I move:—
That as the Taoiseach, in continuing to hold the post of controlling director of the Irish Press Ltd. While acting as Taoiseach, holds a position which could reasonably be regarded as interfering or being incompatible with the full and proper discharge by him of the duties of his office and further as he has not considered it necessary to indicate the position to the House, Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that he has rendered a serious disservice to the principle of integrity in parliamentary government and derogated from the dignity and respect due to his rank and office as Taoiseach.
I must confess that when I first learned that the Taoiseach, while act, ing as Taoiseach, also continued to act in his capacity as controlling director of the Irish Press Ltd. I was both shocked and surprised. Most of us understand the position of Deputies who come into this House and take up office of one kind or another. We are not elected here as members of a vocational assembly. We are elected in our capacity as independent individuals and it is our function, as Deputies, to try to represent as far as we can the cross-section of opinion which sends us here, rather than continue any adherence to outside personal loyalties, business loyalties or professional loyalties. This is not a vocational assembly and we have, therefore, a responsibility to act as impartially as possible and independently as possible in deciding the issues that come before us from time to time.
Now, if that is true of Deputies, it is clearly even more true of those who take up office of one kind or another, be it Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Minister or, above all, Taoiseach. There can be no question as to the ideal at which one should aim. Above all, and beyond all, the Taoiseach must quite clearly be in a position to act in a completely impartial judicial capacity in relation to the many difficult and complicated matters which come before him from time to time, both as Leader of the House and as Leader of the Cabinet.
In relation to the latter category, it is important that his position should be clearly understood. In the Cabinet, he is faced with conflicting loyalties and different points of view. Ministers are trying, each in his own Department, to win advantages, possibly at the expense of another Department, and, ultimately, perhaps, at the expense of the country generally. There are the conflicting demands of the different interests— large industrial vested interests of one kind or another, professional interests, trade union interests, workers' interests and State pensioners' interests. The Taoiseach must, in his capacity as Taoiseach, be above and outside all these groups. When he gives a decision, he must be in a position to demonstrate fully and clearly that not only has justice been done but that justice appears to be done.
It has been suggested that everybody knew about the Taoiseach's associations, that everybody knew that the Taoiseach continued to hold these posts in the Irish Press newspapers, that it was common knowledge. I think it is true that it was common knowledge that the Taoiseach acted as controlling director of the Irish Press newspapers, but what was not common knowledge—certainly, I was not aware of it until very recently— was that he did not adopt the usual practice in this type of case of either resigning or asking for leave of absence without pay from these posts, while acting in his capacity as Taoiseach. That was the general principle that most of us assumed he had accepted and was acting upon.
I believe that the principle has been reasonably clearly established here by precedent, with the exception of the Taoiseach's particular behaviour, that a Cabinet Minister does resign or in some way or other divests himself of outside responsibility, on taking office as Minister.
There is the general consideration of the very considerable responsibilities of the Taoiseach and the necessity for him to be utterly independent of any outside capacity in all these matters. There is the other very important consideration that this group of newspapers is a chain of national newspapers which has become a very important and very influential industry. It comprises the three papers, Evening Press, Irish Press, and Sunday Press, all of which have a very considerable circulation and are extremely prosperous as far as one can see, in so far as they have expanded over the years. Because of that, it is not as if this job were a sinecure or as if the Taoiseach were in a position to delegate his responsibilities and allow his full time to be taken up with his responsibilities as Taoiseach. This post of controlling director is, as I have shown, a post of very wide responsibility, involving very important functions and very considerable powers.
The Taoiseach is morally bound, as far as we know, to discharge these very considerable responsibilities to this group of newspapers. He is morally bound to the shareholders in these newspapers and to his other directors in these newspapers to discharge these functions fully, to the best of his ability and capacity, and, on the other hand, he is morally bound to discharge his functions here as Taoiseach, that is, as the Leader of the Government, Leader of the House and the person responsible for defining national policy from time to time, foreign policy and so on, and all the other responsibilities that have to be discharged by the Taoiseach.
It seems to me, even if you leave aside the first point I raised, that the second point, the question of no man physically or intellectually being competent to do it completely efficiently, must recommend itself to anybody who gives this matter objective consideration.
While he is the controlling director of a very large commercial concern that is attempting to make a profit and to expand its business, with responsibilities to shareholders and to the employees of these newspapers, I cannot see how any man could at the same time discharge the other multifarious responsibilities of a person upon whom the people conferred the great honour of Taoiseach and the great responsibility of Taoiseach.
