to the contrary, the telegram was handed in to the Post Office; it was not communicated to the Press by the sender; it appeared in the Press the same evening. That is a serious charge.
And there is nothing to substantiate the charge—a reckless charge.
There is this to substantiate the charge, that the telegram was handed in and it appeared in the paper.
But nobody else handled it except the Post Office people?
The information in the telegram was known only to the sender and to the Post Office—to the officials who sent it.
If the Deputy approached my Department in the first place, and gave me some information to show that he believed that the matter in this telegram was divulged. I would have had inquiries made; but he saw fit to deal with it in a question, in the Dáil, clearly implying that my Department divulged the information. I have received no evidence whatsoever so far to show that information in regard to that telegram has been divulged. I do not accept the statement made as evidence that the information was divulged.
Is it prima facie evidence when a telegram is handed in by a person who was a confidential agent and has never been known in any other circumstances to divulge anything of the kind?
The Deputy might have taken some pains to satisfy himself of the statement that he now makes before he put down the question. What reason have I to believe that his agent can be depended upon to a greater extent than the officers in the Post Office?
It is an outrage.
I asked the question because I conscientiously believe that it came from the Post Office. My own belief is that there is a habit of sending certain telegrams to Ministers. If that can be denied, I want the denial.
There is absolutely no truth in that.
I am very glad to hear that, and I accept it.
We have never had any such communications with the Post Office staff.
Very well, I accept the first part of the statement. My next point is, will some sort of assurance be given that inquiries will be made as to how this was divulged from the Post Office? I have made inquiries and have satisfied myself that there is no need for any further inquiry from our side. What I am asking now is, will you do on your side what we have done on our side?
The Deputy, by pressing this matter, is really prejudicing it. The course that he should have taken was to write to the Department saying that he had handed in a certain telegram, or that an agent of his in whom he had the greatest confidence had handed in a telegram; that he had given no information to the Press himself and that he was satisfied and assured by his agent that the agent had given no information to the Press, and that he was able to come to no other conclusion but that the thing had been divulged from the Post Office. If the Deputy had done that it would then clearly be the duty of the Post Office to make an inquiry, but I submit that it is rather more difficult to conduct an inquiry when the matter has been ventilated in a particular way.
I gave private notice to the Minister in charge yesterday, as I did not want the usual period of four days to elapse, and I expected that if there was any doubt in the mind of the Minister he would have communicated with me on the matter.
Might I intervene to make a statement in order to allay any doubts or apprehensions which might arise in connection with this case? It is certainly our desire and duty to see that there is no breach of confidence on the part of any officers of the State in this matter. Politics do not enter into this. The question is raised here as if it were a political question. There is no politics in the business of the Post Office. The business of the Post Office must be regarded as confidential, and if any such dereliction of duty took place it should be punishable.
I am simply asking that an inquiry be made by the Minister in charge as to how this thing happened. There is prima facie evidence that there was a divulgence of this cable. The cable could not have come from New York in the time.
There is more than that. There was the assertion made by the Deputy that there was the habit of giving out information to political opponents.
I asked the question was it a habit.
The Deputy made the assertion that it was the habit.
I know that in the past telegrams and other messages have been withheld, even when the times were not exactly as they are now, and I want to know whether the same habit and same practice continue?
No.
There is no such practice.
Well, then, that is a simple question and can get a simple answer. The other part of the question was simply to ask whether proper steps would be taken to ascertain if there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the Post Office officials in the matter.
Am I to understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that a telegram sent in the morning from here to New York could be transmitted back in time for the evening papers here?
I have not gone to the trouble of making an inquiry, but I presume it could.
It could not.
The Deputy made a definite charge, without any proof whatever, against the officials of my Department. If he furnishes me, as he should have done, with any information which he has in his hands pointing to the fact that a divulgence of information took place within my Department, then I will, as I always do, have inquiries made. But until the Deputy shows some proof of the implications he has made I think he should withdraw what he has said against my officials.
If I furnish evidence that is satisfactory from my side and that points definitely, in my opinion, to a divulgence of that telegram on the part of some officials in the Post Office, will the Minister have an inquiry made?
Certainly.
I certainly will.
Might I ask a question——
No, we have had sufficient of this.
Might I ask if we can have some assurance——
We have already had quite an amount of discussion on this matter. We have done a rather disorderly thing during the last eleven minutes, and we should not carry it any further. We have had a conclusion to the question at issue. If the Deputy has any question to ask, he can put one down for next week. I promise Deputy Briscoe that if he puts down a question, giving me four days to consider it, I will give it more attention than I did to the framing of this one.