When I was speaking on this motion before the Adjournment, I made a few statements which it is perhaps as well for me to repeat this evening. I said that it was no secret that I was controlling director of the Irish Press, that I had been that from the foundation of the company, that it was well known throughout the country and that it was well known to the members of the House, that I had explained my position in that regard when I was President of the Executive Council and took office here in the early years as Head of the Government. I said that I had never received any pay or remuneration for any work which I did for the Irish Press. There was some reference to directors' fees, some years ago established at £250. That had no relation to the controlling director and from the beginning there had been no question of his having asked for or received, or of any arrangements having been made for, fees for him.
It was somewhat of a surprise to me, news to me, to be told that I had been a part-time Taoiseach, that I was establishing the precedent of being a part-time Taoiseach. As I say, that is news to me. Although I have had to face criticism from members of the House on many occasions, I do not think that it was ever before alleged that I was a part-time Taoiseach, or that I had been establishing a bad precedent, a precedent of part-time Taoisigh.
I said that the position of controlling director was set out in the Articles of Association of the company for a very good reason. It was to try to make certain, so far as you can make certain in human affairs, that the policy and aims of those who subscribed the capital of the newspaper would not be departed from. The position was also there because it was realised that divided control, anything like control by a group, could in certain events, where differences would arise, lead to disaster for the enterprise as a whole.
I said that the ordinary work of supervising, controlling and directing the conduct of the business was in the hands of a board of directors, of men who had been experienced in business enterprises. I gave some names to indicate the type of businessmen that were in control. In giving some of those who for some 17 years gave services free to the company, I, unfortunately, omitted two of the foundation names. As these names are going on record, I think I should repair the omission. One was Mr. H. T. Gallagher and the other Mr. Edmund Williams. The latter was chairman of the company from the time when I left it as chairman, when I became President of the Executive Council and refrained from attending board meetings or taking part in the day to day activities of the newspaper. He took charge as chairman and over a period of some 17 years gave his services free. All the directors did the same, not even taking expenses for their journeys from, say, Cork, Wexford, Limerick, to attend the board meetings.
At a certain stage, it was thought that the time had come when it was no longer fair to expect businessmen to give of their time, not to mind of their experience and ability, to the enterprise without some recompense and that the usual practice of paying directors' fees should be initiated. That was done, I think, about 1951. Since then, the directors have been paid the fees that have been mentioned, but not the controlling director, for the reasons I have already mentioned.
I am very sorry to have to deal with the affairs of the Irish Press here, but they come in directly in regard to the charges made. I am afraid I have to do it. I think it is unfair that matters like this should be brought up in the way in which this has been. It is only fair to the House that I should give the circumstances as fully as reasonable time would permit. The paper was established, not primarily as a profit making concern. The capital was subscribed, in the main, to provide— in the circumstances of the time it was felt to be needed—a national newspaper, and it was for that reason that the position of controlling director was established. Ever since, I have felt a certain degree of what I might call, roughly, a moral trusteeship in the matter. Although it was not established primarily with a profit-making idea, there is no doubt that if profits could be made, it was desirable that they should be made and that dividends should be paid on the shares when the development that has been anticipated had been secured and, when looking forward, taking full stock of the situation, commercial prudence would justify doing that. I hoped the time would soon come, but, so far, no dividends have been paid and, therefore, dividends on the directors' qualifying shares have not been paid either.
It has been suggested that my being controlling director of this enterprise in the sense which I have described was incompatible with my position as Taoiseach. I have never found it to be such. The mover of the motion has suggested that decisions might have to be made by me as a member of the Government in which interest, such as my interest in the Irish Press, would prevent me from coming to a fair or impartial judgment.
He developed the thesis not merely of the doing of justice but of justice being seen to be done. As he spoke, I asked myself the question what should be the position in the community of a Taoiseach who could escape such charges as he was levelling at me—that is, that I would be influenced in judgment as a member of the Government by what you might call my material or other interests in an enterprise in the community. I asked myself what about a farmer. Were I a farmer, I have no doubt that he would, in illustration of his thesis, have said that I could not, in matters such as the price of wheat, for instance, give an unbiassed judgment; that I would be bound to be influenced by my own material interests in the matter; if there was a question, let us say, of land reclamation, that my attitude towards questions of that sort was bound to be determined by my own particular interest in it.
I could go over a number of other matters in connection with the farming enterprise which if the Taoiseach or I, as Taoiseach, happened to be a farmer would make me subject to the charges which the Deputy was making. If I were a business man—suppose a manufacturer—and if by any chance I was directly or indirectly connected, let us say, with a firm which was receiving protection, I would be told that I could not in matters of protection act impartially as a member of the Government. If there was a question, for instance, of helping the exports of goods with which I had any connection, I would be accused again of acting partially in regard to my judgments on it. If I happened to be in any business in which questions of quotas were involved or if I happened to be, let us say, an hotel keeper, or my wife or a member of my family kept a hotel—then, of course, I would be ruled out as being incapable of coming to an impartial judgment on questions of tourism and certainly on the licensing laws if they came up for consideration.
If I were a professional man—a doctor—of course, in relation to questions of public health and the relationship between the medical profession and other members of the community, I would be ruled out again in that regard. If I were a teacher, the same thing would be suggested in matters such as the remuneration of teachers or their status in the community.
If I were a Labour man—if a Labour man happened to be Taoiseach—I would, of course, be ruled out as being an improper person to deal with any matters connected with the hours of work, the conditions of labour and the relations between labour and employers. Having regard to examples of that sort, I began to ask myself what sort of person could be made Taoiseach and not be open to such charges. I even asked myself would St. Francis be free when he had put aside all earthly possessions. I could easily see in imagination questions in which his predilection for his own Order would be brought up as a reason why he should not be Taoiseach. I am afraid we will have to get a returned man from the moon to come down here to be Taoiseach before the Taoiseach could be free from the suggestions that whatever he might do in regard to actual justice he would be unable to be certain that he would be seen to be doing justice.
It is the doing of justice that matters. The being seen to do it is very important, I will admit, in a democratic community, but when things are done justly and reasons explained the people can see the reasons for these things. I would remind people who would be influenced by some of the arguments put forward by the Deputy here that they should remember that, although the Taoiseach has more influence than any other single member of his Cabinet or the Government, in the long run Government decisions are taken with the agreement of a body. That body must agree, and when questions are being discussed, although one individual might have some particular leanings in a certain direction for one reason or another, there are other people whose views would not be in that direction.
Therefore, although, being human beings, it is possible to suggest that there may be leanings by an individual in one direction or another for some particular motive or another, in the long run, when a group decision is taken, individual leanings become cancelled out. Moreover, before a matter comes before the Government, it has usually been examined by civil servants. These matters are discussed in as objective a manner as possible. The propositions put up are discussed by various Departments and various Ministers, who have got the pros and cons before a decision is taken. The pros and cons have to be properly weighed, and the decision, as a group decision, eliminates some of the errors that might occur if there was simply a decision by a single individual being. taken. That is the value of decision by a group and collective responsibility.