I believe that the Taoiseach was ill-advised to have established this precedent. It is one which has very dangerous possibilities, perhaps not even with him in the present position he holds, but it is a precedent which could be very seriously misused in the future in certain circumstances. The Taoiseach was wrong in holding these two posts at one time, in leaving himself open to the charge: "Whom are you working for; are you working for the Irish Press or are you working for the Irish People?” That is a reasonable question that he must be asked and that he must be in a position to answer. He has weakened his position very much in the country, and must weaken it very much, in putting himself in the invidious position in which that becomes a fair and reasonable question.
If the Taoiseach is quite happy in his mind, as he appears to be, that this is a perfectly permissible practice on the part of the Taoiseach or a Minister, I think it is wrong of him to have—well—failed to disclose— that is the way I put it. I believe it goes further than that; it amounts to concealing the fact. As far as I have been concerned, at any rate, it was concealed. However, I leave it at "failing to disclose"—to this House that while acting as Taoiseach, he was at the same time controlling director of these three newspapers.
I have on a number of occasions asked questions in the House in order to try to find out what the particular position was. There have been other people in the past who have also asked questions in regard to this matter and, to the best of my ability, I have tried to establish the principle which has guided the several Taoisigh in their decisions as to what is the wisest thing to do in the particular set of circumstances where the Minister or intending Taoiseach holds other posts, company directorships and such, prior to taking up office. Such questions were asked in 1947, 1948, 1951 and 1957 and they all took much the same pattern:
"To ask the Taoiseach whether any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was, on his appointment as such, connected with any public or private company or business interest, and, if so, if he will state the name, style or description of the company or interest involved and the capacity in which such Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was connected with it, and whether he is still so connected."
That is the gist of most of the questions which have been asked. I do not want to weary the House with long quotations from questions which have been asked. I shall try to refer merely to the relevant section of the question because some of them are very long. The Taoiseach, I have no doubt, will be in a position to refute it, if I am in any way misquoting, which I do not propose to do, of course.
On 11th December, 1947—Volume 109, column 722 of the Official Report, Deputy Cogan asked the Taoiseach:—
"...does the Taoiseach not realise that there is a definite restriction established by custom on Ministers taking active part in business concerns and does he not think that the same restriction should apply to Parliamentary Secretaries?"
The Taoiseach replied:—
"I do not know what the Deputy means by ‘custom'. We are just as strict here as, for instance, in Britain. Here no member of the Government or Parliamentary Secretary holds a company directorship carrying remuneration."
That is the fairly consistent answer of the Taoiseach on occasions on which I have since asked similar questions. That is the straight answer to the particular question.
There was a question as to whether farmers should divest themselves of their farms. I think that it was agreed amongst both sides that it would be unreasonable to expect a farmer to do that, but, outside that, I think the general principle in that answer was "No company directorship carrying remuneration". That was the point raised by the Taoiseach.
The next question on the matter was asked in March, 1948. In column 157 Deputy Cogan asked the then Taoiseach if it was the intention of the Government to see that every Minister and Parliamentary Secretary would refrain while in office from active participation in any business or profession for reward. Deputy Costello, who was then Taoiseach replied at some length, but wound up:—
"In particular the rule is being observed and will be observed that a member of the Government or a Parliamentary Secretary should not hold a company directorship."
There is a significant difference between those two answers. Deputy Costello's answer was that they should not hold a company directorship. Deputy de Valera's, the Taoiseach's, answer was that they should not hold a company directorship carrying remuneration. That seems to be a very important question.
In March, 1948, the then Deputy Lemass asked:—
"Will the Taoiseach express a view as to whether he thinks it proper that a member of the Government should act as a committee man of a trade union having business with Government Departments?"
He was rather anxious at the thought that a Minister should hold any job other than his job as Minister or that he would be a trade union official. While I do not want to attach more to the statement of Deputy Lemass than is actually in it he could reasonably be said to disapprove of that suggestion. I am just mentioning that. The main point is that the difference between the two Governments is that one will permit company directorships not carrying remuneration and the other will not allow company directorships at all. The present Opposition would not allow a Minister to hold a company directorship at all.
