Report of Tribunal—Adjournment Debate.

Mr. Norton

Before the Taoiseach proceeds, is it intended to sit to-morrow?

Last night I intended to inform the House formally that I had duly received the report of the tribunal which was set up pursuant to motions in the two Houses of the Oireachtas to investigate the charges that were made by Dr. MacCarvill against Dr. Ward, Parliamentary Secretary. I wanted to inform the House that the report was being laid on the Table of the House and that copies were available for Deputies and Senators and were also being made available for the Press.

I wished also to inform the House that I had sent a copy of the report to Dr. Ward and that I had received the following letter:—

"‘Morven,'

Nashville Park,

Howth, Co. Dublin.

10adh Iúl, 1946.

Dear Taoiseach,

You have been good enough to give me the opportunity of reading the finding and report of the tribunal of inquiry into the charges made against me by Dr. MacCarvill.

It is not necessary that I should stress to you that these findings and report completely vindicate me in regard to those charges which Dr. MacCarvill made against me in relation to the discharge of my functions as Parliamentary Secretary.

The findings of the tribunal in regard to the allegation that Mr. John MacCarvill was dismissed from the service of the Monaghan Curing Company, Limited, for an improper purpose are set out in paragraphs 9, 10. 11 and 12 of the report of the tribunal as follows:—

9. The dismissal of Mr. John MacCarvill from the position of manager and secretary of the Monaghan Curing Company, Limited, was not made by Dr. Ward in the hope or expectation that he, Dr. Ward, would in a short time be promoted to a Ministry and was quite independent of any such consideration.

10. In making the said dismissal Dr. Ward was not actuated or influenced by an intention to appoint his son as manager in place of Mr. MacCarvill.

11. The said dismissal was not made with the object of merging the managing directorship and the managership of the company, nor, in making the dismissal, had Dr. Ward in mind any new plan for profit-sharing.

12. The tribunal finds that, in making the dismissal, Dr. Ward acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the company.

In relation to Dr. MacCarvill's allegation regarding the dismissal of Mr. Matthew Fitzsimons the tribunal has found in the terms set out in paragraph 14 as under:—

14. The dismissal of Mr. Matthew Fitzsimons was made in the ordinary course of the management and control of the company and was not effected for the purpose of making room for Mrs. K. Ward or from any other ulterior or improper motive.

As stated in my letter to you of the 4th June last, I regarded the charges relating to my official duties as Parliamentary Secretary and the arrangement for the discharge of my duties as dispensary medical officer as the most serious of the allegations made against me. The findings of the tribunal leave no room for doubt as to the propriety of my conduct in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary and as to the strict observance by me of the terms of any agreement I had entered into. The relevant paragraphs of the report are 29, 31, 39, 40, 41 and 42, which read as follows:—

29. These agreements were always observed by Dr. Ward and were observed by Dr. McGeough down to the month of June, 1935.

31. The cashing of the said paying orders and the retention of the amounts thereof constituted a breach by Dr. McGeough of the contract which he had made with Dr. Ward.

39. All the agreements between Dr. Ward and Dr. O'Gorman have been faithfully carried out on both sides and both parties have always been and are still satisfied with them.

40. In none of the foregoing agreements between Dr. Ward and Dr. McGeough, Dr. Murray and Dr. O'Gorman was there any agreement or understanding, express or implied, that the terms should be kept secret, and the tribunal finds no basis for the allegation that these arrangements constituted a `hidden system' for drawing `some 50 per cent. of the salary and emoluments attaching to the position of Medical Officer of the Monaghan Dispensary District.' The tribunal considers that the allegations against Dr. Ward by Dr. MacCarvill of `enforcing tribute' and `exacting half the private fees' were entirely unjustified.

41. Dr. Murray did not refuse to accept the position on the conditions offered to him. Dr. Murray's evidence, which the tribunal accepts as true and accurate, was that there was nothing objectionable in the conditions; but that he did not wish a long-term position of the kind offered to him, and that he merely accepted the position for a short period until Dr. Ward could get some other doctor to replace him.

42. Dr. O'Gorman was a willing, candid and truthful witness. He had not been interviewed by or on behalf of Dr. MacCarvill before the latter's letter of the 22nd May, 1946, was written, and the tribunal considers that there is no basis for the statements contained in that letter to the effect that Dr. O'Gorman `feels that if Dr. Ward had still official power over him, it would not be safe to disclose the position' and that `Dr. O'Gorman's supporting evidence will be forthcoming immediately he is assured of protection'. In the opinion of the tribunal, these allegations were made recklessly and without justification.

It is a matter of gratification to me and is of considerable significance that these grave charges have been found to have been made recklessly and without any justification whatsoever.

With regard to Dr. MacCarvill's allegation of improper conduct in relation to the building of Carrickroo hall the finding of the tribunal is set out in paragraph 43 which reads:—

43. With reference to the building of the Fianna Fáil hall at Carrickroe, County Monaghan, the tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr. Ward and finds that, in connection with this matter, Dr. Ward acted merely as trustee and with strict propriety, and that he did not derive any personal advantage therefrom. In the opinion of the tribunal, the charges in connection with this matter were made recklessly and without any foundation in fact.

As to the findings Nos. 23 and 24 I would desire to repeat, as I stated to the tribunal that it was at all times my firm and settled intention to have the cash sales made by the Monaghan Curing Company, Limited, brought back into the company's accounts.

I repeatedly expressed this intention at meetings of the board of directors. I would in fact have had these items included and dealt with in the audit of the accounts of the company for the year ended the 31st December, 1945, but for the removal from the offices of the company by Mr. John MacCarvill of records essential to a proper adjustment of tax liability and sales returns. The accounts of the company for the year ended 31st December, 1945 (i.e., from the 31st December, 1944) were actually kept open pending recovery of these records. The particulars furnished by Mr. John MacCarvill to the tribunal were on the completion of the hearing immediately made available by me to the auditors of the company with a view to the completion of the returns and the Revenue Commissioners have already been notified accordingly. It may, perhaps, be right to state that no question or suggestion of any kind has ever arisen as to any malversation of the funds of the company.

If items other than inferior or damaged bacon were included in the cash sales referred to in the report this was without either knowledge or consent on my part.

The tribunal have however found that the intention of the parties was not so limited and that it was intended that each such transaction should be concluded by the cash distribution of the proceeds arising therefrom. I feel convinced that from your long acquaintance with me you, personally, and the other members of the Government will accept without hesitation the assurance which I now give you without reserve that at no time did I contemplate or intend any course other than that the proceeds of these cash sales were to be restored to the accounts and to the funds of the company. Nevertheless, after full consideration it would appear to me that the findings of the tribunal under these two heads of the report, and notwithstanding the full and complete vindication of my conduct under all other heads, may raise issues that might embarrass the Government were I to continue to discharge official duties. In view of this I therefore now place in your hands my resignation as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

I take this step with regret, inasmuch as I realise that it may impede or at least delay the plans of the Government for the development and expansion of adequate health and medical services throughout the State. I may perhaps be permitted to say that I have unsparingly devoted all my time and energy to the utmost of my capacity and for many years to this great task. I feel, however, that in the present circumstances no proper course is open to me than to ask to be relieved of my official responsibilities.

I should like to conclude by tendering to you the assurance of my full and continued support in all your efforts for the fulfilment of your undertakings on behalf of the nation.

Yours sincerely,

F.C. Ward.

Eamon Uas. de Valera,

An Taoiseach,

Baile Átha Cliath."

That would have concluded the statement that I wished to make last night except to say that I proposed to lay this letter of resignation before the Government in due course, at its next meeting, which is to-morrow.

Mr. Dillon

Before dealing with the specific procedure relating to this motion, may I inquire, in view of your announcement that Deputy Tadhg Murphy, of Cork, proposes to raise a matter on the adjournment to-night, whether you propose to take any cognisance of the fact that, when a matter was raised on the adjournment last night, the Minister responsible, who had indicated his intention of being present, withdrew from the House and it was impossible satisfactorily to pursue the matter which fell to be investigated?

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with this matter.

Mr. Dillon

May I ask whether you consider that any steps should be taken to vindicate the right of individual Deputies to exact from responsible Ministers an account on any given matter which it is the privilege of an individual Deputy to raise on the adjournment?

An Ceann Comhairle

It has nothing to do with this matter on which the Taoiseach has spoken.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Cogan raised a matter on the adjournment, having got the permission of the Chair to do so.

An Ceann Comhairle

Quite so, he did.

Mr. Blowick

He very kindly gave way to the Taoiseach on a former occasion. The Minister for Justice absented himself from the House last night, without cause, in my opinion, and acted very discourteously to the House and to Deputy Cogan. I think Deputy Cogan should get first preference.

General Mulcahy

The statement which the Taoiseach has made to us as a contribution to the problem which the House finds it has in front of it creates sufficient problems for the House without going into smaller matters, and particularly matters arising out of last night. None of us wants to be involved in episodes of the kind which took place last night. We were in the position in which we were last night simply because there was no adequate intimation conveyed to the several Parties in the House of the line of procedure which the Government proposed to adopt in dealing with this report. In the light of the frayed tempers last night, I appreciate the fact that the Taoiseach accepted the suggestion I made last night and this morning to deal with the matter in the way in which it is now being dealt with, but I think the Taoiseach is very remiss in the limitation he has put to the statement he has made here to-day.

When the Taoiseach found that he had a problem, arising out of the letter sent to him by Dr. MacCarvill, he sought consultation with the Leaders of the various Parties and said that he had this problem. He did not inform them of the details of the problem, but he indicated the nature of it and the procedure he proposed to adopt in dealing with it in the House.

It would have saved us a lot if the Taoiseach had done the same when he received the report of the tribunal, not necessarily conveying to us the details of the tribunal's report but indicating to us that he had received the report and the procedure he proposed to adopt in dealing with it. When the Taoiseach spoke to the House, on the occasion of the setting up of this tribunal, he told the House in columns 1333 and 1334 of the Official Report of 5th June last:—

"If the House agrees with me in setting up this tribunal, we ought to be able to get a report quickly. My idea would be a tribunal of three judges, so that the facts could be found and then the Government and the House would be in a position to decide what further action is required....

He said in column 1339:

"The main consideration before me is that there is important public work to be done and it is in the public interest that this should be disposed of with all possible speed."

We have plenty indications, if we only take the measure which was discussed here yesterday, of the very important work which requires to be done and the necessity, in the interests of the proper doing of that work, that anything arising out of the circumstances which brought about the setting up of this tribunal and its report which in any way induces lack of confidence, suspicion or a feeling on the part of the House that the administration of Government was not in every detail and with every propriety properly looked after, should be cleared away at the earliest possible moment.

The Taoiseach has had this report since Saturday last. The tribunal did its work with very great expedition, and we would have thought that, in the interests of a constructive, an expeditious and a clean approach to dealing with the problems involved, the Taoiseach would have envisaged for the House the range of problems that arise for him out of the report of this tribunal, and the evidence given before it, which was made so public by the publication of practically the whole of the report. The Taoiseach simply contents himself with reading a letter he got from Dr. Ward and saying that he proposes to put the letter before the Government to-morrow, so that the Government may decide on the question of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the tendered resignation.

In respect even of that matter of the tendered resignation, if the Taoiseach is in the position in which he indicates he is with regard to the letter of resignation, I think he should not have made any statement at all to us to-day, but that he should have indicated to us that he would be in a position to-morrow to make a statement on the matter; but sufficient time has passed to enable the Taoiseach to have reviewed the whole matter of the report and the evidence, and to state from his position of responsibility and in the light of the responsibility of the Government what requires to be done arising out of the responsibilities which are there.

I feel that the House, in discussing this matter, is labouring under very grave difficulties, difficulties arising entirely out of the failure of the Taoiseach to intimate adequately to the House what this report involves for him and how he proposes to deal with it. However, I shall endeavour to do my part in a constructive way to help the House, which the Taoiseach realised when he spoke to us on 5th June on problems facing the House, apart from the problems the Government as a Government have and which he, as Head of the Government, has.

Dr. Ward, in his letter to the Taoiseach, claimed that he had given of his energy and a very considerable amount of time to his public duties. We have every evidence of that. We have not found Dr. Ward a satisfactory person to help us handle Parliamentary business here, but he certainly has not spared himself in doing his work, and he even added unnecessarily to it by perhaps not dealing with the House in a different kind of way. I entirely subscribe to Dr. Ward's claim that he gave all the energy and all the attention to the business of the House that anybody could possibly demand. I in no way want to discuss the problems which arise in a personal way, but problems arise which require to be looked at in a detached way from the general point of view of the dignity, power and prestige of this House.

The Taoiseach will have to review this report, and will have to tell us, in a very formal way, how he intends to approach some of the problems that arise for us in this matter. I simply want to content myself with reviewing certain matters in the report, which suggest that full consideration of these matters be entered on by the Government, and a complete statement made to us, as to what the Government proposes to do with regard to them. From the public point of view, a certain type of black-marketing conspiracy has been going on in relation to the factory in Monaghan.

Mr. O'Rourke

Has that been shown?

General Mulcahy

I am interpreting the public mind.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. O'Rourke

I beg your pardon, I am quite entitled to interrupt.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not entitled.

General Mulcahy

I plead for the possibility of a discussion here in a detached way. If the Taoiseach had seen his way to come before the House, and review what is in this report, from the position of responsibility that he holds, our position and that of the House generally would be much easier. I believe his own position would be much easier. He has not seen fit to do so. We have our own responsibilities to stand up for. We are all anxious to avoid saying any word at this particular stage which is not a word to help the Government in looking at this report, and the facts contained in it, from the point of view of our responsibilities. If I happen to say a word, to use a phrase or to disclose any trend of mind that hurts the feelings of any Deputy I am sorry, but I beg him to put himself in the position of our peculiar responsibility and to make some allowance for it.

I say that from the public point of view—and we get our responsibility from the public—and our own sense of public requirements, that here is a case in which there was a certain amount of black-marketing, there was a falling out between people engaged in it and, as a result of that falling out, publicity has brought out a certain state of affairs which, to say the least of it, has caused very grave concern to quite a number of pacific people, who have their responsibilities, apart from the responsibility of the Taoiseach, of ourselves and many other people. The first thing that the public will want is to get information here as to what the Government, with its peculiar responsibility, is going to do. If the paragraphs are taken, in Nos. 17 to 19, we find a certain report by the tribunal which suggests that action requires to be taken, either by the Revenue Commissioners or by the Attorney-General, or by both. It would have been a great help if the Taoiseach had said in running down the report: "There is a matter in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 which shows that certain cash transactions were not disclosed in the books of the company and were not brought to audit. They were not disclosed for tax purposes." It would have helped us if he had said that he was taking cognisance of that, or that he proposed that whatever Department or Departments were involved in any way would have the matter fully, thoroughly and promptly gone into, and that, at a suitable time, and in a suitable way, he would have a further statement to make to the House.

Again in paragraph 20 it strikes me—and I am sure it strikes many others—that there is a serious case, that the Pigs and Bacon Commission are involved, whether to the extent of not observing that certain things were happening irregularly in the past, or that they were involved from the point of view of seeing that certain responsibilities that are theirs were promptly attended to. The paragraph says:—

"The sales effected by the cash transactions were deliberately omitted from the returns which the company was, from time to time, required to make, and which it did make, to the Pigs and Bacon Commission."

I do not know whether that was a statutory requirement. I do not know if it was a requirement during the emergency or a normal requirement. It would have helped us if the Taoiseach had adverted to Section 20, and indicated how and in what way a problem arose to follow up. Again, in paragraph 22, the report states that, in a letter from Mr. MacCarvill, in relation to certain sales which were irregular, a certain procedure should be adopted, and instead of what was being done a method that was highly dangerous had been adopted. It states:

"it advocates, instead, that such sales should be made to local traders `to whom' (in the words of the letter) `we could deliver at times when the supervisors referred to would not be on the alert."'

Mr. MacEntee

Has not the tribunal found that that letter was not sent?

Mr. Morrissey

No.

Mr. Norton

It was not posted.

Mr. D. Morrissey

They did not find any such thing.

General Mulcahy

I will read paragraph 22:

"The original memorandum of the 7th September, 1942, referred to in the letter of Mr. Darach Connolly, is in the form of a letter from Mr. MacCarvill to Dr. Ward. This letter was not posted and there is no evidence that it was brought to the notice of Dr. Ward. It raises objections to the carrying on of cash sales through Mrs. K. Ward, not on the ground that such sales would be irregular or improper, but on the ground that such a method was highly dangerous and open to detection and it advocates, instead, that such sales should be made to local traders, `to whom' (in the words of the letter) `we could deliver at times when the supervisors referred to would not be on the alert.' "

The Minister for Local Government questions whether there was such a letter.

Mr. MacEntee

On the question as to whether Dr. Ward had cognisance of it, the tribunal has said he had not.

Mr. D. Morrissey

They did not say any such thing.

General Mulcahy

The Minister completely misunderstands me, and I am grateful for his intervention in order that I may make myself clear. I am not speaking on this matter in relation to Dr. Ward personally; I am speaking in relation to the entire board. What is disclosed here in relation to actual transactions, which are vouched for and in respect of which there was voluminous evidence given before the tribunal, all points to the fact that there were certain regulations which somebody was endeavouring to evade in relation to the disposal of this bacon. We would be glad to have the assistance of the Taoiseach in telling us what particular Departments—Agriculture and Supplies—are involved in these matters and to what extent there was failure to properly supervise, particularly in relation to those transactions unlawfully or irregularly carried out. We would be glad if the Taoiseach would inform us as to what law, whether emergency law covering the particular period for the purpose of preserving supplies and ensuring an equitable distribution, or the ordinary law governing distribution in these matters, was contravened. Again, I say, in relation to paragraph 22, the House requires the assistance of the Government to discover what is involved as a breach of the law, what is involved as an irregular transaction, what is going to be done about it, and what assurances are we to have that people who set up in such business will not be permitted to evade or contravene the regulations governing that business.

Does the Taoiseach propose to cloak himself in that way?

Dr. O'Higgins

We are here to consider the report of the tribunal. Are we not then entitled to ask what action the Government proposes to take arising out of that report? That may involve several Departments.

An Ceann Comhairle

I got a communication which, I am sure, will not be denied, that the Taoiseach should move the adjournment for the purpose of making his statement and allowing the discussion to take place thereon.

Dr. O'Higgins

Would you not agree that the Taoiseach did not make his statement? He made Dr. Ward's statement.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Taoiseach made no statement.

An Ceann Comhairle

Do not interfere with the debate.

Dr. O'Higgins

You want to cloak it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

General Mulcahy

With your permission, Sir, I would like to read the communication that you have just mentioned. I do not in any way wish to deny it. Perhaps it may help us to understand better. This morning I wrote to the Ceann Comhairle in the following terms:—

"At 10.30 o'clock this morning I am still without information as to the procedure the Government propose to adopt in the Dáil to-day in relation to the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry circulated yesterday. Nor have I been accorded any information as to what action the Government proposes to take arising out of the report. I consider that the most satisfactory procedure would be for the Taoiseach to move the adjournment of the Dáil immediately after question to-day for the purpose of making his statement and allowing to take place any discussion thereon which the Dáil may then wish to have. In the absence of such procedure on the part of——"

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will agree that that does not apply, the Government having taken the procedure. However, you may read it:

General Mulcahy

"In the absence of such procedure on the part of the Government or any other generally agreed procedure, I propose at the commencement of public business in the House to-day to request leave to move the adjournment of the Dáil for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, `Report of the Tribunal appointed by the Taoiseach on the 7th day of June, 1946, pursuant to Resolution passed on the 5th day of June, 1946, by Dáil Eireann.'

