Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 13 Dec 1935

Vol. 59 No. 18

Motion to Elect Deputies to a Committee of Privileges.

An Ceann Comhairle

In connection with this matter I desire to state that a copy of this notice, in writing, addressed to me, will be placed in the Library, and I shall cause it to be entered in the Journal. The motion before the House is:

That Deputies Conor A. Maguire, James Geoghegan and William Norton be elected to a Committee of Privileges to whom is referred the question whether or not the Land Purchase (Guarantee Fund) Bill, 1935, is a Money Bill.

An amendment has been submitted as follows:—

To delete the name James Geoghegan and substitute therefor the name John A. Costello.

The amendment is in the name of Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan. The motion and the amendment will be debated together, and the question which will be put is that the names originally proposed stand.

The President

In moving the motion I do not know that there is anything to be said in connection with this matter. Like a number of other things that have come before the Dáil, the purpose, the meaning, of the motion is apparent on the face of it. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged according to an Article of the Constitution. The matter is to be determined by a committee of three members chosen from this House and three members chosen from the Seanad. In my opinion, the questioning of the decision of the Chair in this case, unprecedented as it has been, is purely a matter of obstruction.

Professor O'Sullivan

On a point of order, is it in order to debate the merits of the case?

An Ceann Comhairle

The subject for debate is the personnel of the committee to be selected by this House. Neither the merits of the Bill, nor the question whether it is a Money Bill, are open for debate.

The President

It was on the question of the personnel that I was saying it is obvious that this is a purely obstructive proceeding——

Professor O'Sullivan

On a point of order, is it in order, after the ruling of the Chair, to describe our procedure as obstructive?

The President

I submit that I should be allowed to finish the sentence to see whether I was relevant or not.

Professor O'Sullivan

May I make my point? The President has repeated that this is obstructive tacties on our part. I suggest, after the ruling of the Chair, that it is disorderly to say that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has only heard half a sentence. On the conclusion of the sentence I will be better able to judge.

The President

As I was saying, I regard the questioning of the decision in this matter as a purely obstructive step. I take it that those who put their names to such a petition are not proper people to be nominated on this committee.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has stated that it would hear the complete sentence. The sentence has not yet been rounded off.

Mr. Dillon

He has heard quite enough.

Mr. Morrissey

Remove another Article from the Constitution.

The President

I have proposed three names. As you will notice, they are drawn from members of our Party, with the leader of the Labour Party. This is going to be a question which has to be carefully examined into, and I am proceeding on the basis that those who signed that petition are people who have already prejudged the issue. Are Deputies on the opposite side now satisfied that there is some relevance in the matter?

General Mulcahy

Is that the end of the sentence?

The President

That is the end of the sentence. It is also, obviously, a matter in which there will be a question of interpretation, and on that account I put on the list the names of two lawyers who will be in a position, if there are legal arguments advanced as there are likely to be——

Professor O'Sullivan

To do what they are told.

The President

——to meet any case that may be put up. As I said at the start, it is simply a waste of time to talk on matters of this sort as the final issue is to be one of a vote. We might as well face the facts, that in this case the final issue is to be a vote, as I understand it,—it may be between three on one side and three on the other—with the Chief Justice as Chairman. As I personally hold very strong views on this matter—I think we must be realists in it—I propose the three names that I have put forward.

Professor O'Sullivan

I move the amendment in my name. After the President's speech, I wonder whether it is necessary for me to make a speech in favour of the amendment because the President has proved it up to the hilt. Every word that fell from him shows his conception of what this tribunal is to be. He spoke of a question of interpretation and then of deciding it by votes. We already knew it was his idea of how a question of this kind should be decided, but never has he so blatantly and callously acknowledged it as here to-day. That is to say, that the question of the interpretation of this constitution and of the rules is to be decided by a definite Party vote in which three people are already pledged to find one decision.

The President

What are the views of those who have signed the petition?

Professor O'Sullivan

Our view is that this is a matter to be investigated. The President's view of the matter is that it is not to be investigated. Let us consider the argument he has given. He holds strong views on the question; therefore, the matter is not to be properly investigated because he holds strong views. Let us get down to realities, and the only realities are his strong views. That is the whole gist of the case made by the President. I was rather attracted by the naïveté of the opening of the President's speech. He said, as usual, there was nothing to be said. For once he was quite right. He said nothing in favour of this particular motion of his, but every word that fell from his mouth was directly against the motion that he has proposed to the House. I do not think he uttered a sentence that would induce any decent-minded person in the House who wants a proper consideration of an important question to vote for the motion which he has proposed. A legal argument was, he claimed, at issue, and for that purpose he has put on he says two men learned in the law as advocates to argue his position. There is a question involved, and one of the things he makes up his mind to do is to see that the case on the other side, as far as he can prevent it, is not put before that tribunal. He deliberately takes steps to ensure that and comes to the Dáil to confess that that is the purpose. I think it is quite fitting that a motion of this kind should come from the President the day after he moved the resolution in regard to the Seanad. If we wanted any proof of what the President means by parliamentary government we had it in his conduct yesterday and what he said to-day. Because the Opposition exercises rights given them by the Constitution, that is obstruction! Will the House and the country not realise that any criticism—even the slightest—of the President's wishes is "obstruction"? Have we ever had a clearer example than the President gave of that? The plea that the motion was a matter for investigation finished up by saying that it is a matter of voting. That is the President's conception of a committee of investigation.

