Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 8

OIREACHTAS MEMBERSHIP. - MOTION BY THE PRESIDENT.

The PRESIDENT

I beg to move the following motion:—

Go bhfuil sé oiriúnach Có-Choiste de dhá Thigh an Oireachtais códhéanta de thriúr ball den Dáil agus de thriúr ball den tSeanad agus comhacht acu chun fios do chur ar dhaoine, ar pháipéirí agus ar bhreacacháin, do chur ar bun chun a fhiosrú agus a thuairisciú, an míchumas a cuirtar ar aicmí áirithe daoine le hAltanna 51 agus 57 den Acht Timpeal Toghachán, 1923 (Uimh. 12 de 1923), agus ná leigeann go dtoghfi iad chun aon Tighe den Oireachtas ná go suidhfidís mar bhaill den Tigh sin, ar cheart an mí-chumas san do chur ar aon aicme no aicmí eile daoine atá i seilbh bhuan no dhiombuan ar bhearta 'na dtagann a sochar díreach as airgead a sholáthruíonn an tOireachtas no atá i seilbh bhuan no dhiombuan ar phostanna fé Chóluchtaí Aitiúla agus, más ceart cadé an aicme no cadiad na haicmí eile ar ar cheart an míchumas san do chur.

That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas consisting of three members of the Dáil and three members of the Seanad, with power to send for persons, papers and records, be set up to enquire and report whether the incapacity to be elected to, or to sit as a member of either House of the Oireachtas imposed as regards certain classes of persons by Sections 51 and 57 of the Electoral Act, 1923 (No. 12 of 1923), should be extended to include any other class or classes of persons, who hold either temporarily or permanently situations of which the emoluments are derived directly from moneys provided by the Oireachtas or who hold either temporarily or permanently positions under Local Bodies, and, if so, to what class or classes should the incapacity extend.

The purpose of the motion is to get an inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas into the question as to whether there should not be some extension, other than that which is laid down in Sections 51 and 57 of the Electoral Act, in relation to membership of the Oireachtas, that is whether or not the list should be extended. In one case which has come before a Minister exception has been taken by an organisation in the country which is entitled to express an opinion on the subject as to membership of the Oireachtas by a member of one particular organisation or, rather, a person having a certain calling. It is possible that complications might arise in connection with membership of the Oireachtas by persons who are employed by local authorities. In that connection the Executive Council two years ago approached the Committee on Privileges on the matter, and they did not feel called upon to express any opinion, and it is now thought that the most desirable way of dealing with the matter is by way of Joint Committee.

In the case of membership of local authorities, it may not be known—I do not know that it is definitely laid down —that questions may arise in the case of persons holding pensionable offices as to whether or not membership of the Oireachtas would seriously interfere with their pensions, that is, counting the time that membership of the Oireachtas would run with the holding of a particular office. If a complication of that sort were to arise and that the persons concerned were unaware of it, I think that the situation with which they would be confronted would mean a considerable loss of money. I think it is desirable that such information should be available to them, if the Minister in question thought it desirable to make provision in law for such a case, and if the Committee reported that it was desirable that employment under a local authority would disqualify them from membership of the Oireachtas.

In any case, where an outside organisation, which I have mentioned, has taken up this matter, it may be that in certain cases special steps should be taken to deal with an occasion of the kind, if membership of the Oireachtas were to interfere with the ordinary duties of a person by reason of his membership of the Oireachtas. Under the circumstances, I think it would be advisable to have a Joint Committee to inquire into and report on this matter and see what the combined wisdom of the Joint Committee would be.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move the following amendment:—

To insert after the word "persons," line 15, the words—"who are in receipt of pensions or of fees for professional services out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas or who are financially interested, either as shareholders or proprietors in any business or undertaking which is in receipt otherwise than by way of compensation, of moneys provided by the Oireachtas or."

I honestly expected a much more convincing statement from the President as to the reasons why he put forward this motion. He has referred to possible complications and to an organisation. Let us be quite blunt about it. He has referred to the teachers of the country. I take it that I am right in that.

The PRESIDENT

The organisation which I mentioned was the Catholic Managers' Association.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Catholic Managers' Association in respect to teachers?

The PRESIDENT

Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON

Presumably the President has no views on this matter as to whether teachers should remain teachers while they are also members of the Dáil or the Senate. I think the question raised is a question whether you are going to deprive a large number of persons of their rights as citizens because of their particular employment. If any question of that kind has to be raised in respect of teachers, or any class of local employees, it is a matter which should be raised as between employee and employer. When the present limitations were under discussion in the Electoral Act I took the view, which I take now, that the restriction should not appear in the Act, even in respect to police or soldiers, and that it should be rather from the point of view of employer and employee that any regulation should be made. The proposal in the present motion suggests that there is need for an inquiry, and it desires to set up a committee to report in respect to persons who hold, either temporarily or permanently, situations of which the emoluments are derived directly from moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or who hold, either temporarily or permanently, positions under local bodies.

There is, at any rate, an implication there that in the minds of the Government it is questionable whether persons in these categories should be allowed to be elected by the people to represent them in the Oireachtas. I have the view that in any matter of a restriction of this kind we ought not to select groups of people ad hoc and without regard to any general principle, and that if an inquiry of this kind is to be initiated it should be an inquiry into the whole question of whether any person in receipt of payment from Government funds should be entitled to sit in the Dáil or in the Seanad. I am entirely against the principle of restriction, and even if my amendment is passed I will vote against the motion as amended. But if there is to be an inquiry, I say it should be an inquiry into the principles involved, the including of persons in receipt of pay from Government funds, that it should not be restricted to teachers, university professors and employees of local authorities, but should extend to those who are in receipt of Government pensions or of fees for professional services, or to owners or part-owners of businesses who receive money by way of services rendered or goods supplied.