I suggest that we appointed this tribunal to inquire into the charges made in certain letters. The Dáil wanted a report on these charges and, at the same time, it wanted to face up to the question that when we had the report, then, in the words of the Taoiseach: `The Government and the House would be in a position to decide what further action was required,' and also as there was important public work to be done, again, to quote the Taoiseach: `It is in the public interest that this should be disposed of with all possible speed.' "

Then there is the Department of Local Government. The circumstances disclosed in the report and in the evidence before the tribunal suggest that Parliament cannot be satisfied with the condition of affairs disclosed. It has been shown that a Parliamentary Secretary has been able to engage in a very responsible private business and has been able to hold a public office extending over the last 14 years. These are matters that I do not think any section of the House wants to allow to pass unnoticed. There is a problem involved there for the whole of us and for the Government. Are the Government going to continue a procedure by which an officer of Parliament can be saddled with the full-time responsibility that Dr. Ward was certainly saddled with here and, at the same time, hold, over a protracted period, a public office with the approval of the Department which he was engaged in running, and also have a very responsible position to which he had to give a great amount of time in the management of an ordinary commercial business? That is a matter on which we want to hear what the Taoiseach has to say. He may have something to say that will satisfy us that that situation has been envisaged and will be dealt with.

It is all very well for the tribunal to report that everything that was done in relation to the holding of the public position in Monaghan by Dr. Ward was done inside the regulations of the Department. That may be perfectly all right from the point of view of the tribunal, but, from the point of view of Parliamentary institutions and the Ministerial institutions of State, it puts a question to us that, I think, will have to be examined. I do not think that it is a satisfactory position that the Department of Local Government can sanction, over a long period —sanction practically indefinitely— the holding of a public position outside by a person who is also occupying a full Parliamentary office and looking after Parliamentary work. I feel that the Taoiseach has handled this matter in a very unconstructive and very awkward way for us all. Nevertheless, the problem that I see remains and we expect a full and complete analysis of this report and the implications of it in the light of the evidence given before the tribunal. We expect a full and complete report on the problems that arise for the Government to be put before us, and we expect a statement from the Government as to the way in which they propose to approach this question in the light of the responsibilities that they hold as a Government.

Mr. Blowick

I should first like to put a question to the Taoiseach. This report was furnished to him on Saturday last and he proposes now to put the matter of Dr. Ward's letter before the Government to-morrow. Why did they not discuss this whole matter since last Monday, let us say, and come to the House and treat Deputies as they ought to be treated by giving a full explanation and having an end to this thing once and for all? In my opinion, the findings of the tribunal covered a fairly wide field and, if we are not allowed to discuss the findings as they bear on other Government Departments, I think that the discussions of the findings would be absolutely futile. The tribunal has done its work very well and the discussion of just the bare, stark, naked findings is, I think, entirely superfluous.

What I was interested in was how the findings bear on the working of other Government Department and Government administration itself. If we are not to go into that, I do not see the use of discussing it. At the very first glance, it reveals a very unsatisfactory state of affairs as regards administration in many Government Departments. It shows us more clearly, I suppose, than any other thing could show that it is possible that balance sheets of compaies as a rule cannot be relied upon. To my mind, that is a very important aspect of the whole matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy suggest that the Government are responsible for the balance sheets of companies?

Mr. Blowick

I more or less put a question to you, Sir, on which you did not give a direction, that if we are to confine ourselves to the bare findings of the tribunal, I do not see that there is any need for the discussion at all. The tribunal has done its work expeditiously and, I think, to the complete satisfaction of everybody here. The work set before them has been done. I have scarcely anything to say on the findings of the tribunal.

An Ceann Comhairle

The purpose of this adjournment debate is to consider the Taoiseach's statement.

Mr. D. Morrissey

He did not make any statement.

Mr. Blowick

The Taoiseach did not make any statement.

To my mind, it involves the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Supplies very deeply. That is exactly what I want to go into. I am not a person who likes to hit an individual when he is down and that is my reason for stating that the findings of the tribunal are accurate, so far as I am concerned. As they relate to agriculture, to company law and to the Department of Supplies—now the Department of Industry and Commerce— that is what I was interested in.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would leave the discussion too wide if we were to go into company law.

Mr. Cafferky

On a point of order. We expected, when the Taoiseach spoke, that he would make reference to paragraphs 18 and 19 on page 3, but, whether deliberately or otherwise, he made no reference to them.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. Deputy Blowick is in possession.

Mr. Blowick

What struck me very forcibly was the mismanagement that can occur and that has been revealed by the evidence put before the tribunal. In the affairs of bacon factories particularly it has been fairly clearly proved that during the emergency period, when Emergency Powers Orders were in force and were fairly strictly enforced all over the country, it was still possible to evade them to a very wide extent. My meagre knowledge of the working of such businesses is that in each bacon factory an official from the Pigs and Bacon Commission is in constant attendance. He is supposed to check up on the number of pigs coming in, to satisfy himself that everything is open and above board.

I will pass from that and I will ask the Taoiseach another question. In his appointment of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, was he sufficiently discriminating in those he chose? It is a very serious matter when a person is raised to Ministerial status. Only the very best should be chosen. I will not take it for an answer if the Taoiseach says he did not know this or that. I will give my experience as a Leader of quite a small Party here and that is that the most private details and the most intimate things about the members of the Party are generally known to the Leader. I do not hold that the Taoiseach was totally unaware of many of the things that happened. He is not unaware of many of the rumours going through the country and that are not good for the country.

I hold that such an attitude and such mismanagement is very galling to the average, national-minded Irishman. It is particularly galling because it brings home to us the propaganda that England used in the past, that the Irish are not fit to govern themselves. It must be particularly galling to many of our people in England at the present time. It is with the greatest distaste that I rise to speak on this occasion.

Before I conclude, I would like to refer to a statement that appeared in the Irish Press to-day, dealing with the Taoiseach's proposed statement last night. The statement was that Clann na Talmhan was in with every other Party in the Opposition to form a ring, a clique, so to speak. Such a statement is entirely misleading. It is typical of what has appeared from time to time in the Irish Press about the political opponents of Fianna Fáil. No member of the Fine Gael or Labour Parties approached any members of our Party, to my knowledge, to form a ring to prevent the Taoiseach speaking.

I was in thorough agreement with the action taken by Deputy Mulcahy, that an important matter such as the Taoiseach proposed to deal with should not be brought in at a quarter to ten o'clock in order to have things stampeded through the House. Such an important matter should receive slow and careful consideration. I wish to put on record that I resent the attitude of the papers, and particularly of the Irish Press, in dealing with such a matter as that. It is a very low form of journalism and a poor attempt. I do not blame the reporters; I deliberately blame those who are piloting this kind of propaganda from behind the scenes.

I should like to have dealt with many things, but I do not see now how I can do it. In paragraph 17 we observe that the proceeds of the cash transactions amounted to the sum of £4,739 11s. 4d. Then, in paragraph 18, we see that these proceeds were from time to time distributed amongst the three directors in proportion to their respective holdings in the company, and the sums received by Dr. Ward amounted to £2,962 3s. 8d. That is all very serious. Later on we see that the sales effected by the cash transactions were deliberately omitted from the returns the company was required to make for the Pigs and Bacon Commission. It appears that we cannot go into that. I should like the Minister for Agriculture to let us know how it is that the Pigs and Bacon Commission were not aware of that.

I know other factories through the country and they are very rigidly supervised. I could quote the case of a small farmer who had a concrete curing tank. He killed a pig. One of his neighbours, who had not the same accommodation, asked to be allowed to put his pig into the tank as well. This was reported at a time when there were three sides in the tank. A Pigs and Bacon official confiscated one of the sides because the man was not allowed to have more than two sides in the tank. The man pointed out that that portion of the bacon was the property of a neighbour.

An Ceann Comhairle

What has that to do with this motion?

Mr. Blowick

These are the things which concern the members of our Party.

An Ceann Comhairle

But they are not related to this discussion.

Mr. Coogan

They have a certain relation on the point of discrimination.

Mr. Blowick

There was mismanagement on the part of the Minister for Agriculture or the Pigs and Bacon Commission. If these matters are not vitally affected by this report, what matters are? There is no use in the world discussing the findings of the tribunal as they stand. It is in their relation to Government Departments that the tribunal findings can be most usefully discussed. If we are precluded from dealing with these matters. I feel like moving the adjournment of the House and proceeding with other business.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the motion before the House.

Mr. Coogan

It was out of order last night.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was not out of order last night. Any Deputy who wished to speak on the adjournment was allowed to do so.

Mr. Norton

I feel in considerable difficulty about intervening in this debate at all because of the rather unusual character of the Taoiseach's speech on moving the adjournment. The Taoiseach, in fact, has made no speech at all. What he has really done is, he has brought into this House a commentary by Dr. Ward, the Parliamentary Secretary, on the Report of the Tribunal which was set up to investigate charges against him. The Taoiseach has merely added a little embroidery to Dr. Ward's views as to what the tribunal thought of him in the discharge of his duties as Parliamentary Secretary and in the course of his activities as director of a bacon curing company. But that is not a statement by the Taoiseach and the House is surely entitled to know what are the Taoiseach's views on this matter, what are the Government's views of this matter, what is the Taoiseach going to do and what is the Government going to do, because, so far as this House is concerned, it cannot make up its mind as to what it ought to do—though it may indicate what it would desire to do—until such time as it knows the Government's intentions in the matter.

On the last occasion when we were discussing this matter the Taoiseach told us that when he got a report from the tribunal the Government would decide its policy, and the House would have an opportunity of deciding what it wanted to do. The Government have had this report for some days. A copy of it was sent to Dr. Ward. His views were elicited on the report of the tribunal. So far, the Government have not even met as a Government to consider the matter, and so far—and this seems to me to be a deliberate scheme—they have not given the House any information whatever as to what as a Government they think ought to be done having been presented, as they have been now, with a very serious report from a very eminent tribunal. In fact, I do not want to hesitate in saying that the whole method of the Taoiseach's speech to-day indicated that it was a manoeuvre speech and no effort at all was made by the Taoiseach to take the House into the Government's confidence. One would imagine from the Taoiseach's speech to-day that the Government have something to hide, that their prestige is involved, that their dignity is at stake, that their sense of honour and rectitude is in some way impaired by the activities of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government.

I should imagine that the Government would have looked on this matter from a higher plane, that they would have come to the House and said: "Here is a case of a Parliamentary Secretary who has transgressed a code of honour to which he is expected to conform," that the Government would stand apart from the whole issue and say: "It is a matter now for this House, irrespective of the complexion of the Government, to decide what they will do in respect of this particular Parliamentary Secretary." I would expect every member of the House to look at the thing, not in the light of its being the Parliamentary Secretary attached to any particular Party—because it might happen to the Parliamentary Secretary of any Party in the course of time—and that the Government would look at this thing from a detached point of view, and would take the House into its confidence, being concerned with one thing only, that is, to preserve the dignity, and the honour of this House before the people who constitute this House.

But, instead, we got a speech from the Taoiseach which I can only describe as a manoeuvre speech, as if the Government is bound up with the Parliamentary Secretary in a matter of this kind. Maybe it is, but it ought not to be. It ought to stand apart and look at this thing in a detached way and it ought to be concerned, not with preserving the fortunes of the Fianna Fáil Party or the Fianna Fáil Government but with protecting the dignity of this House, which has been very much undermined by the report of the tribunal during the past few days.

The fate of the Fianna Fáil Party matters nothing, the fate of any other Party in this House matters nothing, compared with the dignity and the respect which this House holds, if it does hold it, in the minds and hearts of the people of this country. I am surprised, therefore, that the Taoiseach has taken the line he has taken to-day. Frankly, I thought the Taoiseach would have risen to a much higher plane when he came to make a statement on this matter before the House.

I do not want to discuss the matter in the light of Dr. Ward as an individual or Dr. Ward as a Parliamentary Secretary in the Fianna Fáil Government. I do not want to discuss the matter in the light of his personality, whatsoever, or in the light of his characteristics or in the light of his political associations or in the light of my liking or disliking for him. These seem to me to be beside the question. I do want to discuss the matter, in so far as it is possible to discuss it in the light of the brief speech from the Taoiseach, from the standpoint that this House has some responsibility, whether it likes it or not, whether it will discharge it or not, to the people of this country to maintain rectitude and a high standard of conduct in the public life of this country. That is what is at stake in this matter. To me, that is the only thing that is at stake.

What one Department did or another Department did in this matter means nothing unless it revolves around that kernel principle, the principle of maintaining in the eyes of the people of this country as high a standard of respect and dignity as we can achieve for this House. Artificial dignities here matter nothing if this House is an object of contempt amongst the people of the country who constitute it.

I do not want, therefore, that any words of mine should be thought to be a reflection on Dr. Ward as such. I want to discuss the matter purely from the standpoint of the conduct of a Parliamentary Secretary whose name happens to be "Ward," but it might be any other name so far as the purpose of my remarks is concerned. The Taoiseach told us that he had received a letter to-day from the Parliamentary Secretary intimating that he had resigned his position as Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Had tendered it.

Mr. Norton

Is that all the occasion demands? The Parliamentary Secretary has written a five-page letter to the Taoiseach, four pages of which were given over to comments on the viewpoint of the tribunal which investigated charges against him, and a few sentences were devoted to an intimation that he had graciously resigned his position as Parliamentary Secretary. Is this a case for allowing the Parliamentary Secretary to resign? Has anybody in the Government thought that the circumstances are not such that the Parliamentary Secretary ought not to be allowed to resign? Or, have the Government now decided, on reading the Parliamentary Secretary's letter, that he is to be allowed to resign notwithstanding the report of the tribunal which, if it means anything at all, clearly indicates that the person who held the position of Parliamentary Secretary has been guilty of offences against the laws of this country, has been guilty of breaches of the laws which he and every other member of this House made? Are we going to establish a new precedent and a new practice that when a Parliamentary Secretary breaks the law he will just write to the Taoiseach and delicately resign?

I do not speak personally in this matter at all in respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, but frankly I think the circumstances are such that the Parliamentary Secretary ought not to be allowed to resign, that the Parliamentary Secretary should be removed from office. If we are going to maintain any code of conduct in the place, surely, we are not going to do it by allowing people, not merely to break the law, but to treat the law with the utmost contempt and then calmly resign a position as Parliamentary Secretary. I do not wish to refer to any of the present Ministers at all, because we are starting a precedent now which may guide many other Governments and bind many other Governments, but are we going to start now a precedent by which people who hold Parliamentary Secretaryships and Ministerial office can do what they like with the law and then immediately write to the Taoiseach and resign their positions? Is that the kind of privilege we give anybody else? If a public servant were guilty of some offence, could he write to the head of his department and say: "I have decided to resign. Please accept my resignation and be assured of my continued admiration for you"? Is that the kind of practice we are going to set up for Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers? Is there going to be one practice for the fellow who is down close to the earth but, when you get high in the political firmament you may make your own law and your own practice and do whatever is most convenient in order to get out as quickly as possible and with as little punishment as possible?

Some years ago, in 1938, the House passed a Bill to provide pensions for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries when they retire. I think it is contemplated under the Bill that, if a Parliamentary Secretary retires after rendering seven years' service, this House will munificently give him £366 per annum as a pension for life. Does anybody seriously contend that a Parliamentary Secretary, in the circumstances which we are facing to-day, is going to be allowed to get away with a pension of £366 a year for life, that we are going to give a Parliamentary Secretary £366 in the circumstances of to-day for the next 30 or 40 years? If we do, this place is not a Parliamentary Assembly at all; it is a perfect mad-house, to contemplate giving, in our circumstances to-day, a pension of £366.

Why did we not hear from the Taoiseach what the Government intend to do in this matter of a pension? If the Taoiseach imagines that the people of this country will stand for a scheme of allowing a Parliamentary Secretary in these circumstances to resign and, then, of throwing a pension of £366 after him, he will get a very rude awakening. I should like him to go down to his own constituency and tell the people of Clare, who find it hard enough to live: "All you have to do to get a pension of £366 a year is to become a Parliamentary Secretary, monkey with bacon and you will get £366 a year pension." I am not standing for it in any case, and I think the Taoiseach, before this day passes, ought to make up his mind and the mind of his Government that there will be no question in the circumstances which confront us to-day of paying a pension of £366 to a Parliamentary Secretary.

I should imagine that one of the things for which we contemplated giving a Parliamentary Secretary a pension was that he helped to make laws here, that he spent a considerable amount of his time making laws and devoted a good deal of his ability and his energies to the framing of laws to be observed by the people. If the making of laws was to be any portion of the work he had to do in order to get a pension, surely the corollary to that was that he ought to keep the laws he made himself. If we are to create a situation in which Parliamentary Secretaries who make laws, or help to make laws, for the public, feel that they can ignore them themselves, be permitted to resign when they do so and get a pension as a reward for their law-breaking activities, surely we have reached a pretty low level so far as public rectitude in this country is concerned.

I have had experience from time to time of lowly-paid public servants being prosecuted on charges of the larceny of 10/- or £1. I have seen unfortunate sweated sub-post office assistants and auxiliary postmen around the country prosecuted for the theft of 10/-, 15/- or £1. In so far as they were established people at all, I have seen them lose their entire pensions obtainable after 35 or 40 years' service when there was a matter of £1 or £2 at stake. I have seen them lose their employment; I have seen them lose their pension rights; I have seen them cast out into utter economic darkness for the matter of £1 or £2. Is there to be one law for them and another law for Parliamentary Secretaries?

I have seen shopkeepers throughout the country during the emergency prosecuted and fined £10, £15 and £20 for the offence of overcharging by a halfpenny or a farthing. I have seen their licences withdrawn from them in many cases and I have seen them virtually put out of business. Is there any equality at all of punishment when these people can be almost put out of business for a matter of a halfpenny, a penny or two pence and when a Parliamentary Secretary is permitted to ride off with £366 pension per annum for the next 30, 40 or 50 years?

This tribunal made a reference to two matters within the limits of what it was permitted to do. It referred to the method of substituting doctors in Monaghan. I suppose that, when the tribunal was dealing with that matter, it had to deal with it in the light of the official regulations existent at the time these appointments were made, but there is not a very nice taste off this whole substitution of medical officers in Monaghan. There is a bad smell from it, and if the Taoiseach and members of the Government will go around the country to places where ordinary men and women meet and find out their views on this scheme of substitution of medical officers in Monaghan, they will get nearer an appreciation of what the ordinary people in the country are thinking.

Very clearly, the substituting of a medical officer in Monaghan was quite an important event in the civic life of Monaghan for the past 14 years. It certainly was the subject of prolonged discussion there. Nobody can complain that there were not enough doctors involved in it. Nobody can complain that the agreements were not intricate and complex. Nobody can complain that it did not take up a fair amount of a Parliamentary Secretary's time. I suggest to the Taoiseach in that connection that, whatever the regulations were in the past, whatever the regulations are to-day, there is need for an impartial examination of all this matter of the substitution of public officials by others, so as to make sure that, whether the Monaghan scheme was right or wrong, in the light of the regulations issued by the Department of Local Government, this House and the community will not be troubled by having to smell the same smell from the substitution of doctors or other people in the future.

I suggest that one of the things the Government must do in connection with this question of the substitution of medical officers and other public officials is to take into their confidence all Parties in the House and try to evolve a scheme which would put the question of substitution on a basis which will eliminate the profit motive, the motive of manipulation, and which would put the whole matter on some basis which will command public respect. Frankly, notwithstanding the tribunal's report on the Monaghan position, what happened there does not command my respect. It may have conformed with the regulations then drawn, and perhaps drawn by an interested party, but there is a bad taste off it and the tribunal's report will not remove that bad taste for many a day.

Another matter referred to by the tribunal was the matter of illicit sales of bacon by the Monaghan Bacon Curing Factory. I do not know what motives—whether they were patriotic or material—inspired the three people concerned to establish the Monaghan Bacon Curing Factory, but, whatever their original motives were—and I do not imagine that patriotism was at the bottom of them—they certainly showed a very strange concept of their responsibility to the public, if the evidence is to be believed. The methods by which the public could have stale and musty bacon passed over to them as good bacon, the pleas that only the damaged and normally unsaleable bacon was hawked about for the cash sales, reveals a very strange conception of a public company's responsibility to the public.