We know now what he expects from any committee of investigation. It is a matter of weighing evidence no longer, but a matter of voting. That is his conception of parliamentary institutions—not discussion, not debate. Deputy Donnelly, I see, is in full agreement with every sentence, with every half sentence, I utter. He knows that the view of the Party is that parliamentary institutions are not for examination or discussion, but merely for voting generally, without having listened to the arguments on one side or the other. That is the President's view of these institutions. That is the view of a section of the House. We saw the President yesterday proposing to save democratic rights by suggesting that there should be another stage after the final stage of Bills, or something of that kind. It was quite typical of the quarter from which it came. That suffices to safeguard the whole democratic position! To-day he comes here and deliberately packs this body. In the old days there was a great deal of comment in this country about packing—the packing of juries. Was there ever a more deliberate attempt at that, or a more cynical acknowledgment, than we have here to-day in connection with a tribunal and a jury, in which he takes up and breaks every precedent of this House? Why? To prevent even the case, as far as he can prevent it, really being made in that tribunal. That is the whole aim. He wants members learned in the law! As an amendment we propose that the precedent followed in every case by this House should be followed, and that representation should be given to the different Parties. Why has the President departed from it? Because the President has strong views on the matter! That is democracy! The ordinary rights of the House are to be trampled upon because the President has strong views on this matter! That is the precedent that is now being set up. After the Second Chamber, as far as he has been able to manage it, has been abolished, we have next a taste of the medicine the country is going to get. No rights for the minority, no matter how well anyone puts their case—their case is not even to be put. Our proposal is that we give to that committee the services of one learned in the law. We propose the name of Deputy Costello instead of Deputy Geoghegan.

Mr. Lemass

What are his views on the matter?

Professor O'Sullivan

We want views put up and investigated. We think there is a case to be argued, a very serious case. We took it for granted that the Article was not put into the Constitution without some purpose. There was a reason for putting it in. Therefore, we think this matter should be properly investigated. We want it investigated to the full. We want everything, one way or the other, put before the Committee and argued. We do not want to have the rights of the Oireachtas swept away. These rights are in the Constitution. The rights accorded to the minority are there by the Constitution. It was decided that a certain number of names were necessary, and these names had to be got. There was an absurd argument put forward that because we took the preliminary step, as we were bound by the Constitution, one of our Party cannot be put on. The Minister holds the same views as to what committees ought to propose. Evidence is of no account. It does not matter. It is a mere matter of voting. Vote first and give evidence afterwards. Make up your mind first and look at the evidence afterwards.

Mr. Donnelly

As good a way as any.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is what is being done by people who had no hesitation about abolishing the Second House yesterday. It is what they have always done—vote, vote. The merits of the case do not matter. Why should they? The President holds strong views on the matter! Is not that enough? According to Deputy Donnelly it is. According to Deputies opposite it is. This is called a Committee of Procedure. The President used that phrase.

Mr. MacEntee

A Committee of Privileges.

Professor O'Sullivan

A Committee of Privileges. Why are all precedents departed from? Why is there not proportional representation? I can well understand that the President does not want the matter argued. He wants no matter investigated.

The President

Is it arguable?

Professor O'Sullivan

Nothing is arguable that the President disagrees with. Will he not recognise that is his whole case? He will destroy every institution and destroy every safeguard so long as he does not agree with it and so long as other views do not fall completely in with his. That is the whole difficulty. Safeguards are swept out. This is a distinctly bad precedent, particularly bad in view of the events of the last few weeks. But there is no hesitation about doing it. This Government has set up bad precedent after bad precedent because they are irritated; because they dislike certain things without giving them any consideration. As to the consequences of these precedents, the Executive have no case, they must be supreme. The one and the sole principle on which they stand! Parliament—what does Parliament count for? A minority! What does a minority count for? He showed yesterday that there was no regard for the rights of minorities, that his conception of majority rule was that he was not to be criticised. Do we want a better illustration of that attitude than the matter we are now discussing? As this is a matter on which the ruling of the Chair is questioned, I must say that there is no compliment to that ruling in the line now being followed by the President. I ask those members of the House, who are not committed to the view that the only thing that counts in a Parliament is voting, to consider seriously before committing themselves to a principle of this kind. I doubt if the House is fully aware of the danger of setting up precedents of this kind. Apart altogether from any other consideration, merely from a desire to protect Parliamentary institutions, I would ask the House, if there is any sense of decency left in a large portion of the House, if there is any respect for this House as a body as distinct from a House merely to register the wishes of the Executive Council, not to accept this motion, not to try to steam-roll everything, and not to give evidence day after day of their contempt for Parliamentary institutions, while apparently preserving them in form; because that is what the House is being asked to do, as far as this House can manage it. The House is in essence being asked to pack the jury. We cannot go further than that. The President says it is not a question of argument and it is not a question of consideration— why he puts two lawyers on the Committee to waste their valuable time, I do not know—but a question merely of voting.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I am very seldom in agreement with the Opposition and the Opposition very seldom concur in any opinion of mine, but I think for once we can find common ground on this, that this is a question upon which the House is entitled to have the best legal opinion available to it. I do not think that even Deputy O'Sullivan would demur to that because, apparently, a very abstruse question of constitutional law is to be argued. I suppose I would be in order in reminding the House that the Bill, the character of which is to be investigated, is one which relates to the Guarantee Fund——

