Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 1923

Vol. 4 No. 7

CEANN COMHAIRLE'S RULING.

Before we enter upon the business of the day I wish to draw attention to a matter which has come under my notice. Yesterday evening in the course of a debate in Committee on an amendment to delete paragraph (c) of Section 1 of the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Bill, 1923, Deputy Gavan Duffy is reported to have used these words: “In an earlier stage of the debate the Ceann Comhairle ruled that we could not have an amendment making mockery of the Executive. That I quite understood, but happily we are allowed to criticise the Executive in debate.” I was not in the Chair when that statement was made. If Deputy Gavan Duffy has been correctly reported, I take a grave view of such a statement. The rulings which I gave yesterday on certain proposed amendments of Deputy Gavan Duffy had been carefully considered and had been committed to writing. I am, therefore, quite sure of the words which were used. In ruling out one of Deputy Gavan Duffy's amendments I stated that it seemed to me to be offered in a spirit of derision, and that it did not aim at amending the Bill. Deputy Gavan Duffy admitted that. I made no mention of the Executive, nor had I given any consideration to the feelings or opinions of the Executive Council as such in making the ruling. It is my duty while I continue here to maintain the dignity and privilege of the whole Dáil, and see that no Deputy is allowed to lower that dignity or in any way to interfere with its privileges. When an amendment is placed upon the paper as a joke, or in a spirit of derision, that is an insult to the whole Dáil. It tends to lower our dignity and to take away from the seriousness of our proceedings. The Order Paper for the Committee Stage of the Public Safety Bill contains a considerable number of amendments in the names of various Deputies which are offered in a spirit of seriousness with a view to effecting improvements in the Bill in certain directions.

In my judgment it is improper and unfair that discussions on such amendments should be delayed by a consideration of amendments set down without serious intent. The statement which Deputy Gavan Duffy is reported to have made about my ruling is a wholly inaccurate account of the words used by me, and it seems to me to contain an implication that in ruling as I did, I was inspired by a desire to protect the Executive Council. I can see no other reason for the introduction of the word "Executive" which I did not use, nor do I see any other reason for the subsequent sentence. Now, on that point I feel that there is no need for me to refute such an implication. There is every need on the other hand for me to prevent my rulings from being misrepresented, and to prevent implications being made concerning them. The only course open to me is to ask Deputy Gavan Duffy to withdraw his statement and apologise for it.

I must say that I am somewhat surprised that I should have had no notice from you on this matter——

Deputy Gavan Duffy will, perhaps, tell us first, if this statement is correct?

I think so, but I have not got the official record.

I will read it. "In an earlier stage of the debate the Ceann Comhairle ruled that we could not have an amendment making mockery of the Executive. That I quite understood, but happily we are allowed to criticise the Executive in debate."

I would have been in a better position to deal with this matter had I known it was coming on. I certainly had no intention to misinterpret your ruling or to question it. Very often in the course of debate one may use an expression such as the expression "Executive" which is inaccurate. I am not prepared to say what words I did use. But if these are the words reported, I have no doubt they are correct. I had not the slightest intention of reflecting upon the justice of your ruling. But since the matter has been raised, I think it is right that I should say that I considered that I was very peremptorily dealt with in the matter. The decision given by you I accepted at once, as I have always accepted every decision from the Chair. I would have accepted it even did I not agree with it. I was one of the first to recognise, and I have always held that it is essential to the conduct of the Dáil, that we should respect the Chair. I think the Dáil will do me the justice of recognising that I have invariably done so. Now, this particular matter arose yesterday for the first time. That is why I ventured to think that the Ceann Comhairle would have allowed me to say what I had to say in the matter before definitely ruling me out. It was the first time a ruling was made to the effect that we should not put in amendments of a derisive character. Therefore, it was a new matter.

When he made the ruling I fully understood him, and I fully appreciated the fact that it would not be to the best interests of the Oireachtas that amendments of a derisive character would be introduced. I had no intention in what I said, subsequently, of criticising the decision with which I may say I perfectly agree. If I gave any such impression, I regret I gave it. It was certainly not in my mind. The only reason I alluded to the matter, subsequently, was not by way of amendment, but by way of explaining the interpretation I put on the Section in question. I had thought the words I had written down were in order; I ask the Ceann Comhairle, so far as the justice of his ruling on this new point that came up for the first time went, to take it that I do not dispute it. He mentioned it to me earlier in private, and I recognised it at once, and I accepted it as a just and proper decision. I regret he should have taken any other impression from any words I used, which were not intended to have any such effect.

I accept Deputy Duffy's assurance that he used words which he did not intend to bear the meaning which I must say it seems quite clear to me that on the face of them they do bear.

In reference to one matter you mentioned I may say I had not in my mind any question of a distinction between the Executive and the Dáil at all. That, I gather, is the innuendo. It was not my intention in the least.

I gave Deputy Gavan Duffy notice of my rulings yesterday, but when an amendment was ruled out for a specific reason, and when it was admitted that that ruling was correct, I saw no reason yesterday for further discussion on the point, and I see no reason yet for further discussion on such a point. The whole question of rulings, I am sure it will be realised, is of very great importance in this particular Dáil, because we are in the position of making precedents, and when the Chair is called upon to rule in any matter, that matter must have serious consideration, and the Chair must remember that the ruling will go down upon the records, and it probably will be regarded as a precedent, and will be quoted. It is for that reason that I have endeavoured to rule on these matters so that seriousness in debate would be preserved and so that our business would be transacted in a manner which is befitting to a body like this.

Top
Share