If there is to be an inquiry I think it must be an inquiry based upon the general principle of the desirability or otherwise of persons in receipt of money from Government funds having representation in the authority which votes the money. I do not think it is possible, with due regard to the needs and to the equities of the case, to make such restrictions. But if there is to be an inquiry into the desirability of such restrictions, it should be an all-round inquiry, and the committee should not be precluded from inquiring into the larger question, as will be done if the President's motion in its present form is carried. I therefore move the amendment.

I do not think that anything more I could say would strengthen the argument, that it would entail a very narrow inquiry and, as I think, a useless inquiry, if it were confined to the particular classes referred to in the President's motion. It would be an inquiry by a committee, which, in effect, would have got a direction that the Dáil is at least favourably disposed towards this proposition that there should be restrictions. If we pass the motion in its present form it will be practically an indication to the committee that the Dáil thinks there should be restrictions with regard to employees of local authorities, school teachers and university professors. I think that we should not pass the motion, but if it is to be passed, if there is to be such an inquiry, it should embrace the general question and not merely these classes of people.

Major COOPER

In his closing remarks Deputy Johnson said he did not think that anything more he could say would strengthen his argument, and I quite agree that had he gone into his amendment in greater detail it would inevitably have weakened his argument. If Deputy Johnson desires, as his speech suggested, to have a general inquiry he could quite easily have moved an amendment to omit all the words after "class or classes of persons," which would have given the Committee a free hand, assuming that it is possible to find a Committee, at this stage of the session, of three members of the Dáil and three members of the Seanad who are prepared to consider what classes of people can or cannot be disqualified from sitting in the Oireachtas.

But Deputy Johnson did not do that. He has put forward a positive amendment, and I think that before we go into his amendment in detail we ought to realise its implications. Deputy Johnson's amendment suggests to the Committee that they should consider the disqualification of an enormously large number of citizens. He would disqualify any person who was in receipt of a pension for service in the National Army; he would not disqualify any person in receipt of a pension from the British Army—I am not in that fortunate position—but he would disqualify Deputy Mulcahy. I do not know if that is a serious proposition that could be argued before a Committee. Then again he would disqualify any person who holds shares in any of the railways in the Saorstát, because those railways receive payment for the carriage of mails from moneys provided by the Oireachtas, that is, assuming that Deputy Johnson wishes to have the claims of these people examined with a view to their disqualification.

Mr. JOHNSON

I desire to have the whole question examined, including that as a possibility.

Major COOPER

Then it would be much better to have these words deleted and to give the Committee a general commission rather than to single out individuals. Every railway shareholder would be excluded, but it would be possible for any railway shareholder who wished to become a member of the Oireachtas to evade that exclusion by having his shares held in the name of someone else. I thought that I might be disqualified, because I have shares in a railway company which, I think, receives some money from the Government for the carriage of mails, but my shares are not in my own name; I am a tenant for life; the dividends are paid to me, but the shares are in the name of trustees. Therefore I am not actually in a legal sense a shareholder, and I should not be disqualified. The whole thing is full of loopholes for evasion.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to confine this discussion. Does the Deputy maintain that the Committee would be debarred from inquiring into such a case as he has mentioned because of the loophole?

Major COOPER

I think so, on Deputy Johnson's own amendment, which says "either shareholders or proprietors"; it does not say "receivers of dividends." I do not think that Deputy Johnson has realised the full implication of his proposal. I marvelled when I saw it; I never knew Deputy Johnson to be so unguarded before. But the amendment goes much further than the two cases I have mentioned. Not only might it disqualify every recipient of a National Army pension, not only might it disqualify every railway shareholder, but it might disqualify every person who has shares in an agricultural credit society, if that agricultural credit society is in receipt of a grant from the State under the provisions made in our Estimates. People do not join agricultural credit societies in the hope of making an immediate profit. They join largely out of public spirit, out of the desire to get machinery by which people can be insured against losses of their stock, and so on, and agricultural credit societies would be very unsuccessful unless they had some of the larger and more representative farmers in their districts as members.

But it would be open to this Committee, if Deputy Johnson's amendment is carried, to recommend the disqualification of every member of these societies, and—the final case I want to make—it might also disqualify a shareholder in a public utility building society. These public utility building societies are established for the purpose of building houses, with strictly limited dividends; it is not possible to obtain enormous profits out of them, and they are established in order to take advantage of the grants provided by the Oireachtas. Yet it would be open, under Deputy Johnson's amendment, for the committee to recommend the disqualification of anybody—not only a director—who took a share in such a society, and who took it because he wanted to see houses built. Nobody takes shares in a public utility building society with a view to obtaining enormous profits. You could obtain as good a profit in gilt-edged securities.

But public utility building societies do receive money provided by the Oireachtas, and my construction—I am no more a lawyer than Deputy Johnson—is that if we carry his amendment it would be open to this committee, a very small committee, a committee that cannot, with its limited number of members, be representative of every party of the House, to recommend the disqualification of all the classes I have mentioned; in other words, to recommend the disqualification of something like twenty per cent. of the citizens of the State. I suggest that that is a mistake. I suggest that either we ought to have a very limited inquiry or that we ought to have a general inquiry, affecting not only those particular classes, but also secretaries of trades unions and farmers' unions, and everybody who is not to be considered a strictly independent citizen, so that by that means you might confine the Dáil and the Seanad exclusively to those people who either possess private means or devote themselves strictly to making profits in their own particular businesses. In other words, you will enfranchise the gombeen man.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Or the people who have no means.

Major COOPER

Or the people who have no means at all, if they can find the £100 deposit necessary for their election. I do not know if Deputy Morrissey is going to provide that. I do want to make one plea to the President, who did not deal in any great detail with this motion when he moved it. Does he propose to deprive the Dáil of its professors? They are to be found on the Benches of almost every party. They have been a very valuable element in our debates, and have filled the gap that in other Parliaments is filled by members of the legal profession, and before I vote for the motion I would like to know if the professors are to be driven out. I presume that ex-professors will be safe, so that we shall not have to mourn the Minister for Industry and Commerce. But is the President going to drive out all the other professors? We ought to know where we are in regard to that, because I for one should be deeply sorry to see the Dáil deprived of that element of learning, wisdom and humour.