An Ceann Comhairle

That Bill may not be discussed.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not discussing it. I am merely reminding the House that there is a question of law to be argued.

Mr. Dillon

It is enough to have the President defying the Chair without his satellites doing it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Whether any Deputy defied the Chair is to be judged by the Chair.

Mr. Dillon

It is open to any Deputy of this House to direct the attention of the Chair to the open defiance of the Chair by the President.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair did not see any indication of defiance, and it is a question for the Chair.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not defying the Chair. I do not propose to discuss the merits of that Bill. I am pointing out the task which awaits the committee in relation to an Article of the Constitution which provides that a Money Bill is a Bill which imposes, for the payment of debt or any other financial purpose, charges on public moneys. That is the Article of the Constitution and the purpose of this Committee, for membership of which the Opposition have suggested one name, is to see whether a Bill dealing with the Guarantee Fund and the Purchase Annuities Fund comes within the terms of that Article of the Constitution.

An Ceann Comhairle

This House cannot prejudge the decision of that Committee. It is for the Committee to decide the nature of that Bill vis-a-vis the definition of a Money Bill in the Constitution.

Mr. MacEntee

Precisely, and I am now going to investigate the competency of the person who is proposed by the Opposition to examine, as I said, an abstruse legal point of that nature. It is quite obvious that it is a matter of immense constitutional importance, that is, according to Deputy O'Sullivan, and we ought to have on that Committee, so far as we can, lawyers who are sure of their ground in constitutional matters.

Professor O'Sullivan

Hear, hear!

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy proposed by the Opposition is a lawyer who was their legal and constitutional adviser from 1927 to 1932. During those five years, many important changes were made.

Mr. MacDermot

On a point of order, Sir. What the Minister is saying may, strictly speaking, be in order—that is for you and not for me to judge—but I suggest that an almost unlimited field for debate on past questions is opened if the Minister continues on that line.

Mr. Dillon

And a very fruitful field.

An Ceann Comhairle

As the Deputy has stated, it is in order to discuss the personnel elected by the Dáil to sit on this Committee, but it certainly would not be desirable to indulge in personalities.

Mr. MacEntee

If I may again——

Professor O'Sullivan

The lawyer.

Mr. MacEntee

If Deputy O'Sullivan is going to determine the order of debate, there is not much purpose in my speaking.

Professor O'Sullivan

I am delighted that it is in order.

Mr. MacEntee

I understand that the matter we are considering is the personnel of this Committee, and we are entitled to consider the qualifications of those proposed for it. The qualifications of those who have been proposed by the President——

Mr. MacDermot

Can we sit next week to go into the qualifications of all the members?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair does not regulate how long the Dáil sits. A discussion of the personnel is in order.

Mr. MacEntee

You have ruled on that, Sir, and may I hope that I shall be permitted to proceed without further unmannerly interruption from Deputy O'Sullivan and inane interruption from Deputy Dillon? I was saying that the Deputy whose name has been proposed by the Opposition for membership of this committee was the principal legal and constitutional adviser to Deputy Cosgrave's Government from 1927 to 1932. During that period he was responsible for many amendments to the Constitution. I assume that before these amendments were brought into this House, the then Government had the opinion of the Attorney-General and I presume that they would not have ventured to disregard the opinion of that Attorney-General if he had informed them previously that the amendments which they proposed to make would be invalid and ultra vires. Yet, within the last two years, the Attorney-General who advised the Government from 1927 to 1932 that this Oireachtas was competent to make these numerous amendments to the Constitution, subsequently appeared in court and argued that the Oireachtas had exceeded its powers under the Constitution when it made those amendments. This matter which this committee is to be set up to consider is, as Deputy O'Sullivan says, a matter of primary Constitutional importance. Surely, whoever else we may put on that Committee, we ought not to put on it a lawyer who has shown himself so variable, so uncertain in his opinion, so disreputable in his advocacy and so ignorant of the Constitutional law of this State as Deputy Costello has shown himself to be.