This may have been a bacon curing factory and that may be its description as a registered company, but it is quite clear to me, and, I think, to many members of the public, that it was just a cesspool of intrigue and friction from beginning to end, and ought to have had much more supervision than it had during its all too long life. At all events, the report of the tribunal makes certain things perfectly clear as far as that institution is concerned, and I think the Attorney-General ought not to be long denied access to the files, so that the public can get some indication of protection from the law officers of the Government against what has happened in this particular institution.

The whole question of a Parliamentary Secretary's association with a private company, while still maintaining his position as Parliamentary Secretary, seems to me to be one worthy of examination. I know personally that some Parliamentary Secretaries who are associated with the Government relinquished their private employment on becoming Parliamentary Secretaries. That is deserving of praise for the persons who did that. I know that it happened in respect to, at least, one member of the Government. I think that person's sense of rectitude travels closer to what we have in mind than that of the Parliamentary Secretary we are now discussing. The Government ought to make sure that, in future, Parliamentary Secretaries who are engaged in private business, particularly private business which has contact with Government Departments, or that have relations with Government Departments or semi-State Departments, for quotas, permits or licences, should be kept away as a matter of public duty from any activities of that kind, so that the public will know that no Parliamentary Secretary can be associated with a business in circumstances which enable him to use his influence with the Government in power to get favours for a company in which he has a financial interest. In the long run, no matter what may be said in this debate, I do not think the House can escape from the conclusion that its title deeds to exist as an Irish Parliament rest upon its ability to maintain decent standards of honour and decent standards of rectitude as far as members of this House are concerned.

If we make laws for the citizens we ought to keep them. There ought to be a hard road for any person who would not keep the laws that he makes. The ordinary citizen is not privileged to make laws. He has to observe the laws we make. We give him no choice. We do not permit him to offer dissent or to say that he does not like the laws. We say to him: "We make the laws, and these are the laws you have to obey." We should, at least, do what we compel private citizens, with all the power of the law to do in respect to their private lives.

There are many Deputies who have to try to live on the salaries which they get as members of this House. I know from personal experience—— Deputies on all benches know it—that it is a hard, tough struggle to live. I know that many of them pinch and scrape and deny themselves almost the necessaries of life in order to do so. They also deny their wives and children the things they would like to give them, so as to lead a straight, clean life and to be above reproach as far as the public is concerned.

All credit to them for doing so. If we expect that code of conduct from them, we ought to expect no less from Parliamentary Secretaries or Ministers. We ought to put our feet down against any such contacts by responsible members once they are elected to this House. I suggest that if we are going to maintain a high standard amongst the people, and inculcate in those who constitute this House a standard of honour and rectitude we have to make sure that these things will never occur. This House having been unfortunate enough to be confronted with this matter should purge itself before the community for the offence committed by a member of the House against the community. We can best do that on this occasion by making sure that even our friendship for the person concerned will not be allowed to interfere with the doing of the right and proper thing, not by ourselves, but by the people who sent us here.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I think we must proceed on the assumption that whatever the Parliamentary Secretary, Dr. Ward, may say in his own defence, or whatever Deputies here may say, or wish to say, under the privilege of this House or otherwise, the facts are as stated in the report of the judicial tribunal. It is not possible to proceed on any other basis. In so far as that report reveals that Dr. Ward has sinned he is paying a substantial price in retribution. The resignation from his official office, which he has tendered to the Taoiseach, represents something more than the loss of that office or the loss of the remuneration attached to that office. It represents dissociation from work to which his whole life has been devoted.

There are, of course, certain considerations of decency in public debate to which the Deputy need not conform.

Mr. Cafferky

You ought to set me the example and I might follow you then.

Mr. Lemass

I have stated that there follow from the publication of this report certain consequences. One of those consequences was intimated to the House by the Taoiseach when he read the letter from Dr. Ward. One further consequence is the proceedings in the ordinary courts, which will be instituted by the statutory bodies who have obligations in that regard.

Deputies have raised the issue of Parliamentary Secretaries having private business interests. They have not attempted, however, to give a considered view on that matter. It is not contrary to law and it is not contrary to custom in this State for Parliamentary Secretaries to have private business interests. It never was. It was not contrary to the law nor the custom in the days of our predecessors; nor is it now. If it is considered desirable to change either the law or the custom the implications of that change must be fully considered. The Deputies who have referred to the matter have not attempted to give us the benefit of their consideration. If whole-time officers of local authorities are eligible there must be some provision for the appointment of deputies for the discharge of their duties to the local authorities. Dr. Ward is not the only member of this House who is a whole-time officer of a local authority.

Dr. O'Higgins

He was never a whole-time officer.

Mr. MacEntee

Let us approach this matter seriously. There are four obvious issues that arise from the report. The position of Dr. Ward in relation to his office as Parliamentary Secretary; the position of the Monaghan Curing Company and its directors in so far as breaches of the law were revealed by the report; the wider issues of the freedom which Parliamentary Secretaries now have to engage in private business, and the right which whole-time officers of local authorities have to seek and obtain election to the Dáil and to appoint deputies to fulfil their duties to the local authorities while acting as members of the Dáil.

On these issues, Dr. Ward's letter deals with the first. On the second, the institution of proceedings by the Revenue Commissioners and the Pigs and Bacon Commission could not be proceeded with before and obviously had to follow the publication of the report. That action is now being taken. I have in my own mind a certain doubt as to the justice of that action, because I feel that the publication of the report and the debate which has taken place here to-day will not make it easy for the tribunal hearing the case to judge them solely upon the evidence produced in court. In so far as there is a case to be made for debarring Parliamentary Secretaries from engaging in private business, that case has not yet been made.

I think that it would be a serious decision to take and, certainly, it would not be easy to delimit the type of business in which a Parliamentary Secretary might engage with propriety and that from which he would be debarred. Is it considered desirable, for example, that a Parliamentary Secretary should be a farmer? If there is no objection to a Parliamentary Secretary having a personal financial interest in farming—there is no business more frequently debated in the Dáil or to which there is greater Government assistance given through various channels than farming—then, does the objection merely apply to business carried on by private limited companies? Deputy Norton referred to business which have contacts with Government Departments. What businesses have not at the present time? If there is to be a demarcation line drawn there, I think Deputy Norton would have considerable difficulty in deciding where to begin it and where to end it. Is that the suggestion? It is quite clear that we could not attempt to arrive at an answer to that question to-day. Heretofore nobody questioned the propriety of the law and the custom which entitle Parliamentary Secretaries to have private business interests. If that law and custom are being questioned now, it should be done in a calmer atmosphere than we have here and, on the issue involved, the leaders of the various Parties should be in a position to give a considered view, one which represents the opinion of the members behind them.

The final issue is the right of a medical officer or other officer of a local authority on election to the Dáil to arrange for the discharge of his local duties by a deputy. It seems to me that, if we are to deny him the right to arrange for the discharge of his local duties by a deputy, we must take the logical step of debarring such officers from election to the Dáil at all.

Dr. O'Higgins

Who are "we"?

Mr. Lemass

I am speaking of the Dáil, of which I am a responsible member.

Dr. O'Higgins

Very.

Mr. Lemass

On these issues the Government have not yet had an opportunity for detailed consideration. The issues are not such as would justify hasty decisions merely for the purpose of making an announcement during an improvised debate of this kind. These issues will no doubt be considered by the Government. But the Deputies who have spoken and who may speak in this debate would contribute much more to the dignity of the Dáil by giving us the benefit of their reasoned views upon these matters than by making speeches of the kind we have just heard from Deputy Norton.

Mr. Murphy

You will hear more speeches of the same kind.

Mr. Lemass

I have no doubt we will. I do not doubt the sincerity of Deputy Norton's concern for the dignity of the House, but that remark does not apply to others. But, if Deputy Norton is, as I believe he is, seriously concerned with the dignity of the House, I think he might have made a different type of speech, one which was seriously addressed to the issues that do arise upon this debate, if any issues arise, certainly issues which the Government will have to consider arising out of the report. I know the Deputies opposite are disappointed that the report was not in a different form, that it did not give them some opportunity of slinging a little more mud. We are not responsible for that.

Mr. Cafferky

Read the report of the railway tribunal.

Mr. Costello

The speech to which the House has just listened underlines and emphasises the protest that was made by Deputy Mulcahy, the Leader of the Opposition, by Deputy Blowick and by Deputy Norton against the procedure which has been adopted in this case. The Deputy-Leader of the Government in the last few sentences spoke about the speech that was made by Deputy Norton and stated, if I understand him, that it would conduce more to the dignity of the House if Deputy Norton had not made a speech of that kind.

I feel myself in complete agreement with practically every word uttered by Deputy Norton and I think that the speech made by the Tánaiste has been a disgrace to a Parliamentary institution. We were asked by Deputy Mulcahy, the Leader of the Opposition, to consider in a claim and detached way the report which is under consideration at the moment. The one thing he made clear in his speech was that he wished to approach the consideration of the very serious issues that are involved for this House and for the country in connection with this report in a calm and detached way. He made it clear that we were not looking for scalps and that we were not out for Dr. Ward's blood. The Tánaiste forgot that he was in the House here; perhaps forgot that he was in a responsible position; remembered only that he made speeches as a corner-boy from time to time and made a corner-boy speech in this House—and a corner-boy's speech is the speech to which we have just listened.

Who has the right to talk of the dignity of the House? Is it the Deputy Leader of the Government, who spoke in the way he spoke just now and who had the effrontery to speak about a man to whom this country owes such a lot, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Mulcahy? Who is he to say that, under Deputy Mulcahy's leadership, the Fine Gael Party has disgraced itself? We take a pride in our Leader. We are glad that the Deputy Leader of the Government can find no other argument in this very serious issue affecting the reputation, not merely of the Government, but of this House. He can find no serious argument in this case. He merely speaks of the Leader of the Opposition. He comments on the leadership of the Fine Gael Party. Then he proceeded to talk about Deputy Blowick and he referred, in the mean way in which he did, to the position occupied by Deputy O'Higgins in earning his living. Where is the dignity in that speech? Where is the dignity that this House has a right to expect from the Deputy Leader of the Government in matters of this kind?

Apart from the dignity of the House, and the corner-boy effort we have just listened to, there is one thing that clearly emerges from the speech made by the Deputy-Leader of the Government, and that is, that the Taoiseach was either unwilling or unable to make the statement that the House and the people of the country expected him to make on this very serious report made by a judicial tribunal, and he threw into this debate, in order to confuse the issue, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to make the type of speech to which we have just listened.

I have said that this House and the Government are on trial in connection with this matter. It is no exaggeration to say that no incidents in recent years, possibly no matters since this State was founded, have caused such widespread interest as those that were the subject-matter of the judicial inquiry which has just concluded. There are no incidents which have caused such widespread public uneasiness. There are no incidents which, within recent years, have made the people think that behind all this there is a mass of corruption which has not yet come to the surface and that only in this instance has a small degree of corruption come to the public view.

Whatever political speech the Deputy-Leader of the Government may make to this House, however he may try to divert the very serious matters that we have to discuss into paltry remarks about the tactics of the Opposition, he will have to realise sooner or later that the matters that gave rise to the report of the judicial tribunal are matters that the public have very grave concern and very great interest in, and no such tactics as were adopted by the Deputy-Leader of the Government to-day will get over that public uneasiness which exists as regards Government corruption.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce said we were disappointed that this report had not given us more to talk about. I read this report, not with disappointment. If I were to read it in any way sincerely, I would read it with sorrow, as I think most people in the country will read it. If I were to regard it as the Deputy Leader of the Government would regard it were he here, from a purely political point of view, I would regard it with pleasure. From a purely political point of view there is much to be made out of this report. It was not from a political point of view that this debate was initiated from this side of the House by Deputy Mulcahy. He tried to soften down the matter for Dr. Ward. He made no allegations against Dr. Ward other than what were in this report. He started no hue and cry for the skin and scalp of Dr. Ward or any other member of the Government. He endeavoured to place this debate upon a high plane and uttered a serious note.

But the Deputy Leader of the Government must say that we were disappointed because there was no more in it. If we were to rejoice politically, what greater pleasure could be taken than by reading the paragraphs of this report which have been slurred over in Dr. Ward's own letter and which have not been referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Government? One of the chief members of the Government Party, Dr. Ward, who was marked out for the new Ministry of Health, as everybody knows, this man who has for years been a force in the Fianna Fáil Party, this man upon whom some short time ago, only a few months ago, we conferred plenary powers in reference to the transaction of Ministerial business in connection with public health and public administration matters—what do we find this tribunal finding him guilty of? Not merely these matters of the cash transactions which he admitted in the court, not merely in reference to the concealment of illicit profits from the Revenue Commissioners, not merely, as counsel, in concluding the case on his behalf in the tribunal said—and I quote the words from the newspapers; they are in inverted commas, and this is what is reported:—

"Referring to the company's cash sales, Dr. Ward's counsel continued: Offences under the Emergency Powers Acts were undoubtedly committed by the selling of stocks not in accordance with the regulations which govern the sale of the particular commodity, bacon."

Does the Deputy Leader of the Government say that if I were politically minded I would not rejoice at that admission made about one of the principal pillars of the Fianna Fáil Party, made by counsel on behalf of the man who was to be a member of the Government in a few weeks? There was nothing said by the Deputy Leader of the Government about offences against the Emergency Powers Act.

What else does the tribunal find? It finds that Dr. Ward the Minister for Health-designate, a new additional member of the Government, gave evidence on oath in reference to two matters, one in reference to his intention as to the disclosure of the profits that he got illicitly, that he intended to put those profits back into the company and disclose them in the company's books. The tribunal finds that that evidence on oath is not to be believed. Where is our disappointment? If we wanted to take any advantage what more serious finding could be made by a judicial tribunal against a Parliamentary Secretary and a Minister-designate of this Government? What more serious finding could be made in reference to a member of this House than that his statements on oath were not accepted by a judicial tribunal?

I think that when the Deputy Leader of the Government has time to consider these matters, he will have every cause to regret the type of speech he made in this House to-day We have here this Parliamentary Secretary, on the admission of his counsel in open court, guilty of offences against the Emergency Powers Acts. We have him found by the tribunal guilty of offences which, according to the Deputy Leader of the Government, come under the Pigs and Bacon Acts, and we have him found guilty of concealment of illicit profits from the Revenue Commissioners.

What importance is to be attached to those matters, matters finding that the Parliamentary Secretary and Minister-designate is not to be believed on his oath, matters finding, in accordance with the admission of his own counsel, that he has been guilty of offences against the Emergency Powers Acts, findings that he has defrauded the Revenue? What relative importance is to be given to those matters compared to the dismissal of "my brother Johnny"?

The Taoiseach read out to-day, without comment, a letter from Dr. Ward. I, in common with my Leader, Deputy Mulcahy, have no intention and had no intention when I came into this House to-day to say anything other than was absolutely necessary in this case with reference to the personalities involved in the tribunal's report because I believed, and still believe, that the issues involved in this matter far transcend the personalities in this case or the rather paltry disputes that exist between two members of the Fianna Fáil Party which brought about the great public expense and public scandal in connection with this investigation made by the tribunal.

We have here a tribunal initiated at the request of the Government. The Taoiseach came to this House and read the letter from Dr. MacCarvill and he made a case here to this House that it was a matter of extreme urgency that in the public interest a judicial inquiry should be set up immediately to inquire into the matters referred to in Dr. MacCarvill's letter. It was no exaggeration to say that that came as a complete surprise to the ordinary Deputies in this House. A serious decision had to be taken, without the opportunity of very great consideration, as to whether or not this tribunal was the appropriate tribunal to deal with a matter of this kind. Deputy Dillon in the course of that debate entered a caveat against the procedure that was being adopted but the House, at the urgent instance of the Taoiseach and the Government, agreed to the setting up of this tribunal. The Tánaiste now fears that the report of that tribunal and the setting up of that tribunal may interfere with the proper conduct of any criminal proceedings that may be instituted as a result.

They did their task expeditiously and well, the report was in the hands of the Government last Saturday, I understand. It was common knowledge that it had been delivered somewhere about that time and it now appears to be a fact that on Saturday at latest this report was in the hands of the Government. Speed was necessary; speed was the reason why Dr. Ward was deprived of his ordinary rights as a citizen to take action on his own in the ordinary courts; speed was the reason why the ordinary methods which would have been adopted in the case of a private individual in connection with the investigation of these matters by the Guards, the Revenue Commissioners and their officers and the Pigs and Bacon Board and its officers were not adopted.

Now, what is the reason why up to Thursday, the Government having had this report in their hands from Saturday, no action has been taken by the Government in reference to the matter? Speed was required for everything else but action by the Government. According to the Taoiseach's few words to-day, the report was sent to Dr. Ward and he made his comment on it. I do not wish, as I said, to say anything against Dr. Ward other than what I have to say. I am not looking for Dr. Ward's scalp, nor am I looking for anything of a vindictive nature against him, but I want to know why it was necessary to send a copy of the report to Dr. Ward if it was not necessary to send it to Dr. MacCarvill. If Dr. Ward was permitted to make his apologia to the Taoiseach, surely the procedure should have resulted in the same apologia being made by Dr. MacCarvill and in the making of comments by Dr. MacCarvill on Dr. Ward's comments on the tribunal's findings.

Dr. Ward says "I was vindicated in certain matters by the tribunal. So far as I was not vindicated by the tribunal, the tribunal was wrong in its findings." That is what Dr. Ward's letter, as I understand it, says, as read out by the Taoiseach. Every criminal found guilty by a jury, after the verdict has been brought in and when he is asked if he can give any reason why sentence should not be imposed upon him says: "I am not guilty."

Mr. MacEntee

"But I do not want to be vindictive."

Mr. Costello

That is what the letter which was read says. I do think that, if the Taoiseach had adopted a somewhat different procedure from the procedure adopted, public interest would have been better served, but the public will want to know why it was that the head of the Government was not able to announce in his statement what the Deputy Leader of the Government purported to announce, namely that criminal proceedings will be instituted. The Taoiseach said only that Dr. Ward's letter would be brought before the Government at its meeting to be held this week. The Deputy Leader of the Government appears to suggest that that resignation, if it has not been accepted, is going to be accepted. The Taoiseach did not say that. The Taoiseach gave no indication other than what he said, that the letter of resignation would be brought before the Government at its next meeting.

I say most emphatically that in a matter of this kind, where speed was the watch-cry of the Taoiseach in regard to every step, speed ought to have been his guiding force in relation to action. When the report came into the hands of the Government last Saturday, there ought to have been a special meeting of the Government to consider what action should be taken with reference to the report of this tribunal, but it was not considered of sufficient importance that a man who occupied the position Dr. Ward occupied, who was designated as the new Minister for Health and a new member of the Government, had been found guilty of these serious charges, and had admitted others through his counsel, and had been found to be a person whose word on oath was not accepted in two instances by the tribunal.

It was for no reason the Minister said so. I reinforce the view I formed independently, that this procedure ought never be adopted again in like circumstances. Certainly the procedure of this tribunal is only one that would be adopted after very grave and serious consideration. Let us see what the matters referred to this tribunal involved. It was rushed upon this House. The members of the House had no opportunity to consider what was involved. The inquiry had its origin in a letter written by Dr. MacCarvill, the first part of which— indeed the main part—dealt with the dismissal of his brother Johnny. He gave in that letter a record of his brother Johnny's activities in the Fianna Fáil Party. One of the matters that the tribunal had to consider, one that involved the taxpayers in considerable public expense, and one that involved Dr. Ward's personal pocket in considerable expense, was the question of the dismissal of "me brother Johnny". The tribunal deals with the dismissal of "me brother Johnny". What has this House to do with the dismissal of "me brother Johnny"? Days and days were occupied by the tribunal in the consideration of the dismissal of "me brother Johnny". What public interest is involved in that?