Professor MAGENNIS

Deputy Cooper has made, as usual, an interesting, humourous and ingenious contribution to the debate. His contention that Deputy Johnson's purpose would have been better served by moving to omit all the words after "classes of persons" does sound plausible. But does Deputy Cooper not realise that the same results which he deplores as likely to accrue from the passing of Deputy Johnson's amendment would follow just as probably from his own?

Major COOPER

No, no.

Professor MAGENNIS

I suggest, with all respect, "Yes, yes," to the Deputy's "No, no." All those people, the disqualification of whom he views in imagination, could be disqualified under a roving commission to inquire into the extension of further bars or disqualifications for membership of the Oireachtas.

Major COOPER

Everybody could be disqualified, if necessary, but they would not be singled out.

Professor MAGENNIS

Quite so. Everybody would be liable to a bar sinister attaching to him by the finding of the committee. The fact that Deputy Johnson gives more specific indication of the class of person that it is desired to bar adds, to my mind, to the value and effectiveness of his amendment as showing up the real character of the original resolution. The resolution opens with the formula —and consequently the formula is retained in so far as Deputy Johnson's amendment is technically a constructive amendment or addition—"That it is expedient." That is not an empty formula. There are many empty formulas in the service of Parliaments, but this is not one. "It is expedient" must mean that in the circumstances, in view of the present conditions, it is wise, it is advisable, or it is desirable to do the thing proposed.

I take it that Deputy Johnson's amendment means that if an inquiry is to be set going to discover what other classes of persons besides those already debarred from membership of the Oireachtas should be disqualified, then it is well to indicate other classes more or less of the same type as those embraced within the scope of the President's motion. What Deputy Cooper overlooks altogether is that there is a basis of classification in the President's motion, and that is the basis of classification preserved in Deputy Johnson's amendment, namely, that the persons in view are in receipt of moneys voted by the Parliament. They derive their income, or portion of their income—I think emolument is the word used— from moneys voted by the Parliament, and that is the justification of Deputy Johnson's addition. If the original motion singles out a limited number of classes of persons in receipt of income from voted moneys, then it is by exclusion suggested to the committee that they are not to consider those other cases, though there are obviously other cases of persons equally in receipt of moneys as contributions to their income from moneys voted by the Parliament.

Deputy Cooper has mentioned the professors. I might have thought it indecent to intrude professors upon the notice of the House were it not that I have been given the lead. There is only one university in the country that is affected by this motion. Trinity College, or the University of Dublin, is not affected in the least by it, and those who framed the resolution knew that very well, and so obviously did Deputy Johnson in making his addendum. Every professor of the National University is in the same position as the contractor, say, who receives a contract from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, or from the Office of Public Works, for the rebuilding of a post office, and if a professor of the National University, because he belongs to the people's university, the new foundation set up to meet the wants of the people, is to be precluded from membership of the Oireachtas, Deputy Johnson's amendment asks upon what principle, with what justification, is a contractor who does work in return for moneys voted by the Parliament, to be regarded as on a different basis altogether. The money is the basis—the receipt of money voted by the Parliament.

Now, the national school teachers and the professors of the National University both come under the same category. Every penny that they receive in the capacity named is money voted by the Parliament. It is not so in the case of Dublin University, whose income is derived from forfeited estates or from the contributions of rich benefactors who mark their gratitude to their Alma Mater by rich bequests.

Mr. WILSON

Trinity College, Dublin, received £3,000 a year under the Land Act. Would not that have the same implication? Has it escaped the notice of Deputy Magennis?

Professor MAGENNIS

No, it has not; nor the fact that quite recently a huge sum was granted, in addition, to Trinity College. Neither of these facts has escaped my attention. But Deputy Wilson ought to be aware that the salaries are not traceable to those sources.

Professor THRIFT

Would Deputy Magennis mind correcting the statement he has made and making it quite accurate?

Professor MAGENNIS

Perhaps the Deputy will correct me, because he is better able to correct me than I am to correct myself.

Professor THRIFT

I think if the Deputy considers the words he used he will be prepared to amend them. He said that a huge sum was granted to Trinity College. What really happened was that a sum that had been put to the credit of Trinity College was put within its own control together with that of the Minister for Finance.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am aware of the arguments in connection with this particular matter, and I shall not allow it to continue. I know the two sides of the question very well; they were once presented to me at great length by both sides when I was in another capacity.

Professor MAGENNIS

I accept the correction of my friend, Deputy Thrift, but it is very noteworthy that he does not correct my statement that the income of the teaching staff of his university is not traceable to those sources, and that is the vital part of my contention. Trinity College is exempt from the operation of any result that may issue from the findings of this committee. Deputy Cooper said it would be a small committee. I wonder did he mean, when he said it would not contain the representatives of all the Parties in this House, that it would be in the nature of a packed jury? The finding already provided for it in the resolution setting it up and directing its inquiries——

Major COOPER

Will Deputy Magennis not judge my mind by his own?

Professor MAGENNIS

Very well, then; we form our inferences. I take it that Deputy Johnson's amendment was intended as in chemical laboratories the addition of certain chemicals to mixtures is intended; they have the effect of precipitating the solids in the liquids to which they are added. Deputy Johnson realises that the public are not as a rule accustomed to inquire too closely or too nicely into the significance of resolutions that are passed in this House and in the Seanad, and that instead of allowing this to have what in racing language is called a walk-over, it would be well to concentrate attention upon its significance. I daresay I should not be in order to follow out the significance further, inasmuch as it would be speaking on the resolution rather than on the amendment; but the significance of Deputy Johnson's amendment can be fully appreciated only by reading it in the context of the resolution.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Both the resolution and the amendment are in order for discussion now.

Professor MAGENNIS

I take it then that "it is expedient" refers to the coming election. Read in full it would be: "Whereas the period of the Dáil is coming to an end, and whereas the coming elections are in the consideration of all men, and whereas it is desirable to exclude from candidature thereat certain opponents of the Government, it would be well to pack a jury that would find the desirability of excluding them from being candidates and from being elected to membership of the Oireachtas."