If there were no other reason than the exhibition which Deputy Costello has made of himself from time to time in the courts, I should still say that the Dáil would be unjust to itself and unjust to the State if it, for one moment, accepted him or any of his Front Bench colleagues as fit to sit on a committee to investigate so abstruse a constitutional point as will come before this committee. Deputy O'Sullivan has said that, in proposing to put upon this committee two lawyers, the arguments of one of whom have been accepted in the courts upon the fundamental constitutional issue as to whether the Oireachtas had power to amend the Constitution or not—had been accepted by the courts as overbearing those put forward by Deputy Costello—the other being an eminent senior counsel, and, with these, the leader of the Labour Party, who has not prejudged this issue by either signing a petition or asking other people to sign a petition, we were abusing precedent. If I had been as unmannerly and as inconsiderate as Deputy O'Sullivan habitually shows himself to be in debate, I should have interrupted him and asked him to cite a single precedent that covered this matter. The burden of his speech was that we were violating precedent. The fact is that there is no precedent for what it is proposed to do now. This is the first time on which it was necessary to convene a committee of privileges.

The majority of this House is entitled to lay down precedents. In this matter we have a freer hand, I think, than in most other cases, because this will stand as a decision which will be unique of its kind. Within a comparatively short period we have every reason to anticipate that things will be so ordered that this question of a Money Bill will never arise again in the form in which it has been raised here. Accordingly, we shall be doing no violence to the assumed rights of posterity if we put on the committee three persons who, at any rate, have not indicated by their signatures that they have anything else than an open mind on this matter.

Mr. MacDermot

I object to the suggestion of both the President and the Minister, that everybody who signed the petition in question has prejudged the issue. There is, obviously, no logic at all in that statement, because the petition does not contain any statement of our views; it merely asks that the issue be determined. I may as well say quite frankly that if I were the judge to determine the issue as to whether or not the Bill was a Money Bill, I should say, on my present information, that it was a Money Bill. In signing the petition, I have done nothing inconsistent with the holding of that view. It is a matter which is, admittedly, open to doubt, and I see no reason why it should be considered improper to ask to have it determined.

I must confess that I have listened to this debate with considerable amusement. I should have been greatly impressed by the moral fervour of Deputy O'Sullivan on the subject were I not absolutely certain that, if the positions were reversed, the Front Bench of the Opposition would be doing exactly the same thing.

Mr. Flinn

Even if Deputy MacDermot were on it.

Mr. MacDermot

The President has taken what he calls a realistic—what I call a cynical—view of the situation. He says the matter will be, in fact, determined by a Party vote. Of course, it will be determined by a Party vote, and the legal qualifications of the persons on the Committee are really of very little importance. The only advantage, from the Party point of view, of having a man with high legal qualifications on the committee is that his opinion may possibly carry greater weight with the general public than the opinion of a layman would. The President has, I must say, this excuse: there is a majority against him at present in the Seanad. I have no doubt he believes that even if he, in an access of virtue, had sought to constitute a non-Party representation from this House, the Seanad could not be depended upon to exercise an equal degree of virtue, and that it was possible the Seanad might select three representatives who could be relied upon to take a particular view of this issue. As a matter of fact, I think that the President has been rather more generous than, knowing him, we might have expected him to be in putting Deputy Norton on the committee. He might have put on three staunch men and true of the Fianna Fáil Party, whereas he has included a Deputy who spoke very strongly, and voted with all his Party, against the particular Bill that is now in question. Looking at the situation "realistically," I do not think that the President has behaved too badly.

The whole incident is an admirable illustration of what I was trying to prove last night—the undesirability of having a Second Chamber constituted on Party lines. The proceedings of this committee will, I have no doubt, be conducted on Party lines, just as the proceedings of the committee inquiring into the Wicklow mining lease have been conducted on Party lines, and the reports will be issued on Party lines. It is just as well that, instead of working ourselves into a high state of moral indignation, we should realise what the Party system is, especially when that Party system includes the Second House as well. It is not for me to draw the moral that the few "just men" who exist in the Irish Constitution in either House sit upon the Independent Benches.

Mr. Dillon

I think that when Deputy MacDermot reads the report of the speech which he has just delivered in the Official Report next week it will cause him to blush. The question whether this Bill is determined to be a Money Bill or not is of comparatively small importance. What is of importance, however, is that something is going to be done here to-day just because President de Valera is in a temper and because there is not anybody on his benches with the independence of mind which would make it worth while to make any representation founded on justice to them.

It is twelve years now since this State was founded, and, when it was founded, Parliamentary institutions were set up and a written Constitution. Anyone, who knows anything about such matters, knows that these things are clothed by precedent. When you set them up first, they are naked and unworkable, and you proceed to make them workable by establishing precedents as the occasion for using each section of the Constitution arises. Now, I put this question to some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies. They disclaimed any desire to co-operate in any way in making the Constitution of this House or of the State a success, and then they changed their minds and came in. I put it to them now to ask themselves: Was there not, in their absence, a Parliamentary instrument fashioned which gave them ample protection for their minority rights when they came into the House? Did they not find the Committee of Public Accounts, with a Chairman drawn from the Opposition presiding over it? Did they not find that every precedent that had been established in their absence secured to the minority in this House ample representation and, very often, representation larger than their actual numbers seemed to justify, on every Committee that this House was called upon to form? The reason for that is quite simple. The Committees of Procedure or Privilege, or matters of that kind, are designed primarily to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. The procedure understands that, on the floor of the House, the minority will be prevailed over in matters which are contended for between the two main Parties, because it is right that the opinion of the majority should prevail in matters political. That is the purpose of this House. But then you come to matters of our essential rights.

