asked the Taoiseach the number of times within the past two and a half years he has got complaints in writing containing allegations against members of the present Government; if he will give details of each such complaint; and what action he has taken or proposes to take in relation to each such complaint.

I have received letters from time to time complaining about decisions made by members of the Government and by State agencies. They come mainly from persons who are disappointed or who disagree with these decisions and I do not propose to detail the complaints.

Is the Taoiseach not aware that I have knowledge of complaints that have been received regarding a member of the present Government? Further, did not the Taoiseach receive a letter early in 1970 from a Mr. Christopher Tierney, of Rockbrae, Glenmore Avenue, Roxborough Road, Limerick, alleging that he had paid Deputy Desmond O'Malley, now Minister for Justice, the sum of £50 for the purpose of obtaining a sub-postmastership? Is the Taoiseach aware that this man and his wife are prepared to give evidence to this effect? Further, what action did the Taoiseach take regarding the allegation and what reply did he give Mr. Tierney concerning the alleged bribe?

In January of 1970 I received a letter from a Mr. Tierney complaining that he had not been appointed to a sub-postmastership in the Limerick area. I made inquiries at the time and I was told that the same Mr. Tierney submitted a subscription of £50 to the Fianna Fáil Party in the by-election of 1968. He was told by the candidate, now the Minister for Justice, that this would neither help nor hinder his application for a sub-postmastership.

Tell us about the subscription to the Little Willie Fund.

I inquired also of the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs about the appointment and I was told that Mr. Tierney was one of the applicants but that the person who was placed first on the list of applicants most suitable for the appointment by the departmental selection committee was another person and not Mr. Tierney and that that other person was appointed.

Was his cheque bigger?

There is a lot more information that I could give the Deputy but I am sure he will ask more questions. I shall wait until he does so.

It is not true that in his reply of the 4th February, 1970 and in a further reply of the 12th February, 1970, the Taoiseach ignored completely the allegation that was made in Mr. Tierney's letter and also ignored his offer to give evidence to a committee of inquiry? The Taoiseach will find that Mr. Tierney's interest in this sub-postmastership was acknowledged although the post had been filled two months previously. Is it not true also that the Minister for Justice had asked for a sum of £300, one year's salary, and, further, that the Minister did not reply to this allegation?

Liar.

The Deputy is going too far now in importing a complete falsehood.

Keep cool.

Keep cool yourself. The Deputy might have grounds for an allegation of this as a scandal if, in consideration of the £50 paid, the person was appointed to the sub-post office but that person was not appointed. This person alleged also in his letter that he had built a premises specifically in anticipation of being appointed to the sub-post office——

On the promise made.

On the alleged promise made. The erection of these premises commenced long before the by-election of May, 1968. So far as I know, they were completed by May, 1968. Therefore any alleged promise given by the Minister for Justice, then the candidate, in consideration of an appointment to the sub-post office, falls on the facts of the case as they are. Also, I understand that the premises are now let very profitably as a radio-TV rental premises.

Is the Taoiseach aware that Mr. Tierney has signed a statement to the effect that when he approached Deputy O'Malley, now Minister for Justice about this sub-postmastership in May of 1968,——

Shame.

——Deputy O'Malley said that whoever would get it would give a subscription involving one year's salary which would be £300?

I am satisfied that that is completely untrue and is a fabrication brought in by these two Deputies opposite under the protection of the House.

I am calling Question No. 4.

When this is going on in relation to sub-post offices, what must be going on in relation to lands?

Is the Taoiseach aware that a cheque for £50 was made out by Mrs. Mary Tierney, wife of Mr. Christopher Tierney to Mr. Desmond O'Malley and that this cheque dated the 18th May was cashed immediately afterwards? Can the Taoiseach say if this cheque was lodged to the account of the Fianna Fáil Party?

