Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 1969

Vol. 243 No. 9

RTE Programme: Establishment of Tribunal (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance:

1. The planning, preparation, arrangement, production and presentation of the recent television programe on illegal moneylending, that is to say, that part of the "7 Days" feature broadcast on television by Radio Telefís Éireann on the 11th November, 1969, which related to unlicensed moneylenders and their activities.

2. The authenticity of the programme and, in particular, the adequacy of the information on which the programme was based and whether or not the statements, comments and implications of the programme as to the number of unlicensed moneylenders operating in the city and county of Dublin and the scope of their operations, and the use of violence, or threats of violence, to secure repayments of money illegally lent, amounted to a correct and fair representation of the facts.

3. The inquiries on behalf of Radio Telefís Éireann, and the films, tapes, statements, scripts, records, notes and other material in their possession, which relate to the programme.

4. The inquiries on behalf of the Garda Síochána, and the statements, taken by the Garda Síochána, which relate to the programme.

—(An Taoiseach.)

Mr. Corish

I move:

To delete all the words after the words "public importance" and substitute:

1. The extent and prevalence of illegal moneylending in the State, that is to say, the number of illegal moneylenders in the State, the annual amount of money loaned and the total interest charged by them, the manner in which loans are secured, the number of people borrowing from illegal moneylenders and the practices of the said illegal moneylenders in securing repayment of loans.

2. The validity of the "7 Days" programme in relation to the extent of illegal moneylending in Dublin.

3. The authenticity of the statements of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice in Dáil Éireann in relation to the extent of illegal moneylending in the State.

This whole business originated from a Parliamentary Question which I tabled to the Minister for Justice on 19th November. It was obvious to the House because of the type of question tabled on that particular occasion that the question was directed towards what was described as a social evil that is extensively practised; it was directed specifically towards moneylending. The question was prompted by a programme, entitled "7 Days", presented by Radio Telefís Éireann. Now I and the members of my party have tabled an amendment to the Taoiseach's motion which, in effect, means the deletion of all the proposals in his motion and the substitution of another motion ensuring that the focus of the inquiry will be on the evil that I pinpointed in my question, that of moneylending in this city and in other parts of the country.

We believe, and this was our view when the Taoiseach announced the establishment of the inquiry on the 2nd of this month, that this inquiry should be focussed on the evil of moneylending. We did not anticipate when the original question was tabled on 19th November the reaction of the Minister for Justice. As far as I am concerned, the reaction of the Minister for Justice on that particular occasion, as far as moneylending was concerned, seemed to be one of complacency and this was admirably demonstrated in the type of reply he made. At column 1263 of volume 242 of the Official Report, the Minister said:

It is, of course, well known that some unlicensed moneylending goes on, not only in Dublin but in other urban areas.

He went further at column 1264 and again he brushed the matter off by describing this as another "social and educational problem rather than a police problem". He refuted some of the allegations made in this particular programme with regard to moneylenders and, as I said, generally attempted to play down the evil we tried to expose in my question on that date.

He had other things to say, not about moneylending but about the particular programme itself. He said the problem was exaggerated. He said, in his criticism of the particular programme and those in charge of it, that the participants had been paid and given drink, as if they had been bribed to appear on the programme, and given drink in order that they might say things that had been dictated to them by the team. One of the peculiarities about the Minister's reply on that particular occasion was that he was so ready and so geared to accept the statements of participants who gave information to the gardaí but was not prepared to accept the statements of the self-same people who gave information on the "7 Days" programme with regard to moneylending.

Now, I do not want to be contentious, or raise another sort of storm, but I became somewhat suspicious when I read the Official Report of 19th November. In case anybody wants to make a point against me, I was not in the House on that particular day. I was, as I say, somewhat dismayed and very surprised and, afterwards, somewhat suspicious when it appeared to me that the cat was let out of the bag by a Fianna Fáil Deputy who, relating his remarks to the "7 Days" team and the people in Radio Telefís Éireann, talked about Leftists, Maoists, Trotskyists and Communists. It appeared to me that the intention of the Minister was to avoid the problem of moneylending and to concentrate his attack on the "7 Days" team.

We find ourselves in the position now —this we have protested over the last few weeks—in which what was raised genuinely as a social evil by me has become an attempt to pillory the "7 Days" team and, may I say, cut down Radio Telefís Éireann and the RTE Authority. It has become an attempt to try to create, whether deliberately or not, doubt in the public mind as to the credibility of the journalists who work for Radio Telefís Éireann. This has very serious implications for the news media, particularly for Radio Telefís Éireann, which is and has been described as a semi-State company.

I do not think there should be this witch-hunt into any particular section of Radio Telefís Éireann or into any of the individuals in it. We could, I suppose, have many more public inquiries if we were to have some control over the news media. We have none over the newspapers, but there is some control over Radio Telefís Éireann under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act. I assume there is also control over the Government Information Bureau. I am sure that they may, at times, whether innocently or otherwise, have been regarded as guilty—perhaps that is not the really apposite word to use—of distortion of news or of being misleading. We should, therefore, be very careful in interfering with this delicate mechanism described as the news media, particularly as it applies to Radio Telefís Éireann which, we are told, has a pretty fair degree of autonomy.

On 26th November, again in reply to a question by me, the Minister for Justice appeared to backtrack, for want of a better word; I thought he would have withdrawn some of his statements, which appeared to me malicious on 19th November in his attack on the "7 Days" team, but instead he commenced to raise more doubts in the public mind, not alone about the "7 Days" programme but about Radio Telefís Éireann generally. Because my second question on 26th November related to moneylending, he played down that particular question. In a very, very long reply, extending over 17 minutes, he said there were only 25 moneylenders, or less, in Dublin; finally, he came down to saying there were between 12 and 15. He may be accurate in this but, when we talk and think about moneylending problems, we do not think only in terms of those who have licences; we are talking and thinking in terms of the agents and subagents of these moneylenders who have fleeced the people in this city and in other parts of the country.

As the Taoiseach said in his opening remarks here, he decided on 2nd December that an inquiry would be established. Because of some of the remarks he made at Question Time as to the lateness of our amendment, it is valid to say that, though the Taoiseach announced the proposal to establish this inquiry on 2nd December, the actual proposals were not published until 13th December so, if anybody is remiss it is the Taoiseach, the Government, or whoever is responsible for this particular motion who must take the blame.

The Taoiseach

I was not critical of the Deputy in that respect. What I was saying was that it would not be reasonable to expect me to start the debate a 4 o'clock having got the amendments so late. I was not complaining about getting the amendments late.

Mr. Corish

I indicated to the Taoiseach a day or two before that that there would be an amendment, and that it would be, as I believed then, in accordance with the party's wishes in a certain form. However, when it was announced that it was proposed to establish an inquiry we gave our support on condition that the focal point in the inquiry would be moneylending and because it is not contained in specific terms in the Taoiseach's motion we propose to the House that the Taoiseach's proposals be rejected and that ours, which concentrate on moneylending, be substituted.

We believe that the inquiry should be not so much into the programme but into the subject matter of the programme of "7 Days" broadcast from Telefís Éireann a month or two ago. The Taoiseach and the Government are approaching the matter in a totally wrong way. May I pose this question to the Taoiseach: how can the accuracy of the programme be determined until the subject itself has been investigated fully and in detail? It is the Government's responsibility to have a full inquiry into the subject matter of the programme prior to establishing any sort of inquiry whether into "7 Days" or into the RTE Authority. If the programme, as has been alleged, was contrived or, to use a simpler expression, set up by RTE, why did the Minister for Justice not act immediately after the programme had been produced? There was no intimation from the Minister for Justice or from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that they were at all concerned about this programme until a question was tabled in Dáil Éireann. If they pretend to be so concerned about the production of programmes in RTE they should have made an immediate protest if they regarded it as seriously as they appear to have regarded this programme in the past few weeks.

I do not know if the Government or the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs appreciate or realise their powers and responsibilities under the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 or if they are reluctant to invoke an Act of this Parliament and apply the powers they undoubtedly have to this situation. Perhaps it is as I said before that they are prepared not to invoke the Act of 1960 because they are so anxious to get a grip on the throats of those involved in the "7 Days" programme.

The RTE Authority were given powers by this Dáil as expressed in section 16 (2) (c):

to originate programmes and procure programmes from any source;

Further, in section 18 (1) of the Act it was stated that RTE would have the duty that

...when it broadcasts any information, news or features which relates to matters of public controversy or is the subject of current public debate, the information, news or feature is presented objectively and impartially...

The Minister for Justice and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs have not approached the RTE Authority on the grounds that this programme was not presented objectively and impartially. It was the duty, in accordance with the Act, of the appropriate Minister — I assume the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs—to examine that "7 Days" programme to see whether it was presented objectively and impartially.

If the RTE Authority do not live up to this responsibility the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the obligations of RTE are lived up to. How could the Government have done this? Do they know or do they want to know? First, I suggest they should have established the facts in regard to prevalence of moneylending by public inquiry. This is what I suggested at the beginning. They should have found out much more than has been divulged here by the Minister for Justice and with that information they could then think about the establishment of some form of inquiry. This programme on moneylending by "7 Days" should have been examined and, on the basis of the facts emerging, the Government could have taken further action. If the programme proved to be inadequate the Government should have conveyed to the RTE Authority their disquiet over what they might have believed to be a distortion of facts and if necessary should have outlined the course of action to be taken by RTE.

There is no indication, no evidence up to now that they have acted in this manner, or, as I said, in accordance with the Act which they themselves introduced in Dáil Éireann and for which they secured the approval of this House. With that approach, if the RTE Authority refused to act in accordance with what the Government believed, then the RTE Authority should be removed. This would have been the best course and, in accordance with the Broadcasting Authority Act, should have been taken by the Government or by their agent, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

Our concern in the Labour Party is that the RTE Authority—and this is the only agent or authority that is mentioned in the Act, the only one recognised in the Act—so far as the Taoiseach's proposals are concerned is being by-passed. There is no mention in the Taoiseach's proposals of the RTE Authority, of those who are charged with the obligations, some of which I referred to this evening. They are being by-passed despite the statement they made during the discussion in Dáil Éireann, conducted by way of question and answer, despite their statement of satisfaction with the team of "7 Days" and the programme presented on moneylending. The authority met specially and endorsed that particular programme as far as personnel and information were concerned. They also expressed their disagreement with a member of the Government, the Minister for Justice. The Government by-passed the authority, disregarded the statement, disregarded the RTE Authority's disagreement with the Minister for Justice but decided to focus attention and focus the inquiry on the "7 Days" team. The authority also sent for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs specially and conveyed to him verbally, their approval of the programme and the personnel who produced the programme and their disagreement with the statements of his colleague, the Minister for Justice in this House.

One is also impressed, or perhaps to the contrary by the silence of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He is the Minister responsible to this House for the activities of the RTE Authority but apart from a comment of nine or ten words we did not hear another single comment from him on all this discussion and dispute. May I pose a question, because again it appears that injustice may be done, is being done by the very terms of this motion to the "7 Days" team? Can any of us visualise a situation where a Minister or the Government would establish an inquiry into the activities of an individual or a group of individuals in any other semi-State company without first having some communication with the board of directors?

We therefore think it is wrong that one section of a semi-State body should be pilloried, while nobody would suggest there should be a similar inquiry into the activities of individuals or sections of the personnel in other semi-State bodies. There was unseemly haste to go for the throat of the "7 Days" team and, eventually, I suppose, to guzzle or muzzle them. We are concerned with the terms of reference which have been proposed here by the Taoiseach and which, as I say, appear to be directed towards particular individuals and not to the authority who employs them, not to the authority that is responsible to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who in turn is responsible to this House. We believe that the proposals are far too narrow and far too pointed.

I may draw fire when I say this, but it appears to me, and has for quite a long time even before this programme got publicity, that there is a determination by members of the Government party to carry on a vendetta against certain people in RTE, in particular the "7 Days" team. This was demonstrated very fully in the last 12 months and since the holding of the last Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis. The Fianna Fáil Party and the members of the Government should be much more broad-minded, maybe as broad-minded as the Taoiseach himself, and not be too thin-skinned about the treatment of their Minister or any of their members on RTE programmes. On the occasion of a major speech by the Taoiseach, he was interviewed by a member of the "7 Days" team. Some people thought it was unfair, particularly people in the Fianna Fáil Party, that he was browbeaten and badgered.

The Taoiseach

I did not complain.

Mr. Corish

No, the Taoiseach did not complain. That is the very point I am trying to make. I appeared on "7 Days" on one occasion and I was browbeaten and badgered, but I did not blame RTE. I did not blame the "7 Days" programme or the man who was interviewing me; I blame myself. Those of us who are in public life and subject ourselves to questioning by the personnel of radio or television, if we succeed, well and good, but if we fail we must realise it is our own fault.

I believe this is the thin end of the wedge in order to muzzle RTE and particularly this excellent team who have exposed many scandals and many evils in this country. It is cowardly, even dastardly, that any Member of this House, should, by innuendo or otherwise, suggest that there are Maoists, Communists, Trotskyists or Reds employed in this programme—maybe a very popular thing to say in parts of the country, maybe a very good vote-getter but it is certainly not charitable or Christian. I believe RTE should have, as it has endeavoured to have since its establishment, freedom of expression. If the Government want to curtail it they can do this under section 31; they may direct that a certain programme be not broadcast or that a Minister of the Government may take time in order to make a special announcement. This was invoked in recent times by the Taoiseach on the 13th August, by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, in his famous speech on 18th March, when he told us about a crisis, and recently by the Minister for Defence when he spoke about the Army. The Government can invoke section 31 and get maybe to a limited extent, the RTE Authority or a particular programme to do something in a particular way.

I should like to pose two hypothetical questions: if the "7 Days" team are found guilty by these three eminent judges, whose names we have not got yet, what happens? If, as has been suggested, they are guilty of the setting-up of a programme using phoney people, telling them what to say, is it suggested that "7 Days" be banned from the air, or is it suggested that the RTE Authority should be asked to resign en bloc?

I am not one of those who suggest that every single member of the authority is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I do not think that is the case— as a matter of fact a member of the Labour Party who is now in the Seanad, was a member of this authority up to the time of the Seanad election— but I would say there is a fair majority of them on the RTE Authority. One is bound to ask oneself therefore why the Government were so reluctant to take this matter up with the RTE Authority; why the inquiry should not be directed towards them rather than towards people who are not as powerful within the authority and who will not have the same means or resources to defend themselves against any allegations that may be made.

If the findings are not against the people involved in the "7 Days" programme, if under the terms of the Taoiseach's proposal they are found to be blameless and the programme is found to have been authentic, valid and, above all, a medium to convey the evil of moneylending, what happens? If they are found not guilty, as I believe they will be, then I sincerely ask the Taoiseach to ensure not alone that the Minister for Justice resigns but that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs resigns as well.

Mr. Desmond

I second the amendment put forward by the Labour Party. This situation is a classic example of the extent to which the Government have slipped out of tune with public opinion. The Government have allowed themselves to drift into an almost farcical position on this whole question. That is the perspective in which we have to judge the matter. It is so farcical that the Taoiseach himself, as head of the Government, has rather ironically to ask a judicial inquiry to inquire into a statement which he made to this House itself. When the Taoiseach spoke in this House—and his comments in relation to the programme were rather sparse—he said that this controversy could have been avoided if RTE had said at the outset of this programme that the characters and scenes to be portrayed were fictitious; otherwise he said there was a danger that in future programmes, no matter how laudable or commendable, no matter how much they were put forward in the public interest, they would cause a cry of wolf, wolf; in other words that the credibility of any RTE programme would be brought into question. Having made that statement and having stated that the programme was fictitious, he now sets up an inquiry to decide whether it was or not. It was not in keeping with the dignity of a head of State to allow himself and, more particularly, to allow an obstreperous, incompetent and ineffective member of his Cabinet to railroad him into setting up this particular judicial inquiry. The Minister for Justice said there is no need for a sworn inquiry.

At column 1866, volumn 242 of the Official Report for November 26th, 1969, he said:

This, as far as I am concerned is the central issue and because on this, the central issue, there is no doubt as to the facts, I see no sufficient reason at this stage for a sworn inquiry which would serve only to clarify what seems to me to be a marginal issue relating to the extent to which those concerned with the presentation of the programme were at all interested in checking whether the stories that were being given to them were likely to be reliable.

The Minister for Justice says there is no need for a sworn inquiry and yet at Cabinet level he sets one up. The Taoiseach said the whole thing is a mass of fictitious nonsense; yet he wants a sworn inquiry. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, like the wise virgin keeping her wick trimmed and her lamp suitably oiled, decided to say nothing at all until we have the great expectations to be outlined in this tribunal report. If the matter were not so serious such material would be suitable for a Christmas pantomime in the Cork Opera House or in the Gas Company Theatre in Dún Laoghaire. It would have an element of farce were it not for the serious implications for the authority and its members and for the standing and status of the authority in political, social and educative life and in the life of communications in this country. If the Minister for Justice had restrained his cruder instincts for having a "go" at something which he does not particularly like, if his Departmental advisers had not been piqued over being criticised for, allegedly, being inactive, and if the gardaí had not been deliberately involved in making initial inquiries on behalf of the Minister, we would not be in the peculiar and farcical situation into which we have now drifted. The situation is one of extreme seriousness in terms of the overall approach. What is lacking in this text before us is that the Taoiseach has failed to keep control of the internal Cabinet situation in rather difficult circumstances.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy has no right to make these statements. I am responsible for the motion before the House, and nobody else.

Mr. Desmond

It is a rather belated responsibility, if I may say so with the greatest respect. The Minister went berserk——

The Taoiseach

The Deputy should not make allegations he cannot prove.

Mr. Desmond

Many of the Cabinet do not like what I consider to be the very essential service provided by the "7 Days" programme and other public affairs programmes. There is much resentment against these programmes among members of our political life. This is not necessarily confined entirely to the Fianna Fáil Party. There is resentment at the spotlight put on major social problems by public affairs programmes. Resentment is built into the Cabinet, and particularly into Fianna Fáil, against any programmes which seem to criticise Government policy or general Departmental functions. The setting up of a judicial inquiry marks a watershed of political communicative development. Party political attitudes have been brought, undesirably, into the whole operation of RTE. If we continue to develop some of the attitudes apparent in this House in recent months we may drift into a dangerous and undesirable situation. There is more at stake than examining a moneylending programme or having a tribunal investigation into the operation of RTE. The future tone of the television we are likely to have in the 70s is at stake.

The Taoiseach

Is the Deputy discussing terms of reference?

Mr. Desmond

I submit that we are setting a precedent for the first time in ten years in relation to the operation of television in this country. The Labour Party are concerned to have the broadest possible terms of reference. I do not propose to dwell unduly on this point but I intend to make the point if permitted to do so. By virtue of the report of this tribunal and the evidence given to it, and the strictures which will be placed on RTE staffs in the future, we could have State and possibly party interference in the operations of RTE which would denude RTE in many respects of programmes of a commentatory or editorial nature, of programmes which would be far from blasé, of an element which would express controversial opinions and which might appear to come down in favour of one particular issue or another. Above all, we would be removing from the area of television the posing of questions of a social nature such as was posed in relation to moneylending in the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would point out that the motion is the matter before the House. The motion is whether the tribunal should be set up and whether the terms of reference of the tribunal are acceptable.

Mr. Desmond

I accept the motion before the House but there are implications which cannot be ignored. I will not dwell on them unduly but I must comment on them. The Government have had distrust and misgivings over the whole operation of public affairs programmes in RTE. This dates from the referendum campaign and from the time certain members of the Cabinet were interviewed after the last Ard Fheis. It stems also from the fact that traditional means of party political propaganda are now subject to objective, informed, balanced radio and television comment which some people may find intolerable. I submit, however, that this is a function which we in this House should feel obliged to defend.