On what basis is the disqualification to proceed? On the highly plausible basis that they are in receipt of public moneys. Who else, besides imbeciles, lunatics, adjudicated bankrupts, or convicted felons are disqualified? Why, members of the Civil Service and members of the Army. And why are they excluded? Oh, do you not say it is because they are paid by the State; they are in receipt of income from public moneys. Why not, then, treat all others that are in receipt of public moneys on the same plane and in the same fashion?

Now, that is what is so plausible about the proposal, because, as a matter of fact, your man in the street does not think twice about these things to consider that it is not because the civil servant is paid out of public moneys that he is debarred. True, he is paid his salary out of public moneys, but that is not the reason why he is not permitted membership of either House. It is because he is, as his name informs us, a servant of the State. I need not expound that doctrine. It was expounded by the Ministers themselves, notably by the present Minister for Finance, when, as Minister for Local Government, he was in charge of the Electoral Act. It is not, I repeat, because the civil servant or the member of the Army is in receipt of public moneys by way of emolument or remuneration for his work but because the Army is the servant of the people and because the civil servant is the servant of the people. How often was it necessary, in a great emergency of State, to insist on that doctrine? The crisis is so recent that none of us could have forgotten it. The Army is not the master but the servant of Parliament. The civil servant is one of the most useful, one of the most valuable, and one of the most meritorious agencies of Government. Ministers would be worthless without their civil servants, worse than worthless—an expensive incumbrance in many cases—were it not for the valuable aid that the trained civil servant is able to afford. They are instruments of administration. The great public services are discharged through their agency. That is not the case with the national school teacher or professor. He is not a servant of State, and that is more particularly the case with the professor. Again, I take the case of the National University professor, for he is the only professor that we have to consider. The institution to which he belongs is not under any Ministry by way of control. It was proposed in the Ministers and Secretaries Bill that it should be so, but such a reactionary movement and such a designed attempt against the liberties of the universities was frustrated. You will find that the Minister for Finance answers for the universities as he did yesterday in this House, and not the Minister for Education. The Minister for Education answered for secondary schools, for public education and for technical education, but not for the universities, because the autonomy of the university is one of the great principles sacred to anyone who knows what education means, or how it must function for the betterment of the citizen. Yet it is proposed to assume here by the formula "that it is expedient" that a professor of the National University, or the teacher, is, in spite of all that, to be regarded as exactly in the same relation to the people, his paymaster, as a civil servant or a member of the Army.

The PRESIDENT

No.

Professor MAGENNIS

Does the President disclaim that?

The PRESIDENT

I said "no."

Professor MAGENNIS

I do not understand what "no" means in that context.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Does the motion, as drafted, include professors of the universities?

The PRESIDENT

Not to my knowledge. The Deputy has tried to prove it for a long time, but he has not convinced me.

Professor MAGENNIS

Now we know where we stand. The President does not contemplate the inclusion of a professor of the National University in this.

The PRESIDENT

I do not.

Professor MAGENNIS

Then either the brain that conceived it, or the draftsman who worded it, is at fault.

The PRESIDENT

You have not proved that yet.

Professor MAGENNIS

With your permission, sir, I will proceed to prove it—"should be extended to include any other class or classes of persons who hold either temporarily or permanently situations of which the emoluments are derived directly from moneys provided by the Oireachtas." The only loophole open for the President is the word "directly." I take it he bases his present position upon that. Now, there are many things of which the President is aware and of which I am wholly ignorant, but there is one thing I may, without vanity, claim to be familiar with, even more than the President, and that is the method of payment to a professor in the National University. If there was no grant under the Estimates of this House the chest of University College, Dublin, would be empty, and Professor MacNeill, Professor Tierney, and Professor O'Sullivan, and all the rest of them, would go penniless as regards their Chairs. The money is paid to the bursar of the University, who thereupon issues cheques. Does that result in their not being paid directly out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas? Surely we are not pettifogging attorneys in a quarter sessions court. If so, to what class does the first portion of the resolution apply?

Who are the individuals who are paid directly? Is there a paymaster of some force, like the paymaster of the forces, who ought to be imagined as not intervening but as being the direct instrument or hand of the Oireachtas distributing the money? Now, it may be thought that I have only in view the professors I named, my distinguished colleagues and, I am glad to be able to add also, my friends. As I mentioned only them, let me say that I have in view not merely these professors but the students they will raise up to succeed them in years to come. Every professor worthy of the name looks to producing men to supplant him in the course of time, who will be better fitted for the work than he. I am aware of that anyhow. Not only is that the professor's desire, but he often lives to see it realised. If it be not irregular to say this: Suppose by some turn of the political wheel the Minister who was mentioned by Deputy Cooper should go back again to University College and find himself once more an assistant to the professor of Latin and hoped to come back into the Dáil and be Minister again, this would preclude him.

The PRESIDENT

What?

Professor MAGENNIS

The finding of a packed jury and the enactment of it as law by a tyrannous majority. That is "what."

The PRESIDENT

The Deputy has not told us whether or not the cheques he has spoken about are upon the Paymaster-General.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

In order to shorten this debate, could we not have a definite statement as to whether this particular motion is intended to give as a term of reference to the proposed Joint Committee the position of members of the staff of the Colleges of the National University? If it is not, then I presume that can be stated, and if amendments are necessary they can be put in, and we need have no more debate about this question. If it is intended that can be plainly stated.

The PRESIDENT

It is not intended, and never was.

Professor MAGENNIS

Then I take it, sir, that in conformity with your excellent suggestion there will be a Government amendment proposed making that exclusion.

The PRESIDENT

It is not necessary.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I did not make any such suggestion. I made the suggestion that it could be made plain whether or not it was intended to include in the terms of reference to the proposed Joint Committee the position of members of the staff of Colleges of the National University.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would the President go further and say that the actual class or classes of person intended to be inquired into should be stated in the motion?