The House should be careful, and should be astute to see that never again will a tribunal of this kind be set up in a dispute by one member of a political party with another, because his brother was dismissed from a job. That is what has happened in this case. Two members of the Fianna Fáil Party fell out. The brother of one was dismissed by the other, and the aggrieved person got his distinguished medical brother to make a complaint not merely to the head of the Government, but to each member of the Government, that his brother Johnny was dismissed. Straightway the Government came in here and asked that public funds should be expended in investigating the circumstances in which one member of the Fianna Fáil Party dismissed another member of the Fianna Fáil Party from a job. This House should learn a lesson from this tribunal's report—never to be led into that situation again.

What is the result of this tribunal's report? The Parliamentary Secretary has been found, on his own admission, guilty of certain malpractices. He has been found unreliable on oath. He has been vindicated for the dismissal of the complainant's brother "Johnny". The taxpayers' money was expended to secure that. But the man who complained that his brother Johnny was dismissed was found guilty of making, in three instances, reckless and groundless charges. There is the position that this House and the public find themselves in, as a result of the expenditure of a considerable amount of public money. Two members of the Fianna Fáil Party fell out. One has been found guilty of serious offences, and the other has been found guilty of making reckless and groundless charges. These reckless and groundless charges were the basis on which the Government came to this House and to the Seanad and asked that a public tribunal, consisting of three eminent judges, should be set up to consider this matter, at the public expense. I say that the report of this tribunal discloses a state of affairs that is a disgrace to the Government. This House should formally make up its mind and say that this tribunal will not be allowed to be a precedent. So far as it is going to be a precedent, it will be a danger-signal to all Parties, not to allow the House to become an instrument by means of which two members of a political Party, who have fallen out, shall fight out their private and paltry differences at the public expense and to the public detriment.

Dr. O'Higgins

Twenty-five years after the establishment of a Parliament in this country, we have our first experience of a judicial public inquiry to inquire into the conduct and behaviour of a member of the Government Administration. From beginning to end, from the time that matter first came under public notice, this House was, in fact, left leaderless. The head of the Government may be the President or he may be the Chairman of the Executive Council; he may or he may not be the head of the Fianna Fáil Party.

But he should at all times be the Leader of Parliament, the Leader of this House; and, when I say he should be the Leader, I mean that there is a definite responsibility placed on him to give a lead to the House in any set of circumstances, difficult, unpleasant or otherwise, that may arise. What is the position from beginning to end of this very grave and scandalous emergency? A letter in very, very detailed and circumstantial language in all respects is given to him as the head of Government. In certain respects that letter could be checked very, very quickly and very expeditiously. The letter is given to him as head of Government with a view to action being taken by him as head of Government. What is his action? He comes to Dáil Éireann, washes his hands of all responsibility, gives no lead to Dáil Éireann, and says: "Let a judicial tribunal inquire into this." Deputy Costello and the Tánaiste referred to the inadvisability and the objections to that particular course. However, that was the line followed.

A tribunal sits in public over many days. I think in the history of this country, since newspapers were first printed, no trial ever got so full and detailed publicity and no trial was ever followed so closely by everybody throughout the country, mighty and humble. There was scarcely a mind in the country on which was not impressed in indelible characters every question asked and every answer given at that inquiry. The report of the tribunal, brief, but very, very clear, clearing Dr. Ward's name of certain charges, finding him guilty of other very, very definite, grave and scandalous charges, is passed to the head of Government on Saturday last.

The whole case, as Deputy Costello pointed out, made by the Head of the Government a fortnight ago for the particular machinery set up was one of speed, urgency, cannot-lose-an-hour in dealing with such a matter as this—getting on with the work of the nation. That report was handed to him on Saturday. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday passed and on Tuesday he is urged officially, but in private, by the leader of the Opposition to make a statement in the Dail, even if it is only to say when the report will be circulated and when there will be a full discussion. That day passes in silence. Yesterday comes, and yesterday we get the quick, contemptible, unworthy and petty manoeuvre that was adopted to allow a brief statement of one quarter of an hour by the Taoiseach and to ensure that no other member of Parliament would get an opportunity of expressing his views on, perhaps, the biggest issue that has ever shaken any Parliament in this country. To-day, on the fifth day—the fifth day after the report of the tribunal has been in his possession, and about the third week after the charges had first been made, and when all the evidence from day to day must have been studied, appreciated, considered and evaluated, he comes into Parliament to tell Parliament what? To give what kind of lead to Parliament? To give Parliament the views of Deputy Dr. Ward on the findings of the tribunal; to give no views on his own behalf as an individual or on his own behalf as Head of Government; to give no lead whatsoever to Parliament.

As one Deputy in this House, I want to protest most emphatically against the technique adopted by the Taoiseach to-day. As far as I know, that report, circulated to the Deputies, does not through that form of circulation go on the records of this House and it is the records of this House that will be there for posterity. What did the Taoiseach in his statement to-day read, through the medium of Dr. Ward's observations? He read every section of that tribunal's report which might be calculated to whitewash the Deputy in question—the Parliamentary Secretary. Those sections of the tribunal's report will go on the records of this House. What is excluded by that technique are those sections of that report that find the Parliamentary Secretary guilty of certain actions and certain misdeeds.

The letter, the apologia, the explanation, or the defence of Dr. Ward is the answer to that very, very serious finding and it is as broadly publicised as it is possible for any individual in this State to give publicity to it. At the same time he has in his breast pocket another letter—the observations of the other party concerned in what was originally a squabble between individuals. One is published to the four corners of the earth and the other is deliberately suppressed. The glib explanation given for that is "Oh, he can write to the papers". He can write to the papers. Are we to assume that Deputy Dr. Ward, the Parliamentary Secretary, is unable to write—that it is only one of them who can write to the papers? Was not the very technique adopted rather one-sided, rather unfair and rather unjust? If either of those letters was to be read, then both should have been read. Both should have got equal prominence. Both should have got equal publicity. Leaving that on one side, here in this great emergency, when history is being made and precedents are being created, and when Deputies of all Parties look to the Leader of the House for a lead, it stops there. Parliament is not told what action the Government proposes to take with regard to Dr. Ward or Dr. Ward's resignation. Not one hint is given. Not one word is spoken. It is a matter of such small importance, a matter wherein speed is of no value whatsoever, a matter that can wait for the ordinary normal meeting of Government later in the week—later in the week when there would be no opportunity given to Parliament to discuss what action, if any, the Government proposes to take. Is that a worthy attitude? Is that either a responsible or a dignified attitude? It is the action of a man who is letting down the important office he holds as Leader of this House; one whose responsibility it is and whose function it is to give a lead to the House. The situation, such as it is, was presented, as far as it could be manipulated, in a lopsided, prejudiced manner, with all the tilt in favour of one of the contestants and all the injustice and exclusion towards the other.

I have no particular choice as between the two members of my profession that figured in this rather unfortunate and discreditable episode Neither of them happens to be a friend of mine, personally, professionally or politically. But I do say that the Government as a whole and many Departments of the Government broke down on their job. When tons of bacon were going out contrary to emergency regulations, when there was bacon of doubtful quality being sent to Irish civilians and Irish soldiers, when many regulations of the Revenue Commissioners were being flouted and treated with defiance, when nothing was being done or likely to be done by the Government as a whole and the many Government Departments concerned, that particular doctor came in to clean up what appears to be a bit of a den, to clean up Government buildings, to protect Government revenues, and to protect the public health of the country. That service at least was rendered by Dr. MacCarvill. The thanks that that individual gets for calling the Government's attention to Government failure is to have the case presented, not only to Parliament, but to the world, in a lopsided manner. We have a document of that kind placed before us, which finds one man guilty of very serious offences, and, when that is introduced into Parliament, we have that individual's observations and his explanations and his attempted justification of the deeds. We have the other man found guilty of reckless and unjustifiable charges against a brother man, and when that other individual's observations and explanations are in the custody of the Taoiseach, surely anyone with any sense of fair play would hold that if one of these documents was to be read, both should be read.

This debate may go on for some hours yet and, as one Deputy, I claim that this Parliament, before this debate closes, is entitled to know what action the Taoiseach is prepared to take on Deputy Dr. Ward's letter of resignation. Is he prepared to accept that resignation, or is he inclined to refuse the resignation and say: "Carry on as Parliamentary Secretary or as a worthy assistant Minister, as one of the persons responsible for controlling administration and expenditure in a great Department of State?" Or, is he prepared to say that the acceptance of the resignation alone is too mild a course to be taken? Is it unreasonable to ask, when a debate like this is in being and is going to conclude in a few hours, that at least that much information should be given? There is no lead; no information. Whatever action, be it large or small, may be taken will not be open to discussion by this House. I think the whole handling of this situation has been, in a studied way, discourteous and that the headline established has been a bad headline. It is an example which I, for one, sincerely hope will not be followed, not only in the respect referred to by Deputy Costello but in many other respects.

Now, perhaps, I might say a word of a personal kind. I have been in this Dáil for some 17 years and, during that 17 years, I have held a professional position outside, a responsible one, because I preferred to try to make a living and earn a livelihood for my family by the work of my profession rather than throwing myself in a whole-time way into the political arena. Professional work, rather than political work, was my first choice and on more than one occasion, when I was asked to join the two, my answer was a refusal, because I could see that it was both difficult and delicate to try to fill the two roles. Circumstances and family tragedies and a kind of traditional background forced me into a position that I never ambitioned or desired.

I more or less found myself, by pressure and weight of circumstances, forced into political life, a kind of combination of two rôles that I knew would be both difficult and delicate. For 17 years, as Deputies sitting behind the Taoiseach know, both as a Government Deputy and an opponent of the Government, I have endeavoured to keep those two lives apart, and I have done it successfully. Inside the County Meath, every adherent of the Taoiseach and of the Tánaiste will tell them—and well they know it—that these two lives have been kept apart. When Government legislation was before this House that I could have riddled, with my knowledge and experience, like a cannon ball tearing through pasteboard, because I did not consider it right to mix the two rôles, I refrained from participating in local government matters. The recognition of that and of the difficulty and delicacy of the position is to get jibes from the first, second and third Government Bench that my silence was due to the fact that I did not approve of the line that my colleagues were taking? It only remained in this debate for the Tánaiste, the Deputy Leader of the Government, to get up and try to go further with his jibes. Whatever position I hold, I have held it in spite of the people opposite. Do not think that I am not aware of the fact that over the last 17 years every possible device to sap and undermine and shake me in my position has not been used. Even by this Front Bench here, when charges were made that the appointment board that appointed me, appointed me through crookery, the highest legal opinion in the country was taken and paid for to see if there was any way to jettison me in my professional work. But, in spite of all that provocation, I have tried to keep my two lives apart.

If it is the desire of anybody opposite, Taoiseach, Tánaiste, or any member of the Government, that that division of lives should cease to be, then I will wade in and meet them on every measure they introduce and the complication of lives will be theirs rather than mine. The particular point made in the discussion could have been just as emphatically and clearly made without mentioning the name of any Deputy. I think it was rather improper and in very bad taste, and it would not have provoked a remark from me had it not come from the person filling the position of Tánaiste in this particular Government set-up.

In the tribunal report before us we have sufficiently grave matters to take up the full attention of everyone of us. There is no one of us of any Party who has not felt more ashamed for the last three weeks as a public man than ever he felt before in his career. There is a lot to be ashamed of; there is a lot to be cleared up. How that affects other people's professional lives, other people's business lives, is quite another matter. What does concern the Dáil is this: how it comes that it remains for a squabble between Dr. MacCarvill and Dr. Ward to bring to light the fact that tons and tons of bacon have been issuing from one particular factory in spite of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board and in spite of emergency regulations. That is number one. Now for number two: how it comes about that, to the extent of income-tax, sur-tax and corporation profits tax over a period of years, one particular factory is able to diddle the State and the revenue authorities. Now as to number three: 25 years after the Army was formed, when the Army has nothing to do but to make every man more expert at his job, more efficient in the running of his particular department, and five or six years after we have spent at the rate of £10,000,000 a year on greater training and greater efficiency, that Army is regarded by one bacon company as the dumping ground for doubtful bacon, for tainted goods, and the explanation given is because they had not experts at the job.

Surely there is more to be discussed and considered by the Government in face of a situation of that gravity, affecting the Department of Local Government and its head, affecting the Department of Supplies and its head, affecting the Department of Agriculture and its head and affecting the Head of the Government as a whole? To indulge in cheap jibes as to what the particular position is of an individual Deputy, who never consciously mentioned another Deputy's name with regard to his professional work or his private business or public existence, is scareely creditable.

Previous speakers said that this Parliament is on trial. It is. Probably from the date of its inception, never was this Parliament more in the public gaze. From the date of its inception, never were the people more shocked or horrified with the things that could happen and that continued to happen, even in the Government itself, over a period of years. The people outside on their toes, alert and watchful, and the people inside, ashamed and sorrowful, are entitled to know what steps are being taken by the Government, and how promptly, to see that not only the centre of this particular scandal is eradicated, but that as regards the tentacles, wherever they reach to, and no matter how many other Departments are involved— wherever the tentacles of that particular cancer reach out—there will be a general clean-up, a general overhaul, and that as regards causal negligence with regard to a factory that is run by a Parliamentary Secretary, or lack of supervision with regard to a factory run by a Parliamentary Secretary, action will not stop with dealing with the Parliamentary Secretary alone.

There is not one of us who has not constituents who have been mulcted for thousands of pounds and deprived of their liberty over the irregular or backdoor issue of as much as a pound of tea. There are bacon factories that were suspect of, by backdoor methods, disposing of as much as one cwt. of bacon and the action taken by Government Departments was to have those factories so closely supervised that it would be no exaggeration to say that their stock was checked three times a day for every working day of the whole year. Here we are dealing with a particular bacon factory that was brought up in court in 1939 and the decision was that there was irregularity with regard to the conduct of business and payments made to farmers. There was a Parliamentary Question, asking the Government if they were aware of that, and aware of who were the directors.

In other words, there was some suggestion as far back as 1939 that that factory would take a little bit of supervision, a little bit of watching. How was that supervision exercised? Was it by counting or checking the stock three times a day for the greater part of the year? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Was there any supervision, any vigilance, any alertness? The answer was given in the evidence before the tribunal. Tons of bacon could go in all directions and bacon of doubtful quality, doubtful with regard to its effect on public health, on the lives of the people, could be sold to people for money and packed into their stomachs, and the particular victims selected in the main were soldiers of the Irish Army.

Mr. Cafferky

It is regrettable that the House should be discussing the conduct of a member of this Assembly. It would be well to keep before us certain principles of Christian charity in dealing with this matter. There is one point I would like to make very clear. Last night, when the Taoiseach came into the House, at a quarter to ten, to present the report of the tribunal and to make a statement, it was our opinion that the statement would take at least three-quarters of an hour and that he would tell us something about the findings of the tribunal and as to the action he, as Head of the Government, was about to take. It was for that reason that we felt he was acting unfairly to the House by coming in at 9.45 and asking us to hear a statement of that nature which we would be prevented from replying to because of the lateness of the hour. What occurred in the House last night has been described by the Deputy Leader of the House as rowdyism started by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party.

We do not regard it as rowdyism. We look upon the action of the Leader of the Opposition as being in accordance with the conscience and the mind of all Parties of the Opposition. His action in refusing permission to the Taoiseach to make a statement was taken because the Taoiseach was not treating the House as he should, and was not taking the House into his confidence. I associate myself with the statement of Deputy Blowick, Leader of Clann na Talmhan, that there was no collaboration or association or frame-up in the opposition to the Taoiseach's making the statement.

The Irish Press, apart from any other paper in circulation in this country, is constantly trying to set a headline to foreign agencies and foreign newspapers and constantly calling them over the coals for misrepresentation of this country outside this country. Yet, while that paper is constantly setting the headline of good conduct as far as publication of news is concerned, they leave this House knowing what has happened and deliberately publish something contrary to what has happened. If that is the standard the Irish Press can set, and if that is the type of news it puts into circulation in this country, it is difficult to expect agencies outside this country to do other than what they are doing at the present time in misrepresenting this country. So much for the misrepresentation that appeared in the Irish Press this morning.

We expected that the Taoiseach would indicate to the House what action he would take in dealing with the Parliamentary Secretary on the two points on which he has been convicted. We expected that he would inform the House that this was a matter for the Attorney-General and would be passed over to him to deal with it. Instead, he read a letter from Dr. Ward, a letter which, to a certain extent, was passing judgment upon the tribunal, which was informing the Taoiseach that wherever the tribunal found him innocent, he was prepared to accept their findings, but wherever the tribunal found him guilty, he was not prepared to accept their finding. That is the sum total of his letter. He cunningly left out reference to the two or three paragraphs in which his guilt was established.

One would expect the Taoiseach would have read a copy of the report from beginning to end and then deal with it accordingly, in the light of where it found him innocent and in the light of where it found him guilty. It was the intention of the Leader of this Party and, as we can see by the statement of the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, it was their intention, to deal with this matter in the most reasonable manner, to refrain from making any reference whatsoever to Dr. Ward, because we must realise, as human beings with certain weakness, that while it may be Dr. Ward's case to-day, it may be ours to-morrow or that of a member of some other Party. It is our duty to go into the matter with no desire to add to the injury already done by his mischievous action as director of this particular curing company.

Instead, the Tánaiste, in the speech he made this afternoon, deliberately started to throw dirt, deliberately started to make false accusations, with the consequence that these accusations have to be replied to. Things have been said here that would not have been said and Deputies have spoken and will speak who, perhaps, would not have intervened in the debate but for the method adopted by the Tánaiste this afternoon.

When this tribunal was about to be set up, the Taoiseach came to the House and asked for permission to have this tribunal established for the purpose of getting a report as to whether Dr. Ward was guilty or not guilty. The majority of the House were in favour of the establishment of this type of court in order to speed matters. I was not present on that occasion but I understand that the Clann na Talmhan Party, the Labour Party and some Independent Deputies opposed the setting up of the tribunal for the one reason that it might prejudice the verdict of another court at a later date.

We are now told by the Deputy Leader of the House that there is a danger of that being the case. In view of the fact that the Government are responsible for the establishment of this tribunal, I feel that that consideration cannot be taken into account and that we should not try to impress upon whoever may be passing judgment as to whether Dr. Ward is guilty or not guilty when it goes before the judicial court any view other than that which they should be capable of coming to as regards the guilt or innocence of the party concerned. We are prevented by you, Sir, from going into matters which we would like to go into.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not reference—only details of administration.

Mr. McGilligan

That was about two hours ago. I think a certain elasticity has developed since.

Mr. Cafferky

It is rather amusing to hear the Deputy Leader of this House telling us that we were disappointed that we had no ground to work on and informing us that he did not expect from us a very high standard of debate. Deputy Seán Lemass——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Tánaiste.

Mr. Cafferky

Minister Seán Lemass has been in this House for a considerable time. He has had years of experience in the Opposition, practising methods of debate, and years of experience in the Government, and one would expect a decent standard from him and if we got a decent standard from him young Deputies like myself and others would make an attempt to follow that standard. He made no attempt. He was abusive, he seemed to pride himself on the fact that there was nothing to be ashamed of in this report, that everything was just as they expected it to be and that the Opposition were at a disadvantage in not having something to talk about. If one reads this report, I think there is plenty to talk about.

If we were desirous of making political capital, if we were desirous of seeking the blood of Dr. Ward, we could spend weeks talking about it. But that is not our desire. Our desire is to have this matter cleared up once and for all, not only in relation to Dr. Ward but in relation to every other Department in which anything of the kind may be going on at present, and in respect to which there are so many rumours through the country.

The Minister wanted to know whether we agreed with men who hold local government positions, such as doctors, teachers, and so on, being elected members of this House. I would have no objection to a man holding a public position being elected to this House. If I were a doctor, it might be said I was making the statement because I was an official myself, but I am not an official. I am an ordinary layman, and my reason for saying that is that, as a member of the House, having no other responsibility than my responsibility as a member of the House—and in the case of some constituencies, it amounts to a lot if a Deputy does his duty—I feel that he is able to give a certain amount of time to the position he holds, or to appoint a suitable deputy to do his work while he is absent.