I wish to make the point very strongly that the passing of this motion, its inevitable outcome and by-product, will be that it will to a very considerable degree destroy the free play of opinion one gets in relation to the preparation, planning, arranging and presentation of television programmes on social issues. It is something we must consider with the greatest concern. Of all the social and public affairs programmes on RTE this particular programme is a classic example: it is one of the major innovating forces in Irish society today. Notwithstanding the fact that our communications media are increasingly circumscribed by advertising and political pressures, nevertheless TV in its public and social affairs programmes has opened up a great deal of Irish life that was closed throughout the fifties and the early sixties. It has broadened people's minds and developed their social attitudes in an atmosphere that was sadly lacking in this country. I think the moneylending programme did this, irrespective of any views anybody may have in relation to this programme

The action of the Government in proposing this motion, notwithstanding any attempt on our part to make it more palatable, is fundamentally wrong and undesirable and follows a course this House should certainly not endorse. The Government are rather like an unfed camel feeding off its hump in terms of their own political attitudes. They are setting themselves up by judicial inquiry methods as their own judge and jury. After all, the Taoiseach is going to appoint a tribunal; he has already said it is a farce and that, by and large, the programme was fictitious. How therefore can one expect that the Judiciary, appointed by the Government, will be entirely impartial and independent, without any commitment——

The Taoiseach

Does the Deputy suggest that judges will not be impartial?

Mr. Desmond

I submit the Taoiseach is placing an intolerable burden on any judicial inquiry by virtue of what he has done.

The Taoiseach

That is a shocking allegation. The same judges decide cases every day against the Government and Ministers are involved.

Mr. Desmond

I submit this is an extremely subjective area of investigation and its subjectivity has been pre-empted by the Government. This is a serious allegation and I stand over it in respect of this judicial inquiry. The Taoiseach and the Minister have gone so far——

The Taoiseach

Those are unfortunate remarks.

Mr. Desmond

——that the only thing left for them is to add their names at the end, and I say this conscious of the attitude of people in this House. The drafting of this motion is, in the classical language, the over-kill, if I may use the American term—the over-kill in almost every aspect of how to crucify a programme before it gets to the judicial stage. The whole tone of the motion itself is exclusively designed to put RTE in the dock. There is no question of putting the Minister for Justice in the dock or for him to stand over the statements which he made; there is no question of asking the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to go before a judicial inquiry and give his interpretation of section 18 of the Broadcasting Act, 1960. There is no suggestion that the files contained in the Department of Justice should be opened up and brought before the judicial inquiry; they are expressly excluded from the text of this motion and I think it is wrong that they should be so. There is no suggestion that the various departmental briefs prepared by the staff in the Department of Justice should be made available to the judicial inquiry.

This is quite reprehensible and undesirable. Anyone can claim anything under the privilege of this House; he can stand up and denounce anyone; but this kind of self-righteous absolution, of the Cork variety given by the Taoiseach and of the Castlebar Playboy of the Western World variety given by the Minister for Justice, for their unobjective comments of a highly questionable nature in relation to RTE is quite unacceptable to this House. Within the text of this motion there should have been provision made to ensure that the Minister and his advisers would make themselves available to the judicial inquiry and that they should be called in to support, outside of parliamentary privilege, the sweeping allegations and the very serious imputations which they made under privilege of this House in respect of certain staff members of RTE. It is all very well for the Minister for Justice to come in here and give a long wordy statement that he did not make these imputations when, in fact, every loaded sentence of what he said earlier in the initial, hasty and almost hysterical reaction to a television programme contained these imputations. I feel very strongly about the imputations made against the professional integrity of those who cannot be here to defend themselves.

There is absolutely no need for this judicial inquiry following as we had at the end of November the statement from the RTE Authority—a statement made slightly belatedly but nevertheless it was made. This was a quite unequivocal statement, quoted in the newspapers, on the part of the authority appointed by the Government, whose chairman is a well-known supporter of the Government, whose son is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party in this House. That statement said that, after a meeting with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, it had reviewed the matter—I understand at very considerable length—internally in RTE, brought in the staff, interviewed them, discussed it with them and then arrived at the conclusion it ultimately conveyed to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It stated that the contents of this particular programme on 11th November were authentic and that the people shown in it as moneylenders and borrowers were not fictitious. This was one of the basic allegations made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice.

The authority went further and declared quite unequivocally that the programme did not present a distorted or exaggerated view of the social problems of illegal moneylending in Dublin. The Minister had said it was phoney, distorted and exaggerated, but the loaded emotional terms of the Minister for Justice were expressly rejected by the authority. We have now a farcical situation: the Taoiseach says it is fictitious; we have a judicial inquiry to inquire as to whether the Taoiseach was suffering a momentary aberration in terms of his attitudes. There is a judicial tribunal to be appointed by the Government to inquire into members of the authority, also appointed by the Government. I submit that we are suffering from self-immolation, nationally. I do not wish to harry the House but I do submit to the Taoiseach that had he told the Minister for Justice, originally, to "cop himself on" this nonsense would not have developed. I also suggest to the Taoiseach that this face-saving formula he has devised will not do the public image of his party or of the authority or of this House one bit of good.

There is the fundamental, traditional, vitally important and quite understandably accepted principle in political democracies that journalists are not generally obliged to disclose sources of information. This principle has been questioned on a number of occasions. The motion asks that a tribunal be established for inquiring, inter alia, into statements, scripts, records, notes and other material in the possession of the authority, which relate to the programme—presumably prepared by journalists, presumably prepared by Muiris McGonigle, a member of the NUJ, presumably prepared by Rodney Rice, a member of the NUJ, presumably prepared by the Taoiseach's fellow Corkman, Bill O'Herlihy, a member of the NUJ——

The Taoiseach

He is from Limerick.

Mr. Desmond

——presumably prepared by men like Ted Nealon, who is a member of the NUJ? Is the Taoiseach seriously suggesting to the House that in the event of these men deciding in their professional capacity that they are not in a position to give to this judicial tribunal answers to specific questions, he will do a "General de Gaulle" on them? Is he suggesting that he will have these men removed from their positions in RTE? In fact, an area has been opened up which is a rather dangerous area for any Government to open up in the context of a judicial inquiry, a matter which this House needs more than a few hours to debate. The opening up of this area may lead to the invocation of undemocratic practices which we might very much regret in the years ahead.

I want to quote the code of professional conduct of the National Union of Journalists. I do so, not merely as a trade unionist, but as a public representative. This is a code issued by the NUJ from Acorn House, London, W.1 in December, 1968. Paragraph 10 says:

Freedom in the honest selection and publication of news, facts and the right of fair comment and criticism are principles which every journalist should defend.

That principle of journalistic objectivity has been called publicly into question and there is the sledgehammer approach of the establishment of a judicial inquiry. Paragraph 11 says:

There is a stricture placed on all journalists that they should respect all necessary confidences regarding sources of information and private documents.

That principle has been called into question in a very open and public manner by the proposal to set up a judicial inquiry and Fianna Fáil may deeply regret this following the tribunal of inquiry.

I come to a point which is of extreme importance in relation to this matter. The programme concerned was a discursive programme, and editorialised programme, a programme of information, generally indicating attitudes derived from research of either an extensive or minimum or general nature. I do not propose to comment as to the extent of the research and background information available to those who prepared the programme. It was done in good faith—this is the crucially important point. It was done in the time and with the resources allocated to the programme. Now we have the legalistic jargon of the judicial inquiry, the expectation that men who do a programme lasting half-an-hour or 40 minutes will have every legalistic dot over every legalistic "i" in the script so that the programme will be prepared in a legalistic manner so as to avoid imputations by Ministers of State, whether the programme is a programme on the NFA, on greyhound racing, on Whiddy Island or on any conceivable aspect of Irish life.

I suggest that the Taoiseach has made a grave error of judgment in raising this general proposition and that he would have been very wise, following his discussions with the RTE Authority to have acted with that sense of circumspection which we know him to possess but gravely doubt that members of his Cabinet have. I do not think that in the four years we have ahead of us the honour and glory of being a nice person will save him from criticism in this House. I make that general political comment in all sincerity.

The Labour Party have suggested that moneylending should be an integral part of the subjects to be inquired into by this tribunal. The Taoiseach has said that he was born closer to the breadline of poverty than were some members of the Labour Party or some Members of this House. He and I are quite familiar with our native city. I submit that he is fully aware of the practices of moneylending in his own constituency, in Blarney Street in Cork, in Gurranenabraher, in the Marsh, in Wolfe Tone Street, in Shandon Street. He and I could walk along together and we would not have a great deal of difficulty in finding moneylenders on the northside which he represents or on the south side where I was born and reared.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would remind the Deputy that we must not prejudge what may be put before the tribunal.

Mr. Desmond

The Labour Party amendment seeks to have included in the matters for inquiry the extent and prevalence of illegal moneylending in the State, that is to say, the number of illegal moneylenders in the State, the annual amount of money loaned and the total interest charged by moneylenders. We want all of that brought within the scope of the judicial inquiry. I do not think it would be possible for a judicial tribunal to judge the relevance of the programme to the extent of moneylending in the State or the authenticity of the programme in relation to moneylending in the State unless there were some elementary form of national survey done in regard to moneylending. We are faced with a problem, and I am fully aware of it as a former trade union official close to industrial workers, in defining moneylending. There is, therefore, an obligation on the Taoiseach to realise that it is beyond the capacity of a judicial tribunal to make a judgment on that matter without undertaking that elementary survey, as recomended by us in the additional amendments of the extent and prevalence of illegal moneylending, but at least we might expect some positive social analysis out of the report of the judicial inquiry. For example, if they make one comment on it there is a need for some perception, some inclusion and some reference in the operation of credit unions in this country, which are a particular social operation designed to get rid of this social evil but so pure are Fianna Fáil that the words "social credit" or "credit union" are totally obliterated. They are merely concerned with the authenticity of illegal moneylending and strong-arm methods as though we were ever so pure in our general definitive approach to this particular problem. I submit, therefore, that any family involved in an accident, any family involved in prolonged illness or in unusual domestic expenditure such as funerals or, for that matter, weddings would automatically be easy prey to moneylenders. It would be in the public interest to commend the operations of credit unions to the public.

Of course, the Minister for Justice with his £8,500 a year does not have to resort to credit unions. I assure the House that the relevance of this to the approach of the Labour Party is entirely valid. The position of the authority will be substantially eroded as a result of this particular inquiry. Fianna Fáil have been very successful in castrating the party political programmes put out from RTE during the winter and, having done that, they are on the second phase of the job by cutting up the "7 Days" programme.

With regard to this motion, I might say that in Sweden, for example, they would be told by any self-respecting authority—if I may use the quite unparliamentary term—to go and get stuffed. In conclusion, I shall quote from the remarks of the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, in reply to a Question in this House on the 12th October, 1966 when He said:

Radio Telefís Éireann was set up by legislation as an instrument of public policy and as such is responsible to the Government. The Government have over-all responsibility for its conduct and especially the obligation to ensure that its programmes do not offend against the public interest or conflict with national policy as defined in legislation.

To this extent the Government reject the view that Radio Telefís Éireann should be, either generally or in regard to its current affairs and news programmes, completely independent of Government supervision. As a public institution supported by public funds and operating under statute, it has the duty, while maintaining impartiality between political parties to present programmes which inform the public regarding current affairs, to sustain public respect for the institutions of Government and, where appropriate, to assist public understanding of the policies enshrined in legislation enacted by the Oireachatas. The Government will take such action by way of making representations or otherwise as may be necessary to ensure that Radio Telefís Éireann does not deviate from the due performance of this duty.

These very foreboding comments were made by Mr. Lemass in a moment of undemocratic instinct. He acted contrary to the spirit of the Broadcasting Act of 1960, at a time when a ferocious row was going on between the NFA and the Minister for Agriculture. He responded with that authoritarian tone quite unacceptable to this House—a tone that has been inherited by the present Taoiseach and the members of his Cabinet. They have inherited this nuance of authority which, quite frankly, has been absent from a great deal of the earlier statements by the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, during the 1920's and 1930's. This is being done with much more incompetence and with much more bungling and nonsense. In relation to this sorry episode, I can only say that I am sorry for Fianna Fáil. I am sorry for RTE and I am sorry for their staff who will spend the month of January arraigned before a judicial inquiry. I am sorry, too, for ourselves as Members of the House who, instead of spending our time discussing the urgent social problems facing the country and in trying to reform Parliament, are trying to reform RTE.

We had better wish ourselves a happy Christmas and we wish the judges a happy New Year but not a prosperous one as far as democracy and free expression of opinion in this country is concerned. In that context, I am rather irate but also rather sad.

Mr. Cosgrave

Having recommended initially that an inquiry be held into the programme concerned, it is important to establish the facts in connection with the programme and the facts which the Garda secured in the course of their investigations. To that end, the motion on the Order Paper proposes to establish a tribunal of inquiry. I have put down certain amendments in order to ensure that the scope of the inquiry is in no way limited and that every aspect of the matter is fully and carefully investigated.

At this stage, it is right to say that I have great confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and this confidence is widely and generally shared. This investigation involves two organs of the State and to that extent there is an obligation on both of these organs to ensure that the particular task or duty assigned to them is properly carried out.

The Garda Síochána are certainly an organ of the State and RTE is an authority established by statute which, while independent, depends to a large extent for its existence on public finance.

In these circumstances, it is right and proper that a full investigation be undertaken. Such an investigation can only be carried out if all the relevant facts are brought before the tribunal and it is these aspects of the matter to which I wish to draw attention at the moment.

I take it that the responsibility for bringing these facts before the tribunal devolves in the first place, on the tribunal itself but it also means that the Garda and the authority and members of the staff of RTE have a duty to put all the facts before the tribunal and to collect all the necessary information so that they may inquire into the whole background of the programme and report, having made the necessary inquiries and having secured the information necessary for that purpose.

It is for that reason that I put down the amendment to add at the end of the paragraph:

and to what extent these statements, comments and implications express reasonable journalistic care on the part of those responsible for the programme.

I have done that because, while it is proposed to have this matter investigated by a judicial tribunal there are involved in this certain matters which, in the compilation of a programme of this sort, might not be capable of judicial proof as brought forward in a court of law. I believe it is essential for the proper presentation of programmes of this character that some latitude should be allowed to those concerned provided they exercise what might be called responsible discretion, which should be left to the judgment of those involved.

In this programme it was sought to focus attention on a particular social evil. RTE, as an organ with the right to comment, to express opinions, or to focus attention on particular matters, have a duty and a responsibility to exercise that right. In common with newspapers and indeed public representatives, RTE have focused attention in their programmes from time to time on particular matters. The phraseology I have added in the last amendment is designed to ensure that the terms of this motion will allow the tribunal to investigate fully the extent of illegal moneylending or the activities of unlicensed moneylenders and the steps taken by those people to secure repayment and so on.

The fact that this evil exists is not disputed. Indeed, the existence of credit unions is an indication of this. Those organisations have played a very worthy part in trying to alleviate the problems, to lessen the difficulties and to give assistance to those who need financial assistance.

This tribunal must investigate fully every aspect of this matter. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Garda Síochána. It may be no harm to say in connection with the establishment of this tribunal that what I have said concerning the integrity, impartiality and capacity of judges is generally true. It does not mean that a particular judge in a particular case on occasion may not make a mistake. Likewise, because the Garda are a body with an established reputation, recognised as such by the community generally, it does not mean that individuals do not, and have not, made mistakes: in the main, however, those are exceptions.

The quality of the programmes which have been put on by RTE are generally good, but this is a particular case. This tribunal is to investigate and report on a particular programme and the information that has been gathered in connection with it. It is important to ascertain—and the terms of reference should be so framed that it will be possible to ascertain— whether those who prepared this programme had taken reasonable care and had taken the necessary steps to establish, as far as possible, the accuracy or otherwise of the facts or information given.

As I understand that the procedure proposed in the establishment of this tribunal more or less corresponds with that under which similar tribunals were established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, I want to find out from the Taoiseach, when he is concluding, is it proposed to have the Attorney-General represented? Is it proposed to assign solicitor and counsel to represent the Garda authorities? It is proposed to assign solicitor and counsel to represent RTE? The importance of focusing attention on the particular evil which was involved in this programme is recognised as a valuable and responsible function of a programme of that sort.

I have advocated from the beginning that an inquiry should be held. I hope Deputies are not in any way indicating by comments or remarks that they are less than enthusiastic for an investigation. I can see nothing other than some form of tribunal of this sort. It is true past experience here has demonstrated the defects in certain respects of judicial inquiries. Because of the obligation to adopt the legal approach and the manner in which evidence in legal matters is tendered in court, experience has shown that there is a possibility that in certain circumstances matters that might be peculiarly relevant to an investigation of this character would, for one reason or another, be excluded. The amendments have been framed for the sole purpose of ensuring that all the facts surrounding this matter are fully investigated, that all the information available both to RTE and the Garda authorities is produced to the inquiry. There is an obligation on the Attorney General and counsel on behalf of those two bodies to disclose all the facts and having investigated fully the situation, to make a report to this House and to the country. The purpose of this particular amendment is to allow the tribunal to consider any other matters relevant to the foregoing, and not specifically mentioned, and to ensure that the investigation is of the widest possible character.

It may be, and I think it should be, recognised now, that certain facts may come to light or that, as a result of this investigation, certain attitudes may have to be adopted in the future in connection with programmes or broadcasting generally. So far as broadcasting is concerned RTE has operated under the Broadcasting Act of 1960. Prior to that Radio Éireann operated under the old Wireless Telegraphy Act. Television is largely a new medium, certainly in so far as this country is concerned, and the terms of the legislation, the particular guidelines that have been laid down, the procedures and practices that have been adopted, may have to be examined afresh and revised in the light of some facts that may emerge from this particular programme.

However, that is a matter for future consideration, the need for which can be considered when this report is made. The urgent and important question now is to ascertain all the facts, to impose no restriction on the tribunal as to the extent to which they can carry out their investigations and if, having got this report, in the future some changes in the legislation are necessary, then that is a matter for further consideration and the introduction of safeguards, the examination generally of the suitability of the Act, or the need to make certain changes can all be considered in the future. Our amendments are designed to ensure that every aspect of this matter is fully and frankly investigated, that all the necessary inquiries, from whatever source, are carefully and fully undertaken and that no limitation of any kind which would inhibit the tribunal or restrict its course of action is allowed.

It is for that purpose that I put down these amendments on behalf of this party. We initially suggested that an inquiry should be undertaken. We regard it as necessary in the circumstances. We agree that it is a matter that should be proceeded with with the minimum possible delay while, at the same time, asserting that it is important from the public point of view that the inquiry should be assisted by the Attorney General on behalf of the community as well as the other particular aspects of the Garda Síochána and RTE being fully represented.

Dr. FitzGerald

I should like to support the amendments. It is right that an inquiry should take place because there exists a serious conflict between statements made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice and the statement made by the RTE Authority about their programme. In an inquiry of this kind the terms of reference are of enormous importance. I know there is not sufficient public appreciation of how significant the terms of reference can be and of the extent to which the casting of the terms of reference can determine not only the outcome of the inquiry but in this instance determine the whole issue of freedom of speech in this country.

This issue of freedom of speech is the one that we have to consider most seriously because behind this inquiry lies this issue. Journalists have certain rights and duties. Those particular rights and duties, as I see them, are to inquire, to contest and to expose. They have these duties to society and it is only when they are doing their job well, when they inquire into every matter which seems to require to be investigated, when they contest anything which seems to them to be bogus and expose anything which seems to them to be wrong, that you have a vital community in which there is genuine freedom of speech and in which all the other freedoms of a democratic society are preserved. At the same time, in carrying out these rights and duties journalists have a particular obligation, an obligation to state only what they believe to be true and not at any stage deliberately to mislead or, indeed, to mislead through showing a degree of care inappropriate or inadequate for the type of job they are undertaking.