The PRESIDENT

I do not think it is necessary. Of course, I do not think that Deputy Johnson subscribes to the view that three members of the Dáil and three members of the Seanad constitute a packed jury. I presume a jury of that sort will take reasonable views with regard to this matter.

Professor MAGENNIS

Am I not at liberty to range over the possible application of this thing and to consider as one among many possibilities a selection committee of three from one House and three from the other House, which would be amenable to the influences of the President? If I call a spade a spade, the situation is not in the least different. If I were to substitute for packed jury a committee who, without too much trouble to themselves and their inquisition, would be inclined to fall into line with the views of the President——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

On the question of committees, a number of committees have been appointed by this House, either as special committees or as parts of joint committees, and I think it only right to say, speaking for the whole House, that not one of these committees could ever have been regarded, with any degree of truth, as a packed jury. I take it the Deputy agrees with that?

Professor MAGENNIS

Yes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If the Dáil and the Seanad pass this motion, the Joint Committee will be appointed in this way: Three members will be selected by this House and three by the other. The decision of this House should not be referred to in the way that the Deputy is now referring to it.

Professor MAGENNIS

I have been myself a member of too many committees not to know that a more wholesome tribunal than a committee of this House or a joint committee of both Houses could not possibly be got together. But, as I said, I am exhausting the possibilities. If, however, the committee is appointed as hitherto, my view of it would be quite different. In any case it is not essential to my argument. We have got at any rate from the President an assurance that the class of person that most minds turned to as included are not included. The speculations of the two morning papers were notable. Deputy Johnson himself, in moving his amendment, referred to university professors, and also Deputy Cooper. Therefore, my particular malice. It is not the malignancy of my mentality, as the President would imagine, that read into this thing——

The PRESIDENT

The Deputy has no right to assume what I would imagine. He knows what my opinion of him is.

Professor MAGENNIS

The President's opinion of me has no more to do with this question than my opinion of him. May I then ask are the national school teachers intended to be included? Surely it would have been wiser on the whole, and less provocative of suspicion and bad feeling to have said why it is expedient, and why it is deemed expedient, to make this inquiry, and what particular class of person is aimed at. Then we should know where we were, and without heat and without confusion at all we could have discussed the proposal. It seems to me that a resolution saying: "It is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to inquire," etc., and with no more reference than the reference in Deputy Johnson's amendment would be wise and good and very useful. Then we should not have any need to confuse the issue and to imagine, as I have explained, that to be in receipt of salary is different in any way from being in receipt of moneys paid in return for services rendered. We hear a lot of talk about metaphysics and metaphysicians from time to time. Surely there is a lot of apropos metaphysics in the attempt to draw a distinction between a salary and the receipt of moneys paid in return for services rendered. Contractors and members of companies that enter into contracts with Departments of Government are surely all bound. I hold it would be advisable to inquire into the wisdom and expediency of creating that bond.

Mr. HEWAT

It seems to me that the motion that is before us and the amendment ask for a committee to be set up by both Houses to inquire into this matter of disqualification to sit in either House. Deputy Magennis, I think, in connection with his criticism, was prejudging the results of the committee's work. In so far as a resolution is necessary at all, I think the very wide powers that are proposed to be given to the Committee are very necessary to enable them to present to both Houses some formula on which will be based a question of disqualification to sit. I think that is very desirable, more particularly following the amendment which has been put forward by Deputy Johnson. Deputy Johnson's amendment would seem to wish to carry the disqualification into a very large and varied circle. If it is the wish of the Dáil that that should operate, and if they consider that it is in the interests of the country that it should operate, well and good.

I hope none of us here has tried to override any decision that might be come to in any direction. Deputy Johnson in his amendment would seem to go so far as to say that a person holding shares in a company—and after all a good many people hold shares in various companies of a commercial character—must either get rid of his shares in so far as that company may have any transactions with the Government or incidentally that he must retire from any activities in connection with this Dáil or in connection with the Seanad. That may be good. I think myself that sort of a restriction is an impossible restriction.

Mr. JOHNSON

So do I.

Mr. HEWAT

I think we would want some proof that a very considerable amount of latitude in this matter was detrimental to the carrying on of the business of the State before we enter into any such restrictive legislation. Speaking for myself, I would be only anxious to know what are the wishes of the Dáil in the matter. So far as I am concerned I do not desire to sit here five minutes longer than both my constituents and members of this Dáil consider that I can fulfil the obligations which brought me here. While I agree that the matter is in a state that the setting up of a committee to go into the whole matter is very desirable, I would not go any further towards prejudging decisions that the committee might come to than to say that I agree that the fullest possible powers of inquiry should be given to them, so as to come to a definite decision not only for the guidance of this House as a whole but for the guidance of individual members.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

It seems to be quite clear now, both from what the President said in his opening statement and what he said afterwards, by way of explanation, in reply to some questions of Deputy Magennis, that the one body which it was definitely intended to include in this resolution is the national teachers.

The PRESIDENT

The second part of the motion is equally important.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

I will come to that in a moment. It is definitely intended to include national teachers in this resolution. When this motion was put down first my objection to it was not as strong as it is now, consequent on what the President has stated. He has given to us the origin of the motion. It is down here, we are to gather from his statement, because the managers of associations made certain representations, which we hear of now for the first time, to the Executive Council and to the Government.

The PRESIDENT

As far as I know they adopted a resolution. I will read the communication we received:—

"The Catholic Clerical Managers' Association, at a meeting held in the Shelbourne Hotel on the 26th June, 1924, adopted a resolution endorsing the first sentence of Rule 88 in the Code relating to national schools, viz.: ‘Teachers are not permitted to carry on or engage in any business or occupation or to be members of any association or to undertake any office or function tending to impair their usefulness as teachers.'"