Mr. Donnelly

That was not your view on the Wicklow Committee.

Mr. Dillon

Then you come to matters of our essential rights as Deputies of this House, and then the opinion of the majority should carry no more weight than that of the minority. The late Government did realise that, whether you trusted the Opposition or not, unless you adopted that attitude towards them, parliamentary institutions could not survive at all, and unless you were prepared to assume that they were going on to the Committees of the House, discarding their political convictions and joining hands with their political opponents so that parliamentary institutions might be properly run, then parliamentary institutions could not be carried on at all. It is hard for anybody who feels the same reverence for these parliamentary institutions as I do, to listen to Deputy MacDermot's consistent sneers at the capacity of his own fellow-countrymen in regard to the carrying out of parliamentary institutions.

Mr. MacDermot

Would the Deputy quote one single remark of mine to that effect?

Mr. Dillon

I am not going to be drawn into any altercation with the Deputy. He may do it for the purpose of gratifying President de Valera or securing his goodwill, but I think he does President de Valera a disservice; he does the Leader of the Opposition a disservice; he does himself a disservice; and he does the country a disservice, in suggesting that the people of this country are so debased that we cannot carry on parliamentary institutions with the same detachment and real solicitude for individual liberty as they are carried on in every other country in the world.

Mr. MacDermot

I never suggested anything of the kind, and I have defended parliamentary institutions inside that Party when they needed defence inside that Party.

Mr. Dillon

I have sat on Committees of this House repeatedly in various capacities and I have found, as a general rule, that I was able to state my case and that Deputies as a whole conducted themselves with a reasonable degree of justice and fairness to the minority on the Committees; and that, where you got an obstreperous Deputy who forgot that he had been transferred from the rough-and-tumble of the floor of the House—which ought to be rough-and-tumble—into the sphere of a Committee concerned with liberties, I have found Fianna Fáil Deputies turn on their own colleague and point out to him that that kind of attitude was not defensible on the Committee: that they had got to remember in the Committee that a Deputy of the minority had certain privileges that he could not expect or ask for on the floor of the House. So that, the conduct of Irish Deputies who are so much despised, is not so deplorable in Committees as some of our colleagues seem to think. It is not my experience, and I have had a pretty wide experience of Committees of this House.

Mr. Davin

And of the ice-cream system too.

Mr. Dillon

The what?

Mr. Davin

The Italian ice-cream system that you were supporting.

Mr. Dillon

I think, Sir, that Deputy Davin has momentarily gone out of his mind.

Mr. Davin

General O'Duffy's system.

Mr. Dillon

I put it to the President that the issues joined between the Parties here are not of fundamental importance. Our proposal is that the ex-Attorney-General, the present Attorney-General, and the leader of the Labour Party should constitute this committee. The Minister for Finance makes a point which does not appeal to me very much but which may appeal to the President. In matters of this kind, the question of whether Bills are, in fact, Money Bills or not will not arise again so long as the President can sustain his abolition of the Seanad. Therefore, he has no reason to apprehend that he will be over-ruled or that the Chair will be over-ruled in a matter of this kind in the future, so far as he is concerned. Quite apart, however, from this particular issue of a Money Bill, this fact is going on record: That the first precedent to be established by a Fianna Fáil Government—and remember this is the first unprecedented constitutional situation that the Fianna Fáil Government has had to deal with— the first precedent you are going to establish, the first committee, the constitution of which the Fianna Fáil Government is going to ordain, is going to be the first packed committee of this House in the whole history of the State; and, while in the particular issue that is going to be judged here, it does not very much matter, the precedent that is going to be established and that is going to be appealed to is going to do infinite damage to parliamentary institutions in this country, and it is going to lend colour to what seems to me to be the detestable doctrine that the Deputies of this House are so base and so incompetent and so unworthy of parliamentary institutions that you could not set up parliamentary committees because you could not find men in this House to man them. That is not true. I speak as one who has never been on a Committee of this House, except as a member of the minority, and I never experienced on a Committee of this House the kind of tyranny or dishonesty that President de Valera and Deputy MacDermot apprehend is the common rule. It does not exist. But why go out and publish to the world that parliamentary institutions have become impossible in this country because we are all debased and corrupt? We are not. The rational and sensible thing to do in a committee, over which the Chief Justice of the State is to preside, to decide a very complex question in law as to whether a Bill certified as a Money Bill by the Ceann Comhairle is a Money Bill or not, and the construing of a paragraph in the Constitution, is to have on that committee the Attorney-General and the ex-Attorney-General and then a non-legal Deputy who will represent the cross benches in the House. Deputy Norton is not the only Deputy who would have done that. An Independent Deputy would have done it as well. It was natural that the contribution of the Government would be the Attorney-General; that the contribution of the Opposition would be the ex-Attorney-General, and that from the cross benches in the House there should come a Deputy who would represent the minds of the non-legal members. When two Deputies here make a case for a committee to be set up their Party ought to be represented on that committee by at least one Deputy. I do not attach so much importance to improving the representative capacity of the committee. We can leave that out.