What we have to consider in these terms of reference is whether this issue of the rights, duties and obligations of journalists is being explored on this occasion in the way in which it ought to be explored. It seems to me vital in a democratic society that when the exercise of those freedoms of the press are criticised, that when it is alleged that these rights and duties have been wrongly carried out, the onus of proof of this allegation should rest on those who make it. It would be intolerable in any society that any journalist who makes a statement which he believes to be true, which he has investigated using due care and is satisfied to the extent that he has been able to determine the facts that it is true, that such a journalist should be subject to a kind of investigation involving him in and requiring from him legal proof of the statement he makes. If accidentally or otherwise, as a result of this inquiry, we should reach that point, then freedom of speech would be seriously undermined because if every journalist had to know that he was in a position, before making any statement, to be able to prove it in a court or before a tribunal of three judges by the law of evidence, then, indeed, the likelihood of evils being exposed, of untruths being contested and of matters that should be inquired into being fully inquired into would be small indeed.

Therefore, in considering the terms of reference for this tribunal, it behoves us to consider them with great care and as far as possible to make sure, within the limits of what is politically practical at this point and at this stage in this affair, that the terms of reference are such as not to prejudice freedom of speech but to preserve it.

It seems to me that the motion, as drafted, is inappropriate for this purpose. I say this because it seems to me that the motion reverses the onus of proof. The onus of proof should rest on the Minister for Justice and on the Taoiseach who made these allegations. What should be before us here today is an inquiry certainly into the programme—it is proper that it should be inquired into, it must be inquired into—but also an inquiry into the validity of the statements the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice made, into the question of whether they, in fact, can prove these statements before a tribunal, into the grounds on which they made these statements. I am not objecting to any part of the inquiry as proposed. I am objecting to its inadequacy, to its one-sidedness, to the fact that the entire onus of proof is placed on the journalist and that the statements of the Minister and the Taoiseach are not even recorded here as matters appropriate for investigation. I regard this as extremely dangerous.

I shall not at any stage involve myself in the merits of the case, the truth or untruth of any allegation made, but I should like to put before the House what are the allegations from the Minister and the Taoiseach which have led to this inquiry. This, I submit, is proper because we have to consider whether the terms of reference are the right terms of reference to inquire into the allegations that have been made. I do not propose at any point to discuss the merits or validity of any statement made by the Taoiseach or by the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Justice in his first reply referred to this as a "phoney" programme on the basis of existing evidence. He said RTE had sold these people to the public as public enemies. In his second reply he made a further series of allegations. What I am trying to do is to take all these forms of words to see precisely what are the allegations to be investigated because I do not think, in fact, that in the discussion so far we have isolated these allegations. I do not think we are clear as to precisely what has been said.

Contrary to Deputy Desmond, I do not regard the speech made by the Minister for Justice as being bombastic or an outburst of temper. I have read the two statements a number of times and it seems to me that they were most carefully drafted by a skilled solicitor. They were designed to create an atmosphere and they were designed to create an impression, but if they are read carefully they say a limited number of things and these are things which should be fully investigated at this point. At column 1859, volume 242, of the Official Report he said that the programme was presented as fiction rather than fact. At column 1860 he said he was making no charge that they presented what they deliberately knew to be false and again he did not suggest that anyone on the RTE staff deliberately propagated what he knew to be false. At column 1866 he had no reason to think, nor did he believe for a moment, that the people concerned presented as fact what they knew to be untrue. In this way he exonerated himself from any suggestion that he was claiming or suggesting that they presented something they knew to be untrue. What he did say, when you read him carefully, and he is a man who deserves to be read carefully, at column 1861, was that the people responsible failed by a very wide margin to observe the standard of care in seeking and evaluating evidence which anybody undertaking to put on a programme of this kind should observe.

An Ceann Comhairle

These are matters for the tribunal.

Dr. FitzGerald

I submit that I am trying to establish whether the terms of reference are adequate for the charges made. I do not wish to discuss the merits of any such charge, but I want to list and identify the charges and then examine the reference in that context.

An Ceann Comhairle

The only matters relevant are if the inquiry should be set up and if so what its terms of reference should be. I feel the Deputy is prejudging the matter to be put to the tribunal.

Dr. FitzGerald

If I appear to prejudge any issue I would be most grateful if the Chair would pull me up. I am trying to establish what the allegations are. The reason for this inquiry is a series of allegations made by the Minister for Justice and the Taoiseach. These allegations are unproven and they have been contested by the RTE Authority. A tribunal is to be set up to inquire into this conflict of evidence. The question before us is whether the terms of reference adequately reflect the issues which are the subject of this disagreement. I am trying to list what they are and I shall then look at the terms of reference to see whether they are adequate for this purpose with a view to ensuring that the terms of reference do adequately cover the charges. Indeed, the charge I have just mentioned, which is a serious charge, and possibly a responsible charge by the Minister for Justice, of the failure of journalistic responsibility is not only relevant but is the entire basis for the amendment which I am supporting. I do not think I can be more relevant than in quoting this particular allegation of his.

There is nothing in the existing terms of reference about inquiring into whether proper standards of journalistic care were observed. The allegation made by the Minister is an important one and it should be established or else RTE should be cleared of it. The terms of reference of the tribunal should be such as to enable the tribunal not merely to decide if the details of the programme are true or false— that is, indeed, covered by the terms of reference—but beyond that to decide even if in some respects they were false whether this reflected a lack of care. The legal words were: "—and failed by a very wide margin—to observe the standard of care in seeking and evaluating evidence which anybody undertaking to put on a programme of this kind should observe". This charge has been made and the terms of reference must cover it. The reason for this amendment is to ensure that not alone will the points mentioned here, which we raised in the debate, be covered but also the very important charge made by the Minister for Justice in column 1866 that the programme did present as fact what they could not possibly stand over. He said he felt very strongly that they should have realised that accepting such stories was at best an extremely doubtful exercise and one which called for much more checking than they gave it. Those are the statements of the Minister for Justice which seem to me to justify this amendment.

The Minister for Justice spoke with great care although his manner might have suggested he was speaking intemperately. He was speaking as someone who was very well prepared and very courteous. However, the Taoiseach's view is disturbing. He got to his feet at a particular point in the discussion, and I do not think he had given the matter as much careful forethought and planning as the Minister had, and he suggested something which seemed to me to be incautions. The Taoiseach said, and I quote from column 1873, of the Official Report for 26th November, 1969:

All this controversy could have been avoided if RTE had said at the outset of this programme that the characters and scenes to be portrayed in it were fictitious; otherwise there is the danger that, in future programmes, no matter how laudable or commendable, no matter how much they are put forward in the public interest, they would cause a cry of "wolf, wolf", in other words that the credibility of any future RTE programmes would be brought into question.

I think the Taoiseach will wish to clarify this point when he is replying Using phrases like:

All this controversy could have been avoided if RTE had said at the outset of this programme that the characters and scenes to be portrayed in it were fictitious...

can only mean one thing, that they knew they were fictitious. If the Taoiseach's view, like that of the Minister for Justice, was that there was no question of that, that he was not making any such charge, that it was simply a lack of care on their part, and that they were not deliberately misled, then he could not possibly suggest that what they were saying was in any way incorrect simply because they may not have shown care. Any suggestion that they should have said that they were fictitious characters leads to the inevitable implication that they knew it was fictitious and this is the charge made by the Taoiseach alone. As we are discussing the terms of reference, and this is the only source of this charge, we should know whether the Taoiseach stands over it or whether it was a form of words which came to the Taoiseach's mind and that in fact he did not intend this. If this is the case, then the terms of reference would need to be somewhat different, but before we decide the terms of reference we should have some clarification here as to whether we are taking the Taoiseach as meaning what his words appeared to mean on that particular occasion, or whether he said more than he meant, unlike the Minister for Justice.

There are two main charges here, one made by the Minister for Justice about the failure to maintain a proper standard of journalistic care and the second by the Taoiseach who implied that RTE knew the programme was fictitious and that they failed in a very serious duty indeed in not telling the public that was the case. In addition, the statement made by the Minister for Justice contains a number of allegations as to facts. We must see whether the terms of reference adequately reflect these allegations. It seems to me there are two sets of allegations made on the authority of the Garda Síochána on their own initiative and not based on any of the statements of the participants. They stated that the figure of 500 moneylenders is exaggerated and that there are only between 12 and 15; this statement was subsequently amended and it was stated that there was a maximum of 25, and the terms of reference cover this point. If the statement made by RTE is an exaggeration the terms of reference ensure that this will be brought out at the tribunal. If the Taoiseach believes this inquiry will be a quick operation put through in January he is underestimating the difficulty and complexity of establishing whether or not there are 500 moneylenders.

The Taoiseach

I said as much as possible in January.

Dr. FitzGerald

I appreciate that but does the Taoiseach appreciate that if the tribunal is asked to investigate the veracity of statements, comments and implications in a programme about the number of unlicensed moneylenders operating in the city and county of Dublin, as well as to deal with the scope of their operations the tribunal could only do this by investigating the whole issue of moneylending in Dublin? A very extensive and complex social survey will have to be carried out, and they will have to establish by a series of investigations and inquiries how many moneylenders there are. Otherwise, they would not be answering questions put in the terms of reference.

I do not quite see how that will be done. That seems to me to be an operation beyond the scope of any committee of inquiry and I believe it would involve a very extensive operation indeed. It would involve not merely Radio Telefís Éireann giving the evidence they have as to how many moneylenders there are, as to what they were told as to the credibility of the statements made to them, which they accepted in making the statement, but it also involves the judicial inquiry in investigating the moneylending problem in detail, in trying to track down each moneylender and in trying to establish how many there are. I doubt if the Taoiseach has fully considered the implications of that. I think it is proper that the inquiry should cover this, but it will be a very extensive inquiry, indeed, and I am not sure that the ordinary method of taking evidence in open court is a method adequate to cover this social investigation and inquiry, which is required, I am glad to see, by the terms of reference the Taoiseach has put before us and, indeed, I am glad to see that the terms include this particular reference.

There is one allegation made by the Minister for Justice on the authority of the Garda Síochána which does not rely on the statements of the participants in the programme but on the knowledge of the Garda Síochána. A second statement, which appears to be made on the authority of the Garda Síochána, is that there is no strong-arm racket in Dublin supporting the moneylenders. This is a firm statement by the Minister for Justice. He said here it was not a question whether there might be or there might not be; there just is not. He was most emphatic on this point. If it can be established that any person borrowing money has been intimidated by anything that could be described as strong-arm methods, then the Minister for Justice's allegation will fall to the ground. That is something for inquiry and it is something which is based on the statements of the Garda Síochána; it does not rely on the statements of the participants. These are two important points that must be investigated.

This is, I think, covered here by the use of violence or threats of violence to secure the payment of money illegally lent and, as far as that is covered here, I am happy with the terms of reference for that purpose. But there are two other allegations made, if one goes carefully through the Minister's two statements, both of which are made on the assertions of people described by the Minister in particular terms, as having criminal records, and they also have to be investigated. They are as follows: it is somewhat difficult in these statements to track down the precise allegations but, as far as I can see, one is that the strong-arm man, the man who appeared with his back to the camera, stated that there was no foundation for what he had said and that he said it solely because he was paid. That is a specific allegation which can be investigated. There is another specific statement about a woman moneylender —the statement that she is, in fact, a club holder and not a moneylender: that is a specific allegation that can be proved or disproved. Beyond that, the Minister used a form of words which it is a little difficult to interpret; it is a little difficult to make sure what the words mean. He takes the view that all, or practically all, who appeared on the programme repudiated what they said, the explanation being that they were offered payments. When we read the Minister's statement, "all or practically all" seems to mean with one exception, the one woman who spoke of being involved in moneylending and borrowed money from someone who died a couple of years previously. As I read it—it is important we should be clear on the allegations—this seems to me to mean that all, except this one woman, involved in the programme, had in fact told lies and none, except this one woman, was, in fact, engaged in the activities mentioned. Now, if it can be shown that any of these people, other than this woman, was what they said they were, their denial is lacking in credibility and this particular allegation of the Minister falls to the ground. These seem to me to be the allegations.

They raise four queries. First, was there a failure to observe a proper standard of journalistic care? This is covered by our amendment and the Taoiseach will, I hope, on reflection agree that the amendment is necessary because this is the crucial allegation made against Radio Telefís Éireann if we accept the Taoiseach's own suggestion that they knew it was fictitious. That is the second allegation, which he may or may not wish to withdraw in replying to this debate. If he withdraws it, then the only allegation of real importance is the failure to observe proper standards of care. If they did observe a proper standard of care similar to that normally observed by journalists in the carrying out of their duties, any kind of standard of care required in charging and finding a man guilty in a court of law—a quite different process —if they did observe that standard of care, and even if it transpires that some of these statements put out in the programme in good faith were incorrect, then it seems to me that would create a situation in which their position would be vindicated. Nevertheless, the terms of reference do require that these police statements on the number of moneylenders and strong-arm rackets should also be investigated and the statements of the people involved, some with criminal records in the Minister's words, seeking to exculpate themselves should be examined to see whether they were or were not telling the truth to the police or to Radio Telefís Éireann.

I said at the outset that the onus of proof was wrong. This is a very important point. We are setting up a tribunal of three judges, men trained to seek proof, legal proof on the evidence given in due form, of facts asserted before them. If the position is that the whole onus of proof is placed on Radio Telefís Éireann, as seems to be the case with the terms of reference as at present drafted, then the onus of proof is being put in the wrong place and one is creating a situation in which the judges could well find that a number of the allegations were unproven, which is what they are concerned with in carrying out their ordinary duties, whereas, in effect, the issue that should be before them is not whether they are proven but, as the Minister for Justice very properly said, whether a due standard of journalistic care had been exercised.

It is very important, indeed, that this real issue of journalistic care should be incorporated in the terms of reference in addition to what is already there. I was tempted to suggest that what we should have done in putting forward an amendment was to delete what is here and put forward an amendment similar in form to that of the Labour Party. In not doing that one consideration was that, had we done so and had, as a result of our amendment, any part of the inquiry proposed by the Taoiseach been eliminated, the charge would have been made that we were in some way covering up something that had happened, that we believed Radio Telefís Éireann were guilty and that we were trying to save their skins, or something of that kind. It was because we did not want to do anything that would lead to such an allegation that would in any way embarrass the tribunal of inquiry or embarrass Radio Telefís Éireann that we confined ourselves to adding a clause to ensure this question of journalistic care was investigated and the judges were required to report on it. That is why we deleted nothing which seemed to us to be inappropriate here and seemed to us to put the onus of proof in the wrong place; if we had sought to delete our action would be misrepresented and it is for that reason we confined ourselves to adding this clause and not seeking to delete anything. Believing that it would be damaging to the interests of the inquiry if any amendment proposed could be misinterpreted in that way, it, nevertheless, seems to us that the Taoiseach has been very much at fault in drafting the motion in this form so as to create a situation in which any attempt to delete things that are improperly there could be misrepresented. In placing the onus of proof solely on Radio Telefís Éireann the Taoiseach has done a bad day's service to freedom of speech in this country.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Dr. FitzGerald

Let us stand back for a moment and consider what all this means. First of all, we know that Members on the opposite side of the House have been very dissatisfied with what they regard as the undue exercise of freedom of speech by Radio Telefís Éireann. At least one Member on the opposite benches has told us the nature of the political views he believes Radio Telefís Éireann hold. In his usual florid language, he has told us they are Maoists and Trotskyists and he used various other epithets. At least, I think that Member of the House regards them as epithets but they were, in fact, improperly used as precise descriptions of people's political views. In an atmosphere in which you have this attitude among some Members of the House and among some outside the House to RTE, it is disturbing that we should find ourselves in the position in which, as a result of a series of circumstances contrived by the other side of this House, that body should find itself facing the task of having to prove that everything said in this programme was in all respects correct. That is a situation in which no Government, no Parliament should place journalists at any time.

One cannot help wondering what started off this train of events, what prompted this remarkable intervention of the Minister for Justice. It appeared to some of us, perhaps, naively at the time, as an outburst of temper but nobody reading that carefully framed solicitor's document could come to that conclusion. Frankly, I have gone through it myself four times to try to catch him out and I have failed to do so. Every word of that document was carefully thought out and carefully planned. Why? Because this is the only way in which the Government in a democratic country such as this could democratically, as it were, subvert freedom of speech because by making these allegations which cannot be proved and knowing they would be denied since they are couched in a form that certainly invites denial, no reputable public communications medium, whether State or privately owned, could possibly not reply to them. As it was impossible to refute these statements and, inevitably, secure a denial, the Minister invited a conflict between two organs of State which properly required a judicial inquiry to investigate it.

He knew such an inquiry would be required, that Members of the House on all sides would have to call for it. Therefore, he made these allegations in a statement which was unique in character, tone and length. He knew the statement would call for a denial and he knew that could create conflict in which, rightly and properly, there would be a call for a judicial inquiry. He knew the drafting of the terms of reference of that judicial inquiry would rest on his side of the House and that those terms of reference could be so drafted as to place the entire onus of proof on RTE so that if any errors crept into that programme for which they were or were not responsible—and statements were made in it by persons described by the Minister as known criminals—and if any statement made turned out to be incorrect, then the three judges would have to find on that issue under their terms of reference that the statement was not correct.

He also knew that it was inherently improbable in any programme involving people of the kind described by the Minister as having criminal records or being suspected of being engaged in criminal activities, that one or other of these people would not make some statement that would not be correct and that the Minister for Justice could be pardoned for making a fair assumption in challenging the correctness of all statements from such people that something would be found to be incorrect. In this way he was placing the whole issue on the incorrectness of statements and not on the far more important issue of the adequacy of the journalistic care with which the programme was produced. He was placing the whole onus of the terms of reference on the question of the correctness of what was said, the authenticity of it and not on the question of journalistic care and by doing so the Government have been able to ensure that RTE are placed in a position in which it is more than possible that no matter what care they took, some of these statements would be found to be incorrect and that, therefore, on that ground the inquiry would have to find against them, whereas, in fact, the real issue is a quite different one, the issue of adequate journalistic care and this is not even referred to in the proposed terms of reference.

Even if every single statement made in this programme by these people with criminal backgrounds turned out to be correct in every particular what would be the consequences? The consequences are that the RTE Authority are in the position that they know that in future they are under threat, if they put out any programme which in any way offends the Government, they may have to face another judicial inquiry by simply charging them with inaccuracy which may or may not have crept in in good faith. They will be in a position of having to consider every programme from the point of view of whether it will lead to a judicial inquiry. That is totally contrary to the principles of freedom of speech as practised in every democracy. This situation has been carefully contrived and one cannot withhold some admiration for the skill with which it has been contrived. I do not know of—and I have tried to inquire—any country in the world where democracy or inhibitions on free speech are resented by the Government and where they have thought out such an ingenious way of intimidating——

Mr. M. O'Leary

It was an ambush.

Dr. FitzGerald

It was indeed. In considering these terms of reference we must have regard to whether they are adequate and appropriate for the purpose of what should be inquired into. That depends, in the first instance, on the charges made on the other side of the House. Secondly, it depends on what, in fact, are the duties of RTE in regard to this matter; what is it they should have been doing. It seems to me that we have a very serious situation and one so contrived that there is, in fact, no satisfactory way out of it. I hope the Taoiseach will accept the addition of this clause. He will certainly appear as somebody in very bad faith if he fails to do so. If he fails to do so, he will, in fact, be exposing the Government very clearly to the charge that they are not concerned to find out if what the Minister for Justice said was true, that reasonable standards of journalistic care were not exercised, but is only concerned to find out whether in some detail or other statements made in the programme were incorrect either with or without the knowledge of the RTE Authority. It seems to me that attitude would expose the Taoiseach very much as a participant in this particular plot which I am not at all sure he was in the first instance. It seems to me that it was something thought up by the Minister for Justice and I think that if the Taoiseach restricts the terms of reference of the inquiry it will be quite clear that he is not concerned with the real issue of whether or not reasonable standards of journalistic care were exercised but only with catching out the RTE Authority by some mistake or misstatement of fact by persons of known criminal record who were involved in this programme.