The resolution declared that the above expressed the principle of elementary justice and added:—

"Having most carefully considered this question, we are decidedly of opinion that the duties of a primary teacher and a member of either branch of the Oireachtas are obviously incompatible; we consider, therefore, that any departure from this principle would be detrimental to the best interests of primary education. In particular, the proposal to allow a teacher who becomes a member of the Oireachtas to retain the teachership, a substitute being appointed, is open to so many objections in respect of the efficient conduct of the school and otherwise that they cannot regard it as advisable even as a temporary expedient."

That is a matter, of course, when brought under our notice that we had got to take notice of.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Speaking in this particular capacity, the managers are speaking as an organised body of employers, nothing more or nothing less. The teachers are employed by them, though not paid by them. They express a certain view, and the Government is bound to take notice of it. It will be also bound to take notice if we have a similar resolution from any other organised body of employers. The Railway Institution, for instance, will say that men working on the railway are not competent to represent a constituency when it elects them. I am rather surprised at the Government that they should have taken up this attitude in this particular instance. If it was shown that there was any abuse or any likelihood of abuse in the election of teachers to either branch of the Oireachtas I could quite understand the necessity for an examination, but no attempt has been made in that resolution or otherwise to show that there has been any such abuse.

The PRESIDENT

This motion is put down asking a body to inquire into it. It is utterly and entirely impartial, and it is a matter that ought to be left to that body. I am sure the Deputy does not want me to make a case against what he has said, in other words to prove what the committee is asked to inquire into.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

I am objecting——

Mr. O'HIGGINS

To any inquiry?

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Not to any inquiry. I am objecting to action being taken by the Government because of this resolution, because it is taking it for granted that there has been abuse, that there has been something wrong. I read it that way. It is assuming beforehand that there is something wrong in the practice that is there already. It is because of that I am objecting to the Government acting on representations of that kind. It is on that I base my objection, because it seems to me to be quite clear that it was the origin of the whole motion put down by the Government. As far as I could see from the second clause, and as far as I could follow the President's argument, and he will correct me if I am wrong, it was rather intended to inquire in the interests of the particular people who would be elected.

The PRESIDENT

That is only one side of it.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

That is one side of it. I am sorry if I did not follow the arguments of the President very clearly. I think it only right to say that I believe that the intention of the motion is the possibility of excluding these people. It is an intention to put, as it were, a restriction on the liberty of a certain class of people, to restrict their rights in the community, and to humiliate them as a body in the community, and I do not think, knowing as I do what the position is, that it would be accepted otherwise by that particular class than as an attempt by the Government at the instigation of an organised body of employers to humiliate them, and it will not be to the best interests of the service in which these particular people are engaged.

The PRESIDENT

If my interpretation is correct, Deputy Johnson's amendment, if it were passed, would bring in university professors who are not brought in under the motion which I have moved. It brings in, in addition, many other classes who do not affect the issue. There is a particular issue here.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is what we want to find out: what is the issue.

The PRESIDENT

In the first place, let us take the case of a national teacher. A national teacher is paid his salary by the Government. He is paid x pounds for x quantity of duties. If he takes up membership of the Oireachtas in Mayo, Donegal, Cork, or a place of that sort, obviously a substitute will require to be appointed.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Not obviously. I would like to say this, lest there should be any misunderstanding as to my attitude in the matter, that I do not suggest, if the work of the teachers is interfered with in any way, that he should be a member of the Oireachtas.

The PRESIDENT

Obviously that is a matter the committee ought to inquire into and report on.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is a matter for the Government.

The PRESIDENT

Not necessarily.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

If the Government pays him they should see that he does his duty.

The PRESIDENT

We are in this position. A teacher who becomes a member of the Oireachtas gets a certain amount of money from Government sources. If the persons who have some control over him report to the Government that it is an unsatisfactory fulfilment of his duties then I suppose the Government must act.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Has that been reported in the case of any individual member of the Oireachtas?

The PRESIDENT

I believe it has.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

There was no ground for it.

The PRESIDENT

That will be for the committee to judge. We are asking a committee to go into it, to examine and report on it. I do say there is responsibility on us in connection with those salaries to be satisfied, where salaries are paid, that work is performed.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Hear, hear. There is no objection to that.

The PRESIDENT

Apparently, there is general agreement on that.

Mr. JOHNSON

There is no need for inquiry.

The PRESIDENT

If there was no need for inquiry, we would not have put down this resolution. The case occurred and it was brought to our notice. Almost immediately we took action. Many things occurred in the meantime and we proposed to have one method of inquiry. That did not materialise and now we are having another method of inquiry.

Professor MAGENNIS

rose.

The PRESIDENT

I must ask that I shall not be interrupted by Deputy Magennis. I am dealing with a particular point and I object to being interrupted.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Does Deputy Magennis desire to raise a point of order?

Professor MAGENNIS

No, sir.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Then the President cannot be interrupted if he objects. The President will please proceed.

The PRESIDENT

I think it was in 1923 that we got the first intimation of an objection of this sort. It is rather unfortunate it was not taken into account at the time the Electoral Act was passed. I will admit at once—if the Deputy wants the admission from me—that national teachers would be excellent representatives. But I am not going to admit that if the Dáil were constituted of national teachers from Donegal, or Mayo or Cork, or far-distant places, who would have to suspend service in their schools, it would be good for the schools. I think the Deputy agrees with me there.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

I am not arguing that.

The PRESIDENT

That is agreed. Where there is no interruption of school work, let the Committee make a recommendation and we will be satisfied with it. If a teacher by being a member of the Oireachtas has to be absent from school, some sort of regulation must be brought in. At present Rule 88 states that teachers are not permitted to carry on or engage in any business or occupation.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Is not that sufficient? Has not the Minister for Education power to enforce that rule?

The PRESIDENT

That is precisely the case. In the ordinary course, if the Minister for Education thought that the usefulness of the teacher was being interfered with, then, of course, he would have to take action. He did not take action in this case for many reasons. I have given some of them.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

If the President does not mind my interrupting, I should like to point out that it is well known that there is only one case involved. This charge, which has been made for the first time, is a rather serious charge.

