Vol. 41 No. 2
I move:
That Deputy Patrick Hogan (Clare) be elected Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
In addition to close on ten years' Parliamentary experience, Deputy Hogan combines tact and diplomacy with a sense of fair play and a fluent knowledge of the national language. These qualifications should, I submit, make him an excellent Leas-Cheann Comhairle to guide the destinies of this House with your assistance, sir.
I beg to second the motion. I should like to remind this House of the attitude of Deputy Hogan in the last Dáil, when he was Leas-Cheann Comhairle and resigned that position with its emoluments on a question of principle, which is a shining example to this House and to the country. I must say that the attitude of Deputy Cosgrave rather took my breath away, because apparently he has no knowledge of the work attached to the Department of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. He said that this motion greatly disappointed him; that it was an extravagance; that for a few hours' work he was going to get £50, the implication being that there would be a saving of money by not appointing the Leas-Cheann Comhairle until we came back after the adjournment. The Deputy shows an entire lack of knowledge of the work of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. There is the whole question of Private Bill procedure to be made up, and it is the Leas-Cheann Comhairle who is in control of that. He will have to arrange for any Private Bills which may be introduced this Session. It seems a most ungraceful and ignorant attitude on the part of Deputy Cosgrave that he should have raised such a trivial question as that of objecting to this motion being put forward now.
I oppose this motion and I have already given the House an indication of what my principal objection to it is. It is that, in the first place, it shows indecent haste. It is evident, having regard to the way the motion is proposed and seconded, that a bargain has been made between two Parties, the Government and the Labour Party. One Party got one office and the other Party is entering its claim in respect of the other. The Deputy who has spoken referred to the fact that it is part of the business of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to deal with Private Bills and other matters of that sort. But we ought to have some information in respect to all that. We ought to have been told what the Deputy nominated in respect of this position did in the period when he held this position before. What work did he do in that connection during that period?
Why was he turned down?
Ask the Deputy himself. He left it. I shall be impolite enough to say he quitted it. In any case he left it. Whatever the dispute was it was not brought before the House by him, and no motion in respect of his resignation arose subsequently during the session as well as my recollection goes at the moment. The occupant of this office if appointed will have two hours' work to do to-day and possibly an hour's work to-morrow, and the salary in respect of this position is going to be £50 for a month. We are to come back in four weeks, and yet we are told by Deputy Little we did not know the importance of the duties of this office in respect to Private Bills in the next month. Is there no procedure in operation in respect of Private Bills? Is there not an office open for the receipt of Private Bills? Is not every possible facility available already there in respect of Private Bills? Is it expected that Deputy Hogan, if he is elected, will stand at the door of Leinster House and say "I would not let them in until the Dáil elected me"?
I consider that for the two Parties who talk about extravagance here the spending of £50 on this office is the grossest extravagance ever perpetrated. £50 is not much to either of these two Parties. Indeed it is quite a joke, but we know now in respect of the negotiations which took place between the two Parties about that bargain that one Party was to get one office and the other Party was to get the other.
There was no such bargain.
That subject was not mentioned?
No.
The fact that the late occupant of the chair was not to be re-elected was not mentioned at the meeting between the two Parties?
What was the bargain between you and him?
I had no bargain with anybody. I took the earliest opportunity of saying that the Labour Party was not going to have the balance of power so far as I was concerned.
And you lost your money.
They do not like their bedfellows, but the House and the country is entitled to know about the bargain made between the two Parties.
I would not intervene in this debate were it not for Deputy Little's speech. Deputy Little suggested that Deputy Hogan resigned the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle because of a certain principle. My recollection of the facts of the case is this: that Deputy Hogan resigned that position because he said he could not act as Leas-Cheann Comhairle in this House and attend to the business of his constituents. That, I think, is in the recollection of every member of the last Dáil. I subscribe to everything that has been said by Deputy Norton in regard to the qualifications of Deputy Hogan for the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I want to play the game straight. It is a mark of appreciation—to repeat a phrase used in the last Dáil in regard to another appointment—it is a mark of appreciation, by Fianna Fáil, if you will, for services rendered, and to be rendered, by the official Labour Party in the Dáil. It appears to me that the motto of Fianna Fáil for the present and the future is to be the spoils to the victors or the victors to the spoils. I do feel that the first two things the Fianna Fáil Party did in this Dáil, namely, the eviction of the Ceann Comhairle and, again, the eviction of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, are things that will stand to their lasting discredit. I did not want to take any action at all, and did not even intend to vote in any division if one was challenged, but my mind has now been altered. I feel that there was very shabby treatment meted out to Deputy Morrissey. When he was proposed for the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle to the last Dáil, Deputy Tadhg Murphy, I think it was, backed by every member of that Party, including myself, paid a high tribute to the services of Deputy Morrissey as a public representative and as one who was very conversant with the rules of procedure and debate in this House. Nobody could suggest that Deputy Morrissey was partial to any person or party in this House. He was strictly impartial, and I shall pay this tribute to him: that I think the House will never be served by a better Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I feel again that it is very shabby indeed for the Party now in power to evict two members of this House who occupied these positions with dignity and grace and credit to the State and to this institution.