I hope that whatever terms of reference emerge from this debate, and I am not too optimistic that we will secure the terms that we would wish to have for this inquiry, the judges who sit on the inquiry will take a broad rather than a narrow view of their duties. I think they must act as three judges of the Supreme Court or of the High Court of this State and take the view that they are concerned, above all, to uphold the Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech by the organs of public opinion subject to its not being used to subvert public order or morality. I cannot conceive of any judge, justice, barrister or solicitor or any member of the laity taking the view that this programme exposing the operations of moneylenders would be in any way prejudicial to public order or morality. This inquiry must take place within the ambit of the Constitution and the judges in carrying out the inquiry must have regard to the overall requirements that freedom of speech be maintained. No matter what the terms of reference are and no matter how twisted they may be by the Government, I hope and believe that the three judges will not allow themselves to be constrained in such a way as, in any degree, to subvert or undermine the principles of freedom of speech enshrined in Article 40 of the Constitution. Those seem to me the matters we should be discussing. I would hope that, in the debate that follows, it will be discussed. I would hope that this amendment will be accepted.

If I may just briefly, in conclusion, advert to the Labour Party amendment, may I say that I see no objection to it? It seems to me to be as near as one can get to the form in which the inquiry should have been set up originally. I see the difficulty of pressing it. If they press it, they will be accused, as we would have been accused if we had put our amendment in that form, of trying in some way to prevent an inquiry being held. If their amendment is pressed there is this difficulty. It has the effect of eliminating some aspects of the present terms of reference which are improper; which endeavour to place the onus of proof on Radio Telefís Éireann, aspects which should never have been included and which are designed to subvert freedom of speech. I think it is quite proper to put down that amendment. It is quite proper to try to put this in proper form, as that amendment does.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It will be pressed.

Dr. FitzGerald

I appreciate the difficulty—the accusations that will immediately be made from the other side of the House in those circumstances. It is for that reason that we, in this part of the House, have confined ourselves to adding something to the terms of reference which cannot be refused if the Taoiseach wants to appear as seriously concerned with the issues here and wants to appear as other than a participant in a plot to subvert freedom of speech here.

Mr. Dowling

I shall be very brief. My speech will probably be the briefest speech here tonight. It would appear to me that, with the holding of an inquiry, the Government would be accused of witch-hunting and it, on the other hand, they did not hold an inquiry, the Government would be accused of covering-up.

The question originated out of a parliamentary question put down here some time ago. It would appear now that if people who put down parliamentary questions do not get the type of answer they desire they will pursue the matter to the point where it becomes confused and involved and a situation is brought about where an inquiry is demanded to restore the confidence people have lost as a result of the many remarks made in relation to the particular programme on moneylending. I might mention, however, that the "7 Days" team are an exceptionally good team and have produced exceptionally good programmes and are continuing to do so. I have nothing against them.

With regard to the discussions which took place here in Dáil Éireann, I should like to point to the hypocrisy of the Labour Party in relation to their stand taken here tonight. It is certainly not consistent with what has been said in previous discussions and on previous days here in Dáil Éireann. I think that the inquiry will erase, once and for all, from the public mind any question of injustice to one side or the other. As I said, it will restore confidence and we shall now be in a position to say exactly where the blame lies; whether it lies on the team that produced the programme or on other sections of the community, including the Minister.

In relation to a statement made by Deputy Keating, it would appear that the Labour Party, and he himself, were in entire agreement with the holding of a public inquiry——

Mr. M. O'Leary

——into moneylending and the programme.

Mr. Dowling

Let me quote from column 1795 of volume 242 of the Official Report. This is what Deputy Keating is reported to have said:

He has suggested——

—the Minister—

——that they used public money— in terms of the funds available to them through RTE as programme-makers—to persuade people to say things on a public programme which were untrue and which they knew to be untrue as programme-makers.

If the Minister believes that accusation and can prove it—and he must prove it—the people against whom he made it have no right to continue as makers of television programmes; not alone that, but if they have used public money to mislead people in this way, surely they themselves must be the subject of court proceedings?

Deputy Keating went so far as to say that if in fact the people who produced the programme misled the people then they must be subject to court proceedings. These are the words of Deputy Keating. They indicate that Deputy Keating is in favour of more drastic action. This is from the Official Report of 25th November, 1969.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We are still in favour of it.

Mr. Dowling

You are not in favour of it. I would say, however, that the Fine Gael Party have been consistent in their view in relation to the inquiry. As reported at column 1873, volume 242 of the Official Report of Dáil Éireann, Deputy Cosgrave indicated on 26th November, 1969, that he felt that the public were entitled to a sworn inquiry to ascertain the full facts on all sides.

Mr. Desmond

On all sides.

Mr. Dowling

At column 1873, also, Deputy FitzGerald said:

Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Minister has accused RTE of the greatest possible dereliction of professional duty when he said they failed by a very wide margin to preserve standards of care that they should have preserved in a programme of this kind, is it not clear there must be a sworn inquiry?

On the same day, 26th November, 1969, Deputy Keating said:

In view of the Taoiseach's intervention in this Question Time, would he now undertake to agree with the suggestion of Deputy Dr. FitzGerald and others that a sworn inquiry into the matter should take place? Would he further undertake that the composition of the inquiring body would not be rigged in the way that the Telefís Éireann Authority had been rigged for party political advantage?

This is what Deputy Keating stated. It would appear, at that stage, that the Labour Party were concerned about the problem of clearing the Radio Telefís Éireann team and that they wanted a sworn inquiry for that purpose. In volume 243 of the Official Report of 2nd December, 1969, when the Taoiseach indicated, however, that the public judicial inquiry would be set up, Deputy Corish said:

On behalf of my party——

——his party——

A Deputy

He is only the physical head.

Mr. Dowling

This is what Deputy Corish said on that occasion:

On behalf of my party, I welcome the decision of the Taoiseach to take steps to establish this judicial tribunal. In case it might be overlooked—because this is the most important thing that has emerged in the whole discussion—I would ask the Taoiseach if he would set up a similar sort of inquiry into moneylending in Dublin and elsewhere in the country?

He did say: "On behalf of my party..." Then, the second Party Leader, Deputy Michael O'Leary, came in. He indicated something different from what had been indicated by the other Leader of the party. Then we had the third interjection from Deputy Desmond, a Leader of another Labour Party, who said:

In view of the strong statement by RTE that the contents of the programme were authentic, would the Taoiseach, pending the judicial inquiry—which may be classified as a continued witch-hunt on the part of the Government——

As I said before, if they did not hold it they would be accused of covering-up. If they hold it, they are accused of witch-hunting. It would appear now to me that some outside source, other than members of the Labour Party, have made up the Labour Party's mind on the action they should take here in Dáil Éireann. This is apparent from the speech here tonight of the supercilious new boy, Deputy Desmond, and his slick references to Ministers, to the Taoiseach and to other honourable men in this matter. I am quite sure that this new boy will, in time, learn, when there are serious matters under discussion such as this important matter that is set up to clear the air in relation to certain accusations that have been made in the past, and that he will cut out the type of nonsense to which the House was subjected here tonight for quite a considerable period by the type of play-acting that we do not often see. It may well happen that he will be the one who will be appearing at the Gas Company Theatre, as he indicated, in the near future. I am quite sure, if there are film producers or other people interested in actors in the gallery here tonight, they will certainly pick him up. It is quite clear from the statements made in the previous discussions that have taken place that Deputy Keating, Deputy O'Connell and others were in favour of the judicial inquiry to deal with the question of clearing the Radio Telefís Éireann team.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We still are.

Mr. Dowling

Deputy O'Connell following Deputy Keating's interjection, asked would the Taoiseach answer the question of whether he would hold a judicial inquiry to clear this team. As I said before, in relation to the "7 Days" team, I have the height of admiration for many of the productions they put forward as have the Members of this House and the public at large. Nevertheless, when there is a suggestion that something is wrong, it is only correct that steps should be taken in order to clear the public mind of suspicion and to ensure that, if programmes are produced in the manner alleged, some stop will be put to this type of production in order to ensure that the public mind is not confused in relation to important matters such as this social evil that has already been referred to.

Like many other Members of the House, I am appalled by some of the social evils that afflict this city, including moneylending, but that is another day's work. It is another day's work, as indicated by Deputy Corish when he said on behalf of his party—I do not know what section of the Labour Party he was speaking for but he was not speaking on behalf of the whole of the Labour Party but only for his part of it, because there were interjections by Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Desmond which conflicted with the views of the Labour leader, Deputy Corish——

Mr. Corish

What I said is consistent with what I said on 2nd December.

Dr. O'Connell

Will Deputy Dowling read out what I said about illegal moneylending?

Mr. M. O'Leary

You should fire your research officer, because he has not given you the facts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dowling should be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. Dowling

The members of the Labour Party have expressed a variety of opinions in the past. They now call for a public inquiry, for court proceedings against members of the "7 Days" team if they are found guilty of what has been alleged. Deputy Justin Keating, a front bench member of the all-front bench Labour Party, has called for court proceedings against this team if they are found guilty of what is alleged.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We shall send a copy of the motion over to the Deputy so that he can correct his speech.

Mr. Dowling

I shall not be side-tracked by little boys like the Deputy or the play-acting we have had here tonight, particularly from Deputy Desmond when he cast a reflection on honourable men like the Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, and other members of the front bench of Fianna Fáil. I do not know who made up the minds of the people in the Labour Party.

Mr. Corish

Outside influence.

Mr. Dowling

They certainly did not make up their own minds. I shall not indicate what source the influence came from, but I think I know.

Mr. Desmond

The Communists are at it again.

Mr. Dowling

This is a serious discussion.

Mr. Spring

Then the Deputy should sit down.

Mr. Dowling

That is the type of rude interruption we have heard from the Labour Party, from the likes of Deputy Spring, who came all the way from Kerry to make a little interruption so that he might get the attention of the newspapers. Nobody interrupted Deputy Desmond, Deputy Liam Cosgrave or Deputy FitzGerald when they were speaking.

(Interruptions.)

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. O'Malley)

On a point of order, a deliberate attempt is being made to prevent Deputy Dowling making his speech.

Mr. P. Belton

Sit down and behave yourself.

Mr. O'Higgins

Do not attempt that again.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dowling should be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. Dowling

I have made my point despite the continued interruptions by the poltroons of the Labour Party, so described by one of their front bench members.

Dr. Thornley

I feel very strongly about this subject which is an extremely serious one, one which deserves to be treated with something more than the levity with which it has been treated in the last few minutes. This apparently simple measure comes before the House carrying with it generalised implications of a most frightening kind which have to be seen in a very broad context, if they are properly to be understood in the context in which they are placed in particular by Deputy Desmond and Deputy FitzGerald.

It would be less than honest for me not to admit at the outset my former association with this programme, and I was glad to hear Deputy Dowling praise it as an independent journalistic programme. I was pleased to be for once in agreement with him. There is no need for me to speak of the journalistic integrity of the members of that team. I had three years association with them, and while there have been no smears as yet in this debate, except one slight innuendo from Deputy Dowling, it has been my experience in Telefís Éireann that there are people who are Labour sympathisers, Fianna Fáil sympathisers, Fine Gael sympathisers, Sinn Féin sympathisers—there may be even a few Communists; I do not know. Similarly there are people with political opinions on the staffs of every major newspaper in this country. This does not prevent these people from being independent journalists of integrity, and I believe that to be as true of the "7 Days" team as it is of the staffs of, for example, the four national newspapers.

To bring in what seems to me to be the general point here, we are launching this night a major onslaught upon the whole principle of journalistic freedom. The Taoiseach, both in his actual motion and in the words which he used introducing it, made it quite clear that this would be a public inquiry empowered to make people come before it and produce documents, tapes, scripts and records. This is completely at odds with all the standards of journalistic procedure, as Deputy Garret FitzGerald correctly pointed out.

Does this mean that in future every young crusading journalist in television, radio or in the newspapers will have the threat of a public inquiry over him if he produces any evidence of a social evil which has not been previously discerned by the Government and about the existence of which they do not agree? We are initiating tonight a process which no one can win. Nobody is calling into question the integrity of the judges who will form part of this tribunal. Nobody is calling into question the integrity of the Garda Síochána. I, for one, am certainly not calling into question the journalistic integrity of the members of the "7 Days" team. A chain of events has taken place here under the initiative, in the first instance, of the Minister for Justice which can only lead to a most unhappy conclusion for freedom of speech, and freedom of journalism in this country, a principle which, as I say, applies just as much to the newspapers as it does to television.

I hope I am not out of order in saying that we have, for example, in this House a man for whom I have deep personal respect, Deputy de Valera, who is involved in the newspaper world. Would he be happy or would some of the honourable friends I have on the Government benches be happy with the situation where a crusading journalist of, let us say, the Irish Press, could be similarly hauled before the bar of justice, compelled to reveal his sources, to flush out into the open people who had given him information in confidence, so that he could produce his work in accordance with accepted journalistic practice? It is a dangerous and a tragic step forward, and I agree completely with Deputy FitzGerald that, if we go through with this motion in its present form, it will be a bad night's work for freedom of speech in Ireland.

Mr. Kitt

Who asked for the sworn inquiry?

Dr. Thornley

The point about the sworn inquiry was apparently lost completely upon Deputy Dowling. The Labour Party have no objection to a sworn inquiry into the principle of money lending and our amendment sets that out quite clearly. Obviously any sworn inquiry into the principles of moneylending would take into consideration as a part of its function the relevance of the evidence, accurate or inaccurate, of the "7 Days" programme. We have no objection to such an inquiry at all. We are not trying to cover up for anybody. The "7 Days" team are well able to look after themselves. There is distinct difference between an inquiry into moneylending and the kind of inquiry we are being asked to assent to, where the sledgehammer of the legislative process of the national Parliament is being brought down, not even on a programme, but on an individual transmission of one night of a programme. The hammer is certainly not being brought down on the social evil of moneylending but simply, if the terms of the motion are accepted, on one issue of one programme, just as if it was being brought down on one article in a newspaper. We object to that and we are perfectly consistent in our attitude to this in our amendment.

The intense and sincere trepidation which I feel about this motion in its present form must be seen in a broad context. Some two years ago I wrote an article on television and politics in Administration in which I said that current television started off with two disadvantages—the monopoly situation where we had only one broadcasting authority and the fact that the Irish are traditionally interested in politics. This is still true but the monopoly situation of the television broadcasting network makes it all the more important that it should be, and should be seen to be, completely free from Government interference or from the threat of such interference hanging over it. There is a tremendous danger in a network which is being beamed without competition into all the houses in Ireland. There is fear of the shadow of retribution of a kind unknown in any other country or in journalistic practice anywhere. When we encounter the novel phenomenon of this inquiry into this specific programme we must set it in context. The suspicions which are felt on this side of the House about the terms of this inquiry must be understood and must be taken seriously. They must be taken as relevant to our attitude to this motion in its present form.

There is a long history of suspicion and hostility on the part of the Government towards independent television broadcasting. The last three years in which so many steps forward have been taken on independent broadcasting have been marked by row after row between the Government and the television authority. We had the row with the NFA, the row over the Biafra programme and rows over other programmes which were never shown. We had a row over the "7 Days" programme at the beginning of 1968. I am not making any imputation on any professional journalist in any section of RTE in connection with the transfer of the programme from one section to another. There is a long history of dislike on the part of some members of the Government of the whole principle of free broadcasting in this country. It is with the memory of that history in our minds that we, on this side of the House, approach with great distrust and fear the motion put before us in its present form. Why have we this strange procedure? Some reference has been made to this. A very important point has to be made. There are clearly laid down procedures in the Broadcasting Act, 1960, by which the Government can make known to the authority their displeasure over a particular programme. Many of us feel that the powers given to the Government in that Act are, if anything, excessive. In all successive rows the Government have not chosen to utilise the formal procedure of communicating their displeasure to the authority. They have relied on the telephone, the hint, and on the suggestion rather than on the direct communication. They have the power of hiring and firing any and every member of the authority at any moment. They have not used the form of procedures by which they may influence current affairs transmissions. No precedent has been established for communications between the Government and the broadcasting authority. Today we have the situation where the massive sledgehammer has to be brought down and the unhappy situation created from which only one loser can emerge eventually, that is to say, journalistic independence and integrity. In this context the sequence of events is significant. Deputy Dr. FitzGerald has listed the sequence of events which has built up. This unhappy tribunal is the consequence to that sequence.

I have no intention of descending to personalities. I made this resolve before I came into this House and it is one I intend to adhere to scrupulously. I will not attack anyone personally. Over the past three years there have been some Ministers who were more ready to co-operate with the principle of free broadcasting than others. The Taoiseach himself was most co-operative. The Minister for Finance, a strong, and some would say ruthless man in some ways but a gifted and able man, a courteous man who because he knows he is able to carry himself with conviction before the people on television, does not hesitate to go on it when asked and does not try to bend the medium to his own will. He is a much maligned man in this respect. I spoke in my article in Administration of the old war politician or the favourite son who find television uncongenial. It is no coincidence that it is one of the most consistently bullying and uncooperative Members of the House who has initiated this process. I feel that some of his colleagues are possibly not too happy about it. Deputy Desmond quoted, quite correctly, at great length from the statement made by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, on the 12th October, 1966, to the effect that the Government rejected the view that RTE should be generally, or in regard to its current affairs programmes completely, independent of Government supervision. On November 27th, 1969, I put down a question asking whether this was Government policy and was informed that it was. In the light of that statement how can we view the terms of this motion with anything other than suspicion?

Let me make another point which has already been touched on. The Broadcasting Act, 1960, whatever its defects, placed the burden of impartiality in matters of public controversy fairly and squarely on the RTE Authority. They have answered that in their view this programme was impartial. The proper procedure for the Government under the 1960 Act is either to fire the authority which is its creation—I am not saying it is biased, it is a rather maligned authority on the whole—or else to accept the judgment of that authority under the Act. This House has been manoeuvred by the Minister for Justice into a situation where that procedure cannot be followed and where nothing can be done except to bring to bear the full weight of public legal exposure upon the officers and servants of the authority, as they are designated in section 12 (1)—ordinary journalists, as Deputy Desmond has said, young men in many cases who will now be brought forward and asked to compete, to place themselves in competition with the police and the Minister for Justice in their methods and in their findings.

This is a most unfortunate conclusion and while we in the Labour Party supported the setting up of an inquiry of the kind we described, it remains true that the necessity for this inquiry has been brought about by the quite extraordinary, intemperate, lengthy and carefully prepared answer which the Minister for Justice gave to a question about moneylenders by Deputy Corish, the leader of the Labour Party—and he is the leader of the Labour Party in case anybody has any doubt about it. The terms of reference, as put, give the inquiry an almost impossible task. In many respects they are complex, confused and ill-judged and I want to address a direct question to the Taoiseach which he might answer at the end of the debate. May I quote paragraph 2 of the Taoiseach's motion:

The authenticity of the programme and, in particular, the adequacy of the information on which the programme was based, whether or not the statements, comments and implications of the programme as to the number of unlicensed moneylenders operating in the city and county of Dublin and the scope of their operations, and the use of violence, or threats of violence to secure repayments of moneys illegally lent, amounted to a correct and fair representation of the facts.

As Deputy FitzGerald has pointed out, one possible interpretation that could be placed upon that, as it stands, is that the lawyers appearing for RTE before this inquiry would be fully justified in calling evidence to prove the extent of unlicensed moneylending in this country. This, in turn, would mean they would be fully justified in mounting a lengthy and protracted social survey of the kind which we feel is overdue. I should like to know in advance, if possible, will it be in order if they so seek, or will it be strictly and solely limited to one transmission on one night? Has this House sunk so low that it has to wheel in the whole battery of its power and the battery of the law simply on the narrow issue of an individual programme?