When a man, however, becomes a Parliamentary Secretary or a Minister, it is my opinion—my personal opinion; it is not my Party's opinion —he should relinquish his public position. I understand that was the reason legislation was passed here to give pensions to Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries after a certain term of office, because the pension would make up for the loss sustained by reason of their having given a number of years to the service of the country and would help to carry them over when they left the House through retirement or through being asked to leave by the people at an election. If the Minister wants to know my opinion, it is that such people should relinquish their positions when they become Parliamentary Secretaries.

In my opinion, also, no Parliamentary Secretary or Minister should be a director of any firm or company within the State while acting as Parliamentary Secretary or Minister. These are full-time jobs which leave no time for any company or firm, and they should have nothing to do with any such company or firm. If Dr. Ward had had nothing to do with this firm, he would be sitting to-day where he was sitting a month ago.

Everybody regrets this position, because it has done harm not only to the Government Party but to every other Party, that a member of the House should be brought before a tribunal and found guilty of such offences as defrauding the Revenue Commissioners, black marketing in bacon and selling bad, tainted or inferior bacon to the Army, on the ground that the experts in the Army would not know the difference between good and bad bacon. We could conceive of almost any crime but that crime, and we cannot conceive a man committing that particular crime. Then we have the weakness of his statement that this money was put into a cash box and was to be returned. Surely Dr. Ward must think we are all children if he thinks we will accept that. Surely he did not think that Mr. Justice O'Byrne would accept it.

The Taoiseach should tell us before the Dail adjourns to-night what he intends to do. He should not allow the Parliamentary Secretary to resign, but should remove him from office. We want to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is to remain a member of the House. We are interested not only in what is to happen to him as Parliamentary Secretary, but what is to happen to him as a member of the House— whether he is to remain a member of the House and to enjoy the allowances given to a member of the House. We can scarcely conceive him sitting here as a member, even after relinquishing his position as Parliamentary Secretary, because every time a dispute arose in the House, it would be: "Bacon, bacon," all over the House. For that reason, we can scarcely conceive him sitting here even on the very back bench.

We want to know what is to happen. Will he be forced to resign? Is there any law in relation to the conduct of members of Parliament which allows them to sit, irrespective of what they do? We want the Taoiseach to tell us what he thinks about it, to give us an explanation and to say what he thinks with regard to other Departments indirectly connected with the Department in which the Parliamentary Secretary held such a high position. That is what we expected, and it is because we expected that last night that we felt it was devilish on the part of the Taoiseach to come in here at a quarter to ten to make a statement and to deny us an opportunity of speaking on it.

The Minister accused us of rowdyism. Try to conceive for a moment that we or Fine Gael were the Government and a Deputy holding office as Parliamentary Secretary misconducted himself. If Fianna Fáil were over here, they would glory in the opportunity. They would look on it as a Godsend in order to further their political aims, that is, on the basis of the campaign conducted prior to 1932. It is an opportunity which an unscrupulous Party would avail of, but up to the present I have not heard one Deputy, inside or outside, refer to this particular incident. At the meeting which our Party had to-day, the decision was that Deputy Blowick would say the few words to be said and that the matter would be left there. We were not to seek, like greyhounds after the hare, the blood of Dr. Ward merely because he had slipped up, and, judging by what Deputy Mulcahy said, it would seem that that also was the conclusion reached by Fine Gael. There can be no question at all as to what the Minister intended, and, in fact, I came to the conclusion that the Minister was almost gloating over the fact that Dr. Ward had slipped up. Perhaps there is a friend of his who would like to step into Dr. Ward's shoes.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a very proper remark.

Mr. Cafferky

With regard to the Minister's description of Deputy Blowick's statement as mean, I fail to see anything mean in it. He referred to the reports of certain companies and asked how we were to accept them. He wanted to know how we were to accept figures given by the Minister for Agriculture in relation to wholesale and retail prices of certain bacon factories, when the figures given by the Monaghan Bacon Factory were falsified and dishonest. If the figures given by the Monaghan Factory were falsified and dishonest, they were, perhaps, found to be so because they were examined by competent men with a knowledge of such matters. On the surface, they might seem quite correct. It was on these grounds that Deputy Blowick wanted the Minister for Agriculture to make a statement, because, indirectly, he, as Minister for Agriculture, is concerned in the matter.

We would expect that even the Minister for Local Government would make a statement. He is head of the Department in which the Parliamentary Secretary was working, and has some responsibility here. He cannot wash his hands clean on account of Dr. Ward. We would expect that he would state how Dr. Ward could do these things, and could carry on as he was carrying on for a number of years.

As far as the tribunal is concerned, let us hope that the Taoiseach will enlighten us before 10.30 p.m., as to what is going to happen, and if the letter with his resignation sent in by Dr. Ward is going to be accepted. Is that sufficient punishment, or will the matter go to the Military Tribunal? We were told a week ago that we wanted a Military Tribunal to maintain order and punish black marketeers. The Minister stated that there was no other way to frighten such people. I agree with everything he said then. There is no other means of terrifying people who deal in the black market but to bring them before the Military Court. Since the outbreak of the war I always believed that the fines imposed in local courts throughout the country were too small. These courts were too sympathetic towards offenders when solicitors put up excuses. Let us hope that the gentlemen who participated in irregular sales of bacon, and broke the Emergency Orders, will be brought before the Military Court and dealt with in the same way as I would be dealt with if I had committed any offence that was contrary to these Orders. I have no doubt that every other citizen would be dealt with in that way. That is the way they should be dealt with. We would be very disappointed and could not accept the idea that the resignation of Dr. Ward will be sufficient punishment for his guilt.

Mr. Cosgrave

This is a matter which should be dealt with, with as much restraint as possible. The debate has proceeded, unfortunately, on a different level. The responsibility for that must, in my view, rest largely with the Government. The Taoiseach at the commencement merely outlined matters since the Government received the report of the tribunal.

In doing so he quoted the contents of a letter which he received from Dr. Ward, omitting at the same time to quote a letter which he had received from Dr. MacCarvill. However unsatisfactory that method of procedure might be, I want to deal with this in a different light. The procedure adopted since the tribunal was set up, or rather in setting it up, is one which for the future must guide to some degree procedure in matters of this kind. The fact that this procedure has been adopted must in future influence members of this House, and future Governments, in whatever standards they propose for dealing with affairs of this sort, should such, unfortunately, occur again. The fact that this procedure was adopted and that these findings have been brought in, while meriting the careful and anxious consideration of Deputies, and the utmost restraint in the circumstances, cannot deflect them from discharging their duties as public representatives, and their duties to their constituents.

It has been stated here by the Tánaiste that certain Deputies may be disappointed that there is not more in the report with which they could, to use his own words, "throw mud at the Government." I would much regret that politics in this country should reach the level that politicians should endeavour to persuade the public by the amount of mud they could throw at the Government from reports of this kind. On reflection, I am sure Deputies on all sides much regret that this has arisen, and must regret sincerely that a debate has to take place on such a serious matter. The fact remains that this tribunal was set up and has brought in certain findings. Whether Deputies on any side are satisfied with the findings, there they are. No Deputy and no Minister would suggest that this tribunal was not actuated by the highest degree of efficiency and service, as well as conscientious devotion to the responsibility imposed upon it. That being so, the findings contained in the documents are, so far as human methods can be responsible, an accurate and truthful account of what they consider to be the position.

The first thing that falls for consideration by Deputies is the fact that the tribunal has found that the person as to whom it was asked to inquire has been guilty of certain conduct which, in my view—and I am sure in the view of Deputies and the public— cannot be regarded as conduct proper to any member of the Dáil or the Government. If that view is accepted—as I submit it must be accepted—then the responsibility devolves upon the Government to take action. For some reason with which we have not yet been favoured, the Government has postponed action. I regard it as considered opinion, that the Government should have met as soon as it was possible to have a meeting after receiving the report. In this matter the Government should have held, as soon as it was possible, a meeting of the Cabinet after it received this report. Having met, the proper function of the Government in the circumstances was to dismiss Dr. Ward. On these findings and in the circumstances on which this tribunal reported, the only course open to the Government was to dismiss Dr. Ward from his position as Parliamentary Secretary. I think, then, that the Government might have considered what further action was necessary and they should have consulted with their legal advisers. I submit that was the correct procedure to adopt and the one which should have been adopted. Had that procedure been adopted then this country and this Parliament would have been spared the regrettable type of debate that has taken place here to-day. The Government, however, failed in its responsibility. They, apparently, could not make up their minds as to what the proper course of action would be. It is only natural that Deputies and others, involved in the heat and activity of politics, must give vent to their opinions when the Government, apparently, fails in its duty. I hope that, in speaking on this matter, I am using as much restraint as is possible for a politician when dealing with politicians.

I commend for the future guidance of every Government, should such an unfortunate situation again occur, that that would have been the proper procedure—always assuming that a tribunal of this kind is established. Now is not the time to discuss as to whether a tribunal of this kind is the proper procedure. If that is to be considered, in relation to Parliament in general and in relation to the work of Parliament in particular, I suggest to the Deputies on all sides of this House that it is a matter which might properly now be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and it is a matter, whoever decides procedure, which requires careful consideration and merits the most dispassionate consideration of the elected representatives of the people. It is one which can be considered most satisfactorily in circumstances other than those obtaining here to-day.

It has been stated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the penalty paid by Dr. Ward will be far more severe than that paid by a private citizen who found himself in a similar position. That, of course, is perfectly true. Does anyone for a moment suggest that the code of conduct and the honesty of purpose with which a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary or, for that matter, a Deputy should carry out his duties are attributes such as would invariably be expected from the public? I have no doubt that the highest standards of conduct and the highest sense of personal dignity, personal honesty and probity in dealing with matters of business are jealously exercised by the vast majority of the people in their every-day affairs. While that is so, a matter of this kind where a Parliamentary Secretary is involved, and where a tribunal of this kind has found the facts as set out in paragraphs 20, 23 and 24 of this report is, in my opinion, one which, however severe the penalty on a member of the Government may be, it is a penalty which a person in that position of responsibility must have envisaged or, if he did not envisage it, it is one which he should have envisaged if he took part in the course of conduct adopted by the directors of this company over a number of years. To say that the penalty is more severe does not minimise the gravity of the offence.

The fact remains that in this whole matter the most impartial observer must say that it is a sordid, unfortunate position of affairs which reflects discredit on Parliament, discredit on the Government and, in view of the publicity that attended the setting up of this tribunal, reflects discredit on the entire country. That being so, it devolves on every Deputy to consider most carefully, most impartially and with the utmost dignity and restraint all the circumstances attending this incident.

I think it is not unfair to say that the lead which this Parliament should have had from the Head of the Government was seriously lacking in precision and in character. The Taoiseach, in introducing this motion, merely threw the ball in. Such a course of conduct, in view of the circumstances attending the establishment of this tribunal, is not a proper procedure for the Head of the Government. It is not a procedure which should have been adopted. The fact that it has been adopted should point the way to future Governments and future members of this House so that in the future a matter of this kind will merit more careful, more serious, and the more intelligent action on the part of Government. However regrettable the circumstances attending this whole matter may be, we must now endeavour to secure speedy, efficient and proper action from the Government. I submit to the House that in view of the gravity of the situation, in view of the fact that a reflection has been cast upon the members of this House, and in view of the fact that it reflects discredit upon the entire country the Government should now take speedy action and should, without further consideration and without prejudice to any future proceedings in this matter, dismiss the Parliamentary Secretary from his position.

I have attempted to deal with this matter impartially. I hope that the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to the effect that this had not been given serious consideration and that the Deputies of this House had not made up their minds as to what the proper course of action should be, has now been amply refuted. Speaking on behalf of my constituents, I am trying at the moment to reflect in an accurate manner the responsibilities which devolve upon an elected representative. In view of the findings of this tribunal, I say that the Parliamentary Secretary should now be dismissed; that, whatever further proceedings are necessary, should now be taken; and that a close, detailed and impartial examination should be undertaken to ascertain the circumstances under which a person employed either by a local authority or in an official position should become a member of this House or should, if a member, become in any capacity a member of the Government. An examination into that whole question should be undertaken. In addition to that examination, consideration should be given to the proper procedure and to the most effective and expenditious machinery which can be devised, within the wit of Parliament, to deal with matters involving the prestige, the conduct and the character, not only of the Government and of the Parliament but of the jealously guarded reputation of this country.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

Mr. Burke

I thank the Deputy very much for his very courteous remark. That man was going ahead. You know that possibly that man can never go back to that again, but you are not satisfied with that. You want to kick and stone him to death.

Mr. Spring

He was not removed; he just resigned.

Mr. Burke

Deputy Spring can get an opportunity of speaking later on. I shall sit down if the Deputy wants to speak now.

An Ceann Comhairle

The selection of the next speaker does not rest with the Deputy.

Mr. Burke

We were told that the Government were covering up this. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Supplies, and various other Government Departments were brought into it. The only motive of the Opposition was one of mean, low politics—trying to kick a man when he was down.

Although the decision of the judges on the tribunal was an impartial one, apparently it amounted to nothing when it came before Deputies, because they tore the decision asunder and the implication was that the tribunal did not go far enough. If it becomes the lot of any unfortunate Deputy or Parliamentary Secretary in future to make a slip, I hope that his retrial will not take place in this Assembly.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

When this matter originally came before the House on the motion of the Taoiseach to establish a tribunal, I think it must have been clear to every Deputy that there were involved in it possible implications which would have to be given thought and consideration, not merely by the Government, but by every Deputy. At that time, there was a difference of opinion as to whether a tribunal was the best method of dealing with the matter. What occurs to me is that, apart from the matters that have been referred to in the debate as to whether or not the Government are attempting to "cover up" or whether particular Ministers have been remiss in their duty, in respect to this House, leaving aside the Government, there has been a lack of leadership on the part of those charged with that authority in this House.

When the Taoiseach introduced this motion setting up the tribunal, it occurred to me, and it was clear in the discussion, that he was hesitant and indefinite in the reasons he put forward in support of the motion. It was from the Leader of this Party that he got that measure of support that finally convinced the House that the tribunal was the best method to deal with the matter. I feel that all that has transpired has justified that course of action.

It occurs to me that many members of the House and people outside have been somewhat misled in respect to what could come out of that tribunal. It occurs to me that the terms of reference, in general, were not suitable for the tribunal, that there is only one point on which this House, as a parliamentary institution, is concerned. The other matters may have been of importance to the individual who was the subject of the inquiry, and may have been important to his Party and to the Government, but to this House there was only one term of reference of importance. The peculiar thing is that it was not necessary to wait until the report of the tribunal was received to understand that one of the serious implications that could arise had, in fact, arisen on the final day of the sitting of the tribunal when the person —I refrain from using his name—who was the subject of the inquiry pleaded guilty to the only charge that concerned us as a parliamentary institution.

That was the occasion on which the Leader of this House, as the Leader of this Parliamentary institution, vested with authority to protect the good name and standing of this institution, should have given consideration to what might follow the proceedings at the last sitting of the tribunal. It is regrettable that to-day we have had a lack of that proper leadership which we were entitled to expect from the Leader of the House. I do not think it is unfair criticism to say that the Taoiseach did not make any statement to the House; he merely gave us the contents of a letter he had received. To suggest that there has not been adequate time to deal with the matters that have been raised, I do not think stands inquiry. It is correct that the report of the tribunal reached the members of the Government only on Saturday afternoon, as An Tánaiste said.

Mr. MacEntee

May I, on that point, say that it has not been stated that the report reached the members of the Government on Saturday afternoon? The fact is that the report—one copy —was handed to the Taoiseach on Saturday evening.

Mr. Davin

Sure, he is the Government.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I accept the Minister's correction. It appears that a letter was then written and the reply was received only yesterday morning. Might I suggest that, having read from the records of the final day's proceedings of the tribunal what occurred on that day, from that period there has been opportunity to deal with one of the salient features of this matter and that is the position that would inevitably arise in relation to the fact that a member of the House, holding a very honoured and high position as Parliamentary Secretary, was placed in a difficult and peculiar position, not by the finding of the tribunal, but by his own statement? Whether there was need, as a matter of courtesy, to forward a copy of the report to the Parliamentary Secretary and await his reply, is a matter into the discussion of which I do not want to enter.

It seems to me, regardless of what might be the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary on the report, on one item alone there was ground on which a decision was called for, and that was his plea of guilty in regard to a particular item. In the course of the debate we have lost sight of that matter. The fact that we have not had a statement from the Taoiseach as Leader of the House is thrown into forcible contrast by the fact that the only speeches made to-day that were in keeping with the dignity of this House and its influence and standing, were made by the Leader of the Labour Party and by Deputy Costello. No other worth-while contribution was made. With all respect, many of the things that should have been said by the Taoiseach were said by the Leader of the Labour Party. I do not say that merely because I am a member of that Party, but I suggest it is to the credit of the House that at least one member found it necessary to make those declarations which the citizens expect on an occasion such as this.

In recent years we have seen a number of Parliamentary institutions brought down. That process of destruction has always commenced in those institutions through the members starting to undermine their standing, influence and authority. It is only where the members of those institutions have been most jealous to protect the good name and authority and influence of the institutions, that they have been able to maintain them in existence and in the minds and hearts of their people. It is from that angle that the Taoiseach should be concerned in this matter.

It may be quite a good thing to ask what will be done in relation to certain Departments, but that is not the immediate concern of the House. We are concerned with the fact that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries occupy certain offices by virtue of their membership of this House. Individual members may be honoured by being assigned to these offices. They are assigned by the Party to which they belong, but the existence of the office and the authority given to it are the right of this institution. It is only because we are dealing with a member of this House who is a Parliamentary Secretary, not because he is attached to a political Party, that we should concern ourselves.

It has been asked why, in considering the report, there should be a question as to whether or not the acceptance of the resignation of the Parliamentary Secretary is the proper way to deal with the matter. Deputy Burke has gone to great length to appeal to the House that, because an individual made a mistake which anyone might make, he should not be punished unduly and, if he has come to grief, people should not walk over his body, so to say. Let us be definite and let us say that there is no question of punishment so far as the House is concerned, but there is the responsibility on the House of dissociating itself from certain actions. There is the responsibility on the Government of dissociating itself, and you cannot dissociate yourself in a matter of this kind merely by the acceptance of a resignation. A man may resign through ill-health, or because of physical inability or mental inability. He may resign for personal or domestic reasons. He may resign for 101 reasons peculiar to himself and which do not cast any reflections on him.

To suggest in this case that the acceptance of the resignation is sufficient, lacks understanding of what is expected of the House. We should immediately dissociate ourselves, through those who have been given authority by the House, and they should give effect to the removal of one in whom was vested authority in the name of the House. I do not think it is a punitive measure or a question of adding to the punishment of the individual, or that it is an action that can be objected to, if it is put in that light. To accept the suggestion that we merely deal with it by accepting a resignation and leaving it at that would be to associate ourselves in the minds of the citizens with a viewpoint that this particular offence to which the Parliamentary Secretary pleaded guilty is not of such great consequence as to be dealt with in any way other than the way in which we would deal with the case of an individual who, through physical disability or lack of mental stature, would have to be removed from office because he was not fulfilling the functions. Something more than that is involved.

There has been one most peculiar feature of the debate. Deputy Norton raised a number of questions. He suggested that the Taoiseach might have been in the position to make a statement and to deal with these questions. He raised the question of resignation or removal, the question of pension, the question of the propriety of Parliamentary Secretaries holding other offices. None of these matters was dealt with by the Taoiseach, presumably on the ground that he had not sufficient time to consider them or that the Government had not had time to consider them. Again I would point out that Deputy Norton's speech was the only speech that was a reflection of the opinion of this House and I think the sentiments he expressed were those of the members of his own Party, the members of the Opposition Party and I think also those that many members of the Government Party feel should be expressed.

Yet, following upon his speech, it was remarkable that the Minister for Industry and Commerce could suddenly step into the debate and answer all the queries raised. Those answers could have been supplied by the Taoiseach in opening the debate and he could thus have laid a foundation for the debate which could have been continued on a high level, in consonance with the dignity of the House. That is why I think we are entitled to complain that we have not been given that leadership in this matter of vital urgent importance to which we are entitled as a Parliamentary institution from the Leader of the House in whom we vest authority to protect the good name of this institution. Questions of politics or of governments do not enter into this.