We are interpreting the Constitution and on that committee there should, from the Government side, be the Attorney-General and, from the Opposition side, the ex-Attorney-General. From the cross Benches a Deputy reasonably representative would be found. Surely such a committee would do this House more credit than the proposal that we should have two members from the Government Benches and the third the leader of the Labour Party. The leader of the Labour Party would be acceptable to me as a representative Deputy of the cross benches, not that I do not know him to be a politician for whom I have no respect. But I always found him, as I found members of the Fianna Fáil Party, concerned for the rights and privileges of the House and prepared to take a certain stand as a member of the House.

I appeal to the President on this matter, which in a sense is a trivial one, not to slander the House with the imputation that we cannot carry on parliamentary institutions. I appeal to the President to dissociate himself from the suggestion that if the ex-Attorney-General and the Attorney-General, practically the two heads of the legal profession in this country, sit down together they will deliberately betray their profession and give, as their opinion on a point of law, an opinion that they honestly believe to be false. There is no responsible Deputy in this House who believes that will happen. It could not happen, and I appeal to the President to associate himself with us in taking the view that it will not happen and so set clear before the other countries of the world that we are following the ordinary decent course in a matter of this kind; that we are reposing our confidence in Deputies of the House no matter whence drawn; and that we are doing that in the knowledge that the particular Deputies will have as their primary, and in fact only, concern to construe faithfully this Article of the Constitution.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy who has just spoken—he is now going out—reminds me of a churchwarden in the divorce court, or the devil quoting Scripture. After all, we have witnesses. We have a witness who slept on the same bed for quite a long time and he tells us what the real mentality of the Opposition Front Bench is. He was intimate in their councils. He knew what considerations influenced their minds. He knew what limitations, moral or otherwise swayed them in deciding to do or to leave undone something. And he says exactly what I say—and that is that every word of this unctuous self-righteous rectitude that we have had from the Front Bench is carefully organised hypocrisy.

Mr. MacDermot

I must beg Deputy Hugo Flinn not to put words in my mouth that I am not in the habit of using.

Mr. Flinn

I ask Deputies to turn to the Official Report to get the Deputy's speech and to read the whole of it. It may be that for many members here it is not necessary to do so, but every single word of that speech is a washing of dirty linen. I might say of very dirty linen, the moral dirtiness of which Deputy MacDermot learned when he left the United Ireland Party. What then is the meaning of it?

Mr. MacDermot

I protest against imputing to me this sort of phraseology.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not convinced that Deputy Flinn's speech is related to what is before the House.

Mr. Flinn

Like Deputy MacDermot, I hate scurrility, but I hate hypocrisy more. The only thing to the credit of the Deputy to-day is that he has scarrified hypocrisy when he knew it was hypocrisy. What else is it? A packed committee. We are told by Deputy Dillon that this is really a very nice House made up of very gentlemanly people, that they would not think of packing a committee. They never did. The whole tenour of the atmosphere of this House in relation to committees is, according to Deputy Dillon, that we do get a perfectly fair committee. I have sent down to the Library for Deputy Dillon's speech on the setting up of the Wicklow Mining Commission, which Deputy MacDermot, with a knowledge of what his Party meant and thought when that Committee was set up, has characterised. But then they say that this House always set up fair committees.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Was not the Wicklow Mining Commission set up by the Committee of Selection of this House, and was not the personnel of that Committee approved by this House? The matter of that Committee is not open to discussion now.

Mr. Flinn

I am simply alluding to the fact that that Committee was set up and that it has been characterised as a Committee which was thoroughly dishonest.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has, by implication, criticised and discussed that committee. That cannot be allowed.

Mr. MacDermot

In any case it is not true that I characterised it as dishonest. I characterised it as a Party Committee. And if the sort of thing I was saying is a charge of hypocrisy, it applies fully to the present supporters of the Government in regard to the Public Safety Act.

Mr. Flinn

And that also is irrelevant. But the actual position is that I was discussing what Deputy Dillon had said, and I was comparing it with his practice. His practice was to say that that Committee which as you, Sir, said was selected by the Committee of Selection and was approved of by this House, was a packed committee. He said it was packed because we put on it the late Minister for Justice in the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. Some packing indeed! You know that sort of sawdust that is put in between goods to prevent their getting scratched. And then we are told we are not going to pack committees. Let us have a committee which consists of three people to investigate a matter in relation to a Bill, and two of those three people will be people who have voted against the Bill which this House has passed. That is what I call being real fair.