The Minister for Justice has prejudged the inquiry with his definitions of the programme as "phoney" and all the other words he used on the 26th November. It is for this reason we feel that, unless our amendments are accepted, the motion as it stands at present places the tribunal in an almost impossible position because it is being asked to adjudicate a three-corner struggle between the Minister for Justice, the Garda Síochána and the "7 Days" team. However, apparently only one of these is to be subpoenaed, only one must expose its files and scripts, only one is to tell of its contacts, to bring them into the public eye, to tell who briefed them. Yet the tribunal must judge between the public statements of all three—statements made in this House and circulated in the public eye, statements which would have been out of order had the Minister for Justice made them after the inquiry had been set up rather than before. This was an excellent piece of timing on his part and one which, as Deputy FitzGerald has pointed out, showed the sinister nature of the sequence of events in this whole sorry story.

Our amendments recognise that the tribunal has been placed in this impossible position. For that reason we intend to press them and I hope they will be supported. One of the Fine Gael amendments in particular recognises the unique nature of the journalistic profession and will, in turn, be supported. Why, therefore, are we in this sad position for the history of free broadcasting and free press in Ireland tonight? We are left with only one of two conclusions. I have far too much respect for some individual members of the Government front bench to believe they wish to mount an onslaught upon an individual programme; yet one can only conclude either that the Government as a whole have been talked into this situation by the Minister for Justice or else that much more is at state than apparently appears.

May I make my last point on that issue—that much more is at stake. For three years I had some brief experience as what you might describe as a part-time journalist; I have, therefore, some small experience of the difficulties of maintaining independence of journalism. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not won in one single onslaught, nor is it destroyed in one single onslaught. What happens is that it is eroded by a process of attrition, by a dripping of water upon stone. The men in Telefís Éireann, like men in newspapers, are men of integrity; but they are only human. If they feel that the whole apparatus of Dáil Éireann is waiting behind them, then, before they make a serious social inquiry programme or mount a controversial political programme, they are almost inevitably going to say to themselves: "Is it worth the bother? Let us stick to chamber music; let us stick to bromides, let us stick to safe programmes Even if we win, the struggle is not worth it; it is too hard on the nerves. They have the whole battery of the Government behind them, we have only a small research staff." You are embarking on a terribly dangerous process when you do this and, in the sequence of events since the Minister's reply to the first question from Deputy Corish, a whole shadow has passed over journalism. Doubts have been raised in our minds which I am extremely sorry to have to feel about a Government that contains some people for whom I have respect and whom I do not believe would wish to mount an onslaught like this.

However, it did cross our minds that when the Government won the last election—squarely, though I will not necessarily say fairly—the writing was on the wall for free television; it was inevitable that some battleground would be picked. Are we being very devious in entertaining such suspicions? The very nature of the battleground lends strength to our suspicions. It is not a direct confrontation on a political issue; it is not the firing of the authority under the terms of the Act; It is a kind of side battle——

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is an ambush.

Dr. Thornley

It is an ambush, as Deputy O'Leary correctly says, whose implications are far more sinister and are simply contained in the terms of the motion as they stand before us here. Very often it is thrown at us that we are Communists, Maoists, Trotskyites and all these things. I should like to remind members of the Government that behind the Iron Curtain in Czechoslovakia one of the first signs of the diminution of freedom was the erosion of the independence of the television network. Do the Government want to start doing that now? Do they wish to produce a situation like that of ORTF in France? I do not believe that Deputy Lynch himself as a personality, as Taoiseach, wants to do this, and I do not believe that some of the men whom I knew and liked in a different professional category during the last three years want to do this. The ultimate import of the form of words of the motion set out before us leads to that conclusion. There is something sinister about this motion in its present form.

This whole concept is enough to send a chill, not just down the spines of a few people in "7 Days" who, as they would be the first to admit, are not of themselves important, but should send a chill down the spine of every journalist who depends on the independence of journalism. It has got to be taken in context with the known antipathy of the Government, or some members of it, towards freedom in broadcasting. It has got to be taken in context with the remark of the Leader of the Government party in the Seanad about academic freedom as ex-emplified by a certain lecturer in political science in University College, Dublin.

Deputy Dowling said it was important that the broadcasting service should not confuse the public. "Confusing the public"—that is a frightening phrase, that is a phrase which has echoes and overtones of fascism and echoes and overtones of the communism which we on this side of the House are supposed to believe in. Of course, the simplest way not to confuse the public is to brainwash them, to tell them nothing, to feed them with opiates or, best of all, to feed them only one point of view.

Let me make one last observation on my article. I wrote then with what has turned out to be horrible prescience:

Politics is a game which only one contender can win at any particular time. The politician, therefore, logically views the communication medium as the cockpit of contention. He is constantly only totally satisfied when he is able to use it to gain advantage of his adversary. A good station is a subservient one.

Have we reached a point where this is what the Government are setting out to do? Are the lights, as some of us feared, beginning to go out for freedom of television because, I warn the House, if they are, that is only step one. They will be going out for the newspapers next. We are a small country. We are lucky—a point which has been made in the press—that the newspapers at least are in competition, but one of the results of being a small country is that we tend very often to have only one of something—only one set of economists very often, for example—I exempt Deputy FitzGerald —only one set of economists and Deputy FitzGerald supplying the Government with information and, in this instance, just one television service —a terribly easy thing to tamper with.

I would ask the Government, therefore, to treat the Labour Party amendments seriously, to draw back from a path which they can embark upon if they want to. Their majority entitles them to do so. Their majority entitles them legally to turn back the clock to the days of the Whips' agreement of 1966, to wipe out the years of progress that have been made in independent broadcasting, to wipe out the memory of the integrity with which the present Tánaiste and Minister for Health once supervised the development of radio in the country. The Government's majority entitles them, if they so wish, to wipe out that history and to launch an onslaught upon independent television. Is this motion the first step in that onslaught? I would like to think highly enough of the Taoiseach and some of his colleagues to believe that they would not stoop to that but, set in context, I cannot help feeling that the whole thing has a sinister contagion about it and the sequence of events by which one of the most aggressive, persistently intemperate, members of the Government has set off a process from which nobody can emerge the winner, only truth can emerge the loser, is one which frightens me, frightens me because of my memories as a part-time journalist and frightens me on behalf of all freedom of speech everywhere.

If this House is to turn the full weight of a judicial inquiry initiated by the Parliament of the nation upon something, let it be upon the social evil of unlicensed moneylending. Let it not so lower and demean its own dignity as to show and enforce its authority as the first step in an onslaught to extinguish freedom of current affairs broadcasting in this country.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I welcome an inquiry into the controversy which has arisen over the “7 Days” programme on illegal moneylending. This proposed inquiry concerns a very important matter. It concerns Radio Telefís Éireann. In 1969, there can be no doubt that television is by far the most powerful medium of communication that exists in the world today. It is more important and more powerful even than the newspapers. As the last speaker has said, there is only one television service in this country but that is not the most important point about that. The one and only television service that we have in this country is a State or a semi-State monopoly. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that nothing should be done by the Government or by this House which would stifle freedom of speech by that semi-State monopoly because if we are to do anything here that will lead Radio Telefís Éireann to believe that the Government will not permit any criticism from Radio Telefís Éireann towards Government Departments or Government agencies, then we are going to convert this television service, this powerful medium of communication, into a body of “yes men.” In doing that we would be doing a very bad day's work for the country, and a very bad day's work for freedom of speech.

Let us throw our minds back just for a minute or two to how the controversy has arisen. Radio Telefís Éireann put on a "7 Days" programme. I am not going into the merits or demerits of the case. Radio Telefís Éireann put on a "7 Days" programme which it thought was ventilating the social evil of illegal moneylending. The object was to arouse the public conscience and, indeed, the powers of the law to put down illegal practices. If that programme was in substance and in fact fairly accurate, it meant that it reflected on the Department of Justice and on the Garda Síochána. The immediate reaction of the Minister for Justice, speaking on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Garda Síochána, was a violent reaction.

Mr. Crowley

On a point of order. Surely Deputy Fitzpatrick is out of order in his allegation?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I did not get the point of order.

Mr. Crowley

Is the Deputy not going outside the scope of the debate in prejudging the issue?

Mr. L'Estrange

Deputy Moran has already prejudged it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

For the information of the House, in this debate what is in order is whether the inquiry should be set up and whether the terms of reference should be accepted. What is not in order is anything that would prejudice or prejudge the matters going before the inquiry.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I entirely agree, Sir, but before we can decide, surely we must consider the issues at stake because we cannot say that the terms of reference are adequate to investigate what is at stake if we do not know what is at stake.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The position in regard to this is that any prejudging of the issues which form material for the tribunal would be out of order.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I have no intention of prejudging the issue or of entering into controversy. I propose putting the case for RTE for and against and then asking myself if these terms of reference are adequate to enable a judicial tribunal to inquire into it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As far as the Chair is concerned, the position is that the terms of the motion are before the House and the question is whether the inquiry should be set up and whether the terms of reference of the tribunal are acceptable and there are amendments to that but——

Mr. M. O'Leary

What Deputy Fitzpatrick is questioning is whether the terms of reference are adequate for the investigation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is endeavouring to point out that matters which are to go before the tribunal for decision must not be prejudged.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I have no intention of prejudging them. I stated what the programme set out to prove. I stated the reaction of the Minister to the programme. The Minister created an issue. In one way, I would not have expected that the Minister should have reacted otherwise because his action reminded me of an answer given by a lady in a cross-Channel controversy some years ago when it was alleged that she had improper relations with a noble lord. In the course of a violent cross-examination it was put to her that the noble lord emphatically denied the allegation to which she replied: “Well, he would, wouldn't he?”

I would have expected the Minister for Justice and the Garda Síochána to deny the allegations that were made against them in that programme because it would suggest that they had in some way fallen down on their duty. The terms of reference into this controversy should be impartial and should not be loaded either for or against anybody. In my opinion, the first three paragraphs of this resolution are loaded very much against the RTE Authority. They place RTE in the dock and they put the onus of proof on RTE. The first paragraph puts the onus on RTE to prove that:

The planning, preparation, arrangement, production and presentation of the recent television programme on illegal moneylending....

and so on were adequate. That puts the authority immediately in the dock and the next paragraph which reads:

The authenticity of the programme and, in particular, the adequacy of the information on which the programme was based....

and so forth does the very same thing as paragraph 3. Each one of those puts RTE in the place of an accused person. They put them in the place of a person who is in the dock to answer a charge.

I do not see any reason why RTE should be put in that position and that the Minister for Justice or the Garda Síochána should not be put in that position. The furthest that these terms of reference should go should be to throw in the ball and let the tribunal decide but these terms of reference are drawn up in such terms that we have an accused, the RTE Authority and the "7 Days" programme.

It cannot be expected or hoped that a tribunal with such terms of reference before them will be able to do the job that is expected of them. I have the greatest regard for the integrity and the ability of the judiciary of this country but we all know that the judiciary must work within the pleadings before them. A judge must try the issue created by the pleadings. He is not at liberty to go outside the issues which have resulted in that issue by the pleadings but the terms of reference here are biased and will prejudice and prejudge the issue.

I am not allowed within the rules of order of this House to prejudge the dispute and I am not allowed under your ruling, Sir, to express any views as to who is right and who is wrong but I know of no better way of prejudging a matter than to frame the terms of reference in such a way as to put one party in the dock and to point the finger of accusation at that party in such a way as to demand from that party that he prove his innocence because that is what we are doing here. It is a well known principle of legal procedure in this country that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty but I suggest that these terms of reference impose the onus on RTE of proving they did everything right and that every accusation they made was absolutely correct.

This is not right and, as other speakers have said, it will damage the independence of RTE. It will discourage free and independent thought on that medium and it will discourage the directors of programmes from coming before the people and putting before the people independent views and thoughts. The effort behind this seems to be to reduce this all-powerful medium of communication to a "Yes" station, to a Government-sponsored station and a Government-controlled organ. That would be bad enough if there were two or three television stations in the country but we know there is only one and that it is not likely there will be more than one for some considerable time at any rate.

Again, as I said on another occasion, if these terms of reference are not fair and if they are not impartial they will not only damage the prestige and the usefulness of our television service but they will also discourage publicminded people from offering to disclose illegal activities in the country if the reaction to their efforts is the same as the reaction to this programme. The row here is about illegal moneylending. The terms of reference should be wide enough to enable the tribunal to inquire into that. If they are not wide enough to allow the tribunal to inquire into the allegations that there is a considerable social evil here of illegal moneylending, and if they are not wide enough to enable the tribunal to inquire into the allegation by the Minister for Justice that the whole programme is phoney, then this is simply a worthless, useless exercise, a waste of public money, a waste of time and a whitewashing operation.

I do not believe that is what anybody wants. The very least the Taoiseach can do, if he is honest and sincere in his effort to have a full impartial and adequate investigation into the matter at issue here, is to accept the amendment put down in the name of the leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Cosgrave, which seeks to add to paragraph (2):

and to what extent these statements, comments and implications expressed reasonable journalistic care on the part of those responsible for the programme.

That is a reasonable addition; but in my opinion the most important amendment is the second one, which seeks to add to the motion the following paragraph:

any other matters relevant to the foregoing and not specifically mentioned.

That will enable the tribunal, with its legal training and legal experience, to inquire into any other matter which in its wisdom it thinks is relevant to the other terms of reference but not specifically covered by them.

This is a clause which is put in, as the Taoiseach will know I am sure, to any submission to arbitration so that the hands or minds of the arbitrator would not be unduly tied if it were possible by slick argument to exclude from relevant consideration some of the points referred to. Therefore, I strongly urge the Taoiseach, in all good faith, to allow both of Deputy Cosgrave's amendments, but particularly the second amendment which adds the fifth paragraph to the terms of reference. If he does that I am of opinion that there will be a much better chance of having a full, free, useful investigation and an investigation which will bring some results.

The Taoiseach, unless he does that, will leave himself and his Government open to the charge of loading the dice in advance against the RTE Authority. If he does that he will, in my opinion, create a situation in which respect will be lost for our television service. Worse still, he will create a situation in which employees of that service will believe that, unless they toe the Government line, the party line, they will be in danger of losing their jobs and of being held up to public ridicule. The result will be that no self-respecting journalist and no self-respecting operator will serve on it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I want to emphasise at the very start that the Labour Party are not averse to the holding of an inquiry, that the nature of the charges levelled in the House necessitated an inquiry and that we are merely anxious to ensure that the inquiry shall inquire into the whole of the social problem of moneylending and not confine itself purely to the circumstances of this particular programme. Indeed, we would make the point that it is difficult, if not impossible, to come to any conclusion about the veracity or authenticity of the programme without adequate information on the extent of the evil to which the programme inquired into in the first place.

The Taoiseach may take two choices. He has two options open to him tonight in concluding this debate. He can either answer our arguments, which we have made here in a reasoned fashion, or he can choose to ignore them. He can choose to say that the Labour Party are now running from an inquiry. I wish, therefore, to emphasise at the very start that the Labour Party are for an inquiry, they believe it necessary in view of the charges that have been made but they are anxious to ensure that it be an inquiry which will adequately establish the extent of the evil of moneylending. They believe it is impossible in the circumstances to come to any conclusion about the problem of moneylending if we confine ourselves purely to the circumstances of this particular programme.

We have thought it important to look for as much time as we could for the discussion of the terms of reference because the terms of reference of this inquiry will be crucial. On the terms of reference will depend to a great extent the possible success or otherwise of this inquiry. I do not think Deputies are exaggerating one iota when they say that on trial here tonight there are many serious concepts, democratic freedoms which we all respect on all sides of the House. This is not exaggerating the problem. Some may say it is just journalists on television who are on trial. In fact, all journalism is on trial in this tribunal and all free speech is on trial. We may be apt to regard freedom as something that withers away, something that retreats before tanks; but freedom can also retreat before Government edicts, before Government tribunals; and freedom in this vital area of public communications may retreat before this tribunal. This may be one of the results of this tribunal.

I do not believe, like Deputy Thornley, that the entire Cabinet are of one mind in wishing to see freedom of speech contract in this country. I do not believe they are at one in a policy of seeing to it that Telefís Éireann stay away from certain subjects. I take the Taoiseach at his word when he says he is ready to meet any criticism anywhere at any time or in any place. I do not believe he is afraid of any probing questions put by any interviewer in any programme on Telefís Éireann. But, quite obviously, as there is what he terms an intensity of feeling on another great national question—unity—obviously there are differences of outlook and attitude in the Cabinet on this matter as well.

I would not accuse the Taoiseach here of being aware of the ramifications of the possible conspiracy in his own Cabinet on what to do with Telefís Éireann. I would not accuse him of knowing this; but certainly he cannot, in the course of this debate, fail to see some validity in the Opposition viewpoint that this cannot be seen to be an incident in isolation from other things which have happened in the recent past in relation to Government policy and this station. The terms of reference of this judicial inquiry, as set out by the Government here in this motion, cannot, we believe, establish the authenticity of the programme since obviously it does not allow for a full investigation of the extent of moneylending. Part 2 of the motion states:

The authenticity of the programme and, in particular, the adequacy of the information on which the programme was based and whether or not the statements, comments and implications of the programme as to the number of unlicensed moneylenders operating in the city and county of Dublin and the scope of their operation...

This was an exploratory television programme, inquiring into an evil not fully realised, the extent of its operation not being fully acknowledged by the Minister responsible. In such a programme, in comparison with other such programmes in other free democracies, if there are errors by way of lack of treatment, by lack of care in presentation, can one see any judicial tribunal set up in this country which would have that specialised knowledge to compare that programme with the standards of journalistic ability utilised in the preparation of other such programmes in other countries? We are asking this tribunal to decide in the difficult area where a journalist is attempting to arouse public opinion about a little-realised social evil. I can recall Ministerial hackles being raised here when various people referred to the scandal of housing in Dublin and elsewhere. Ministerial tempers were aroused and people said that this problem did not exist. Is it not a permanent temptation for any politician in power to deny that a problem exists? Is it not a permanent temptation for all executives to deny that things are as bad as people outside say they are? Must we not at all times resist the temptation to deny the validity of these charges?

No matter what Government there is on the benches opposite at any time in the future, be it of the exotic outlook that Deputy Crowley alleges some people in Telefís Éireann have or whatever its political outlook, there will always be a permanent temptation before it. There will be the temptation, to which some may succumb, to interfere with the independence of Telefís Éireann. That temptation will always remain for every Government. It is our feeling that this Government, by one means or another, have now succumbed fully to that temptation. We, as an Opposition, must here speak for the people outside this Parliament and draw attention to problems that may not be recognised by this Executive, by this Government with their large majority. They have a large majority and that may entitle some of them to think they may ignore or at least deny that problems exist or that people outside feel as strongly about them as they do.

The history of television since it was set up in this country is one of strained relations with the Government in power. It happens that over that period Fianna Fáil have been the Government. Had there been another Government in that period I have no doubt that relations could have been likewise strained. I have no doubt that that Government could have had a similar temptation and whoever was in Opposition here at that time would have had to stand out for the freedom of Telefís Éireann to be awkward, to conduct free interviews and so on.

All of us have had our difficult moments in interviews on Telefís Éireann but all of us who are elected to this House must get into our heads that television has come here to stay. Whatever this Administration may do about television in the 26 Counties, the people on the east coast can switch to programmes which are not interfered with by the Government in Britain, they can switch off the tame kind of programme we apparently wish them to see and they can see constructive political discussion, free programmes on public affairs, from other stations. In other parts of the country they may not be able to do this, but I would, for the information of certain rural Deputies, advise them that supporters of their party in Dublin and elsewhere on the east coast have this freedom which cannot be interfered with.

Are we agreed on all sides of the House that public affairs discussion programmes on Telefís Éireann must continue for the good health of all of us? If democracy, this thing that becomes alive to some of us merely at election times, is to truly support us in any new legislation we wish to carry through here in the years ahead, we must bring into being a nation of critics. We want our electors to be people interested in politics and in public affairs. We do not wish them quiescent between election times—to be people who merely come to life when we are canvassing. We wish to have a continuous dialogue between the electorate and the Government.