The only other matter I wish to refer to is a reference made by the Tánaiste when he questioned why the leaders of other Parties in the House should not have been a little more sensible and should not have taken more time to consider the whole position and, when they entered into the debate, raised questions which they should be in a position to answer. Does the Tánaiste seriously suggest that what we should have done to-day was to have received the report of the tribunal, to have a statement made by the Taoiseach which consisted of the reading of a letter, and then to have postponed the matter, possibly for a week, possibly for two or three weeks, while the leaders of Parties were sitting down, formulating the questions that arise out of the report and arriving at what they consider to be the solution to the problem? In the meantime we would leave the citizens of this country at the mercy of every rumour and every scandalmonger, completely bewildered and in the dark at this critical moment. Surely that is not a serious and responsible contribution to the debate on the part of the Deputy Leader of the House. There are problems that arise out of this report. To mention the problems and to draw attention to them does not mean that there should be an immediate answer forthcoming.

So far as the question raised by Deputy Norton is concerned as to the holding of public office outside of this institution by a Parliamentary Secretary, it seems to me that many of the questions raised by the Tánaiste require serious consideration but the one point that occurs to me as calling for consideration at the moment is not the holding of office by a Parliamentary Secretary but the holding of office by a Parliamentary Secretary in the particular Department and possibly under the particular section of the Department over which the Parliamentary Secretary exercises certain control. That is the question the public are concerned with. The other question as to whether a Parliamentary Secretary may have interests outside is one that can be considered at a later date but, so far as the majority of the citizens and the members of this House are concerned, we are not unduly perturbed that a Parliamentary Secretary, whoever he may be, held an office under a local authority, but we do regret that a position has arisen in which it has been necessary to call public attention to the fact that a Parliamentary Secretary did hold an office and that office was occupied by a deputy and that that office came within certain spheres of control exercised by the particular Parliamentary Secretary. One is a purely personal matter and one that should be solved by each individual Parliamentary Secretary if and when he would find himself in that position. The other is a broader issue and one that should be considered in relation to the ordinary members of the House as well as Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers.

I do not want to develop this matter further but I do suggest that there are two things that the Government should do and should do immediately. One is to make it clear that in so far as this House is concerned, in so far as certain offices set up by the State are concerned, whether we do it reluctantly or willingly, we dissociate ourselves from certain actions committed by a holder of one of these offices and we can only do it by rejecting the resignation and by the removal of the particular person in question.

Secondly, that we will have some guidance on whether, under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938 there is a provision under which a Parliamentary Secretary who has either resigned in these circumstances or has been removed will be entitled to receive a pension in respect of his period of office. These are two very important questions. They are questions that affect not only the individual in question, not only this House in so far as it is the basis of Government, but more important still, they largely affect the faith and confidence that we require the citizens of this country to place in Parliamentary institutions in the normal functioning of democratic government.

Mr. Cogan

There have been in the past 20 years debates in this House which rose to very high levels. There have been debates that have sunk to very low levels. There have been angry debates. I think on the whole, the debate to-day on the report of the tribunal into charges made against Dr. Ward is the most painful debate in which Deputies have been called upon to take part. It was painful because the charges which have been made against a prominent member of the House and which have been proved by the tribunal are of a very, very serious nature. It is painful because those charges reflect seriously upon this House, reflect on the Government, upon the Nation, and every Deputy must feel very conscious of that fact.

Deputy Burke sought to create the impression that members of the Opposition Parties entered into this debate with a fierce joy and with a desire to trample upon a member of the Government who had fallen. I did not detect that attitude in the speech of the Leader of the chief Opposition Party. I did not detect any trace of that attitude of mind in the speech of the Leader of this Party. Neither did I detect it in the speech of the Leader of the Labour Party. If this debate did tend to become somewhat heated at times, and if some things have been said in the course of the evening which Deputies may afterwards regret, the guilty party in this connection is the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He certainly introduced a bitter and vindictive Party spirit into the debate and he was, I think, the first to introduce personalities.

It is unfortunate that the Taoiseach has, apparently, fallen down completely in the manner in which he has handled this entire situation. From the very outset, it has been handled badly. The Minister for Industry and Commerce comes in to-day to suggest that it was a mistake to have these matters investigated by a tribunal of inquiry. He suggests now that it might have been better to have allowed the courts to deal with these charges, in the first instance. That case was put up in the House very ably by an Independent Deputy. It was put up and considered by this Party, and we decided that it was the sound and sensible line to adopt. We went into the Division Lobby against the setting up of this tribunal, because we felt that the case should have been dealt with by the ordinary courts. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has vindicated our action to-day.

The fundamental matter which we have to consider is that there is, throughout the length and breadth of the country, a feeling that the public life of the country has become tainted, that there are people in high positions who are exploiting those positions for personal gain. That view is held to a very large extent through the country, and it is essential that the public life of this nation be cleared of that stain. It can only be cleared effectively by allowing the ordinary law to operate, and to operate full and completely. There is no desire to call, and nobody can feel any pleasure in calling, for severe penalties on Dr. Ward, but what this House must demand and must seek is an assurance that Dr. Ward, or any other member of the House, any member of the Government, will be dealt with in exactly the same way as the humblest citizen in this State would be dealt with. That is the principle we have to uphold and stand by. There must be no privileges, no favouritism whatever, and justice must be done rigidly and impartially.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present—

Mr. Cogan

It is, as I say, unfortunate that the Taoiseach apparently fell down completely in the manner in which he handled this entire situation. There have been times in the history of this country when the Taoiseach has risen to the occasion, has risen to the heights which a national crisis demanded, but, in this serious crisis, the Taoiseach has completely failed. What procedure did he adopt in initiating this debate? First, he tried last night to have this matter dealt with by a short statement by him with no further discussion. To-day, under pressure perhaps of all Parties and of public opinion, he consented to a debate, but he initiated that debate in a manner which was not conducive to a complete and dignified discussion.

The Taoiseach's statement to the House to-day was not a statement at all. It was simply a repetition of Dr. Ward's case. He came into the House and repeated the case for Dr. Ward. That is not the line which the head of the Government and Leader of the House should have adopted. There are responsibilities on the Government, and being faced with a report such as this, it was the Taoiseach's duty as Leader of the House to give some indication as to the line he intended to adopt in dealing with these very serious findings of the tribunal. Instead, he merely repeated to the House the words of Dr. Ward in his own defence. I think they were arrogant and aggressive words on the part of Dr. Ward. I do not propose to find fault with him further, but it was not the type of case that the Leader of the House should have presented. He should have given us some indication of what the policy of the Government would be.

He might say, as the Deputy Leader of the Government said, that he has not sufficient time to consider policy in this matter but surely, as head of the Government, this matter has been under his notice for a considerable time. It was clear to everyone that the findings of the tribunal would be somewhat similar to what they are. He could easily have anticipated what those findings would be, and in any case he had these findings since Saturday last and had ample time to formulate some ideas as to his course of action. It was his duty, even if he had not made final and complete decisions in the matter, to have given the House some indication of the line he proposed to take. But no indication was given. There was simply a repetition of the case which Dr. Ward has made and the statement that Dr. Ward had decided to resign.

What the public wants to know and what this House wants to know is whether steps are being taken to ensure that such a deplorable incident as this will not occur again, or is not occurring in some other Department. The public will feel that this matter has come to light merely because of a quarrel between the guilty parties. It is unfortunate that the matter has been brought to light in that manner. It would have given more confidence to the public in the administration of law and justice if this matter had been brought to public notice by an official of the State or some of the statutory bodies.

If this matter had been brought to the notice of the public by some official of the Pigs and Bacon Commission, we would feel that there was a public body which was doing its duty fairly. Instead of that, it has been dragged in as a result of a quarrel amongst the parties concerned. That in itself must shake the confidence of the people. Throughout the length and breadth of the country people are asking: "Why did the officials concerned not discover this sooner? Why was it possible for so much bacon to be transported here and there and sold, even in the heart of Dublin, and nobody in an official position to be aware of it?" We know how vigorous and how active the officials of the Pigs and Bacon Commission were in other directions. We know how they chased farmers, even in most remote districts, who attempted to cure a little more bacon than the officials of the commission considered to be necessary for their families. We know how small shopkeepers in country towns were chased from pillar to post and brought to justice by the Pigs and Bacon Commission. If these officials could have been so diligent in other directions, why were they so blind in regard to a matter which concerned a member of the Government? Is it not possible that the same blindness may afflict them in regard to matters of a similar nature? That is a consideration which must be dealt with promptly and effectively, if public confidence in this House, and in the free institutions which we have set up, is to be re-established.

One of the greatest democratic nations in the world went down to disaster and disgrace, mainly because the democratic Parliament in that country had been lowered to such a depth that nobody had any confidence in it. The lowering of the Parliament of that nation—France—was a result of a series of political scandals that occurred in public life. We want to avoid that. Nothing draws such public attention as scandal. The whole world feeds upon it. Publicity is attracted to it, not only within but in outside countries. People get to know about affairs in other countries by reason of these scandals. That is something that must cause pain and grief to every member of this House. The Opposition Parties, just as much as members of the Government, demand from the Taoiseach a worthy lead for the nation. But the Taoiseach has fallen down on that.

Other issues arise out of this report. There is the issue which was referred to by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whether Parliamentary Secretaries should engage in business and commerce while holding their high office. That is not a question that occurred to me just now. I raised it last week on the Taoiseach's Estimate. I think there is no answer to the contention that a Parliamentary Secretary should, at least, be restricted in the matter of engaging in business to the same extent as a Minister. A Parliamentary Secretary performs very much the same function as a Minister. He controls a Department or a section of a Department, has a large staff under him, very considerable administrative power and, I suppose, legislative power. Because of that, it ought to be clearly recognised that a Parliamentary Secretary should not be free to act as a director of a public company, be forced to spend a considerable amount of time directing the business of a public company, or be exposed to the temptations which arise from such operations.

In a particularly offensive way the Minister for Industry and Commerce accused our Party of having blindly followed the lead of the chief Opposition Party last night. As a Party since we came into this House, we have followed only our own common sense and judgment. When the question of setting up this tribunal was under consideration we supported the attitude taken up by an Independent Deputy— Deputy Dillon. We have no special love for Deputy Dillon, but we considered the arguments he put up, in support of allowing this matter to go to the ordinary courts, were convincing and unanswerable, and we decided to support him in the Division Lobby. Our attitude has been vindicated by the results, and by the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to-day.

In the same way last night we considered that the Opposition Parties were quite right in refusing to allow the Taoiseach to introduce that matter in the way he intended; that was to make a brief statement and to allow no discussion. What would have happened if that course had been adopted and if there was not a debate such as we have had to-day? We would simply have the report of the tribunal broadcast through the nation, with its very alarming findings. On top of that we would have the repetition of Dr. Ward's answer, but no indication from the Taoiseach, or from any Party— because other Deputies would not be allowed to speak—what steps were intended to be taken by the House, as a democratic Parliamentary institution, to rectify the position or to seek to do so as far as possible. That would have been a deplorable position to allow to occur. I think we were quite right and fully justified in the attitude we took up last night. This discussion to-day, painful as it may be for all Deputies who have to take part in it, will do good.

It will bring home, I think, first of all to the Government that members of all Parties in this House are fully alive to the gravity of the situation and to the danger of allowing the dignity and importance of the public life of this country being lowered into the mud. I think it will bring home also to the country the fact that there is no vindictive Party spirit in this House in regard to this matter. There is simply a desire for clean administration and for the full and impartial operation of justice. I think it will bring home to the country, too, that the Deputies of all Parties are alive to the urgent need for taking such drastic administrative or legislative measures as may be necessary to ensure that an occurrence, such as that which took place in Monaghan, will not occur anywhere else in the future.

Mr. MacEntee

The note of frustration which has pervaded all the speeches made by the Opposition Parties in this House on this motion for the Adjournment is, I submit, a complete vindication of the wisdom of the course which it was proposed to adopt last night. Last night the Taoiseach proposed to make, by leave of the House, a brief statement. The making of that statement would in no way have precluded or prevented a full and orderly discussion subsequently here. It would have had this merit— it would have made the House officially aware of the findings of the tribunal and it would have informed it also of the steps which had been taken and, in particular, of one of the steps— perhaps in some way the most important step—which it was proposed to take in relation to that matter and which some of the Deputies here have emphasised as the most important concern of this House. Unfortunately, for the first time in its history, the Leader of the House was prevented, by organised opposition, from making that statement and to-day the House and the country are suffering in consequence.

In my view this has been a most regrettable discussion. It has been a discussion which violates every principle of justice. It has been a discussion which, on the part of members of the Opposition, has resolved itself into a retrial of the issues before the tribunal in the absence of the principal person involved. It has been a vindictive discussion. It has been vindictive because it was sought by statements here to force the hand of the Government into taking a very serious decision in the absence of full deliberation.

Deputy Larkin complained that the Taoiseach on some day last week must have known that certain issues would arise and should there and then have decided what his course of action was going to be. Now, let us consider for a moment what that means. Following a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, an extraordinary tribunal was set up here to investigate and consider allegations which had been made against a public official. That tribunal was bound to investigate and examine these allegations. It was bound to investigate them searchingly. There has been no suggestion, in the course of this debate, that that investigation was other than searching. As a result of this searching investigation the tribunal arrived at its findings and, in due course, presented those findings to the Head of the Government for consideration by him and by his colleagues. But Deputy Larkin attacked the Taoiseach because he did not take action in anticipation of the findings of the tribunal, and because he did await the verdict before assessing the punishment. The course suggested by Deputy Larkin is a procedure, I understand, which found and still finds wide acceptance elsewhere in Europe, but it is not a procedure that is in conformity with our ideals here of justice and fair play. Even a judge waits for the verdict. Surely, a learned counsel like Deputy McGilligan ought to know that.

Deputy Larkin, following the example of Deputy O'Higgins, complained also that a copy of the findings of this tribunal was sent to Dr. Ward. I think it is sought generally to make that a ground for criticising the action of the Government, since one of the issues upon which our conduct has been impeached here is that there has been undue delay in dealing with this matter. Speed, speed, and still more speed was the keynote of Deputy Costello's speech—a Deputy who on other occasions is very anxious that everything in this country should be done in full accordance with the principles of justice and the rules of evidence. There has been so much speed in this matter on the part of the Opposition that they have tripped themselves up and we find them now floundering through this debate to-day because of their unseemly anxiety to try, if possible, to create, by precipitate action and by precipitate debate, a feeling of uneasiness and unrest throughout the country.

What, in fact, has happened? Late, I understand, on Saturday—certainly after the ordinary hours of business— the Taoiseach received this report. On Monday the members of the Government were made aware that that report had been received. Copies of it were then made and one of these was dispatched to Dr. Ward with the utmost expedition. On Tuesday it was intimated that Dr. Ward had considered the matter and was writing a letter. It is now suggested that, first of all, Dr. Ward had no right to see the findings in anticipation of the Government's consideration of them.

That is an expression of confidence in the Chair. I was saying that in the eyes of the Opposition there must be in this country justice and fair play and full and ample consideration for everybody except their political opponents. If we wanted proof of that, Deputies who have heard this debate have only got to throw their minds back to the speech of Deputy Costello. Deputy Costello contended that it was wrong that these allegations should have been referred to a judicial tribunal. He said he hoped that, when allegations touching the position of a Deputy or a member of the Government were made again, if ever such are made, that they would not be dealt with by that particular process. That is not to be wondered at, because the declared policy of the Opposition in relation to matters of this sort is not that such matters should be dealt with by impartial judges, but that they should be dealt with by political tribunals.

It is on that very issue that a motion was made in this House some three or four weeks ago, and I am glad, and I am sure the whole country will be glad, that that motion was defeated and that the procedure which Deputy Dillon suggested in relation to another member of this House was not followed in regard to one of my Parliamentary Secretaries, because there is this about it, that the issue having been tried by three judges suggestion of bias in the process is now definitely removed from the realm of politics and, as far as these charges are concerned, whether the findings were for or against Dr. Ward, no one can impugn the impartiality of the tribunal. That would not be the position if Deputy Costello had his way, because then, no matter what the findings were in regard to any single one of the allegations, no matter how favourable they might have been to the Parliamentary Secretary on some of these issues, we should still have had the Opposition saying: "It was the politicians whitewashed him." I believe that the real reason why this debate has developed on the lines that it has is because that cannot be alleged against the tribunal, and because the course which the Government took precluded that allegation from ever being raised.

I said at the beginning that this debate was a full vindication of the high public wisdom of the Taoiseach in proposing to the House the course which a minority in the House rejected. Because of last night's proceedings we have seen this debate resolve itself into a private assessment of punishment without full consideration and full deliberation being given to matters which are very vital in that connection. Deputy Cogan criticised the setting up of this tribunal on the grounds that every man, whether he was a Minister, a Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy, or ordinary citizen should be made amenable for his offences by the ordinary processes of the law. The ordinary process of the law regards every man as innocent until he has been proven guilty. It puts the onus upon the accuser to justify his accusations. If that course had been adopted in regard to the Parliamentary Secretary, the legal processes might have been long drawn out and no one could say what the issue would have been, because no one knew how substantial or well-founded these allegations were. But, let me repeat, the onus would have been on the accuser to prove the accusations. In this case, I admit that the Parliamentary Secretary was not made subject to the ordinary processes of the law. On the contrary, a much more exacting process was superimposed upon the ordinary processes of the courts.

In reply to that interruption, I have only to say that the whole matter was placed in the hands of the tribunal and I am perfectly certain that these eminent, judicial functionaries of whom it was constituted, realising the confidence reposed in them and the task entrusted to them by both Houses of the Oireachtas, would have been at pains to ensure that there was no aspect of that letter which touched their proper functions that they did not investigate. Deputy McGilligan suggests otherwise. I am not for one moment going to accept his suggestion that this tribunal faile in any respect.

I was saying that the position of the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the tribunal was this, that he stood there to refute every allegation contained in that letter. Not only was he placed by the action of the Oireachta in that very difficult position, but he also found himself involved in very heavy expense, expense which he would not have had to bear if he had been prosecuted.

Mr. Morrissey

The poor fellow.

Mr. McGilligan

Why not?

Mr. MacEntee

As Deputy McGilli gan knows well these offences under the Pigs and Bacon Act were summary offences.

Mr. McGilligan

There is no expense connected with these prosecutions?

Mr. MacEntee

There is not the expense associated with them that the Parliamentary Secretary has had to bear before the tribunal.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy McGilligan will get his opportunity to speak.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Not if the Minister can help it. That is what he is up for.

Mr. Coogan

This is a delaying action.

Mr. MacEntee

General Mulcahy

In what manner was it indicated?

Next October.

Mr. MacEntee

There was no reason last night to believe that the Dáil was going to adjourn until next October. There is a Bill before this House which Deputies know must be passed before the House adjourns for the summer. I do not know how many sections there are in it, but I know there is a considerable number of amendments. I think they exceed 100 and last night we had reached amendment No. 6. So that there was no prospect last night that the House would adjourn after hearing the Taoiseach's statement until next October. The House would have been in session to-day as it will be in session next week. The Leader of the second Party or the leader of any other Party or any Deputy in this House could then, as I have said, put down a notice of motion to debate the action which the Government had taken on the findings of the tribunal and any secondary consequences or issues which might arise on the findings of the tribunal and on that action.

The advantage of that would have been that we should all have been able to turn over in our minds what had emerged. We should all have been able to give it serious thought. There would have been nothing, I should expect, said in the debate which would prejudice the personal position of the person most concerned in it, and the House would have acted, not only with regard to the principles of fair play, but with that dignity for which Deputy Norton and Deputy Larkin and some others have been contending.

General Mulcahy

Everything would be all right if the Parties in the House could be suppressed.