I am rather sorry I had to say all these things, because I thought that no vote would be taken on the matter, and I would not have intervened at all but for Deputy Little's speech. I remember well that on the occasion of the appointment of Deputy Hogan to the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle in this House, many adverse comments were made in Labour circles because a Labour Deputy should accept the position at all. Further adverse comment was made after the resignation of Deputy Hogan, when Deputy Morrissey accepted the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I thought that every Labour representative should feel that the Party was honoured by being offered such a position and was rather proud that members of the Labour Party were fit and able to take such a position. But now I am told that what was a principle in the last Dáil when Deputy Hogan resigned the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle is no longer a principle. I want to know if the electors of Clare have become less importunate or has their business become less important, or in what way has the position altered since Deputy Hogan resigned the Vice-chair. I would like to be satisfied on these points now. Perhaps Deputy Hogan himself would explain it.
Deputy Anthony seems to be rather rattled because we have evicted the Ceann-Comhairle of the last Dáil and because we now propose to evict the Leas-Cheann Comhairle too. I have a slight idea that he is rattled not so much because of that but because we evicted greater men than they, including the President and the Executive Council of the last Dáil. We evicted them with the help of the country, and I think Deputy Cosgrave's anger is more aroused by that having taken place than by the fact of our having evicted the Ceann Comhairle of the last Dáil or by the fact that we are now proposing to evict the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. If he thought it an honour for the last Dáil to elect a member of the official Labour Party as Leas-Cheann Comhairle, what change has come over his mind that he thinks it is now no honour that a member of the official Labour Party should be elected to the same position in this Dáil? Surely there is evidence there of a greater change of mind on the part of Deputy Anthony than there is on the part of the official Labour Party or the Fianna Fáil Party. What was an honour, to his mind, on the part of the last Dáil seems to be a dishonour and entirely wrong in the present Dáil. I think we all understand the reason for his attitude, the reason for his grouse, and we need not consider it.
Deputy Cosgrave's first contribution as a member of the Opposition is to calculate the pay of certain officials by so much per hour. Is there a change of mind on his part there? The first time he began to calculate the wages of certain officials of this House is when he found himself in Opposition. It is the first time he began to calculate it by the hour. Surely he had greater opportunity when he was President of the State to calculate the wages of officials at so much per hour, and there was greater cause for him to look into the matter then, because when he had the appointment of Leas-Cheann Comhairle he paid, not £50 per hour or per month as we are proposing, but £100. That was at a time when the Dáil under his administration was on holidays for practically six months of the year. Mind you, if the country in evicting President Cosgrave and putting him into Opposition, did something that was wrong, it has done a very good thing in one way, because it has made him calculate how much per hour public men should be paid or how much per hour an officer of the State should be paid. If the President calculated with the same strictness the wages of his officials and the wages paid to the Government in the last Dáil he would probably not find himself in Opposition to-day. He would probably have remained a little longer as a member of the Government. I think his little snag is more or less due to a trivial thought, a little frivolous mood on his part, now that he is in Opposition.
He is worried about the bargain we have struck with the Labour Party. The late President of course thinks that if anything is done to anybody it must be as a result of a bargain, in his own words of some time ago, "a damn good bargain." He gave to a late member of the Farmers' Party, Mr. Heffernan, a post in his Cabinet as a result of a bargain. Members of the last Opposition who spoke as leaders of Nationalists in Ireland, were recently taken into his Party as a result of a bargain. Independent members and others were taken to the friendly bosom of the late President as a result of a bargain. He lived so long in that atmosphere that he cannot understand anything being done above board. He thinks the Government now in office must stoop to bargaining as he stooped and perhaps keep it secret as long as he kept his famous bargain some time ago. He need not worry. There is no bargain. If the Fianna Fáil Party wanted to enter into a bargain with the Labour Party, the Labour Party would be wise enough not to agree to the bargain. They would be wise enough to remain independent. There is no question of a bargain except that we agree that Padraig O hOgáin is a man who can fill the office with honour. Furthermore, he has a knowledge of the Gaelic tongue and he has been an outstanding man nationally for a number of years. We believe he will be able to fill the office to the best advantage, chum gloire Dé agus onóra na h-Eireann agus na teangan.