Then, as to the qualifications, the unimpeachable honesty of the representatives who are suggested for the purpose. The late Attorney-General, who proved in relation to the Public Safety Act that he would talk to any brief so long as he is briefed. And they are briefing him in this matter, and then they say: "Do not pack the jury." Deputy Dillon said this ought to be a rough and tumble. Well, he may be reminded of that on a future occasion. He says the suggestion is that the members of this House are so base, incompetent and unworthy that no committee can be set up. What is he suggesting at the moment but that the Committee that we have set up, consisting of the head of the legal profession, the late Minister for Justice of this Government and the leader of the Labour Party are so base, incompetent and unworthy that they are not to be trusted as the representatives of this House in expressing the will of the House and the opinion of the House in relation to a matter of that kind?

Mr. Brennan

Might I ask if it is to be the privilege of the committee, when set up, to express the will of the House? Is it not their business to determine the matter that will be put before them, rather than the will of the House?

Mr. Flinn

I hope there will come a time when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will sit in the position of a judge, wearing the wig and gown of that position, and be called upon to give legal decisions of that kind. I know of no court into which I would go with a greater assurance that the verdict would be in accordance with the evidence. I must say this is the most cheerful funeral I have been at for a long time. I have heard of funerals in Ireland called sod picnics. There was a sod picnic on one occasion when a very charming young lady went to the funeral. When she came home her mother said: "Mary, how did you enjoy the funeral?" She replied: "Mother, it was lovely. I sat in the car forninst the husband of the corpse, and he squeezed my hand and said: `Mary, you are the belle of the funeral.' "

Mr. Brennan

That is a Liverpool joke.

Mr. Flinn

That is very much the spirit in which we here are celebrating the wake of the half-dead.

Mr. Belton

That is a perfect exhibition of the stage Irishman for consumption in foreign countries. It comes well from the gentleman from Liverpool.

Mr. Flinn

We are having the rough and tumble which Deputy Dillon asked for.

Mr. Belton

We wrecked a show in London years ago for less.

Mr. Brennan

He should have a pipe in his hat.

Mr. Belton

He is a disgrace.

Mr. Flinn

Does anyone in this House, who speaks in favour of the impartiality of committees and with what care the House should set them up so that a judicial decision should be obtained from them, remember the Larkin Committee? That was a committee to decide which of the Larkins, Senior or Junior, was elected to this House. I want those who seriously suggest that our predecessor had any respect for decency in setting up committees——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Parliamentary Secretary still, by implication, discussing a decision of this House in respect of committees that they have approved? If he is, that cannot continue.

Mr. Flinn

I am only dealing with what has been said in this House. The comimttees which have been set up by this House have already been criticised. I am merely dealing with that point. I would very much like to find in relation to these committees, such as the Wicklow Committee, the Larkin Committee and this committee, machinery which would leave questions which were questions of law clear from any Party considerations. But so long as the machinery is what it is, we have to live within it. Deputy MacDermot has told you that if the President were to have set up another kind of committee than he contemplates, the Seanad, which he was not prepared to go into the Lobby to vote for or against last night, would have packed that committee itself. What are we to do?

Somebody may find machinery sometime which will leave decisions of this kind free from all Party considerations. I hope they will. But until they do, as long as committees are made up of Party men and are voted on by majorities in the House, then this sort of thing is going to occur. The committee which has been set up is a committee which is representative of the knowledge and experience of this House, and until some committee can be proposed which is in itself more representative of that experience, I cannot see how we can agree to alter the committee which we have. I would ask that some machinery should be set up in relation to all these inquiries which in future may take place which will keep the matter clear of difficulties of this kind. But we are living in the present and we have to abide by it.

Mr. Belton

I wish further to emphasise my protest in this House against the exhibition of buffoonery by the Parliamentary Secretary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think it was ruled the other day by the Ceann Comhairle that buffoon is not a parliamentary word and should not be used.

Mr. Belton

All right, I will withdraw it. It is something to laugh at. At the beginning of the Irish Ireland Movement 30 years ago, the stage Irishman was attacked by Irish societies all over the world. He was driven out of Buenos Aires, New York and various other American cities. I was one of a party 30 years ago that broke up a show in West London because of misrepresentation of the Irish character. Here to-day we have in an Irish Parliament a gentleman, who, I believe, was born in Liverpool, telling us about the sport at an Irish funeral. I challenge him to say where such a funeral ever took place in this country. It is a disgrace to an Irish Parliament.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy ought to pass on to the motion before the House.

Mr. Belton

I am replying to a statement and referring to the action of the previous speaker. I admit it had nothing whatever to do with the motion before the House. I would not have spoken at all only I want emphatically to protest and I am sure every member of the House is with me in that protest, no matter on what bench he sits. I suggest some kind of an arrangement should be come to in this matter. I signed this petition. I agree with Deputy MacDermot that although I signed the petition I did not prejudge the issue. The President may laugh at that, but surely he does not say I am stating a deliberate falsehood? I am quite sure the President would like to have this thing properly investigated and a fair decision come to.

