In the course of my remarks on this motion last week, I established that it could not reasonably be held that it was incompatible with any of the obligations of his public office for Deputy de Valera to hold the position of controlling director of the Irish Press. I showed, and, indeed, the mover of the motion himself proved, that the association of the Taoiseach with the Irish Press has been public property since the prospectus of the company which owns that newspaper was published in 1931. With this knowledge, the electorate, at eight general elections, voted to make Deputy de Valera head of the Irish Government. Deputy Dr. Browne in his motion denies the right of the Irish people to vote in this way. I challenge him to state what is the ground for refusing them that right. The events which led up to the establishment of the Irish Press are well known to those who made Deputy de Valera Taoiseach.
Private Members' Business. - Office of Taoiseach—Motion (Resumed).
Indeed, they are not.
Deputies
Ah!
Please do not answer him. That is what they want. They wasted a quarter of an hour last week on this.
I have stated a fact. They are not.
They knew it was established in order to put the Republican position before the people, in order to keep the Republican flag flying, in order to put a Republican Government in this Dáil and in order to give a Republican Constitution to the people of Ireland.
With brackets around it.
I suspect that the record of that period is a sealed book to the two Deputies who are responsible for this motion.
There is a lot we do not know about it.
Order!
Even if they were familiar with these events, even if they had lived through them, by what right do they set themselves up to override the judgment of the people who, with all the facts before them, have determined that it is quite compatible with his position as Taoiseach for Deputy de Valera to be controlling director of the Irish Press?
Next, it has been established by the mover of the motion himself, when he quoted a long series of parliamentary questions which over the years have been addressed to the Taoiseach on this very point, that at no time had the Taoiseach's association with the Irish Press been concealed. One of the questions which were mentioned in the course of his opening address was put in 1947, before Deputy Browne appeared upon our political scene. The Deputy has shown himself to be a zealous delver into the Official Reports. I would recommend him to continue his researches back to 1932 and he will learn that Deputy de Valera's association with the Irish Press was debated, not once, but many times in this House. Far from there having been any concealment in this matter, it has been widely published by all his political opponents.
The people, in many general elections, have rejected the first proposition in this motion, to the effect that it is incompatible with his office as Taoiseach for Deputy de Valera to be controlling director of the Irish Press. Everyone knows that there is no foundation for the despicable allegation that the Taoiseach's association with this paper has ever been concealed by him and, yet, Deputy Mulcahy has told us that he and his colleagues are going to vote for the motion. They are doing this on the ground that it should be quite understood that a member of the Government is not exercising a controlling influence in a publicly organised business. Deputy Mulcahy tries to draw a distinction between a business which is publicly organised—I assume he means a business which is carried on by a public company—and businesses which are carried on under other auspices. But he did not tell us why that distinction should be made.
What grounds are there for suggesting that any director of a public company, any director of one of our large industrial undertakings, is a man of less integrity than any shareholder in that company, than any employee in that company, than any trade union officials who may have had discussions with him? I gather from Deputy Mulcahy's remarks that members of the Opposition have been themselves directors of public companies, but that they duly relinquished these directorships when they became members of the Government. Will he tell us what heavy burden of temptation fell from them when they divested themselves of their directorships?
Of course, it is quite nonsense to suggest that there is any difference in the character of a man who holds a directorship when he is sitting in Opposition and who divests himself of that directorship when he joins a Government. I am certain that their standards of conduct—and, let me say, their high standards of conduct, their honour, their personal probity— were as high when those members of the Opposition to whom Deputy Mulcahy referred were sitting as members of the Opposition with their directorships as they were when they sat in the Cabinet without them. But, that is not what Deputy Mulcahy suggested.
I fail to follow the Minister.
Deputy Mulcahy and his colleagues who have been company directors are held up to obloquy in this motion——
Is that so?
——merely because they happen to be directors—obloquy, because the real issue raised by this motion is that so long as they remain directors of public companies. Deputies are unfit and unworthy to be members of the Government.
Oh, dear!
Why should directors of concerns, of public companies in particular, be singled out in this way by the Opposition? Why should a distinction be drawn between them and every other member of the business community?
Why does the present Government——
Stop! Why should they be classed as criminals, unfit to hold public office?
Why do you resign directorships?
That is the real gravamen of this motion.
Is it?
Yes. You are singling out the people who are leading the industrial development of this country as outcasts and pariahs and that is what you are voting for.
Nonsense.
Is that why Dr. Ward was dismissed?
Deputy Browne to conclude.
Why did the Minister resign directorships?
That is why Dr. Ward was dismissed.
Why did the Minister resign directorships?
Will you put down the question?