The PRESIDENT

I do not think it is a charge.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

It is a charge of neglect of duty.

The PRESIDENT

There is no charge against any teacher. There is no charge, even in respect of the whole body, if they were all members of the Oireachtas. The case is that, by reason of membership of the Oireachtas, attendance at school is restricted by whatever extent attendance in the Oireachtas cuts across it. That is the only point.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

That is not correct.

The PRESIDENT

The only objection is as regards the absence that might be incurred through attendance at the Oireachtas. That fact being brought to the notice of the Minister for Education, two courses are open to him. He can introduce some rule dealing with a case of that sort, which rule might be objected to. Alternatively, he can have the matter inquired into and reported on by a body in full possession of all the facts and, furthermore, in possession of the knowledge that there is more than one teacher in the Oireachtas. In any case, the fact that those moneys are paid direct to teachers is a consideration which cannot be overlooked.

As regards the second case, I do not think it is necessary to enter very largely into the situation which would arise in the event of an official of a local authority becoming a member of the Dáil and the local authority, at some time or other, taking exception to that. No case of that sort has arisen, but recently I was informed that a whole-time pensionable officer, if he were elected to the Seanad, would lose his pensionable rights. That case also ought to be inquired into by a joint committee such as I have indicated. Many complications might arise. It might happen that one local authority would object to one of their officials acting as a member of the Oireachtas and other local authorities might not so object. In a case of that sort, if representation was made to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, his position would be rather invidious. I think the time has now arrived when we should have some sort of regularity with regard to these matters.

As regards Deputy Johnson's point as to persons in receipt of pensions, no case arises in any conceivable form. I have never heard of a case in which receipt of pension would conflict in any way with membership of the House. The Deputy did not mention any cases he had in mind. If there were such cases, he ought to have mentioned them. I have never heard of any.

The other points referred to by Deputy Cooper I had also in mind. It might possibly be argued that persons in receipt of the advantages of the Agricultural Grant might be debarred. The resolution is framed so broadly that it might be capable of such interpretation and might exclude a large number of people. If Deputy Johnson thought fit, I was prepared to exclude the words from "persons" down to "bodies," but I understood from him that he intended making this resolution a joke. I was prepared to agree to that, but, in view of what the Deputy said, I suppose there is no use in offering that.

Mr. JOHNSON

rose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Deputy rising on a point of explanation?

Mr. JOHNSON

No. Will I have an opportunity of speaking later?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot make a second speech on the amendment. When the amendment has been disposed of, he will be at liberty to speak on the main question. If the Deputy thinks that he could shorten the discussion by a statement now, I would be prepared, with the consent of the Dáil, to hear him. I do not think I would have any difficulty in getting that consent.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not think I could give that promise.

Mr. ESMONDE

Is the President satisfied that the terms of reference are wide enough for this Committee? What the Committee have got to examine under the resolution is whether this incapacity is to be extended or not, and, if so, to what class or classes it is to extend. Judging by what the President has just said, this Committee is to investigate the whole position, particularly with regard to these teachers. Possibly the Committee might desire to recommend some regulation, or other method of dealing with the matter, instead of simply extending the incapacity. I wonder if the President is satisfied that these terms of reference are sufficient for the Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON

Following your suggestion, A Chinn Comhairle, might I say that if the resolution is to be passed at all, I am certainly in favour of its not being confined to the two classes referred to specifically.

Mr. GOREY

What two classes are specifically referred to?

Mr. JOHNSON

The two classes specifically referred to are the national teachers and persons who hold either temporary or permanent positions under local bodies. I assumed that there was some principle at work in the minds of the Ministry. Because of that, I wanted the principle to be applied generally. If there is to be an inquiry, and if the Minister is prepared to rule out these two specific classes, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

The PRESIDENT

What two specific classes?

Mr. JOHNSON

The national teachers and persons employed by public bodies. What I suggest is that the President delete the words after "persons" down to the word "bodies" inclusive.

The PRESIDENT

I am satisfied with that.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The proposal now is to alter the main question, so that it will be put to the House in the following form:—

That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas consisting of three members of the Dáil and three members of the Seanad, with power to send for persons, papers and records, be set up to enquire and report whether the incapacity to be elected to, or to sit as a member of either House of the Oireachtas imposed as regards certain classes of persons by Sections 51 and 57 of the Electoral Act, 1923 (No. 12 of 1923), should be extended to include any other class or classes of persons, and, if so, to what class or classes should the incapacity extend.

Motion altered accordingly.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to point out that this is done in good faith. I want those two classes dealt with, if possible, at the earliest date by the Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON

Can we bind the Committee?

The PRESIDENT

No. I merely want to make that clear.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

As a matter of explanation, in view of the way this point has been raised and the stress laid on this particular class, I should like to say that the rule that has been read by the President is an effective rule under the Department of Education. There is nothing that I can see which would debar the Minister for Education from seeing that that rule was carried out in each case. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to incapacitate a whole class, in regard to representation, because a possible abuse might arise in one particular case. I have no objection to that rule being carried out fully. That is the view I have always taken. I do not see why the Minister for Education should be trying to shelter behind this kind of inquiry and should seek to have a whole class debarred.

Major COOPER

I take it that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and the Labour Party will both be represented on this Joint Committee. It will be open to the Cumann na nGaedheal representative to bring forward any case he thinks of special urgency, and it will be open to the representative of the Labour Party to put forward their views. Therefore, I think we cannot gain anything by discussing the matter further here.

Motion, as amended, proposed.

Mr. JOHNSON

Before the motion is put, I desire to say that no case whatever has been made in favour of extending the classes of incapacity beyond those already incorporated in the Electoral Act, 1923, and I cannot see that there is any reason why a committee of this kind should be set up. It is a most undesirable thing to extend the incapacity, and particularly if the proposal to extend that capacity is made without any reasons given. I will, therefore, vote against the motion to set up this Committee of Inquiry.