I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but I understand there is a possibility of a division. Fianna Fáil have successfully, as they say themselves, evicted Deputy Hayes from the Chair, and they now propose to evict the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
On a point of order, there is no Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It is not a question of eviction.
I am grateful to the Deputy for his accuracy of expression.
On a point of order, and in order that we might draw further compliments from the Deputy, may I say that the first man to use the word "eviction" was Deputy Anthony?
We read in the Press shortly before the Dáil met that President de Valera, who was then Deputy de Valera, had received a deputation from the Labour Party, that they went to him for the purpose of discussing widows' pensions, unemployment, housing of the poor, and a variety of other very desirable subjects, and that at the end of 3½ hours they withdrew from the discourse. I venture to say that there are a great many people in the country and in this House who believe that there was very little time given to the discussion of widows' and orphans' pensions and a great deal of time given to the discussion of the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I can only say that there are many of us who are loth to believe that President de Valera would be a party to such a transaction, and I think it would come as a shock to a great many people in the country, both amongst his supporters and those who are not his supporters, to realise that the first thing that the Fianna Fáil Government were responsible for was to throw away an opportunity of making a very admirable gesture of reconciliation—to reestablish Deputy Hayes in the Chair, where he had been a credit to the Dáil for many years—and that the second gesture they had to make, as the completion of an agreement which I suggest was made behind closed doors, was that if the candidate of Fianna Fáil were put into the Chair the candidate of Labour would follow him into the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Deputy Clery said that he is sure there is no bargain. I am convinced that a great many people will be anxious to hear the President confirm what Deputy Clery has said. I think it would be a very useful thing for the public life of the country if the President would take the opportunity of saying that there was no bargain involved in the appointment we are asked to make to-day.
Deputy Cosgrave's occupancy of the Presidential seat in this House for a period of ten years, in my opinion, and even in the Deputy's opinion, according to a speech which he recently delivered in the country, makes him the most ideal and the most efficient leader of the official Opposition Party. He has endeavoured to persuade the House that in his opinion this nomination has been rushed with indecent haste. No Deputy knows more about the rules and procedure of the House than Deputy Cosgrave. He knows, if he will only admit it, that the motion now on the Order Paper could have been on it last Wednesday for the first meeting of this Dáil. As a matter of fact I may inform Deputy Cosgrave that we were invited by officials of this House to submit our nomination for this position if we had one to make. We waited to see if Deputy Cosgrave would have the courage to make a nomination. The necessary four days' notice has been given. If he wanted to do so last week Deputy Cosgrave could have given the same notice as we have given in accordance with the Rules of the House. I want to assure Deputy Dillon that the position of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was not discussed at any meeting which representatives of this Party had with the representatives of the Fianna Fáil Party or with the representatives of any other Party, and that the decision to make a nomination was only made on the Tuesday night of last week. There is no bargain involved in this, and the proposal is not being made with the indecent haste with which Deputy Cosgrave rushed adjournments of the House on many occasions during the ten years that he was President, without consultation with the representatives of any of the other Parties, and without any relation whatever to the cost of such adjournments.
Give us the dates.
I hope you have not lost your memory during the election campaign.
The dates we want.
You have lost your position as President but I am sure you have not lost your memory.
The Deputy should address the Chair.
The proofs we want.
There is no bargain involved. The Deputy should have put his nomination on the Order Paper. Our nomination is put forward in the belief that the Deputy whom the Leader of this Party has proposed is a fit and proper person to occupy the position.
Will the Deputy undertake to supply me with the dates as he has not got them now?
You have more time to look for them than you had before.
Then the Deputy has got no such dates.
The Deputy has no proof of a bargain.
It will all come out later.