The question before us is this: journalists attempted to explore a social evil, politicians replied that the evil did not exist. A mystery remains as to why this particular programme should have been chosen as the point of attack. Perhaps we will never be able to answer that question. It is an interesting speculation why this particular programme was chosen. It was somewhat apart from the main bone of contention that politicians had with Telefís Éireann public affairs programmes. It was not directly related to a political subject and perhaps a rejoinder is: "Just as well for the sake of the plausibility of the Government's action that it was not concerned with a direct political programme". It was, in fact, concerned with moneylending.

Deputy FitzGerald is right. He said he carefully examined the Minister's speech and what apparently was a typical, colourful retort was in fact carefully vetted, was in fact a long reply which in all its rambling turns did not give away that much, was a tightly-wrought reply, giving grounds for suspicion that the Minister had thought quite a deal before he made that reply. I recall that the back benches of Fianna Fáil were filled on that day even at that very late hour in Question Time, and we had repartee well prepared beforehand. Deputy Crowley, who has a particular vein of repartee, excelled himself on that day. He had all the terms correct.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Of course he had.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I recall that certain of the newspapers remarked on the extraordinary unanimity with which the backbenchers of Fianna Fáil fell on this particular question and the way they upset the normal rules of the House. Therefore, can we honestly lay aside the feeling on this side of the House that there is an element of conspiracy in this whole matter of the setting up of this tribunal; that certain elements in the Government have prepared a well-arranged ambush, that the makers of a programme on Telefís Éireann are the victims but that finally all journalists in all parts of the country will feel the effects of this action?

I recall Ministerial wrath being aroused on agitation for housing. Does this mean that if programmes in the future blaze a new trail when looking into this social problem that the Minister of the day can mount another ambush? Finally, can we say this on it: Where will the contagion resulting from this programme cease in Telefís Éireann? That question has been asked in other speeches here tonight. What kind of journalistic truth are we preparing to flourish in Telefís Éireann? What kind of people are we seeking to put in charge of our programmes? Last week we had itinerant settlement week. Did Telefís Éireann not have some part to play in arousing the public conscience on this problem?

Mr. R. Barry

And they played it very well.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is now no criticism of itinerants. The itinerant is now one of the favourite characters, one of the approved citizens of this country.

Mr. J. Lenehan

They will soon be joining the Labour Party.

Mr. Corish

They will be welcome.

Mr. M. O'Leary

How much of this changed public approach to this social evil is due to Telefís Éireann? What other social evils are there waiting to be discovered, and how many of us in this House have the courage to go out and explore these social evils? All of us to some extent depend on the approval of the public and there are temptations in that dependence which all of us share. Therefore, it is in our interest, in the interests of this Parliament, that Telefís Éireann can pioneer and explore on its own and open up areas of social concern.

All I have suggested is that journalistic truth may not be quite compatible with the cold judicial categories of a legal trial. This does not prove that anybody has been untruthful. It just means that a journalist went out to prepare a programme on the problem of moneylending. The evil of moneylending exists. All of us in this House are not aware of the extent of it. I know of certain cases. I am sure others know of cases. That programme went out and it explored that problem. It was a worthwhile endeavour. Charges were subsequently made. I was astonished at the Minister's reply to the question. I said to the Minister that Deputy Corish's question referred to the extent of this social evil. That was the intent of the question and the whole burden of the Minister's reply was to condemn those in charge of the programme. This was the whole tendency of the Minister's reply.

Now, just before the Adjournment Debate this year, the whole Cabinet have been brought to the ridiculous position of setting up a tribunal to inquire into that programme. One may well ask who is leading this Government, who exactly is calling the tune in this Government? They need not talk about leaders in Fine Gael or in Labour. May we ask of the elected Government who leads that Government and who is making the decisions there?

Mr. L'Estrange

Deputy Blaney.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Censorship is a condition of the mind and, whatever the result of this inquiry, the logical follow-up from this Government action is that they are seeking to bring about a condition of censorship, a mental censorship, existing in the minds of every man making a programme in Telefís Éireann. From now on they must all understand that the Government watch carefully each programme made. If a particular Minister is annoyed about a programme, there is always the precedent of this tribunal. What makes it all the more extraordinary is that the original Act setting up the station gives them ample opportunity to voice any criticism in a constructive and legally ordained way. Why therefore on this occasion, again strengthening our conviction that there is more in this than meets the eye, have we had an ambush, a trap laid, instead of utilising this machinery?

The Taoiseach has said that this tribunal will sit during January. It will not sit without comment from the northern part of the country. The enemies of the unity which the Taoiseach, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Moran desire will not let this occasion pass without comment. The Opposition in Stormont and in other parts of the country will be told exactly what the Government in Dublin are doing with regard to the freedom of speech and of television. This is a very serious matter, and I am being fair about it, but there is always a temptation for a Government to interfere with a creature that they themselves have set up, but that temptation must be resisted at all times. I believe we should not have brought about the situation that resulted in this tribunal. I do not believe any good will come of it; I do not believe that truth will finally be enthroned as a result of this tribunal. I believe there will be just a little more fear in the breasts of everyone who is standing up for freedom and truth in this country. I believe this House will do itself no service in passing the terms of reference which the Taoiseach has put forward. The terms of reference put forward by the Labour Party for a tribunal emphasise correctly looking at the social evil and looking at the programme to establish, in comparison with the extent of the evil, the responsibility exercised by the journalists involved in the programme. There cannot be a one-sided approach to it.

Many big issues have been raised on this serious matter and I would appeal to the Taoiseach and his Whip to allow a free vote on this matter tonight. It is not a party matter. I believe Deputies who agree with the terms of reference of this tribunal, confining the investigation to such narrow scope, avoiding the great area of social evil, should put their names to it on a free vote tonight in order to defend the honour of this House.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I should like to make a few comments. The Labour Party were the first people to put the cat amongst the pigeons in trying to defend the staff of RTE. They remind me of an old story that I was told in my childhood days: John Murphy is all right but his grandfather was a sheep stealer. I have never heard such hypocrisy in my life. Deputy Corish put down the first question about this programme. There was not a word from this side of the House about what the journalists on the "7 Days" programme were doing. The implication here has been that we were trying to interfere with RTE. I do not think the Taoiseach, his Ministers or any one else would want to associate with anything like that. I want to pay this tribute to my leader—he would not be associated with anything like that.

This motion was brought about as a result of the Labour Party misrepresenting the facts. When I was speaking on this motion before I asked the Minister for Justice what statement he made and he told me that he made the statement he got from the Garda and no more. That was good enough. It was then followed up by a lot of personal abuse. Apparently, the Labour Party do not seem to have anything more constructive to do for the benefit of the people of this country. They are anxious to grasp at some little thing. We are here to serve the people and make the best contributions we can for the benefit of all.

The leader of the Labour Party put down the first question; it was not raised by anybody else. He thought this was something political that he could make something of. This Government have built up the economic life of this country, but as far as the Labour Party are concerned— and they are directly responsible for this motion—they have no other constructive suggestions to make to this House. They have tried to pin-point something. They may make flowery statements, they may misrepresent facts—and I will give them credit for these things—but, as far as the practical political and economic life of this country is concerned, they have nothing to add to it but abuse. Flowery statements were made by various members of the Labour Party. I was not here when the Fine Gael members were talking—I had to receive two deputations from County Dublin—but I was listening to the proposer of the motion, the man who is responsible for putting Telefís Éireann and "7 Days" in the dock, and the hypocrisy of him. He reminded me of Judas.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Deputy is talking about the Taoiseach.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am talking of the leader——

Dr. O'Connell

The Deputy is condemning his own leader.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am not. It reminded me of Pilate washing his hands, when I heard Deputy Corish speaking, and when I listened to the follow-up from the famous Deputy Barry Desmond. Deputy Barry Desmond tried the case. As a matter of fact there is no need for any tribunal to sit at all because Deputy Desmond tried the case.

Mr. L'Estrange

So did the Minister for Justice.

Mr. P.J. Burke

He condemned everyone. He tried the case. He implied that our judges are dishonourable men. I resent these uncharitable remarks about people in whom we have implicit confidence from the point of view of interpreting our laws and giving impartial decisions.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Deputy did not always have that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputy was asked to give evidence outside this House and he failed to do so. He was a moral coward.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Deputy's party would not set up a judicial tribunal at that time because the Government were afraid.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputy had the chance of giving evidence and he did not give it.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Government were afraid of a judicial tribunal and they refused to set one up.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputy claimed privilege.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy Burke please come to the motion before the House? Will Deputy L'Estrange please cease interrupting? There have been very few interruptions in the debate so far and if the Deputy cannot desist I shall have to ask him to leave the House. Deputy Burke on the motion.

Mr. L'Estrange

I never heard such hypocrisy.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputy will not say it outside the House. He will say it inside here.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy Burke please continue on the motion.

Mr. P.J. Burke

If there is anybody trying to put Telefís Éireann and the officials dealing with the "7 Days" programme in the dock it is the Labour Party. They are doing it day after day and they will keep going until they injure people. That is all that concerns them. It may bring them a few votes. These people are not here to defend themselves. Unfortunately, the Taoiseach could do nothing else except have an inquiry. He was forced into this position by the Labour Party and others. Listening to Deputy Michael O'Leary, one would hardly think this was a human assembly at all. As far as Deputy O'Leary and others are concerned, they are so perfect they have never committed a sin. They apparently hope to gain some small advantage from all this. They have no policy to put forward. I thought that in this Nineteenth Dáil we would have some constructive criticism from intelligent people in the Labour Party but all they are doing is hanging their hats on any convenient peg that offers, criticising and misrepresenting. They do not care who is sacrificed provided they get some kudos. I am sorry to have to speak like this but I was compelled to intervene because of the shocking hypocrisy. If anything happens to any of these men in "7 Days" I shall hold the Labour Party responsible.

Mr. O'Higgins

The kindest thing to say about Deputy Burke is, I think, that he finished speaking ten minutes ago and, since he finished speaking, he stayed on his feet for the purpose of preparing to sit down. I have little doubt that, listening to him, the Taoiseach must have been saying to himself: "May the Lord protect me from my own".

We are concerned here with a motion which asks this Dáil as a matter of urgent public importance to set up a tribunal——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy L'Estrange please cease interrupting?

Mr. O'Higgins

At this stage, in this session of Dáil and Seanad Éireann, Dáil Éireann is asked today, and Seanad Éireann will be asked tomorrow to set up this tribunal as a matter of urgent public importance. Let us dwell upon these words. We are here to represent the people, to represent them in the solution of the different problems which confront them— housing, social conditions, unemployment, emigration and so on. Here, at this stage in this session, before the Adjournment for Christmas, we are solemnly saying that it is a matter of urgent public importance to set up a tribunal to inquire into the matters set out in the Taoiseach's motion.

Does that strike anyone as in some way strange? This succession of deputations from County Dublin, which Deputy Burke had today, were they all agog to know what Dáil Éireann was deciding about this matter of urgent public importance or were they looking for a house for someone of their company or for the solution of some local problem? We are brushing all these things aside and this Oireachtas is being asked, in relation to all the problems facing us, to regard only one as being so significant that we are going to set up a tribunal to inquire into it, "urgent public importance." We can knock down Hume Street: we can permit hundreds of our people to live in caravans on our main roads; we can allow all these things to happen but they do not rank as a matter of urgent public importance compared with the necessity to try to get the Minister for Justice out of the mouse-trap into which he committed himself.

We are asked, first, to vote for this tribunal and, secondly, we are asked to approve of the terms of reference which the Taoiseach and the Government have drawn up. We must be pardoned on this side of the House if we, to some extent, regard with suspicion each word, every comma and each syllable in the terms of reference as drawn up, because the people who are proposing this tribunal and asking that it be set up and inquire along these lines include among them two people who have already prejudged this issue. One of them is the Taoiseach who, in a disorderly manner, in the course of Question Time intervened, contrary to the established practice of the House, to assert that if the "7 Days" programme had only admitted that their programme was a fraud and deception everybody would have said: "That is all right." He is proposing this motion and he is the person who, when the motion is passed by the Dáil and Seanad, will ask the Chief Justice to appoint three judges to preside over this inquiry.

Of course we are suspicious as to the terms on which the inquiry should operate. Suppose the Taoiseach had said the following:

Radio Telefís Éireann was set up by legislation as an instrument of public policy and as such is responsible to the Government. The Government have overall responsibility for its conduct and especially the obligation to ensure that its programmes do not offend against the public interest or conflict with national policy as defined in legislation.

To this extent the Government reject the view that Radio Telefís Éireann shall be, either generally or in regard to its current affairs and news programmes, completely independent of Government supervision.... The Government will take such action by way of making representations or otherwise as may be necessary to ensure that Radio Telefís Éireann does not deviate from the due performance of this duty.

If the Taoiseach said that in proposing this motion to the House today what would these gentlemen up here do? They would write, I have no doubt, to the best of their ability and conscience articles to the effect that this tribunal was a trumped-up whitewashing operation. The Taoiseach did not say that today but it was said by the Taoiseach on 12th October, 1966, by the then Taoiseach, the former Deputy Seán Lemass. That is only three years ago and I suggest it represents the settled view of the Government in regard to the manner in which RTE should operate: do not let them be independent; do not let them dare to assert their right to produce any comment on current affairs, any news programme independent of Government thinking. As the then Taoiseach said, the Government would take such action by way of making representations or otherwise as might be necessary to ensure that RTE did not deviate from the due performance of this duty—to be the spaniel dog and wag its tail when the Minister snaps his fingers.

We have had many examples of that over the years. I was astonished to hear Deputy Thornley pay an illdeserved compliment to the present Minister for Finance. Perhaps the Minister for Finance has a corporate soul and so is entitled to the gratitude of RTE but, certainly, Deputy Charles Haughey is not in any way so entitled. Who can forget the occasion on which, at a particularly pivotal stage some years ago, a programme dealing with the wrongs and difficulties of the farmers was banned just because the Minister for Agriculture decided that it would not be allowed? Who can forget the abandonment of an important confrontation between Deputy Clinton and Deputy Haughey, as Minister for Agriculture, because he would not go along?

They do not want an independent television authority. It is clear that the words spoken by the Fianna Fáil Taoiseach three years ago have coloured the approach of this Government to everything that has gone on in RTE. I shall not refer, although the year was 1966, to what then was considered as news when, in fact, a Presidential Election in this country was never mentioned from one period of the campaign to the end.

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not seem to have any relevance to this motion.

Mr. O'Higgins

None whatever; I entirely agree. But it is because of this view which I assert permeates everyone in the Government—may I say that the Ceann Comhairle is a better judge of this than I am—that the new cheer gang of the rather rotund and Johnny-come-lately Fianna Fáil Deputies come posting into this House every time a question is answered by the Minister for Justice in relation to RTE. It is perfectly clear that these gentlemen would dearly love to see the operation of an independent authority ended. In case any Deputy wonders whether the hat fits him I am referring in particular to one who is now absent. I think he was associated with an ancient monument in Cork.

We can wonder how this matter of urgent public importance comes to be raised here by the Taoiseach—"urgent public importance." What happened? A parliamentary question was tabled following this programme. I shall say nothing about the authenticity or otherwise of the programme but the programme was shown. It aroused universal public interest and, following the programme, a parliamentary question was tabled by the leader of the Labour Party. I do not know if the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair but I remember that it was just 4 o'clock and the gong was about to sound when the Minister for Justice got to his feet and said plaintively to the Chair: "Could we take the next question?" You, Sir, assuming the usual courtesy of the Opposition, said: "The next question." That question resulted in the reply to Deputy Corish, and—I put it this way—certainly, a non-judicial allegation in relation to those who sponsored the programme and put it on. It was the most extraordinary attack I have ever heard in this House on people outside it. Immediately it was made, the leader of the cheer gang was up on his feet to ask supplementary questions. It was perfectly clear that the Minister for Justice came into this House, with this gentleman behind him, to make this important statement.

Mr. L'Estrange

Harry Worth.

Mr. O'Higgins

The sequence was— first, the programme and, secondly, the Ministerial attack. Then, the following week, another question was tabled. The reply to that from the Minister for Justice—I have checked this—was the longest Ministerial reply ever given in this House in 21 years— easily the longest. It was not a reply: it was an argument. It was not giving information: it was the desperate efforts by a man who had got himself into a public jam to extricate himself. Following that long reply, while all the Deputies here sat patiently and listened, there were some supplementary questions and then, in an unprecedented intervention at Question Time, the Taoiseach stood up—availing, he said, of an invitation by Deputy L'Estrange—to add his tuppence worth and his tuppence worth was to the effect that if the people in charge of this programme would only admit that the Minister for Justice is right, that this has been a fraudulent deceptive programme, we shall forget about the whole thing. That is in so far as Dáil Éireann knows about the issues involved: a Parliamentary Question, an aggressive Ministerial reply—repeated in detail a week later—an un-called for intervention by the Taoiseach. The Ministerial reply and the Taoiseach's statements—all with the assertion that there can be no two ways about it: the programme was fraudulent, deceptive, the whole thing was a phoney— I have the quotations if anybody wants them—and that was as much as this Dáil had to do with it.

What happened after that? Two days later, the Television Authority met. I do not know what they did. I do not know what they said. I am entitled to assume that they saw the programme in question; that they saw the background to it; that they probably had available to them the people who organised the programme and arranged it and all that kind of information. This authority is the independent authority set up under our statute— not appointed by Deputies on this side of the House but nominated, each one of them, by the Government. I do not imagine any kind of an investigation which was more likely, if there was any hint of fraud or deception, to produce a way out both for the Taoiseach and for the Minister for Justice. However, the fact is that the authority issued a statement the following day to the effect that they were satisfied that the programme in question was, in effect, an authentic programme. This was the judgement passed by the RTE Authority—supposed to act independently, supposed to carry out under our Act the statutory duties imposed upon them, and having the obligation, if any programme is questioned or criticised, to investigate the criticism, to investigate the programme—and this they did. Having issued their statement, they consulted with their Minister. Why is he not here in the House tonight? Where is the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs? This is his responsibility.

Mr. L'Estrange

Where are they all?

Dr. O'Connell

And where is the Minister for Justice?

Mr. O'Higgins

Not one of them is here. They are all absent. The authority consulted the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and informed him of their decision. Then we have the usual speculation, the usual Government diddering; everybody wondering whether the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was going to have fisticuffs with the Minister for Justice. Then, when the crunch could not be avoided because the Estimate for the Department of Justice was due the following Tuesday, up gets the Taoiseach again to stop any further debate and to say they were going to have an inquiry. Now, three weeks later, as a matter of urgent public importance, we are going to ask three judges to do what has already been done by the RTE Authority in accordance with their statutory obligation, but to do it on the terms set out in this motion. To inquire into the "planning, preparation, arrangement, production and presentation" of the programme in question: that is easy enough. "The authenticity of the programme and, in particular, the adequacy of the information on which the programme was based and whether or not the statements, comments and implications of the programme as to the number of unlicensed moneylenders operating in the city and county of Dublin and the scope of their operations, and the use of violence, or threats of violence, to secure repayments of moneys illegally lent, amounted to a correct and fair representation of the facts." Who is being put in the dock? Deputy P.J. Burke, may the Lord look kindly on him, asked "Who caused all this bother?" Who did it? The Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice.

Deputies

Hear hear.

Mr. O'Higgins

These are the people who asserted in this House that Irish citizens working on this programme in an Irish television authority had so little regard to their sense of honour and civic duty that they produced a phoney show intended to mislead. These are the people who made the allegations and it is these gentlemen, both of them lawyers—one, the Minister for Justice; I shall not state tonight but I shall do so tomorrow things about the Minister for Justice; the other, the Taoiseach, a member of a profession apparently not liked by the Minister for Justice, but they are both lawyers and here we have them the only two Deputies who made these allegations in this House and they want to set up this tribunal to put the "7 Days" programme team in the dock. In the dock should be the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Higgins

I have little doubt that that is where public opinion will put them as quickly as possible.

