I move the following motion which appears on the Order Paper in my name:—
That, in the opinion of this House, the manner in which the powers of Press Censorship in domestic matters are exercised is unreasonable.
In rising to move this motion, I claim to be making a proper use of Parliamentary methods. When, during the passage of a measure through Parliament, the Government has been criticised on the grounds that it is taking arbitrary and wide powers, frequently the reply has been that the citizen has the protection of Parliament, and that at any time the citizen considers those powers are being abused the matter can be raised in Parliament. I am acting on that principle to-day. Nobody will deny that in times like these the Government, even in countries not at war—probably even more so in neutral countries — must have exceptional powers, but those exceptional powers imply a corresponding obligation: the obligation to exercise them with due regard to the liberty and rights of the citizen, and to temper them with moderation.
Now, with regard to the motion itself, I realise fully my responsibility in moving it. It was originally my intention to put it down in an unrestricted form. The Minister, quite properly, and, I need scarcely say, without any suggestion of pressure, pointed out to me the dangers that might follow from an unrestricted debate, and, anxious not to embarrass the Government in these times, I agreed to confine the matter to domestic issues, but it remains to be seen in the future whether that will be sufficient. I am not making a threat at all, but I do say to the Minister that feeling in the country at present at the way censorship is being exercised is such that not necessarily myself but others may be forced on another occasion to widen the scope of the debate, unless some amelioration in the conditions which now apply follows. It is undoubtedly somewhat difficult to draw a hard-and-fast dividing line between domestic and external issues. I shall do my best to keep—and the Chair no doubt will see that I keep—within the terms of the motion, but I regard domestic issues as matters which have no direct bearing on external policy or the policy of neutrality, although it is impossible to conceive a domestic issue which has not conceivably some direct bearing.
The whole justification for this motion lies in supporting facts, and I might tell the House that never before in the whole of my Parliamentary experience have I had such a volume of spontaneous correspondence from people who have been affected by the restrictions now imposed by the censorship and, although I cannot give the names, I can assure the Minister that although some of the people who have approached me have not always signed their communications to me, I know them, at the same time, to be authoritative and I have satisfied myself that the cases brought to my notice are genuine. When I say: "not signed," I wish the House to understand that not only in connection with this matter but in connection with other matters too, there is great difficulty in getting at grievances, the position being that no person wants to get into the black books of the Government. The Government have such power now not only in respect of censorship but in respect of industry generally, and it is so frequently necessary to go to the Government for concessions and so much in the power of the Government to penalise an individual by withholding a concession, that it is only natural that people suffering grievances should frequently prefer to remain silent.
The first case I have is the use of the censor's powers to prevent any references to the poisoning of fish in the River Blackwater by the effluents of the Mallow factory. I have a letter herewith which I shall read, which was sent to a reputable paper and I may mention, as a preliminary, that, when this poisoning took place, certain representations were made to the Government and, as the outcome— this is not really material but it shows the background—those who were suffering and aggrieved by this poisoning were told to exercise patience, and this letter was sent from one of the conservators following that. The letter says:
"I feel your article of October 10th cannot be allowed to pass without comment. For years I have been one of those who have complained of the deadly effect upon fish life from the effluents of factories but it took the abnormally low conditions of the River Blackwater this season to show its absolutely disastrous results. Since the factory started work last week, the fishery inspector collected 75 dead salmon, mostly hen fish and over 5,000 trout in a few hours' time and on a stretch of the river reaching 12 miles below the factory. Numbers of salmon trout and eels have been seen dead that could not be reached. While fully realising the benefit of the sugar beet factory industry to the country, it should also be remembered what the value of the river means not only to all those men in the tidal waters whose livelihood depends on the river's productiveness, the amount of money spent by fishing visitors which the river used to attract, also the unfair position of fishery owners who are obliged to pay rates for the protection of fish, the angling clubs who are doing so much to improve the river by preservation and restocking. Having exercised to the utmost ‘patience'—
I understand that that is what the Department of Fisheries advocated.
—as advocated in your article, I am confident the time has come to apply the only remedy, namely, that immediate steps should be taken to erect the most modern filtration tanks."
On that, the editor of the paper says:
With reference to your letter, we regret we cannot publish the matter you refer to, as the censor has shut down all statements concerning this, except what is supplied by himself.
Nobody, I think, will deny that that is a domestic issue, and that alone, I think, should be sufficient to create very considerable alarm and apprehension.
The next matter to which I wish to refer is the question of agricultural statistics. Certain agricultural statistics were published in, I think, all— certainly in one—of the leading papers in the country. When it came to the censor's passing a letter for publication abroad containing these very statistics, that item of information was stopped. That, again, I submit, is domestic, and I cannot see any conceivable reason, direct or indirect, for that action on the part of the censor. Then, I have a case with regard to photographs, because not only printed matter but photographs are subject to censorship. I have before me a photograph of a certain well-known building in a city in this country. On the facade of that building is an historical emblem representing the old days of cruel ascendancy, if you like. In front of that building is taking place a monster rally in favour of recruiting for the Local Security Force. When that photograph was submitted to the censor, it came back with the instruction that the emblem of the ascendancy was to be taken out. The only way in which that could be done was by scraping the plate. The plate had to be scraped, and the House can imagine that the photograph was not as good as it might have been.
I have also a photograph of a certain individual, an Irishman who distinguished himself outside this country. No mention whatever was made of the distinction, but merely the fact that he had distinguished himself was sufficient to forbid publication of that photograph. I am informed on the very best authority that there is great difficulty in getting publication for the deeds, or even the deaths, of those who die outside this country.