It would seem to me that, for the benefit of those who are new to the House, something should be said regarding the history of the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the last Dáil. We have heard about evictions. There are no evictions involved. It is quite clear that every new Dáil is competent and is entitled to elect a new occupant of the Chair, and a new Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Deputy Cosgrave endeavoured to suggest that on the last occasion the principle of continuity had been accepted by the House when special legislation was enacted to enable the Ceann Comhairle to retain his seat during the general election and not to have to submit himself to the suffrages of the electors. After the Deputy's speech, I took the opportunity to read the Debates on that particular measure. I remember particularly that the late Kevin O'Higgins, who was then Minister for Justice, and in charge of the Bill, made it quite clear that the fact that the Ceann Comhairle would not vacate his seat on the occasion of a dissolution of the Dáil did not mean that he would automatically become Ceann Comhairle when the new Dáil assembled. If my recollection is correct, he said that the new Dáil when it assembled would be free to re-elect the Ceann Comhairle of the preceding Dáil as Ceann Comhairle. What applied to the position of the Ceann Comhairle I submit applies in a much stronger measure to the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle, so we come to this House to-day with absolutely free hands to decide who shall fill the Vice-Chair. Those who were members of the Fianna Fáil Party in the last Dáil know that the Vice-Chair was made an occasion for conflict upon a matter of vital principle. The resignation of Deputy Padraig O hOgáin from the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle has been referred to, and I should like, for the benefit of Deputy Dillon and others who may not be aware of the circumstances, to recapitulate them briefly to the House. Deputy O hOgáin was the Leas-Ceann Comhairle and a member of his Party, Deputy T. J. Murphy, put down a motion. I am speaking from memory. Deputy O hOgáin as a member of the Party responsible for putting down the motion was anxious to speak on the motion—I think it was dealing with the land annuities. I understand representations were made to him that it would be incompatible with his position as Leas-Cheann Comhairle for him to engage in a debate of that nature.
On a point of explanation, may I say that the Minister's recollection is entirely at fault. I think Deputy Hogan will be able to enlighten him on that question.
At any rate I am quite clear that Deputy Hogan resigned and stated that the reason for his resignation was that he found his tenure of the Chair would not permit him, under the conditions then sought to be imposed upon him, to discharge his duties to his constituents and precluded him from participating in a debate upon a matter which he regarded as being of vital importance and concern to them. The matter was brought to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. In that Committee, as any Deputy may see from the report of the proceedings, the representatives of the Fianna Fáil Party endorsed the stand which Deputy Hogan had taken. I am sorry to say, speaking from recollection, that Deputy Morrissey, who was then the representative of the Labour Party, did not.
On a point of explanation, as a member of the Committee, I took the stand that the majority of the members of the Labour Party, of which I was then a member, and their representative on the Committee took.
In consequence of the finding of the members of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, Deputy Hogan's resignation was accepted, the Vice-Chair was declared vacant and Deputy Morrissey, who took a particular stand on the matter, was elected to that Chair by the votes of the Government Party and their associates in this House.
And the Labour Party.
Some of them.
Not the unanimous vote of the Labour Party—some of them. Naturally, when the position of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was discussed, not between members of the Parties, but by the general public and by the public Press, everybody agreed that Deputy O hOgáin was marked out as the new occupant of the office of Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I can say this, that our support of Deputy Patrick O hOgáin in that matter has been a purely automatic one, because he stood in the last Dáil for the principle which we mean to give effect to in this Dáil, that if he occupies the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle that position will not preclude him from doing his duty to the people who sent him here.
I have been asked to confirm the statement made from our side, that there was no bargain. I have no difficulty whatever in doing that. For the three hours or so that this conference lasted not once was the name of Deputy Patrick O hOgáin or the question of the Leas-Cheann Comhairleship mentioned. The questions discussed, as was reported in the Press afterwards, were large public questions, and we did not at all advert to the occupancy of the Vice-Chair.
I might say also that if I were in the seat at present occupied by ex-President Cosgrave, and if Deputy Padraig Hogan's name was put forward for the Vice-Chair, I do not see how I could possibly oppose the proposition in the circumstances, which are known to every member of the old Dáil. On one occasion on which Deputy Cosgrave, as President, proposed a Deputy for the office of Ceann Comhairle, I asked that the largest Opposition Party should be given the Vice-Chair. That was refused. The office was given on that occasion to Labour. I made the request because I considered that the principal Opposition Party should be given the Vice-Chair. That was denied on that occasion. I think Deputy Hogan was put forward and elected on that occasion. I feel that we are bound, considering the circumstances in which Deputy Hogan resigned and his qualifications for the Vice-Chair, to vote for him. As I say, I would feel bound in the same way if I were occupying the seat at present occupied by Deputy Cosgrave. Of course, one of Deputy Hogan's qualifications is a qualification which was not possessed by the ex-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. He knows Irish. It was sometimes rather embarrassing to hear the ex-Leas-Cheann Comhairle asked questions of order in Irish and he did not even know that a point of order was being raised. I think it is only right that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, whoever he may be, should know Irish.
Reference has been made to our "eviction" of the Ceann Comhairle. It is not necessary for me to mention the reasons why we voted against the re-election of the outgoing Ceann Comhairle. All we can say is that we did not accept the principle, and that, even if we did, we had a reason that we could have put before the Dáil, if we had chosen to do so—a very substantial reason—why the outgoing Ceann Comhairle should not occupy the Chair.