We did not want, from these benches to have it suggested that— for fear it might be misunderstood; not in relation to us but in relation to hardworking, decent people who are doing their best outside this House— we did not want it to be suggested that there was any running away from this inquiry, and there will not be. We do not want to seek to alter in that sense the very weighted way in which these terms of reference have been proposed, but we did seek in some small measure to try to correct the balance. It is for that reason that Deputy Cosgrave, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, has sought to add at the end of paragraph 2, after the question whether the comments and implications of the programme amounted to a correct and fair representation of the facts, the words:

and to what extent these statements, comments and implications expressed reasonable journalistic care on the part of those responsible for the programme.

This has been referred to already in this debate. If this amendment is not accepted by the Taoiseach, if it is not accepted by the Fianna Fáil Party, if their attitude is that they will insist on the terms which they have spent two weeks drawing up, if it means they will not allow the tribunal to consider the question of journalistic care and responsibility, then I assert that they are endeavouring to kill and stifle free expression of opinion in this country.

I am surprised the Taoiseach has not indicated already his acceptance of Deputy Cosgrave's amendment. Why does he run away from it? Why does he oppose it? It is merely seeking to add to paragraph 2 words which will at least ensure that there will be given to the "7 Days" programme the kind of licence, the kind of freedom and encouragement which is readily available to each newspaper in this country and throughout the free world. If they will not accept that, then my mind goes back to what the Fianna Fáil Government said three years ago, that "the Government will take such action by way of making representations or otherwise as may be necessary to ensure that RTE does not deviate from the due performance of its duty."

If they reject this amendment, it is perfectly clear that the views of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who I am certain fought, as I know he can fight, for the independence of the authority for which he is responsible to this House, has been brushed aside, and that the Government, replete with power and determined to brook no opposition from inside this House or outside it, will wipe away any possibility of sturdy independence from the television authority.

Our words can only be spoken here. Our votes cannot count against the Fianna Fáil majority, but I should like to give this warning, that if the Government have embarked on that course, they may achieve initial success. They may frighten into submission people who have to provide for a wife and family, who have to look after their jobs, who cannot easily accept a situation in which they will be thrown on the dust heap, but the more people they cow by that kind of intolerance, the more people there will be to replace them. I have little doubt this action will not succeed in preventing the expression by free people of their views or the exercise of their right to criticise any Government no matter of whom it is composed.

Our second amendment—it has been referred to already and I agree it is a significant and an important one— seeks to widen the terms of reference by asking the court merely to express an opinion, among other things, on the basis of the Taoiseach's condemnation of RTE and the same conduct by the Minister for Justice. Why should they not stand up and be counted? Are they afraid to do it? The Minister for Justice has not been seen in this House today, and that is not infrequent indeed. Why is he not here for this debate? Why is he somewhere around instead of in here to stand up for the views he expressed to this House? No, he will even shelter behind the uniform of the Garda Síochána. Why should the tribunal not inquire into the basis for his allegations made here without provocation, without any apparent need. We ask in fairness and in justice that he should be asked to explain to an independent tribunal what foundation he had for the statements he made, protected statements, statements that cannot become grounds for action outside.

Why should not the Taoiseach—I apply no adjectives; there was some reference here to Pontius Pilate— who sought to act in this drama in the House as a pourer of oil on waters already afire, be asked to explain to a tribunal the basis for his comments and statements which imply a closed mind in relation to the authenticity of the programme?

These terms of reference come from a Government and a party that brook very little opposition in Ireland, that take criticism with such a bad grace. They come from a Government that have as their belief that RTE has no right to be independent, no right to act contrary to the view of the Government, no right to give as news anything except what the Government feel should be given as news. This proposal comes from a party that is led by one of the people who made these allegations, that is apparently also controlled to some extent by another member of the Government who made these allegations. We view these proposals as prejudicial to the good interests of the State. We have sought to amend them and we certainly hope to have an opportunity of voting on these amendments. So far as the Labour Party's amendments are concerned, they are preferable to what the Government have proposed and they will certainly have our support.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The hour is late and the basic arguments why these terms of reference should be amended have been put forward from these benches and from the Fine Gael benches in a number of speeches with considerable power and weight, developing the very grave implications which are before us. These arguments have been answered by Members on the Fianna Fáil benches in very sparse and rather eccentric remarks without coming to grips with any of the basic elements in this but taking up repeatedly one particular theme which can be only convincing to anybody on the gallery who has not the necessary papers before him. This theme is that the Labour Party have been inconsistent, first of all, in calling for a public inquiry and then, allegedly, in being against it when it is proposed. It is quite obvious this is false because the Labour Party amendments, instead of going against a public inquiry, called for one with wide terms of reference. It is in fact to widening the terms of reference that the Government object. As several speakers said, the necessity for the public inquiry—and we agree there is a necessity for a public inquiry —arose out of a speech of calculated violence made by a member of this Government and directed against a State-sponsored authority in terms which many experienced Deputies have told us have not been matched in the records of this House. That made a public inquiry necessary but the terms of reference were framed solely by the Government of which the Minister who made these drastic charges is a member. We, on these benches, greatly regret it was not apparently possible for procedural reasons to have any serious, sustained debate on this subject before these terms of reference were sewn together by the Government and presented to this House as a fait accompli considering the voting power behind them.

Our party sought to raise this matter immediately its grave implications became clear. They have been developing the implications in the course of this debate. We sought at a very early stage to raise them by a motion on the Adjournment. That was refused. I am not disputing any of the rulings which arose. It was refused on the grounds that the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Justice was proceeding and we would have a chance of discussing this very important matter at a time when things were still at a relatively fluid stage. I arose on the debate on the Estimate to resume my remarks. I wished to devote some time to this topic but was told that was out of order because by that time the inquiry was under way and this motion would be coming before us. We had no opportunity in advance of this of saying what we Deputies who do not belong to the Government party thought should be the terms of such inquiry. The terms of reference were neatly prepared by the Government and sprung on us. We were told "If you do not like that you are inconsistent and not in favour of the inquiry". That is not how a matter of this important nature and with these grave implications ought to be dealt with. The public, members of all parties, everyone who follows the proceedings here and who watches television, the large audience who saw the original programme and were able to compare it in Dublin with their own experience, and all people whom we represent here would be pleased and relieved if they knew that the terms of reference of this inquiry were not being forced by the Government down the throats of the rest of the Dáil but were taken into consideration with the views of all parties considered and with such amendments as Fine Gael and the Labour Party have tabled here. They would at least consider that the answer should not be "We have decided this. We have the votes and it goes through".

There were very important reasons why this should be so given in several of the statements made by Deputies Dr. Thornley, Dr. FitzGerald and others. These basic considerations and why this affects the nature, quality and continuance of our democracy were put forward. I should like to support those statements. I should like to add the particular reason why we could not have confidence in terms of reference on a matter like this framed by the Government without the admission of any other element and without considering amendments. The reason is that a programme of the kind in question as it is a probing programme is always seeking to uncover abuses. The Government of the day are necessarily put, to a certain extent, under accusation by the discovery of abuses. To that extent the Government of the day are in the dock, particularly if a programme seems to show that there is a widespread illegality or condoning of illegal abuses which are not merely socially evil but criminal. If a programme shows that the people who are charged are the Government it is undesirable that the Government, and only the Government which is essentially a party in this case, should be the body which drafts the terms of reference solely, because they cannot and they would not be human if they did not take their own position into consideration. A member of the Government felt himself so stunned by these charges that he reacted with a violence that many of us were shocked by. That the gentleman who made that speech should be helping to draft the terms of reference of a judicial inquiry seems to us to be a very serious thing. We hope the Taoiseach will take that aspect into consideration. I am not attempting to prejudice the discussion of the facts. I do not say the programme was wrong about the facts or that it was not. The Government have a basic interest and the Minister for Justice has a strong interest in proving them wrong and in putting this programme, and also this type of probing programme, in the dock and putting it "out of court" so far as possible. The Minister for Justice said at column 1859 of the Official Report:

If this criminal activity was in fact going on on the scale suggested, and going on openly at that, there could be no avoiding the conclusion that the Garda Síochána would stand indicted as hopelessly incompetent even after all allowances had been made for the difficulties of detection. I have direct and positive evidence that the programme was seen in that light by members of the Garda Síochána.

If the Garda Síochána would stand indicted as hopelessly incompetent how does the Minister who is responsible for the Garda stand in that? We should not be talking about the Garda Síochána. We should be talking about the responsible Minister. Deputy O'Higgins said the Minister sheltered behind the Garda uniform. That is done systematically and for a set purpose in this debate so that Deputies who are criticising the Government shall appear to be criticising the Garda, which is rightly respected. If the Minister stands indicted, as he does by implication on his own confession because he is the Minister responsible for the Garda Síochána, so necessarily does the Government in which he is a responsible Minister. These gentlemen who stand indicted by this programme and by the confession of one of their own number are abrogating to themselves the right to decide what the terms of reference shall mean.

That is the major question which I shall raise in the hope that the Government, seeing what degree of force they possess and what degree of force people will see them to possess—because we have an intelligent and critical public interested in this matter and I think they will see that point—will be prepared to take another look at the advantages of having terms of references which are agreed with Opposition parties. Naturally, I should like the Government to accept our amendments because we think they cover the whole span of things that need to be inquired into but, failing that, if they will not accept our amendments we hope they will accept the amendment put forward in the name of Deputy Cosgrave because they would bring about a situation in which the commission would start off on a better foot with rather wide agreement on the terms of reference.

There is another matter arising out of the alarming statement, among the many, made by the Minister for Justice and it was "I have direct and positive evidence that the programme was seen in that light as an indictment of the Garda Síochána by members of the Garda Síochána". This we can believe and it is quite consistent with the high view of the force in question that it should be so because any constituted body like the Garda Síochána has an esprit de corps and they are likely to resent charges that widespread illegalities have been going on under their noses, with all that implies. Yet the Garda Síochána like any other force is human and they may have the very human tendency to minimise the fact that abuses have escaped their attention. This is important because this is the body which will be investigating this whole question. The matter is being investigated by people who feel themselves, on the Minister's admission, to stand indicted, who are responsible to a member of the Government who certainly stands indicted as being responsible for the force, and to the Government which also stand indicted. Therefore the outlook for fairness either in the framing of terms or in the investigation is rather poor. I am not suggesting that the Garda Síochána would deliberately distort anything but I think they will necessarily approach this in the spirit “that the so-and-so's in RTE who have made charges against us were wrong” and, therefore, so far as RTE are concerned the heat is on—in fact, it has been on for some time.

One can have inquiries which, while aimed ostensibly and in part in reality at elicting the facts, also set up an atmosphere of intimidation, a chilling atmosphere discouraging of the proper social functions of RTE and of the likelihood of further inquiry and one cannot help feeling that this is an intended consequence. Therefore, if the Government wish to rid themselves of that imputation, which I think most people who are interested in this matter feel, the means are open to them to accept the amendments or some of them at least. I should also like the Government to tell us something about what they envisage the investigative functions of this tribunal will be. Are they to be carried out exclusively by the Garda Síochána?

The Minister referred, and this was one more disquieting aspect of his remarks, to statements made by the same people in two contexts in two different ways. When statements were made on RTE he described them as statements without foundation, unwarranted and so on; they were no good. However, the statements made by the same people to the Garda Síochána were "the facts elicited by the Garda". They were lies on television but facts elicited by the Garda. Here if we are dealing, as the Minister implied, with persons who had criminal records, people on the fringes of the underworld, it is notorious that such people have the strongest of incentives when interrogated by the Garda, who have certain powers over them, to give the answers the Garda expect whether true or not. This raises quite alarming structural problems as regards the nature of the investigation and I hope the Taoiseach in his reply will deal with the anxiety we feel on this.

In conclusion I should like that the conventions which have been attained in this matter are conventions of free inquiry, of a certain spontaneity and initiative in the investigation of social abuses which have been brought out in RTE which was not done in the old Radio Éireann. These are precious to every citizen of this country, not just to a group of Opposition Deputies who are supposed to be developing this for some alleged political dividend, but they are important to all, including Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil might, perhaps, remember that at some future date they may themselves be in Opposition and may need the tradition of integrity in RTE.

Mr. Hogan

There seems to be some differences of opinion between both sides of the House as regards the question of the independence of RTE. It has been advanced that it is an independent, semi-State body, but I think for a considerable time—I cannot say how long—the Government have taken the view that the independence of RTE is limited. In reply to a Parliamentary Question in volume 224, column 1045, of the Official Report of 12 October, 1966, the Taoiseach in reply to Deputy Corish said: 4

Radio Telefís Éireann was set up by legislation as an instrument of public policy and as such is responsible to the Government. The Government have over-all responsibility for its conduct and especially the obligation to ensure that its programmes do not offend against the public interest or conflict with national policy as defined by legislation.

To this extent the Government reject the view that Radio Telefís Éireann should be, either generally or in regard to its current affairs and news programmes, completely independent of Government supervision. As a public institution supported by public funds and operated under Statute, it has the duty, while maintaining impartiality between political parties, to present programmes which inform the public regarding current affairs, to sustain public respect for the institutions of Government and, where appropriate, to assist public understanding of the policies enshrined in legislation enacted by the Oireachtas. The Government will take such action by way of making representations or otherwise as may be necessary to ensure that Radio Telefís Éireann does not deviate from the due performance of this duty.

That reply shows Government thinking. It is a carefully prepared statement and one could not object very strenuously to it but in the inquiry that we are now setting up and against the background on which it is based it would seem that the Government are moving further afield to restrict the relative independence of Radio Telefís Éireann. We are asked to discuss the necessity for the inquiry and, secondly, its term of reference. In looking over the terms of reference I find that some of the personalities who have participated in this matter are not mentioned. I believe that the terms of reference to be adequate in a public inquiry, should embrace every participant—it should be a public inquiry in the fullest sense —in other words, the participants in the "7 Days" programme, the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority, the Garda, the appropriate Government Ministers and any other persons. The fact that it is limited to Radio Telefís Éireann narrows the scope of the inquiry and more or less places Radio Telefís Éireann in the dock.

I do not feel disposed to make a long speech because it is late and most of the ground has been covered already but the whole plan of campaign here, if one may describe it as that, leads one to be somewhat suspicious. A Parliamentary question was put down and the Minister for Justice got a reply based on information from the Garda Síochána. That reply would suggest that there was a complete difference of evidence as between the Garda and the Radio Telefís Éireann personalities. I would think that at that stage, before the Minister read out the reply here, he should have instituted a public inquiry. He should have come to the House and explained that the matter was under investigation and that he preferred not to make any comment at that time until he had it investigated further. If he had taken the House into his confidence in that respect, much of the suspicion which surrounds the situation at the present time would not have arisen.

I do not know why the Minister on receipt of the Garda report, which was sufficiently sweeping, I think, should not order without comment a judicial inquiry embracing both the RTE performance and the Garda reports with a view to establishing the presence or absence of reasonable journalistic care. One could not ask for more than that or less than that. Yet, the Minister did not do that.

There is Widespread suspicion that for a long time the Government are not happy with certain aspects of Radio Telefís Éireann and that certain members, anyway of the opposite benches are restive with the performance at times of Radio Telefís Éireann. Deputy O'Higgins has given instances of pressure being exercised at different times on the Radio Telefís Éireann Authority and there is justification for that suspicion. I suppose it is not unnatural that if Radio Telefís Éireann portrays some defect in our society the Government feel that they have been put in the dock and that they are being criticised. If the representation is hypercritical they feel a sense of grievance. That is a very human thing and I dare say that whatever party would be in power would feel at times tormented by comments not alone from Radio Telefís Éireann but from newspapers. That is one of the penalties of public life.

Against that background, let us examine what happened here. The Minister for Justice came into the House and he read out a carefully planned, prepared, prejudicial statement on a matter which he may have felt and possibly did feel at that time would shortly be sub judice. I believe that that was a planned sequence of events. Where is the Minister for Justice tonight? The matter is sub Judice now. He was here and did his talking while it was safe to talk and while the matter was not sub judice. We are limited in our comment here but the Minister took advantage of the situation and made a broadside attack of a prejudicial nature and possibly had at the back of his mind at that time that this matter would come up at a public inquiry.

Finally, the third matter which arouses suspicion is the subject matter which was chosen. The Minister did not choose a political issue. That would be too obvious. He chose a non-political subject as a test case. The background, a certain restive attitude on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party with Radio Telefís Éireann, the planned sequence of events and the choice of a relatively neutral subject on which to base a test case would arouse in anyone's mind a reasonable suspicion that this is an organised planned attack to limit the freedom of one of the most important public media that we have in this country. I, therefore, feel that this has been deliberately planned to put Radio Telefís Éireann in the dock.

Deputy Thornley has stated here that nobody can win. Certainly, RTE cannot win. The Government think that they cannot lose. I believe that even if RTE are exonerated they are under notice or will have to regard themselves as under notice that if they exercise any under liberty in the future they will be on the mat again. I believe that in this matter a serious attack is being made upon our fundamental liberties. Somebody said here —I think it was Deputy Thornley again—that journalistic freedom was on trial. Somebody else said there was a major onslaught being made on journalistic freedom. I would prefer to describe it as democracy being on trial. I believe that the terms of reference on which this inquiry will be set up, the help that we have endeavoured to give the Taoiseach here and the degree of preparedness with which he will meet our representations here will determine to a certain extent how the public will ultimately regard this inquiry. I, personally, regard the matter with suspicion. We had a Minister for Justice coming in here and before the matter was put before the court he made a carefully planned but fairly aggressive statement. The Taoiseach followed on and described the whole performance of RTE as phoney. I do not know how much the Taoiseach had examined it or whether he was merely led on by his Minister for Justice but the whole matter seems to me to be highly suspicious. I repeat what I said in the beginning that I believe the Minister for Justice, when he found such a conflict of evidence between Radio Telefís Éireann and his Garda force should have thrown it open to the House without using the privileges of the House to make an attack on one party as against another. He should have taken the House into his confidence and said that he was prepared to recommend to the Government that an inquiry be held which, of course, he is now belatedly doing.

Mr. Clinton

This incident could, in fact, turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the people who work in RTE. At the end of this inquiry they will know better where they stand and they will have a clearer indication of the measure of freedom which they can exercise in preparing programmes.

I have listened to most of the speeches during the debate and it is obviously clear on all sides of the House that the right way to deal with this situation is to hold an inquiry. One speaker this evening criticised the Taoiseach rather severely for first of all saying that no inquiry was necessary and then for having changed his mind and deciding to have an inquiry.

The Taoiseach

I never decided that no inquiry was necessary. I never expressed myself in that way.

Mr. Clinton

That was more or less the accusation that was levelled at the Taoiseach. I cannot be absolutely certain of what the Taoiseach said but as a colleague of mine in County Dublin is known to say frequently "Perhaps he changed his mind under greater enlightenment".

The Taoiseach

Is the Deputy still persisting that I said no inquiry was necessary?

Mr. Clinton

Apparently, the Taoiseach gave that impression.

The Taoiseach

The words I used were "That will be another day's work".

Mr. Clinton

The Taoiseach can deal with that when he is replying.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy should not make statements that he has no ground for making.

Mr. Clinton

I am making statements that were made earlier and which were not contradicted.

The Taoiseach

I had to go to my office to do some work. I could not be here all the time.

Mr. Clinton

In the course of the arguments that ensued arising out of Question Time and then under pressure it was decided to have an inquiry. The Taoiseach was right in doing this because when there was widespread desire that such an inquiry should be held it was proper that the Taoiseach should accede to public opinion to that extent and it seems that we are now on the right road.

However, the terms of reference are too narrowly drawn and the judges who will conduct the inquiry will obviously be hampered in their efforts to establish truth and justice in the whole matter. This is what everybody in the House is objecting to. Everybody accepts that the right way to go about this and to endeavour to find a solution is to have an inquiry but everybody wishes that it be a full inquiry and an unrestricted inquiry but the terms of reference are obviously too restricted to allow this In the amendment put down in the name of the leader of this party, we are trying to ensure that no holds will be barred and if the Taoiseach accepts this amendment all relevant matters can be dealt with.