The general principle is accepted by his own Party that a director should not hold a Cabinet post, whilst at the same time holding a company directorship carrying remuneration. The Minister for Health spoke about the gravity of the motion put down by myself and Deputy McQuillan. I do not think the question can be reduced to any single point myself and if I were asked to reduce it to any single point, I would suggest that the lack of candour on the part of the Taoiseach is the one which strikes me as being the most important one concerning his position in relation to the Irish Press.
The only thing we have been asked to do is to refer back to the debate of 1933 which I have read concerning largely the establishment of the Irish Press and the agreement by the Dáil that a certain section of the Republican Loan should be funnelled into the funds of the Irish Press newspaper. At that time there was a body called the American Corporation whose function it was to care for the interests and the assets of the American shareholders. Then there were the American shareholders. I was surprised that the Taoiseach did not tell us whether the position which obtained then was the same as it is to-day.
I tried to find out, as a shareholder in the company and as a Deputy involved in the debate, if the position was identical to-day with what it was then. As a shareholder, I tried to find out whether that position is so or not. Is the American Corporation which was to cater for the interests of the American shareholders still in existence and, secondly, are the shareholders to the value of approximately £100,000 there?
Has this anything to do with the motion before the House?
I tried to find out from the secretary of the Irish Press Newspapers, Ltd. whether either of these two bodies—the American shareholders or the American Corporation —existed. In the first instance, he refused to tell me anything. He told me he would like to consult. He went away, came back and told me: "I have no information to offer."
On a point of order——
Do you want to stifle discussion?
The motion does not deal with the business of Irish Press Newspapers, Ltd.
I am trying to see how Deputy Dr. Browne will relate it to the motion. I am asking Deputy Dr. Browne to relate it definitely to the motion.
Would it be in order to ask the Minister to ask his own questions?
The failure of the Taoiseach to disclose his position——
That is not what is in the motion.
It is my contention that, in acting as Taoiseach, he holds a position which could reasonably be regarded as interfering or incompatible with the full discharge of the duties of his office. I accused the Taoiseach of having been responsible for telling the secretary to refuse to give me this information which, as a shareholder and, secondly, as a Deputy engaged in the debate, I sought. The reason he refused it is that he has a guilty conscience about the American Corporation and the American shareholders. I suggest that neither the American Corporation nor the American shareholders exist.
On a point of order, I understand that the case for a motion must be made in opening. The Deputy is introducing a matter which has no relevance to this motion.
It is very embarrassing to the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach went on to say that he received no remuneration from the company and had no financial connections whatsoever with the company. I would suggest that none of the shareholders in this company have received remuneration, so that he is no different from any other shareholders. That he has received no remuneration as director is true. In my opening statement, I said there was £250, which he does not take. It is relatively minute when put against the tremendous publicity which the Taoiseach has received—publicity which would have cost him £20,000, £25,000 or £30,000, if he had to pay for it.
He also received that publicity in the Hue and Cry with which you are familiar.
He has been paid in kind, if not in pound notes.
When pals fall out.
The Taoiseach said his was a fiduciary capacity in relation to the shareholders of this company and that he was, under the Articles of Association, given certain very wide powers in this company. My suggestion is that he had 500 qualifying shares in order to allow him to act as controlling director. He subscribed, as far as I could see, to the suggestion that he had only 500 shares in this company. Instead of that, the position since 1929 is that the Taoiseach as an individual or the Taoiseach jointly with his son. Deputy Vivion de Valera, has continued to have these shares registered in his name to a total of 55,000, as far as I can see, anyway. I inspected the books as a shareholder. I am not an expert in these matters, but as far as I can see, there are at least 55,000 odd shares standing in the Taoiseach's name in the Irish Press Newspapers Limited.
They are making a racket out of it.
Secondly, jointly with Deputy Vivion de Valera, his son, he has acquired shares over this time, since 1929, right up to two months ago. Together they have acquired a total shareholding of 91,983, making a grand total of shareholdings in the Irish Press Newspapers Limited of from 140,000 to 150,000 shares. These shares are registered in their names. The present position is that the de Valera family are the majority shareholders in the Irish Press Newspapers Limited.
And he wants to be President on top of it all.
At the same time, he has acquired a mere ten single shares for the Fianna Fáil Party. I should like to know whether these shares were acquired by the Taoiseach acting as a trustee or by Deputy Vivion de Valera acting as trustee.
This is very interesting.
On a point of order and just to make the record right, surely this is a matter that could and should be raised at the general meeting of the company and not here, I submit. I want to make that submission and I want to have a ruling. This is an abuse of the privileges of the House and I should like to have a ruling.