On the point that President de Valera mentioned, that the largest Opposition Party in the House were denied the Vice-Chair on a former occasion, I wonder could he give us any reference to the Dáil Debates that would substantiate that?
I proposed on one occasion that Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly should be appointed Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and the proposal was defeated.
I have listened to what the President has said as to what occurred on one occasion. There is one point which he stressed at great length and at great force on the last occasion which is rather absent from to-day's debate. He made the point on one occasion, when, I think, he was the nominator of a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that no man should be appointed Leas-Cheann Comhairle who did not undertake that he would not accept a greater salary than £600. Somehow, in the stress for national economy and efficiency, that has been forgotten to-day. I heard nothing, when it came to the President's time to nominate a Leas-Cheann Comhairle who will have an opportunity of being returned, about £600. Are we to understand that what the President told us, that he would only nominate a Leas-Cheann Comhairle who would not accept more than £600 a year, is to stand? Is he sticking to that still? I would be very glad to hear that from him while we are looking for efficiency and economy and waiting for these proposals for economy that we will be glad to hear from the Minister for Finance one of these days.
I do not know if I would be in order in replying. When the Ministers were being appointed, the question of salaries did not arise. Voluntary reductions are going to be made in the Ministers' salaries. We did not nominate on this occasion Deputy Hogan, but I think I know sufficient of the Deputy to believe that in any campaign of economy he will do his share.
I hope the same will apply to all the Deputies.
|
Aiken, FrankAllen, DenisBartley, GeraldBeegan, PatrickBlaney, NealBoland, GeraldBoland, PatrickBourke, DanielBrady, BryanBrady, SeánBreathnach, CormacBreen, DanielBriscoe, RobertBrowne, William FrazerCarney, FrankCarty, FrankClery, Mícheál.Coburn, JamesColbert, JamesCooney, EamonnCorish, RichardCorry, Martin JohnCrowley, Fred. HughCrowley, TadhgCurran, Patrick JosephDavin, WilliamDerrig, ThomasDe Valera, EamonDowdall, Thomas P.Everett, JamesFlinn, Hugo V.Flynn, JohnFlynn, StephenFogarty, AndrewGeoghegan, JamesGibbons, SeánGormley, FrancisGorry, Patrick JosephGoulding, John |
Harris, ThomasHayes, SeánHumphreys, FrancisJordan, StephenKelly, James PatrickKennedy, Michael JosephKeyes, Raphael PatrickKilroy, MichaelKissane, EamonnLemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick JohnLynch, James B.McEllistrim, ThomasMacEntee, SeánMaguire, BenMaguire, Conor AlexanderMoane, EdwardMoore, SéamusMoylan, SeánMurphy, Patrick StephenMurphy, Timothy JosephNorton, WilliamO'Grady, SeánO'Kelly, Seán ThomasO'Reilly, MatthewO'Reilly, Thomas J.O'Rourke, DanielPowell, Thomas P.Rice, EdwardRuttledge, Patrick J.Ryan, JamesRyan, RobertSexton, MartinSheehy, TimothySheridan, MichaelSmith, PatrickTraynor, OscarWalsh, RichardWard, Francis C. (Dr.) |
|
Alton, Ernest HenryAnthony, RichardBeckett, James WalterBennett, George CecilBlythe, ErnestBrasier, BrookeBroderick, William Jos.Brodrick, SeánBurke, PatrickByrne, AlfredCollins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt. Fitzgerald, DesmondGood, JohnGorey, Denis JohnHassett, John J.Hayes, MichaelHennigan, JohnHogan, Patrick (Galway).Keating, JohnKeogh, MylesKiersey, JohnLynch, FinianMacEoin, SeánMcGilligan, PatrickMcMenamin, DanielMinch, Sydney B.Mongan, Joseph W.Morrissey, Daniel |
Conlon, MartinCosgrave, William T.Craig, Sir JamesDavis, MichaelDesmond, WilliamDockrell, Henry MorganDoherty, EugeneDoyle, Peadar SeánDuggan, Edmund JohnEsmonde, Osmond GrattanFinlay, Thomas A. Mulcahy, RichardMyles, James SprouleO'Brien, Eugene P.O'Connor, BattO'Hara, PatrickO'Higgins, Thomas FrancisO'Leary, DanielO'Mahony, TheO'Neill, EamonnO'Sullivan, John MarcusRedmond, William ArcherReidy, JamesRoddy, MartinThrift, William EdwardVaughan, DanielWolfe, Jasper Travers |