Mr. Coogan

The cat is now out of the bag. It is quite clear that the Taoiseach intended to make a statement last night but because of the fact that he did not succeed in making a statement last night we have not been told to-day what the Government's intentions were and are, but the Minister for Local Government has told us that it was the intention of the Taoiseach to tell us last night that the Government intended to examine the findings of the tribunal in the light of the letter sent to the Taoiseach by Dr. Ward. That is an extraordinary statement from a responsible Minister of Government, that the findings of this tribunal were to be examined by the Government in the light of Dr. Ward's opinion thereon. I have no desire to tread upon the political corpse of Dr. Ward.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

You ought to have the decency to keep out of it altogether.

Mr. Coogan

Or to bring any unseemly acts or actions into the political wake of Dr. Ward. But, if any misrepresentation has taken place in this debate, the speech of the Minister for Local Government has certainly exceeded the limit. He has completely distorted the position of the tribunal and the position of the House in relation to the tribunal. Let us try to examine what has happened.

A tribunal was set up upon allegations made in a letter from Dr. MacCarvill to the Taoiseach and that tribunal was set up for the sole purpose of finding certain facts, whether or not the allegations put forward by Dr. MacCarvill were founded in fact. That tribunal did not try Dr. Ward on any issues other than to ensure that the allegations were or were not founded on fact. We have been accused by Deputy Burke and the Minister for Local Government, taking his cue from Deputy Burke, that we have misrepresented the position and that we are attempting to re-try Dr. Ward. I do not intend to comment on Dr. Ward, good, bad or indifferent, but I do want to say that the Minister for Local Government has said that he is a condemned man and that we are trying to re-try him upon the verdict of the tribunal.

I want to put it to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that there are two men condemned, Dr. Ward and Dr. MacCarvill. I want to say furthermore that I have every sympathy with these two gentlemen in the position in which they now find themselves because, as a result of the action taken by the Government in this matter, Dr. Ward finds himself prejudiced in whatever proceedings may follow as a result of the Government's decision on this matter. He is definitely prejudiced before any criminal court in the land because we have set up a tribunal to find certain facts which facts will be an issue before the criminal court and to that extent we have definitely prejudiced Dr. Ward in his defence. It is futile for the Minister for Local Government to come here and try to misrepresent the position that anything said here is likely to prejudice Dr. Ward in his trial. If anything is likely to prejudice Dr. Ward before the courts of this country it is the findings of this tribunal, and nothing else.

Now, as regards Dr. MacCarvill. Dr. MacCarvill finds himself in another extraordinary position, that he has made certain allegations against Dr. Ward which, according to the tribunal, in certain cases, have been found not to be based on fact, or to be reckless, or to be without any justification. He finds himself in this position that he may have to face other proceedings in the civil courts. Deputy Dillon quite pertinently pointed out, when this matter was before the House originally, that Dr. MacCarvill and Dr. Ward were being placed in an impossible position. They are both in an impossible position. The Minister for Local Government endeavoured to misrepresent remarks made by Deputy Costello when he said that the setting up of this tribunal was in his opinion wrong from the very start. I gave vent to the same expression of opinion and I reiterate what I said on the motion, that it was most improper to set up this tribunal, if for no other reason than that it prejudiced the interests of both parties to this matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The House set up the tribunal.

Mr. Coogan

I want to say what I said before.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is stating what he said on the setting up of a tribunal which this House set up—this House.

Mr. Coogan

I hold, as Deputy Cogan has been allowed to say and as I said before, that Dr. Ward is in no better or in no lower position than the most humble citizen in this country, that Dr. Ward or any other Minister or Deputy has no more rights and no fewer rights than any humble citizen, and if any Deputy, Parliamentary Secretary or Minister offends against the criminal law, there is only one course to take, that is, that the ordinary process of criminal law should be applied, in the first instance. I said that before; I say it again; I say it now in view of the findings. I say emphatically that Dr. Ward is prejudiced as a result, and that, whatever may have been the intention in the Taoiseach's mind and in the Government's mind in regard to hastening matters so that they could come to a decision on his position as Parliamentary Secretary, we have got to this position now that he is definitely prejudiced in whatever proceedings he may have to face. It is a principle of our Constitution and a principle of the law that every citizen is equal before the law. If that equal treatment had been meted out to Dr. Ward in the first instance, we would not have this regrettable debate.

If this debate has taken a course it might not have taken, it is entirely due to the fact that the Government did not declare their intentions. I want to put it to the House that the Government was represented throughout the entire proceedings before the tribunal by senior and junior counsel, representing the Attorney-General. They could have had a day-to-day report, if they wanted it, from these gentlemen attending the tribunal. They had these gentlemen there holding a watching brief on behalf of the State. These gentlemen were in a position to report daily progress to the Government, and it is futile for the Head of the Government or any Minister to come here and say the Government could not make up their mind before now. I say that, if the Government could not make up their mind before now, the Taoiseach should not have made a statement until the Government had made up their mind.

The reason which we have been given by the Tánaiste and by the Minister for Local Government is simply that they are peeved because successful tactics were adopted against them last night. An attempt was made last night to silence the Opposition. It was intended that readers of to-day's papers would read of the Dr. Ward tribunal and the Taoiseach's little statement thereon, and then a delaying action would follow in which we would be closured perhaps for months. That little effort did not come off, and it is treating the House with contempt and ridicule that the Government should come in here and play the role of silence which we have had played here. We have had this extraordinary position here to-day that the Taoiseach contented himself with reading Dr. Ward's letter of resignation and then sat down. The Tánaiste, when he spoke, told us what the Government's intentions were and the Minister for Local Government, who followed later, told us what they would have been if we had only listened to the Taoiseach last night.

The excuse given by the Taoiseach, when this motion was before the House, was that it was essential to have this matter dealt with speedily, and I cannot say whether, in seeking for speed, we have not prejudiced the whole issue. But I will say this much, that a very bad precedent has been established, a precedent which, I think, the House should not follow in any similar case.

If any member of the House, be he Deputy or Minister, offends the law, the law made by this House, he should be prepared to submit to the law of the land. I cannot conceive how law enforcement authorities are going to enforce the law against ordinary citizens, if privileges and immunities are claimed by members of this House or by members of Government, or if screens are placed between the ordinary processes of the law and members of Government.

Mr. Killilea

Who has claimed them?

Mr. Coogan

It has been done. A screen has definitely been placed between the ordinary process of law and Dr. Ward.

Mr. Killilea

You are trying to create a screen at the moment.

Mr. Moran

Will the Deputy say how it has been done?

Mr. Coogan

By the setting up of this tribunal. I want to come to a few points which strike me as arising out of this matter and I want to try to be impersonal in dealing with them. In 1938, the Monaghan Bacon Factory was prosecuted and fined £6 10s. on 13 summonses for failing to make proper returns, an offence akin and similar to the offences which have been investigated by the tribunal. These returns, I understand, related to the weight of pigs purchased by the factory from the Monaghan farmers. As a result of the investigations then made, the factory was compelled to pay back to these farmers, in varying amounts, the sum of £450. In addition, in May, 1937, a loan of £10,000 was made to that company under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts.

When this matter was raised in the House, the Minister for Agriculture was asked—I quote from column 1963, volume 76 of the Official Debates—if he were aware of the personnel of the directorship of the company, and his answer was that he did not know who they were, although all he had to do was to phone the Company Office in the Castle where he would have got the particulars. As to where the fines went, he gave the answer that the fines went to the Pigs Marketing Board. There we have this company prosecuted in 1938 and now we have a series of offences spread over a number of years. I suggest to the House that the findings of the tribunal show clearly that there was no supervision of this company during the emergency years, or, if any supervision was attempted, it was blocked in some peculiar way.

I do not know much about these matters, but, according to the information I have, there is a local officer whose duty it would be to inspect daily the intake and output of that factory. The extraordinary position you get is that that factory was selling bacon in excess of its quota, wholesale, both locally and throughout the neighbouring counties and Dublin. I suggest that the findings of the tribunal clearly indicate that the Department of Agriculture and the Pigs and Bacon Commission neglected their duty in their supervision of this factory and that if they had exercised a proper supervision over that factory, Dr. Ward and his co-directors might not find themselves in the position they are in to-day, because the tribunal have definitely rejected the evidence of Dr. Ward and Mr. Corr, his co-director, and have definitely come to the conclusion that the cash sales of bacon, of inferior and damaged bacon which could not be marketed through the ordinary channels, were not limited, that, in fact, there were other sales and that they were not limited to tainted or damaged bacon.

That is one extraordinary position we get, and I seriously suggest that, in view of the conviction in 1938, there was need for close supervision of that factory and that that supervision was not exercised. There is there a case for the Government to consider as to what Department was at fault, or what officials were at fault, and what action should be taken in relation to these matters, because other people, in less influential circumstances than the Monaghan Bacon Company found itself in, were prosecuted by the Pigs and Bacon Commission for paltry offences and fined heavy sums. I know one case where under pressure from his own customers a butcher killed three pigs. The common informer got busy and, before the pigs were cured, the pigs and bacon inspectors descended upon him. The three pigs were seized and confiscated and the man was fined £60. I mention that to show the discrimination, if you like, that has been exercised in favour of the Monaghan Bacon Factory.

I want to suggest, apart from any issues that concern Dr. Ward, that there is a case there for very close investigation. I do not know how many people exist in this country who can exercise the influence that the Monaghan Bacon Company exercised. We know from common rumour here and there, that what we get in this House, and what we got from this tribunal, is being shouted from the housetops; that there has been a black market all round, right down through the years of the emergency. I want to say that this is but symptomatic of what has been going on. But for the fact that two members of Fianna Fáil fell out with each other the silence might never have been broken.

All right, get them.

Mr. Coogan

I do not want to say anything more in that respect beyond what I have said already. This is symptomatic of the unclean, evil thing which has crept into public life and political life in this country, and it has crept in because Fianna Fáil, when it abandoned the republic, bolstered itself upon political patronage and that political patronage has resulted in this country, as in every other country in the world, in public corruption and public dishonesty.

Mr. Murphy

I can promise not to delay the House very long. In all my 23 years' association with this House I think I can safely say that this is the most serious occasion that I can remember. The subject under discussion here this evening is certainly the most unpleasant subject that has ever been discussed in this House during that period. This debate has taken a whole day of Parliamentary time. If there has been any failure to state clearly and unequivocally certain principles the responsibility for that lies very largely at the door of the Leader of this House. Nobody listening to his speech to-day could say that he made the slightest attempt to do anything like justice to the very serious issues involved, beyond a very incomplete and unsatisfactory statement.

I want to subscribe to every word that Deputy Norton uttered. I want to say that I am glad to be associated with one who has the courage to state clearly and definitely principles that should be stated here on an occasion of this kind. This matter is very much more serious than its immediate relation to one or two people. It is so serious that if it is not fully ventilated and discussed and certain first principles stated here it will be a serious threat to the whole foundation of Parliamentary institutions in this country. I would regard a situation of this kind, no matter what Government was in power, or what situation of political differences existed, as the most serious threat to the public life of this country. There is an implication in all this that Government and public representatives are neither above board nor irreproachable. If there is any doubt as to the integrity of public life in this country that constitutes a grave danger to the future of this country, the serious nature of which cannot be gainsaid or minimised in any way.

I feel that we ought to have from the Taoiseach a much more detailed statement than we have got. I think he should tell us the nature of his communication to Dr. Ward and what exactly he said to Dr. Ward beyond merely enclosing a copy of this report. I think the House is entitled to know that because we could then measure the viewpoint of the Taoiseach in relation to this matter. I want to say that I think it is most regrettable that only at a very late hour in this debate, and after a positive challenge on political issues had been raised by Deputy Norton and others in this House, was there one single word of disapproval in regard to the very serious decisions registered by the tribunal which investigated the matter. This is not a question of the punishment of Dr. Ward. It is a question of settling first principles in the life of this country and it is an opportunity of proving to the people that the science of government and the control of public affairs is carried on with a standard of honour and a code of dignity and decency which cannot be tarnished by the slightest lapse from that high standard. I know of no reason why politics could not be maintained on that high level. If we go even the slightest distance along the fatal and unfortunate road which democratic government has gone in other countries, and if we fail to register our protest against the disintegration of public life, then we ourselves are definitely and positively culpable. I have no hesitation in saying that Dr. Ward should be removed from office. I have no quarrel with him; I never had any quarrel with him; I have never been engaged in any active controversy with him. I would have said the same about any member of the Party with which I am associated. If a member of this Party was involved in a transaction of that kind, I feel that he should be compelled to leave the Party and Parliament. That is the least penalty that should be imposed for actions of that kind.

Having said that, I should like to ask whether the question has arisen of Dr. Ward's continued membership of this House. I have heard no reference to that particular matter. I mention it because the Minister for Local Government this evening said that there was objection in this House to giving Dr. Ward an opportunity of making his comments on the findings of the tribunal. Dr. Ward is still a member of this House and it was open to him to come here this evening and make a personal statement, in the way that certain members of Parliament in various countries have had an opportunity of doing and have availed of. I think that a very serious issue does arise if, having been deprived of his Parliamentary Secretaryship, Dr. Ward is permitted by his own Party to remain a member of this House. I remember a case affecting a member of the British Parliament in the last few years. It is right that occasionally we should remember how things are done in that Parliament and that a code of honour is observed there. Whatever we may think about other things, it would be no harm to bear that in mind. A very humble member of that Parliament was involved in what was not a serious offence and what could be termed, at the most, as rather a foolish indiscretion. He permitted a member of his family to use the railway ticket that, in the ordinary way, he would have used in travelling from London to his constituency. Because he allowed that ticket to get into the hands of somebody who was not entitled to use it, he was compelled to resign his seat in the House of Commons, not by any decision of the House of Commons, but by the force of pressure in his own Party. He was a man who had served his constituency well and his exit from public life was made the occasion of a very popular demonstration in his constituency. The people regarded that public man as being badly treated in view of the comparatively small amount involved in that indiscretion.

I think we cannot be too jealous of the honour of public life in this country and that we must definitely make sure that nobody will have an opportunity of saying, as people are saying in increasing numbers, that politics is becoming a racket and that everybody in the political life of this country is in it to get what he can out of it, to a greater or lesser degree.

That is the most serious position that could arise in this country. I feel the Leader of the House must realise that that is a much more serious threat to the foundations of this House and to the future of democratic Government than many other things which have been spoken in the past. I regret very much the kind of speech that we had this evening from the Deputy Leader of the House. We had come to regard the Minister of Industry and Commerce as one, no matter how we may differ from his views on other matters, from whom we could expect a common-sense approach to the problems at issue. But I do suggest, with all respect, that the contribution made by the Minister this evening was not worthy of an occasion of this kind. It was an attempt, by drawing certain red herrings across the track, to avoid the main issues at stake in this matter. The Minister for Industry and Commerce raised again the question as to how public officials should have their duties discharged during their period of membership of this House. I know members of this House who occupied other positions before they came to this House. They may not have been officials of local authorities—some of them I think were. But I do know members of this House who occupied other positions and who got leave of absence from their employers and had no say whatever in the selection of those who acted for them and who have actually jeopardised, if not forfeited, a right to a pension earned over many years of service and the prospect that, if membership of this House is denied to them by their constituents in future, they will face the remaining years of their life without the reward they could have expected if they remained in employment and had not become members of this House. That was their choice, and I do not think they want anybody to make any grievance about it. If that applies to people of limited means, surely there ought to be a very close watch kept on the situation as revealed at the inquiry, where the particular officer himself had not alone the advantage of appointing his deputy, but had actually something to do in the Department with the sanctioning of the particular arrangement to which he was a party.

16. During the said period bacon and other products of the company were sold and the proceeds divided amongst the said directors in the manner hereinafter appearing. These sales are herein referred to as cash transactions.

17. The proceeds of the cash transactions, including therein comparatively small sums representing the price of bacon and other products sold to the directors for use in their respective households, amounted to the sum of £4,739 11s. 4d.

18. These proceeds were, from time to time, distributed amongst the three directors in proportion to their respective holdings in the company, the sums so received by Dr. Ward amounting to the sum of £2,962 3s. 8d.

19. The proceeds of the cash transactions were invariably produced and distributed in the form of cash. They were not disclosed in the books of the company and were not brought to audit. The proceeds were not disclosed by the company, or by the directors personally, for tax purposes.

20. The sales effected by the cash transactions were deliberately omitted from the returns which the company was, from time to time, required to make, and which it did make, to the Pigs and Bacon Commission.

21. The three directors were equally parties to these transactions and to the non-disclosure thereof and were equally involved in the distribution of the proceeds thereof".

It refers then to a letter, but I do not propose to refer to it:—

"23. The tribunal does not accept the evidence of Dr. Ward and Mr. Corr that it was intended that such sales should be limited to inferior or damaged bacon, which could not be marketed through ordinary channels, or to bacon which was in danger of becoming tainted or that such sales were, in fact, so limited.

24. The tribunal does not accept the evidence of the said witnesses that it was intended that the moneys resulting from such sales should be regarded as the property of the company and should be brought into account at a later date. The tribunal finds, as a fact, that the intention of the parties was that each such transaction should be concluded by the cash distribution of the proceeds arising therefrom."

I think it necessary to put these on record, on the official record of the House, because the Taoiseach, through the medium of Dr. Ward, or Dr. Ward, through the medium of the Taoiseach, has recorded other matters. The other matters which Dr. Ward got the Taoiseach to record are very like what the Minister for Local Government got recorded as the findings of, say, the Cork Street Tribunal. In other words, it was a hand-picked selection. The Taoiseach lent himself to the manoeuvre of having this recorded, so that people who looked up the Official Debates hereafter might find that, and not the corresponding parts of this report in which Dr. Ward was found guilty of certain offences.

I stand aloof from Dr. Ward and Dr. MacCarvill in this matter. Many years ago, I knew both of them in very happy days and my association with them rendered those days happier than they might have been otherwise. But politics cut across that and I stand aloof from them now. I will say this for Dr. MacCarvill. This State has availed itself from time to time of the most disreputable type of persons, whom they produced in court as witnesses in certain criminal prosecutions under the guise of informers. Included among them were men condemned, men awaiting sentences, or men not sentenced in order to give some sort of appearance to the evidence they gave to your tribunals.

Dr. MacCarvill is no such informer as that. Yet he is paraded in the House—again. I say he is no friend of mine—as if he has committed some crime and, in the end. Dr. MacCarvill now writes a letter to the Taoiseach, although he was not favoured with the tribunal's report, and while the Taoiseach reads what Dr. Ward has written, he will not read what the other party has written. He will not give him the benefit, under the privilege of the House, that he has given to Dr. Ward and that is typical of the bias with which this thing is treated throughout.

We are asked solemnly to applaud the wisdom of the Taoiseach throughout all this. I never admired the Taoiseach's wisdom. I hardly ever found it a thing to be admired. I do not know that I can recall an occasion on which I found it deserving of admiration. Right through this goes what is called the wisdom of the Taoiseach, what is disclosed not merely to be a folly, but a folly which has put the House in terrific difficulties in meeting the situation which the report discloses.

When the Taoiseach came to the House with this proposal, it was his proposal, although he got the House to accept it. He got backing through half disclosures, in his usual way. Then when the report comes along, and when everybody realises that there is a certain prejudice occurring through the fact that the matter was treated in this way, we have two statements, one from the Minister for Local Government, who deplores that what is happening is contrary to natural justice and criticises it in a way that could be regarded as contrary to natural justice. The Minister for Industry and Commerce then throws a doubt on whether this man ought to be prosecuted because the tribunal has prejudiced the defence Dr. Ward might make if he is eventually brought before the courts like any ordinary citizen.

The Taoiseach led us into that, and the Taoiseach's tactics, while I think them discreditable, do not end even yet. Last night we had a manoeuvre that was calculated to get the House to submit itself to a statement from the Taoiseach. He said in a moment of anguish: "Do you not know that when I speak nobody can speak after me?" If he spoke, the papers would get it and he would get off to a flying start. "Maybe something will happen maybe the influence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce will prevail. We will consider that the whole thing has been prejudiced and let us put finish to a bad chapter." That seems to represent the Government attitude.