It seems to me that the reference made by Deputy Dr. Browne in respect of shares held by the Taoiseach is quite relevant to the motion.
They are now majority shareholders. It has been suggested that he acted as trustee for these shareholders whom the Minister for Health has described as these poor Irish-Americans who put their little savings into this country 25 or 30 years ago. The position is, that acting as controlling director, Mr. de Valera has taken steps to see that the shares of the Irish Press Newspapers, Ltd., have not been quoted—quotations have not been asked on the Dublin Stock Exchange. The result, of course, has been that these shares have been made available to the de Valera family at a grossly deflated undervaluation.
The motion refers to the Taoiseach only.
A Deputy
We have had many references to the de Valera family.
Order!
In refusing to allow quotations on the stock exchange, they have deprived these poor shareholders of the right to a just price for their shares. They have deprived those shareholders of the dividends which Mr. de Valera told them must come soon to be paid by this company, having these majority shareholdings, over half the shares——
Tell us about the money you made for your friend.
——in a company worth, according to the last balance sheet, £918,000, or nearly £1,000,000. I suggest he has used his position as Taoiseach to build up his position as controlling director of these newspapers, and has used his position as controlling director of these newspapers to maintain his position as Taoiseach. He has used his joint positions in order to create a very prosperous commercial enterprise, a very solid nest-egg, for the days of his retirement. He has also used his position as controlling director which, under the articles of association of the company gives him the widest powers, to bring his son on to the board of directors and has brought his son's brother-in-law on to the board so that three of the de Valera family are on the board of directors, the total number of directors being six, two of whom are very ill.
The Deputy will have to confine his remarks to the Taoiseach.
A Deputy
It is about time you told him.
There is no family made more out of this country than the de Valera family.
A Deputy
How did you get into the House?
It is a breach of his undertaking in establishing this very considerable commercial holding. It is a breach of faith with the shareholders of this company, the people whom the Minister for Health asked us to weep for last night.
You are a professional tear-jerker.
It is also a breach of his undertaking given in the letter soliciting funds from America in the thirties that he would receive no personal remuneration out of this enterprise. He has deprived the shareholders of their just rights to a dividend when that dividend comes to be paid. He has deprived the shareholders of their right to whatever assets are payable should this company go into liquidation and he has misled this House when he said in answer to a question of mine on 12th November: "I have no financial interest in the Irish Press.” That is an outrageous misstatement and the Taoiseach should certainly not have been guilty of it.
There is, I think, very considerable public disquiet over this whole question. It was only with the greatest difficulty that I have been able to ascertain the facts as I know them. If there is any doubt about them at all, the Taoiseach has only himself to blame, because he has been so evasive and because he refused to answer simple questions put to him in this House.
I suggest that in view of these facts there is no alternative but for the Taoiseach to set up a public inquiry, a public judicial inquiry, and the inquiring body should be under the auspices of some judge nominated, not by the Taoiseach because he is an interested party in this whole matter, but by the Ceann Comhairle.
The Deputy has used up his time.
I recommend the motion to the House.
Sir, might I inquire, before you put the motion—
No.
Deputies
Sit down.
A Deputy
Perjurer.
The motion in the names of——
On a point of order——
I am putting the motion and no point of order can arise.
May I raise a point of order?
No point of order can arise. I am putting the motion.
Before you put the motion, may I ask——
Surely I can ask a question.
No point of order can arise. I am putting the motion.
May I ask the Chair for a ruling——
Deputies
No.
The motion is perfectly in order.
The question is a short question——
The Deputy may not.
The Chair cannot hear me with the disturbance. May I ask the Chair if——
Deputies
Sit down.
What is the point the Deputy is raising? Has it reference to the motion?
It has.
Has it reference to the putting of the motion?
Before the Ceann Comhairle puts the motion, may I inquire if, in view of the fact that the Taoiseach is offering himself for the Presidency——
Surely the Taoiseach should——
Sit down. Locke's Distillery.
If the Minister for Justice were doing his job——
Do not talk about Locke's Distillery. This is worse than Locke's Distillery.
Deputies
Sit down.
Surely the Minister for Justice should take action, if Deputy Browne's statement that Mr. de Valera is robbing the shareholders of the Irish Press——
Deputy Flanagan will leave the House. He has been grossly disorderly in disobeying the instructions of the Chair. He will leave the House.
I most certainly will.
On a point of order——
Deputy Flanagan will leave the House.
What will the Irish Press say to-morrow?
I hope someone——
Deputy Flanagan will leave the House.
Deputy O.J. Flanagan withdrew from the House.
Tá
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Carew, John.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coburn, George.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C., Bart.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Griffin, James.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.