I submit to the Taoiseach that he can be accused of insincerity in this whole matter unless he opens this inquiry so that all angles can be explored and unless he allows a full investigation. He has heard the views of all those who spoke this evening and he is aware that everybody complains that the terms of reference are so narrow that this serious matter cannot be properly investigated.

It is a very serious situation when a Minister of State can come into the House as the Minister for Justice did at Question Time and attack the members of the "7 Days" programme, attack people who could not possibly be here to defend themselves. That sort of situation is one that has always been deplored in this House. It is the Minister who is in the dock and not the people of RTE. He is the person who should be called upon to prove his accusations but the terms of reference are so framed that they put the RTE people in the dock.

I was present at Question Time when this matter was raised and the impression that the Minister conveyed to me was that the staff of the "7 Days" programme or their agents went out and secured people who were prepared to say anything for which they would be paid and that what they said was said for the purpose of creating and setting up a sensational programme I would be very slow to accept that such was the case but if that is so the people responsible should be pursued and made answer for it. However, I would not accept that because I have been through the mill with some of these RTE people and I know that when one makes a statement he is made to prove it immediately.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would remind the Deputy that he is getting away from the motion before the House and that he must not in any way prejudge the issues that will go before the tribunal that is being set up.

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy is conducting a trial.

Mr. Clinton

I hope that a proper trial will be conducted and, like the other people who spoke here this evening, I am only trying to ensure that there will be proper scope for inquiry.

Mr. Cunningham

Maybe the Deputy will give us the verdict when he has gone so far.

Mr. Clinton

I would not attempt to do so because too many people will give verdicts both inside and outside the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of verdicts should be left until such time as the House has disposed of the motion.

Mr. Clinton

There is no question of anybody attempting to give a verdict. I am appealing to the Taoiseach to accept the amendments put forward tonight solely to enable the members of the judiciary to have a full inquiry with no holds barred and to ensure that the truth is established in this whole matter because, as somebody else said, it is not only freedom of speech that it is at stake but democracy itself because if freedom of speech and expression go, then all is gone. That is why it is so essential that the Taoiseach should accept the amendments.

Mr. Tully

Before the Taoiseach rises to conclude, I should like to make a couple of points which seem to have been more or less covered over by the debate this evening. First of all, the matter which was the subject of the "7 Days" discussion might never have been the subject of an inquiry but for the action of the Minister for Justice. If he had come here and simply answered the question that he was asked instead of his long tirade against the "7 Days" team, nobody would have bothered forcing the issue. Secondly, when the Minister made his attack here he did so in such a way as to suggest that the people who took part in the programme were acting a part and were not telling the truth. The Taoiseach was inclined to agree that such was the case—he may correct me if I am wrong—that these people were portraying something and that there would have been no objection if they had said before the programme. "This is what is likely to happen" but instead they said it was the truth. We believe what was shown on that programme was the truth. The issue in my opinion is whether or not it was.

It now appears that the inquiry will not be an inquiry into whether or not there is illegal moneylending in this city but whether or not the people concerned in the programme were telling lies, were brought in to say something or were telling the truth. It is scandalous that the time of the House should be taken up for four or five hours if, in fact, the object of the inquiry is to pillory the team of the "7 Days" programme.

In fact, a very important issue was involved here, more important than that referred to by some speakers who said that democracy was at stake. The important thing is whether or not the illegal moneylenders will be able to say in this city, as they have been able to say in the last couple of weeks: "It does not matter a damn what we do the Department of Justice feel we cannot be caught". That is the issue which must be nailed in the inquiry.

Mr. Cott

In my view the tribunal may serve only one purpose—possibly to indict the RTE team associated with the "7 Days" feature on unlicensed moneylenders and their activities. It is not the social evil of unlicensed moneylending at exorbitant rates of interest to the most deprived section of our community that is being investigated but merely the alleged facts as presented in the RTE feature. No cognisance whatsoever is being taken of journalistic licence. I honestly believe that the "7 Days" team had sufficient evidence in regard to unlicensed moneylending.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again, the Chair must point out that we may not in this debate in any way prejudice what may be the subject of the inquiry.

Mr. Cott

I agree but I personally believe there is plenty of scope for a full Government inquiry into unlicensed moneylending in this country which affects the most deprived section of our community. If the Government are sincere in their concern for truth and justice they should accept our amendments and initiate a full inquiry into all aspects of the case: otherwise, the initiative of the journalists will be impaired and all those with an acute social conscience will be stultified because no one will dare expose or try to expose the social evils in our society. Freedom of the press will also be curtailed and here, I think, irreparable damage will have been done.

The Taoiseach should have no fear of what a full scale inquiry might, in fact, reveal. Indeed, he should welcome it. If the Taoiseach is to live up to his reputation as an honest, sincere man, then he should accept the amendments which Fine Gael have proposed and in doing so he will in all probability help those in our midst who cannot help themselves, help those who without doubt whatsoever are being exploited by unlicensed moneylenders.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again the Deputy is going beyond the terms of reference.

The Taoiseach

We ought to try to get back to realities and to avoid the kind of hysteria that some Deputies tried to inject into this debate. I am certainly not going to follow any of the Deputies who introduced invective into the debate. The second speaker, in particular, tried to do that. He tried to suggest that the tribunal would not be impartial and attacked my capacity. My capacity as Taoiseach, as a Member of the House or in any other way I act, is not in question on this occasion. Neither is my leadership which apparently was attacked by Deputy O'Leary. My leadership is certainly not as much in question as the leadership on the opposite side of the House. Again, that is not a matter for debate here tonight.

I want to bring the House back to the realities of the situation and to assert it was not we who sought this inquiry in the first instance. It was not the Fianna Fáil Party, it was not the Fianna Fáil Government. Initially it was a suggestion made by Deputy Cosgrave and one finds it difficult to assess from what has been said on the other side whether they want an inquiry or not. Deputy Desmond seemed to suggest that the inquiry was not necessary or at least if it was necessary that it should be directed in a different way. I will deal with that aspect in a short time.

I want to get back first to the initiation of this whole matter. It was as a result of a question put down by Deputy Corish. It was referred to in general terms on a number of occasions but I should like to read it again for the Members of the House:

Mr. Corish asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of the disturbing evidence disclosed by the television programme, "7 Days", of unfettered unlicensed moneylending in Dublin city and of the strong arm methods used by some of the illegal moneylenders to recover their money; and what measures the Government propose to take to ensure that the under-privileged and others who use these illegal services are protected, that these moneylenders are brought to justice along with those whom they use to injure and intimidate people and that every possible protection will be afforded to those who seek to expose these people.

That is from column 1263, volume 242 of the Official Report. I want to emphasise the words used by Deputy Corish in this question: "To ensure that these moneylenders are brought to justice along with those whom they use to injure and intimidate people...". The obvious thing for a Minister to do in a situation like that, whether the question was asked or not, if he was aware of the programme—I believe he was immediately aware of the programme and its content—was to ask the Garda Síochána to inquire whether or not the projection of the extent of moneylending in Dublin was true or not. The Garda Síochána, believing it was not nearly as extensive as was suggested in the programme, sought the only immediate evidence available to them and they interviewed high-up people in Radio Telefís Éireann, asked them for what evidence they had to produce, and the officers of Radio Telefís Éireann refused to give them any evidence. They were entitled to so refuse.

The Garda Síochána sought immediately what evidence was available to justify the programme that was presented. They, having been refused that evidence, pursued their own inquiries, and apparently in their own way were able to identify all the people who were engaged in this programme, all the people who made statements. They asked those people to justify what they said on the programme and I think almost without exception each one of them said that what he had said on the programme was false.

Dr. FitzGerald

With respect, on a point of order, we on this side of the House were most careful not to enter into the merits of the case.

Deputies

Sit down.

Dr. FitzGerald

I submit the Taoiseach is now, when he says the Garda Síochána made these inquiries, entering into the merits of the case.

Mr. Geoghegan

Sit down.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Taoiseach is in possession.

The Taoiseach

I did not interrupt anybody no matter what he said. The Deputy will not muzzle me nor will he cross examine me. I have said what the Garda did in reply to Deputy Corish's question and what the Garda did and said are already on public record. I am not prejudging in any way and I am not saying anything that the House is not aware of.

The Minister for Justice did not immediately denounce this programme. He waited a reasonable time. He waited until the Garda made their investigation and the Garda having produced statements, he then made his statement in this House which has been so criticised. I shall not go into the merits or demerits of that statement but the fact is that following on that statement a second question was asked in the House on the following week and what I said has been brought into question. Deputy Tully more or less repeated what I said a while ago that if some intimation had been given in advance of this programme that what was said was fictitious, then the people would know where they stood in relation to the programme. Again, I am not prejudging it, I am only justifying my intervention. I might add that I was asked during the course of the cross-fire on that occasion by Deputy L'Estrange if I had anything to say. I said it there and then and I said what I believed to be the case. If what I believe to be the case is found by the tribunal not to be the correct one, then, of course, I will be satisfied with their findings and I will not in any way accuse RTE or their staffs of misrepresenting facts or misrepresenting the situation as being other than it is. This will be a matter entirely for the tribunal.

Secondly, Sir, I want to say that there is no attempt whatever to subvert freedom of speech, as has been alleged. On the contrary, the issue is well knit here to decide whether or not what Radio Telefís Éireann said or what the Garda said about this was the truth.

Following the second question in the Dáil, Radio Telefís Éireann issued a statement to this effect:

The authority told the Minister...

that is the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs

that the content of the programme was authentic...

These are not my words. These are RTE's words.

....and that the people shown in it as moneylenders or borrowers were not fictitious. The authority maintain the view that the programme did not present a distorted or exaggerated picture of the social problem of illegal moneylending in Dublin.

It was at that stage that the Government decided that a public inquiry was necessary because we had the statement of the Garda Síochána as supplied by the Minister for Justice and as he mentioned them here denying that the programme was authentic and we had the statement from RTE asserting the authenticity of the programme. I saw an immediate conflict of evidence between two responsible bodies in our society—the Garda Síochána and RTE. That could only be resolved in the manner that we now propose, that is the establishment of a public inquiry.

The terms of reference were drawn up and are now before the House. I should like to suggest that if the terms of reference stopped after the first three lines of the second paragraph which read to inquire into:

The authenticity of the programme and in particular the adequacy of the information on which the programme was based....

I would accept that there would be some good reason for the Opposition to suggest that the terms of reference would not be wide enough and if at that stage an amendment was proposed to widen the terms of reference to this extent, I believe it would have been acceptable but because we went this far and widened the terms of reference sufficiently to include a very comprehensive review of the situation. I believe it is only because we went that far that the Opposition have put down these other amendments in order to widen it still further.

Let me deal with the Labour amendment in the first instance. They start by asking for an inquiry into the extent and prevalence of illegal moneylending in the State, the number of illegal moneylenders, the annual amount of money loaned, the total interest charged by them, the manner in which loans are secured and so on. I suggest that that is a kind of inquiry that would be proper to a commission and not to a tribunal of inquiry as provided for in the 1921 Act under which we are proceeding.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Will the Taoiseach set up a commission?

The Taoiseach

That would be another day's work. The important thing here is to ensure that the extent of this social evil, as it has been described, will be identified, will be pursued, and the Garda can come to grips with those responsible for the evil.

A tribunal as such evaluates evidence and evaluates evidence with a view to a conclusive finding of facts and inquiries are always related to a net topic or net topics. I suggest that the type of subject proposed in the first paragraph of the Labour Party's amendment is so wide as to render such an inquiry by a tribunal completely ineffectual. It is, as I suggested, proper to a commission.

The second part of the Labour Party's amendment speaks of the validity of the "7 Days" programme in relation to the extent of illegal moneylending in Dublin. I think that is already well covered in the terms of reference. The authenticity of the statements made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice will also be well covered in the course of the inquiry. The Minister for Justice based his statement to the House on the evidence made available to him by the Garda Síochána, and that evidence will also be made available to the tribunal. It will be a matter for the tribunal to evaluate that evidence and make their findings.

There has been a certain conflict in the approach of the parties opposite. Some Deputies thought the terms of reference are too limited and others seemed to suggest that they are wide enough. Deputy Dr. FitzGerald mentioned the possibility of a wide-ranging investigation into moneylending. I am satisfied that the terms of reference proposed are wide enough to ensure that there will be such a wide-ranging investigation into this practice; certainly there will be an investigation to establish whether the manner in which the programme portrayed this as going on in Dublin is accurate or whether the Garda statement or the Garda evidence is correct.

The second part of the Fine Gael amendment seeks to include any other matters relevant to the foregoing but not specifically mentioned. I think this would so widen the investigation that we would never see the end of it. I suggest that in any investigation by a tribunal of this nature the issues must be reasonably well knit—I think they are reasonably well knit—yet, nevertheless, wide enough to examine the scope of this practice in Dublin city and county, where it was alleged by the programme to exist.

The other amendment proposed by Fine Gael is to the effect that the extent of the statements, comments and implications made expressed reasonable journalistic care on the part of those responsible. Again, I think the terms of reference as proposed are wide enough to cover this aspect of the matter too.

Dr. FitzGerald

Which part of them would cover that?

The Taoiseach

I think they are wide enough generally. This is not, as Deputy Dr. FitzGerald tried to suggest, an inquiry which will come down with a verdict of guilty or not guilty as in the case of a criminal trial. The tribunal will be free to express themselves on a wide range of subjects covering many topics in the course of their findings. There will be no decision of guilty or not guilty. However, if there is any doubt about it, I am prepared to accept the import of Deputy Cosgrave's amendment in this respect. I would point out that I am not doing so under any pressure at all. I am doing it only because I think it is already provided for in the terms of reference. But, in order to maintain uniformity in the wording of the terms of reference proper, there would have to be slight amendments to it in respect of the words "to what extent". I propose that the words "whether or not" be substituted. Instead of the word "expressed" I would suggest that the word "reflected" be substituted. If that is acceptable to the party opposite, I am quite willing to incorporate that amendment in the terms of the resolution as proposed.

Mr. Desmond

What about insurance policies?

The Taoiseach

If Deputy Desmond wants to draw my fire he can have it. Deputy Desmond has tried to cast aspersions on the impartiality of the tribunal. The Deputy is trying to have it both ways. He is obviously trying to justify his allegation that because the Government appoint judges they must conform to the Government's point of view. I have tried to suggest to the Deputy in the course of his totally irrelevant and uncalled-for remarks that judges so appointed by the Government sit in judgement in matters in which the Government are directly involved week in week out and in more cases than not they come down against the Government in their decisions.

Mr. Desmond

How can they when you have prejudged them already?

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach

Deputy Corish said that he had no doubt but that the findings of the tribunal would bear out the authenticity of this programme. Deputy Desmond is trying to talk about an insurance policy. He is trying to get the insurance policy by trying to reflect on the integrity of the tribunal. It is not yet known what the constitution of the tribunal will be. I have to seek the permission of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and, if possible, the President of the Circuit Court in order to get their consent to appoint judges from these courts. I do not know at this stage who the judges will be. I have made some inquiries and I know who the judges will not be, for one reason or another. However, I shall pursue inquiries and I hope before the end of the week to announce the names of the three judges who will sit on the inquiry.

Deputy Cosgrave, I think it was, asked me what the role of the Attorney General and other counsel will be and how they would be appointed. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien put the same question. In the first place, the Attorney General will represent the people. He will appoint counsel to act on his behalf and he will be more a catalyst in these proceedings than either prosecutor or defendant. In the first instance he will seek from the RTE Authority the evidence they propose to give to the tribunal and the same with the Garda Síochána. He will make that evidence available to both sides and to all parties who have legitimate interests. The Garda will also be represented by counsel and they will be nominated by the Attorney General. As far as RTE are concerned they will appoint their own counsel and in the nature of these things it is likely that counsels' fees will be paid by the State. If there are any other legitimate interests which the tribunal think are entitled to be represented then they, too, will be represented in whatever way they think proper, but most likely by counsel.

Mr. Corish

Will all expenses be State expenses?

The Taoiseach

As usual it depends, I suppose, on the legitimate interests represented. The RTE Authority will be represented by counsel, and as I said I think, in the nature of these things, the State will bear the cost.

Mr. Corish

It would not come out of RTE funds?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Surely this is prejudging what the tribunal are going to decide?

The Taoiseach

I should like to know from the Deputy what I am prejudging?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Taoiseach has said that he thinks the tribunal will allow all parties their costs. Surely that is prejudging what the tribunal are going to decide?

The Taoiseach

I thought the Deputy had something to say. I am trying to explain, in reply to a question by Deputy Corish, that I think it is in the nature of these things that the State will bear the expense of a party to these proceedings: in this case, RTE.

Mr. Sweetman

Did previous tribunals allow everybody their costs?

The Taoiseach

I do not know, but I am sure there is a precedent for it. I am not going to say any more. I do not want to be accused of prejudging anything. I put the case very simply when I proposed this resolution and I have answered what I think were the pertinent points made. I can only say again that there is no intention on the part of this Government to restrain or subvert the freedom of speech in any way. This inquiry was sought by the people opposite, in the first instance. It was brought to a head by the RTE statement which categorically denied the statements which were procured by the Garda and made available to the Minister for Justice. It was on that issue we felt an inquiry was necessary. I believe the terms of reference are broad enough to examine the scope of illegal moneylending in this area. I believe—and I do not have to say this—that the tribunal will be as impartial and as objective as our judiciary always are in these and other matters.

Dr. O'Connell

Will it be in public?

The Taoiseach

As I said in presenting the motion, it would be a matter for the tribunal to decide whether or not any part of it should be held in public but I have already said I do not think that will be necessary.

Mr. Desmond

Will the inquiry be set up under the 1921 Act? I am conscious that journalists may not wish to present evidence under that Act, because this is the first time we have referred to that Act tonight.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy makes assertions which he either knows to be untrue or else he makes them merely for the sake of making them. The Deputy has said that I mentioned the 1921 Act for the first time in my closing speech, whereas the fact is that I specifically mentioned it in my opening speech.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

Mr. Desmond

Sir, I understand the Taoiseach made a suggestion in relation to Deputy Cosgrave's amendment: if you put that question, can you still make the other amendment?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, we can. I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 53.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Blaney, Neil.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard C.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Foley, Desmond.
• Forde, Paddy.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lenehan, Joseph.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lenihan, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Thomas.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Moran, Michael.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Des.
• Power, Patrick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Burke, Liam.
• Burke, Richard.
• Bruton, Philip.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Collins, Edward.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cott, Gerard.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom(Cavan).
• Fox, Billy.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Henry.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Connell, John F.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Taylor Francis.
• Thornley, David.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Malley and Meaney; Níl: Deputies Tully and R. Burke.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand that it is proposed to accept the amendment a.1. in the name of Deputy Cosgrave amended to read as follows:

In paragraph 2, to add at the end of the paragraph "and whether or not these statements, comments and implications reflected reasonable journalistic care on the part of those responsible for the programme."

Mr. Cosgrave

I move the altered amendment a.1. to read as follows:

In paragraph 2, to add at the end of the paragraph "and whether or not these statements, comments and implications reflected reasonable journalistic care on the part of those responsible for the programme."

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 1:

To add to the motion the following paragraph:

"5. Any other matters relevant to the foregoing and not specifically mentioned."

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 65.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Burke, Liam.
• Burke, Richard.
• Burton, Philip.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Collins, Edward.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cott, Gerard.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Fox, Billy.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Henry.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Connell, John F.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Taylor Francis.
• Thornley, David.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Blaney, Neil.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard C.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lenehan, Joseph.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lenihan, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Thomas.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Foley, Desmond.
• Forde, Paddy.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Moore, Seán.
• Moran, Michael.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Des.
• Power, Patrick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies R. Burke and H. Byrne; Níl: Deputies O'Malley and Meaney.

Question declared lost.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 1.10 a.m. until 2 p.m. this afternoon.