asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if he will state whether a report sent to the Press recently, following the monthly meeting of the Fine Gael Constituency Executive for the constituency of North-East Dublin, and dealing with the supply of bread and sugar in the city was forbidden publication in the daily Press under his powers of censorship; and, if so, if he will state who was responsible for the prohibition; under what authority, and in accordance with what particular regulation governing censorship was the publication prohibited; if he will state the reason for this prohibition; and, if he will state what public service, if any, is rendered by the public suppression of the fact that the responsible political executive of a Dublin constituency, whose members are in close touch with the social conditions and difficulties in the city, after careful consideration of the matter, consider that in the absence of bread rationing an immediate official inquiry should be made into the causes responsible for the continuance of bread queues, with their attendant hardships for the people, and into the circumstances in which the ration of bread stated to be available is not obtainable by many families in the poorer parts of the city.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Press Censorship.
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is that the portion of the report relating to sugar was not suppressed by the Censor. It was passed for publication and was suppressed by the newspaper concerned. The portion relating to bread queues was forbidden publication in accordance with the powers of the censorship conferred by Section 2, sub-section 2 (i) of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, and the Emergency Powers No. 151 Order (1942) made thereunder. The reason for prohibiting publication of this part of the report was that it is considered necessary at the present time to do everything possible to prevent the development of a panic mentality in relation to the supply of bread.
In answer to the last part of the Deputy's question, the full report as submitted to the censorship was sent to the Department of Supplies, and as the object of the report was to urge the Minister for Supplies to inquire into the causes of bread queues with their attendant hardships for the people, that purpose was fully met by passing it directly to the Department of Supplies, while at the same time ensuring, as far as possible, that there would be no added cause of public panic which would render more difficult the most equitable distribution of bread which it is possible to achieve in the present difficult supply position.
Could the Minister say what particular words in the executive committee's report were likely to cause panic?
I think that publicity in regard to queues would only breed more queues.
Will the Minister say who was responsible for the prohibition? Did the report come to him personally and was it personally prohibited by him?
I am personally responsible for everything that happens in the censorship department.
Am I to take it that the Minister saw this report and that it was censored by him?
The Deputy may take it that I considered that the best thing to do with this report was to allow that portion relating to sugar and to stop that portion relating to bread queues.
I give notice, Sir, that I propose with your permission, to raise this matter on the adjournment.
There will be a debate on censorship in the near future. A token Vote for that purpose is being induced to-day.
I appreciate that, but this is a matter of a formal and considered statement by a responsible political executive in the City of Dublin. It is suggested that that statement, issued by them after full consideration and in a formal way is likely to cause panic. I think it a very sinister move on the part of the Minister and I think it requires to be elucidated somewhat more, before we approach the more formal debate on the Estimate.
asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures if he can state why a leading article dealing with food production, intended for publication in the Kilkenny People of April 4th, was completely suppressed by the Censor.
The answer to the Deputy's question is that no article dealing with food production, intended for publication in Kilkenny People on April 4th was suppressed by the Censor. On that date the Press Censor did, however, suppress an article on censorship intended for publication in the Kilkenny People under the heading—Food Production.