The symbol of justice that ordinarily stands before people's eyes is not a bad one—a blindfolded figure, with the two balances equally swinging and the sword in the background. The figure is blindfolded so that it does not know who is the person who comes before the courts of justice. It is indifferent to persons, no privilege and no prejudice. The swinging balances are there to see that justice will be done—what is for a man on the one side, and what is against him on the other. Then we have an independent judiciary to weigh everything carefully. But the sword is there, because if the State is attacked the sword is drawn. The State is alert and vigilant to defend its institutions and the State will use the strong hand. We have had some experience of that in this country within the last 20 years. The State will have to use the strong hand to see that justice is meted out to everybody. The Constitution guarantees that all citizens are, as human persons, equal before the law.

Deputy Costello has put it to the House that if some ordinary citizen of this country had behaved as Dr. Ward has behaved and if somebody even of less repute than Dr. MacCarvill had given evidence in a prima facie way, myriads of Departmental officials would be active; the bloodhounds which the Department send down to investigate breaches or offences under the Emergency Powers Orders would be sent out; inspectors of the Pigs and Bacon Commission would have descended on the Monaghan Curing Company's factory.

They would have taken the books, they would have sealed up the establishment and there would have been no movement inside that and no question of tampering with the evidence until the whole matter had been disclosed in the ordinary way before the ordinary courts. Then we could have had even-tempered justice and then we would know what was going to happen and, if a man had to be prosecuted and perhaps meet with a sentence of imprisonment, this House would have a clear course. We now have to lament because that policy was not followed. We got instead the policy of the tribunal and, the tribunal having made its report, it has been stated to-night that it is in flagrant conflict with natural justice, that these men have been treated harshly enough, and that we will leave them to it.

May I say about the tribunal that I query whether this court did exhaustively examine into the matters referred to in the letters? I still say they did not and I say that without impugning the court in any way. Is it remembered by members of the Government that when certain files were called for by that court they were produced by a young junior officer of one of the Departments, that he was questioned as to how long he had those files under his control and that his answer was "4 o'clock the day before"? That was deliberately done. The Secretary of the Department was the man who was required because the Secretary of the Department had records that went back years and he could have given evidence apart from the files. Instead of that, the young junior administrative officer was sent down to be the conduit pipe of the files to the court.

At another part of the inquiry the point was taken as to whether Dr. Ward, on pretending to resume his duties, had signed the book as it was supposed to be a rule that on a dispensary being taken the signatures should be put on a sheet, and the answer was that these matters were neglected, that nobody ever paid any attention to them. In fact, the evidence was given that if a medical dispensary doctor found that an inspector was coming he signed all the dispensary attendances at one "go".

But an inspector could have been called to answer as to whether the Department of Public Health had dismissed or suspended or in any way taken action against doctors who did not sign when they took dispensaries. Of course, that was easily cloaked when they sent down an inexperienced man who had not the information and could not therefore be subject to question.

A point has been made about costs. We are told that Dr. Ward has suffered in costs. So he has and he may have been saved some of them and it may well be on account of what the tribunal has found that he may be saved some. Dr. MacCarvill has incurred costs. Even the disreputable informer that I have spoken of gets his price if he assists in bringing a man to justice and the Minister for Local Government apparently has a view that when Dr. Ward went before this tribunal he was paraded as a guilty man before any evidence was given. That is the completest parody of what happened before that court that the mind of man could imagine. In any event we have had, not an ordinary court, but we have had a tribunal and here we are in a pretty mess.

Long ago there was another type of summary justice that was expressed in another graphic way. When under the justice of the Mosques in Constantinople an old time favourite got out of favour, summary justice was worked. There was a system of the tie-string and the sack and the pinioned person was floated into the waters of the Bosphorus and one cynic describing that operation remarked upon how easy it was—a bubble and a squeak and all is over. That is the Government attitude towards this.

Let us have the bubble and squeak and let poor Dr. Ward float out wherever the waters of the future may bring him but let us stand aloof from all this and let us possibly lament and use plenty of soap as we wash our hands and get rid of the shame and the scandal of all this. That is what cannot be done. That is what the people of the country will not allow to be done. That is what I suggest this House should not allow to be done if it has to pursue this matter by various motions, by a multiplicity of questions and by whatever Parliamentary device it may have at its disposal, it should be pursued until we get the Government to face up to the fact that there are certain big question marks standing out from all this and that the problems that have been set are not going to be answered merely by the lamented disappearance of the Parliamentary Secretary from our midst.

Do the Ministers think of the public shock, the public wonderment that has been caused by learning this, that a man who never was in the curing business at all, a man who was trained as a professional man and a doctor, could become a bacon curer, that he could get a loan of £8,000 from the Government and repay it in record time, that when the tribunal meets to discuss all that matter you find that that man, unpractised in anything to do with the curing of bacon, has been able to derive undisclosed sales from the products of that factory more than his Parliamentary Secretary's salary was worth to him over the period? And whom is he accompanied by? A man called Fitzsimmons, who has been dismissed and whom the tribunal report to have been properly dismissed, by the brother of Dr. MacCarvill who, as far as Dr. Ward could do so, was paraded before the court as a drunken inefficient man, and Mr. Corr who stands, whether he is a business man or not, as a man whom the tribunal refused to believe on his oath. Those four, never interested in curing before, no industrialists, could get tens of thousands of pounds, and get it in a system in which, of course, bacon curing becomes rather a closed business and a person operates only under licence which he could get by some sort of association with the Government.

The Government must remember what Deputy Cogan has referred to, that in the year 1937 this company was guilty of what the district justice in this case called "making deliberately fraudulent returns". A most ingenious system was developed. When master pig came in and was weighed and when the farmer was paid for master pig, there was deducted from his weight the weight of the hook and the beam by which he was weighed. But when the pig was transformed into bacon and the Monaghan Curing Company went to get their returns of bacon, the pig swelled out again to its original weight and was good value for it. In that way, this district justice found that they were guilty of 13 or 16 charges brought against them and they were fined and they were made repay the farmers whom they had defrauded. I raised that in the Dáil and the language that was used in the House about my own Party to-day was equalled on that occasion by the language directed against me personally and when in the end I asked the Minister for Agriculture was he aware of these things and asked him in particular had there been any public money given to those people and was it proposed to give them back their licence to cure bacon, he said "yes", and when I asked was there not some offence committed that merited the withdrawal of the licence, he said "no, the penalties in the court were adequate". But, one amazing thing —I asked for the names of the directors then, who had been the directors at the time these frauds were perpetrated, and at the date of my question the Minister for Agriculture, who had to investigate that firm before giving a licence and some other Ministers who had to investigate that firm to pass them a free loan, told me they had not the information at their disposal to enable me to know who were the directors of the company. Of course, they knew very well but it could not be revealed. One would have expected, as was stated earlier to-day, that that company would have been regarded with a little more suspicion than others and yet we have been able to see what they were able to get away with.

Will people soon get over the shock of finding that a member of this company on finding himself at a period of the year left with a tainted gammon, not merely something that was going stale, a really tainted bad bit of bacon, hawked it around the streets of a little town until he got an Army officer ready to buy it? Where is the supervision with regard to diseased meat? People are brought into the courts here daily with regard to selling food that is deleterious to the public. But the people knew their men. Has the Minister for Defence some sort of supervising machinery for the commissariat of the Army? Bacon that had to be washed and steeped because it was so bad and bacon that was glinting was sent off to the Army in the hope that the inexperienced eyes of those that were appointed to supervise the stuff that came in for the Army would not notice it.

There is a variety of problems which I cannot go into at this moment which all pertain to different Departments— Industry and Commerce for the production of certain orders, the Minister for Agriculture in connection with the Pigs and Bacon Commission, the Minister for Finance in connection with the evasion of tax, with the Minister for Defence limping along behind to see could he, even now, late as it is, get some sort of provision against the Army having the type of scandal associated with the days of the Crimean War.

There is one last point I want to touch on. The Minister for Industry and Commerce asked us about making up our minds on this one point: should a Parliamentary Secretary abandon all other work and become a full-time officer? That is not the question that is posed by this report. It is a matter of fact on which the tribunal found, I think, that they could not report. They were not asked to report upon the propriety of certain matters, but only on their legality. It has been discovered that Dr. Ward farmed out his medical officership and took a rake-off for doing so. One wants to know whether that rake-off was included in his income-tax returns and will that be a matter for prosecution.

Surely the point at issue here is whether a Parliamentary Secretary should be allowed to control a Department which has jurisdiction and guidance over the very practices he is trying to go into and to establish, and whether he should take the whole salary or part of the salary or what fraction should be given, and whether he is to be given any part of it himself which should not be disclosed to the House. In any event, when the point is put as to whether, in the time of the predecessors of the present Government Parliamentary Secretaries made themselves into whole-time officers, it is a point that was never raised in our time. There was no necessity to raise it. Remember that the conditions have changed. We have now swung into an era of licences, quotas and benefactions of every type, with Government control or interference by Departments and with favouritism rampant through every one of them.

The Taoiseach ought to pull himself together at this point and remember, or think of himself, as one of the heads of the movement which started away back before 1916. He ought surely to pause and remember that the idealism of those days has certainly waned into dissolution and that the ambitions, the objectives the people had before them are now replaced by a cynical acceptance of a really bad position because it is believed to be inevitable. If the Taoiseach stops to consider, he will know that what has contributed to the demoralisation, to the weakening and corruption of public opinion, possibly of the people of the country as well as the House, is that whole system of licences, quotas, tariffs and benefactions, all depending upon Government control.

One can pause at this point to be sorry for Dr. Ward, that he simply was a weak man, who, as one man, on the evidence before the tribunal, found it easy to slip over the line in connection with giving himself some bacon and not charging it up in the accounts of the company. Can anybody wonder that a man who knew what was going on around him, who saw the way in which Government Departments were handing out favours and handing them out to people who were inefficient and who did not deserve them, simply made up his mind that "there is something here which I can get and I will take it while the going is good"? Dr. Ward is the first victim—I hope he is the only victim—of the rotten system which has grown up under the present Government. What is required is not any sort of obituary notice with regard to Dr. Ward. What is required is some sort of terms of reference to ourselves that we will weed out and uproot this system which has crept in and will bring about circumstances which will prohibit this type of thing ever happening again.

The Taoiseach

There has been a considerable amount of criticism of the method which I proposed for dealing with this matter. I proposed last night to make a simple interim statement. It was known that I had got the report at the end of the week. As a matter of fact, I got it form the chairman of the tribunal personally about 1 o'clock. It was a time at which I had to make up my mind as to whether I would bring back the staff which would have been necessary—I had only a single copy of the report—to have it typed and so on, and I decided there was nothing to be gained by doing so. I kept that report and proceeded on Monday morning to have a meeting of the Government to which I communicated the report. That report was accepted without reserve by the Government. That evening, I had transmitted to Dr. Ward a copy of the report. The letter which accompanied it has been asked for. It was:—

"July 8th, 1946.

Dear Dr. Ward,

I enclose a copy of the report of the tribunal. It will be presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas and released for publication in the Press within a couple of days."

Ordinary decency demanded that I should give at least one day to the recipient of that report to consider his position under it. Monday, I have accounted for. Tuesday was that day which, I believed, ordinary decency demanded should be given to the recipient of that report to consider his position under it.

On Wednesday, I understand—I was not able to be here at the opening of Parliamentary business at 3 o'clock—it was intimated that I would probably make a statement in the course of the evening. A time was not specified inasmuch as I could not be quite sure at what time I would arrive here, and it was left deliberately late so as to preclude the possibility of anything happening which might have prevented me from being here. If I had been unable to be here, the House would have to be informed that it was not possible for me to come.

I came here, as I said, intending to make a short interim statement formally to give the House the information that I had received the report and to communicate to the House the fact that I had got this letter which I intended to read. I was hardly allowed to open my mouth. I was not allowed to state in any way what my intention was. It was quite clear that there was a determination arrived at beforehand on the part of the Opposition not to permit me to speak. In these circumstances, there was no course for me but to submit. I believe that if I had been allowed to do it, I would have been doing the right and proper thing. If any member of the House wanted to discuss the report in any aspect, I indicated, in so far as it was possible to do so in view of the attitude of the Opposition, that I would have given any time required for a discussion. I would have said, if a discussion was asked for: "Here is what we propose to do. Under these circumstances, do you think it wise to have the discussion at this stage?"

Obviously this inquiry, in the first instance, centres around the actions of the Parliamentary Secretary and the allegations made against him by Dr. MacCarvill. I should like to say that, so far as this House is concerned, the two do not stand in precisely the same position. I am anxious, in so far as I can, to protect Dr. MacCarvill in so far as any allegations he made were made in the public interest. It is my duty to do that. It is a duty to the future to do it. If a public-spirited person is prepared to make categorical statements, which involve faults in public administration of such a type that it is in the public interest that they should be examined and reported upon, I do not think it would be right for us, having the future in mind, to take such action as would make it unlikely that we would ever get such again. Unfortunately, the position we find ourselves in is that, now and again, we get all sorts of irresponsible statements which, when examined, prove to be mares' nests and it is unusual for us to get a categorical statement such as we got from Dr. MacCarvill. For that reason, the moment I got it I brought it here to the House and proposed that a certain line of action should be taken. We had a discussion on that occasion as to the propriety of the course that was suggested. We have had part of it here again to-night. Looking back on it, and looking to the future, I am more satisfied now, if possible, than I was at the end of the discussion on the previous occasion, that there was no other way in which that matter could be adequately handled, than by the setting up of an ad hoc tribunal to investigate the charges.

We have had Deputies suggesting to-night that there was going to be some cloaking or something of that kind. Is it not quite obvious, if we were going to proceed against the Parliamentary Secretary or one who held that position, that it would be suggested it was only a mockery, that there was no intention on the part of the Government to proceed against him, as we would proceed against an ordinary individual, that he was going to be protected, due to the fact that he was a Parliamentary Secretary? On the other hand, could we ask him to resign? Surely we could not ask him to resign in advance. Were we going to say, because charges were made against him, that he was regarded by us as guilty? Was there any course we could take that would inspire public confidence other than the course we have taken? We had a Deputy to-night giving his own version of what the tribunal did not do. We gave the tribunal a very definite task, to investigate the charges that were contained in that letter. It was suggested by someone that part of these charges were private matters that concerned Dr. Ward and Dr. MacCarvill and were no concern of ours. Do you think that we would not have gentlemen on the opposite benches accusing me of changing the real issues if I attempted to take out the part that, in my opinion, concerned the public interest?

There was only one course left for me and the Government, and that was to give the letter as a whole to a competent tribunal to investigate all the charges contained in it, or such charges as they considered should be examined. What was the nature of the tribunal? Is there anybody in the House that suggests that it was not an impartial tribunal? That is not the opinion I believe of anybody in the country. We took a judge of the Supreme Court, a judge of the High Court, and a senior judge of the Circuit Court. They were given open terms of reference. They got power to make any investigation they wanted. They had all the powers of the High Court. I believe the public are quite satisfied that they did their work impartially and well, and I certainly am not going to be a party in this House to finding fault with the tribunal.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order.

Deputies

Order, order.

They are unreservedly accepted. What was Deputy McGilligan talking about? What is the point in suggesting that there were things the tribunal should have done and did not do? We accept the findings without reserve. The country would have been informed in the same way last night as they are informed now. No time would be lost. Tomorrow the Government will consider the position and come to its decision. That is with reference simply to the position of Dr. Ward as Parliamentary Secretary. There are, of course, other matters that arise out of this. It is suggested that this process which we have set up is somehow going to intervene and prevent the courts from doing their duty otherwise.

The moment Dr. Ward ceases to be Parliamentary Secretary, then the objection to one part of the administration proceeding against another part of the administration will disappear, and the various Departments, and various bodies, with special obligations, will proceed, in accordance with the law, to deal with any charges that arise in regard to his conduct. There is no attempt on our part to shield Dr. Ward or anybody else from the full consequences of any breaking of the law of which they are found guilty. It was suggested—and there is no way out of it—that the findings of this tribunal, authoritative as they must be regarded, will influence the decisions that have to be arrived at in other courts. That is inevitable. There is no way out. But surely we are not going to object that findings of fact by a tribunal of that character are unfair. If these are going to be accepted by a jury or anybody else as findings of fact, what detriment to the individuals concerned is it? They are findings by an eminent body that approached this question impartially, and if there is on the one side or on the other, any question of prejudice, that is a thing that cannot be avoided.

Looking to the future, if such cases arise again, those who will be responsible for dealing with them—I hope they will not arise, and I do not believe this is symptomatic—I feel perfectly convinced that the authorities of the day will have to follow this precedent.

If such a case should arise again, I feel perfectly convinced that the authorities of the State will have to follow this precedent—not that it is established as such, but because force of circumstances and the same pressure of facts will compel them to take the very same line of action as we have taken. I had this in the Seanad and I believe that I convinced the Seanad—there was no vote taken on it—that the particular line of action taken by me was the only one that could be taken in the circumstances. Then, what is the position? It is that to-morrow Dr. Ward's position as Parliamentary Secretary will be determined by the Government. He has not been exercising any functions since this case began. After that the usual process of law will take its course. There may be—I do not know—several actions taking place. It was because of the slowness of these actions that I believed that what we wanted in this particular instance was a tribunal that could determine the issues involved quickly. As far as I know there may be—it was suggested here—a libel action, or some other type of action. State action was more or less ruled cut because there would not be the same public confidence in such action so long at Dr. Ward remained as Parliamentary Secretary. If there are these further actions they will of necessity take a considerable time.

We set up this tribunal. Within a month we have their report. Within a week after that we will have certain issues determined. Immediately after, any other cases which may arise at law as to the breaking of the law will be investigated. The Attorney-General will have the papers. Any functions he may have to discharge in that regard will be fully discharged.

Having regard to the fact that Deputy McGilligan is not now present, may I say that I know that it was very far from Deputy McGilligan's intention to make any reflection on the tribunal?

The Taoiseach

I am entitled to my opinion of what was said.

Mr. Dillon

The Taoiseach said that the terms of reference were unlimited and Deputy McGilligan said that they were limited. That is what he said.

Mr. Aiken

That was not what he said.

Mr. Moran

Certainly not.

The Taoiseach

Let the matter rest. This is the letter which I got. I felt, as I said, that there was a difference between their positions. Dr. Ward was answerable to this House and I felt that if he had any statement to make it was right that he should be given time. With regard to Dr. MacCarvill I felt that I had only a courtesy duty to give him a copy of the report apart from what he would see in the Press. I sent it to him. I tried to get it to him last night roughly about the same time that others were given copies of the report. This is the letter which I have received from Dr. MacCarvill:—

"8 Fitzwilliam Square,

Dublin.

11/7/46.

An Taoiseach,

A Chara,

Only at a late hour last night did the report of the tribunal reach me.

That the tribunal should have stated in its findings that some of my charges were ‘made recklessly and without justification' came as a great surpise, since many important witnesses were in court under subpæna to give material evidence with regard to the medical appointments and the Fianna Fáil hall but were not heard by the tribunal. In fact, the hall case was not investigated. These matters are for me a question of personal honour.

Mise, le meas,

P. MacCarvill."

Again, as I say, our position is this: we set up an impartial tribunal of men whose integrity and ability nobody in this land who knows them is going to question. They got the letter with the charges and their terms of reference and I believe they did their duty capably, fearlessly and well. I want to make it quite clear that we accept unreservedly the findings of this tribunal.

Mr. Costello

I was the person who drew attention when speaking to the fact that no reference had been made to the labours of the tribunal. I went out of my way to express my personal gratification as to their impartiality. I do not wish it to appear from what the Taoiseach said that anything said from these benches could mean anything other than we regarded the tribunal as having done a great public service.

Mr. MacEntee

That was not Deputy McGilligan's speech.

Deputies

No, no.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 11 Jul 1946

Report of Tribunal—Adjournment Debate.

Mr. Morrissey

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Jul 1946