I am satisfied that this was an election subscription. On the face of it it says that. The by-election took place, as the Deputy knows, on the 22nd May and the cheque was paid on the 18th May and used, to good effect, to elect Deputy O'Malley to the Dáil. All political parties receive subscriptions from people all over the country at by-elections and at election time. It is not a bit unusual but this cheque was submitted by Mr. Tierney as a party supporter and he was told at the time he gave the cheque that it was not going to affect his right to the post office and the events bore it out; he was not appointed because he was not selected by the selection committee.

He did not pay enough.

Further to the Taoiseach's reply, or lack of reply, because he has not answered my question, may I ask him another question? Is he aware that on 7th May Mr. Christopher Tierney wrote to the Minister for Justice immediately following his appointment to that post and asked him to return the £50 which he alleged he gave in return for a promise about the sub-postmastership at Janesboro'?

I do not deny that Mr. Tierney wrote a lot of letters. He wrote a lot of letters to a lot of Fine Gael Deputies, obviously, but I say that the £50 subscription was made as a subscription to the by-election fund and was used for that purpose and for no other purpose. The £50 subscription, therefore, having been used for that purpose was not given in consideration of receiving a post office. If it was, Mr. Tierney was disappointed but the fact that he did not receive it indicates that it was not given for that purpose and would not have been accepted for that purpose.

Deputy Coughlan rose.

Deputy Coughlan.

Could I ask the Taoiseach whether he is aware of the terms of the letter written by Deputy O'Malley to Mr. Tierney following the payment of £50 and if so if he will give the House the terms of that letter?

Arising out of the Taoiseach's reply, are we going to be subject in this House to this kind of thing? Is there anybody over there who has never received a subscription during an election campaign? Have you no policy only blackmail? That is all you are fit for — blackmail.

It is common practice in every election.

Arising further out of the Taoiseach's reply——

Could I ask the Taoiseach——

I am on my feet. Arising further out of the Taoiseach's reply, you would imagine that these gentlemen over there never got a subscription in their lives from anybody. I should like to welcome Deputy Coughlan back.

Thank you.

Question No. 4.

Could I ask the Taoiseach whether if the documents in this case, including Deputy O'Malley's letter, are submitted he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding it, in view of the conflict between the signed statement of Mr. Tierney and the statement the Taoiseach has made in the House?

I do not see any necessity for an inquiry. I inquired of the Minister. The Minister told me that the subscription was made as an election subscription, that he was told at the time that it would neither enhance nor impede his application. I wrote to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who told me at the time that the person who was selected at the top of the list and who was not Mr. Tierney was appointed by him. This, apparently, has been travelled now by Mr. Tierney for a long time, hoping to make a scandal of it. The three Independent newspapers, the three Deputies opposite, apparently, have documents. If they have documents let me see them.

If what the Taoiseach is telling us today is the correct version of this, why did he not state that in his reply to Mr. Tierney on 4th February, 1970, or 12th February and if what Deputy Des O'Malley is supposed to have told the Taoiseach is true, why, when this man wrote to Deputy O'Malley, stating that he wanted justice done now that he was the Minister for Justice and demanded back his £50 which he got from him by purporting that he would get him the post office, did Deputy O'Malley ignore that letter and refuse to reply?

Order.

Further, why did Deputy O'Malley commit himself in that letter he wrote to Mr. Tierney, when he coupled the money and his promise to get the post office for him? Why will you not hold a judicial inquiry into this whole rotten and corrupt affair?

Order.

The basis of Mr. Tierney's case was that he provided himself with premises specially suitable for a post office on foot of a promise which he got from Deputy O'Malley. In fact, the only contact which he had with Deputy Des O'Malley was before he ever became a Deputy and I understand, and it is not refuted and cannot be refuted, that he commenced building these premises, allegedly built in consideration of that promise, months before he ever approached Deputy O'Malley and probably had them completed.

The question I have asked is——

Order.

The question I have asked is why you did not state these things in reply on 4th February and why Deputy O'Malley——

Will the Deputy please resume his seat? The Deputy may not put any further supplementaries.