Another question was asked by Deputy Flanagan in 1957 when the question of whether a person should get leave of absence without remuneration came up. The then Taoiseach reiterated the point about company directorships carrying remuneration and said that there was no Minister holding a company directorship which carried remuneration. I asked another question on the 24th April, 1957. This question was asked in order to elicit the position concerning the holding of a directorship by any of the members of the Government. I shall be obliged to read it at some length because it does cover the whole question. It was:—
"To ask the Taoiseach whether any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was, on his appointment as such, connected with any public or private company or business interest, and, if so, if he will state the name, style or description of the company or interest involved and the capacity in which such Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was connected with it, and whether he is so connected."
The reply was:—
"On the general principle underlying the subject of this question and its application, I would refer the Deputy to the replies given to similar questions in this House by me on the 11th December, 1947, and the 19th July, 1951, and by the then Taoiseach on the 9th March, 1948.
The general principle, the observance of which is what concerns the Dáil and the public in this matter, is that no Minister or Parliamentary Secretary should engage in any activities whatsoever that could reasonably be regarded as interfering, or being incompatible, with the full and proper discharge by him of the duties of his office—for example, acting in a position such as a company directorship carrying remuneration. I might mention, for the information of the Dáil, that the new Government, at one of their first meetings—on the 28th ultimo— formally decided that the principle would apply to their members and to the Parliamentary Secretaries.
As happened on the occasion of the change of administration that took place in June, 1951, most of the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries who, immediately before their recent entry upon office, held positions that would conflict with the principle I have just mentioned have already complied with the principle, by resignation or by being given leave of absence without remuneration. In the remaining few cases in which full compliance was not immediately practicable, steps are being taken to comply with the principle as soon as possible."
A further question on the 5th June, 1957, elicited the same response. In a supplementary question on the 24th April, I asked for further information and the Taoiseach said:—
"These are private affairs of Ministers—what they have been doing before they became Ministers. It is what they do as Ministers that matters."
My question had asked what connection the Ministers at that time had with business and whether they were still connected with business; if they had resigned from such businesses, companies or concerns, I had better read the question:—
"To ask the Taoiseach whether all the Ministers in the present Government who, on taking up office, were either directors of, or had any other controlling or business association with any exporting company or corporation or any manufacturing business or other industrial or shipping concern, have resigned from such businesses, companies or concerns."
The answer, I suggest, was an evasive one in so far as I was not given to understand whether the Taoiseach had given up his position as controlling director of this particular concern— the Irish Press, Limited.
In a further question on the 12th March, 1958, I asked the Taoiseach:—
"If members of the Government who held directorships or had controlling interests in firms with which they were connected immediately prior to taking up their posts as members of the Government have resigned such directorships or divested themselves of such interests."
The first part of the reply is the usual and says that no Minister holds any position that could be reasonably regarded as interfering, or being incompatible, with the full and proper discharge by him of the duties of his office. The answer then goes on:—
"It is, perhaps, right that I should add, however, that, as the culmination of work which was begun by a Minister over two years ago—that is, about a year before his entry upon office as a Minister—a certain private company was formed and recently registered. In the articles of association of that company, the Minister was named as one of the first directors. He has, however, resigned from that position."
Prima facie it looks as if the Taoiseach adheres to the general position that no Minister will hold the post of Taoiseach and at the same time hold a company directorship carrying remuneration. That is different from Deputy Costello's point that Ministers should not hold any company directorships at all. The Taoiseach appears to me to have parted to some extent from his general principle here when he explained why a particular Minister held a directorship in a private company and why it was difficult for him to rid himself of that directorship but that he was making all possible speed in getting rid of that directorship.
It would seem to me that the Taoiseach would like to adopt two different standards of behaviour for Ministers and for the Taoiseach. One position is that he himself can adhere to this very important Jekyll and Hyde existence as Taoiseach and controlling director of a chain of national newspapers and on the other hand, as far as his own colleagues are concerned, it is desirable for them to rid themselves of their directorships or ask for leave of absence without remuneration.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach why he did not adopt this course in his own case. Why did he not decide to ask for leave of absence without remuneration or resign his controlling directorships temporarily upon taking over the position of Taoiseach? If he believes it is permissible for him to retain these very important posts, then surely the same principle must apply to his colleagues? I should like to ask him further whether his colleagues exonerate themselves from any charges that might be made against them here by refusing to take remuneration during their period of office. Is that so? Have all his Ministers resigned their directorships?