Professor MAGENNIS

Is it not obvious that a case should have been made that it is expedient? What is at issue is the extension of the bar which already excludes members of the Civil Service and the Army from membership of either House of the Oireachtas. It is not democratic. It certainly is not in the spirit of democracy to make more exclusion than public policy actually demands. Has there been any demand from any large body of people whose interests are injuriously affected to have certain other classes added to this black list, if I may so call it for convenience? I was not aware until just now that there had been any external pressure put upon the President or the Executive Council in this matter. The question that I desire to put to the President, but which he refused to permit me, is: Why should there be one rule for dealing with one set of persons and quite another rule for another set? Does he not remember the case of Deputy MacNeill? When that distinguished member of this House was made Minister for Education, the Governing Body of University College relieved him from all his duties as professor, and during the entire period of his tenure as Minister he drew no salary and was not called on to discharge any professional duty in the college. When he resigned his Ministerial position he came back to the college and resumed his work.

Why should there be one law for professors and another for national teachers? We are all teachers, and, if it is not against public policy, as now the President declares in answer to me, to allow a professor of a university to be a member of the Dáil, and even to be a member of the Ministry, is it not conceivable that a teacher might offer himself as a candidate in the community where he resides, become elected a member of this House, attend debates on some important measure, and then be at liberty to resume his work as teacher, regarding that only as a temporary break? Yet, because of that break or whatever it may be called, pressure has been brought to bear, and this Dáil is asked to vote and to add other classes to those debarred from membership of the Oireachtas—to add classes, not individuals. Deputy O'Connell has made an unanswerable case that, so far as the national teachers are concerned, there is no need for this comprehensive and all embracing motion.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is going into the very matter which the Committee (if appointed) will inquire into.

Professor MAGENNIS

I am aware of that, but it is not by way of prejudging their findings but to test the value of the formula, "it is expedient." The formula is in the nature of a preamble to an Act, and, precisely what a preamble to a Bill is, this formula is. We are always at liberty to debate the preamble to any measure. Where is the expediency, when Deputy O'Connell has shown that the kind of case which the President has in view is already adequately met by the rules? Let us not forget that though the State pays the salary of national teachers, the State is not the employer. The manager employs, dictates the duties, and dismisses.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot go into this matter now.

Professor MAGENNIS

I am at liberty, I assume, to discuss the question of expediency.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The motion has been amended to exclude any reference to any particular class of persons. The motion is to the effect that it is expedient to appoint a Joint Committee to inquire and report as to the extension of the incapacity to any further class. If a Deputy is in order in discussing whether any particular class should be included in the classes not capable of being members of the Oireachtas, it follows that we are in a position to discuss the case of every class of person, and that would lead us nowhere. The Deputy is out of order.

Professor MAGENNIS

No doubt it would be as you say, but I am trying to confine my criticism to the question that it is expedient.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy has not succeeded.

Professor MAGENNIS

I shall make a further attempt, with your permission, to show that it is expedient.

Mr. GOREY

To inquire and report.

Professor MAGENNIS

To inquire and report. It does not matter what other words or old time formula you add. What we have to be satisfied about is that it is expedient. Why is it to be deemed expedient? What has happened, what new circumstances have come to our knowledge, since we passed the electoral law? Something must have arisen. What is that something, which, in the view of the President, has made it urgent to have the matter settled? It is very difficult, as I think you, sir, will admit, to consider the case without considering all that has gone before the opening of the debate. If the President's case is a sound one, that it is expedient to inquire, he should show some evidence to the Dáil of what is in his mind. There should be some danger to the public weal. There should be some possibility of something going wrong in the forthcoming elections because the Statute Book does not contain legislation of this type. That has not been done, and, therefore, I hold that it is not expedient.

Motion, as amended, put. The Dáil divided: Tá, 53; Nil, 16.

Tá

Pádraig Baxter.Earnán de Blaghd.Séamus Breathnach.Próinsias Bulfin.Séamus de Búrca.John J. Cole.John Conlan.Bryan R. Cooper.James Dwyer.Michael Egan.Osmond Grattan Esmonde.Seán de Faoite.Desmond Fitzgerald.John Good.Thomas Hennessy.John Hennigan.William Hewat.Connor Hogan.Patrick Leonard.Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.Liam Mac Cosgair.Seán MacCurtain.Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.Pádraig Mac Fadáin.Risteárd Mac Liam.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Liam Mac Sioghaird.

Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.Patrick J. Mulvany.Martin M. Nally.John T. Nolan.Michael K. Noonan.Peadar O hAodha.Seán O Bruadair.Parthalán O Conchubhair.Máirtín O Conalláin.Séamus O Dóláin.Tadhg O Donnabháin.Mícheál O Dubhghaill.Peadar O Dubhghaill.Eamon O Dúgáin.Seán O Duinnín.Donnchadh O Guaire.Fionán O Loingsigh.Risteárd O Maolchatha.Séamus O Murchadha.Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).Máirtín O Rodaigh.Seán O Súilleabháin.Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.Caoimhghín O hUigín.Patrick W. Shaw.Liam Thrift.

Níl

Séamus Eabhróid.David Hall.Séamus Mac Cosgair.Tomás Mac Eoin.Risteárd Mac Fheorais.Liam Mag Aonghusa.Tomás de Nógla.William Norton.

Ailfrid O Broin.Criostóir O Broin.Tomás O Conaill.Aodh O Cúlacháin.Eamon O Dubhghaill.Pádraic O Maille.Domhnall O Muirgheasa.Tadhg O Murchadha.

Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Magennis and T. O'Connell.

Motion declared carried.

Major COOPER

Will a Message be sent to the Seanad?

Mr. GOREY

I assume it will, but I also assume that the representatives of the Dáil will be selected by the Committee of Selection.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes, a Message will have to be sent to the Seanad asking their concurrence. When they have concurred a committee will be ordered to be set up presumably by means of the machinery of the Committee of Selection. But the order will not be made until the Seanad concurs.

Mr. WILSON

If the Seanad does not concur with us, what will happen?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If the Seanad does not concur, the joint committee cannot possibly come into being.