I want to know——

Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

I want to ask whether——

Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

I want to ask whether, if we submit the documents, the Taoiseach will have an inquiry carried out?

Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

I am not going to be silenced, a Cheann Comhairle. It is too important.

It is not a matter of silence. The Deputy is abusing the procedure of the House. The Deputy may not put any further questions.

If these substantiate the claim that Deputy O'Malley sought the subscription in return for the post-mastership——

The Deputy is abusing the procedure of the House.

No, Sir.

The Deputy may not put any further questions.

May I ask——

This is totally disorderly. The Deputy should act in an orderly manner.

I want to know——

The Deputy should not act in this manner. The Deputy is being disorderly, abusing the procedure of this House.

No, Sir.

The Deputy is and I state it categorically. The Deputy will resume his seat.

I want to know——

If the Deputy does not obey the Chair I will ask him to leave the House. There must be some order. The order comes from the Chair, not from Deputy FitzGerald. Question No. 4.

A Cheann Comhairle.

I am not allowing any further supplementary questions.

On a point of order, you called me long ago. Let us bring the cream to the top. I want to tell the Taoiseach that I have a copy of the letter that the Minister for Justice sent to Christy Tierney. He said in this letter——

I would point out to the Deputy that quotations are not in order at Question Time and the Deputy may not read any letter.

The Taoiseach made a statement——

It does not matter what statement was made by the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach made a statement and I am disputing the Taoiseach's statement because I know and I am the only man here who knows and I want to quote and I want the truth and let us have the truth.

The Deputy may not quote. It is not in order to quote at Question Time.

I quote, "I have spoken at length to Paddy Lalor——"

"I feel certain that he will accept my recommendation and that you will be appointed".

The Deputy may not quote at Question Time.

It is the truth.

It may be the truth but it is not in order at Question Time.

I quote a letter from Paddy Lalor——

The Deputy may not quote at Question Time.

I quote——

Chair.

I quote a letter from Paddy Lalor—a most respectable person.

It is not in order to quote at Question Time.

What are the Deputies afraid of? Where is the £50?

Can order be restored? On a point of order, is it in order for Members on the other side of the House to shout so as to prevent Deputy Coughlan's statement being heard in the Press Gallery? Is that in order?

Professional scandalmonger.

I will help Deputy FitzGerald. Deputy Coughlan purported to quote from a letter written by Deputy Des O'Malley to Mr. Tierney, in which he said, as I heard Deputy Coughlan, "I feel certain that Paddy Lalor will allot the post office to you". The fact is that Paddy Lalor did not. That was an expression of opinion by Deputy Des O'Malley, as he then was, and again may I say that you are trying to import scandal into a situation where there is no scandal? If the man got the appointment in consideration of his £50, then you might have something to go on.

I am calling Question No. 4. There will be no further supplementaries on Question No. 3. Will Deputy Coughlan please resume his seat?

On a point of order, Sir,——

I will not allow any further points of order. Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

The Taoiseach should not hide behind the Chair. He should hold an inquiry.

Order.

If Deputies opposite have information to give me, let them give it to me and let me use my judgment.

Will the Chair please control the House?

I have already called Question No. 4. I will not allow further supplementary questions on Question No. 3.

The Taoiseach inquired from his Minister if he knew and he could not remember——

Order.

It happened at the Cabinet meeting last week. Will the Taoiseach deny that he discussed it in the Cabinet meeting and that a Minister said that Deputy O'Malley had made a mistake and left himself open?

Will the Deputy please allow questions to continue? I am calling Question No. 4.

Would the Taoiseach not consider holding a sworn inquiry?

Why is the Taoiseach afraid to hold an inquiry?

I am not afraid of an inquiry.

This is intolerable behaviour. Will the Chair please keep order in the House? We are entitled to ask questions and to be heard.

I agree with the Deputy.

Will the Chair please silence those people?

I am calling Question No. 4.