The President

I do not personally think there is anything to investigate in this matter. I think it is as clear as day.

Mr. Belton

Now who is prejudging the issue?

The President

I am, perhaps, in that sense.

Mr. Belton

The President admits he is prejudging the issue. If a person who signed the petition is, in the opinion of the President, prejudging the issue, then conversely, those who did not sign it have prejudged the issue in an opposite direction.

The President

Listen to the logic.

Mr. Belton

So, here we are in a House composed of people chock full of prejudices. Now, if this provision in the Constitution is worth anything, and the President feels that this will be a matter of voting and not a matter of right or wrong, one of counting heads, and if he is afraid—I do not know whether he said this or not; someone said it and it is not contradicted—that the other House may put up three against him then he is right in taking the precaution to have a vote on it. Why should he have any fear upon that when he has a majority in this House? But if the provision of the Constitution, as understood by any of us, is that this machinery was to be set up, presided over by the Chief Justice, then we should have a proper interpretation of the matter submitted to that committee. Surely, the position here is such that there is no ground for the fears of the President that the other House might put up three persons opposed to the President. Could there not be an understanding that there will be 50-50, and let the matter be investigated? If not, there is a good deal in what Deputy Dillon said in this House, and what was said in the Seanad, that we are incapable of dealing with the matter on its merits. I think we could get something by a gentleman's agreement —whether gentlemen in this House or in the Seanad. I think we should have a 50-50 arrangement presided over by the Chief Justice.

Mr. McMenamin

Why not leave it to the Chief Justice altogether?

Mr. Belton

Perhaps that was not contemplated in the Constitution. In the case suggested it would then be in the hands of the Chief Justice with two law officers, namely, the present Attorney-General and the ex-Attorney-General. Let them argue the case and have a proper interpretation of the Constitution. If the President is convinced that there is nothing to decide, then he need not be afraid of an impartial tribunal and a trained judicial tribunal. If the President rejects the suggestion to have the matter decided by a trained impartial tribunal, presided over by the leading judge in the country, then he is not easy in his mind as to whether he is on the right road; and the country will not be satisfied that the President himself is satisfied that an impartial decision will come his way. However, I suppose nothing that may be said about the matter will alter his views. Again, I emphasise that anyone who reads the debate here to-day will not take Deputy Hugo Flinn as a typical Irishman because he is not an Irishman at all.

Mr. Brennan

My contribution to the debate——

The President

Before Deputy Brennan speaks may I make a suggestion? There is a matter of urgent public importance being dealt with by the Minister for Justice upon which we would like to get a decision. I understood the Opposition was anxious to have a debate on the motion for the adjournment, and I suggest we are spending a tremendous lot of time on a matter that will ultimately be decided by a vote.

General Mulcahy

It was a pity the President did not consider that before. It is a pity he did not keep Deputy Flinn in his seat, and conclude the debate himself.

The President

I was waiting for an opportunity.

Mr. Brennan

My contribution will be very brief indeed. There appears to me to be gross inconsistency on the part of the Government Deputies on this matter. Firstly, the President has prejudged the whole matter. Notwithstanding that he tells us he has appointed two learned legal gentlemen, he says that it is votes that count. That is a little inconsistent. Indeed, the whole thing is inconsistent. With regard to something Deputy MacDermot said, it is evident that his flirtation with the Government Party is not reciprocated by Deputy Flinn. I suggest what the President should do with regard to the speech made by Deputy Flinn, is that he should have it printed and sent out to the people of Ireland with the President's best wishes for a happy Christmas.

Mr. Coburn

There is a very important matter before the House; and that is the suggestion of three persons to act on a committee for the purpose of inquiring whether the Guarantee Fund Bill is a Money Bill or not. The President, I am informed—I was not in the House at the time—has selected Deputy Geoghegan, the Attorney-General and Deputy Norton to act as that committee. As an ordinary layman, not knowing much about the law, though sometimes I read a good deal about it, and sometimes take an interest in it, I put this question to myself: What are the reasons for the setting up of this committee? The first reason that occurs to my mind is this: that certain doubts have arisen——

Mr. Donnelly

On a point of order. Is this strictly relevant?——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No, we cannot discuss what led up to the setting up of the committee but the personnel of the committee.

Mr. Coburn

Are we not discussing the personnel of the committee? Are we not discussing whether the men selected are efficient for their job? I intend to prove that one or two of them at least are not fit for that job. The mere fact of having to set up a committee is proof of their inefficiency. Deputies laugh, but this is no laughing matter. I am prepared to discuss this question here or anywhere else with the great President—the great "I am"—and with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. I am prepared to discuss it in accordance with the viewpoint of the ordinary man in the street—the view after all which counts. I am proposing to argue that were it not for the fact that the Government has what I may call handymen lawyers there would be no necessity for the setting up of this committee. In case some Deputies may not understand the significance of the term "handyman," I would explain to them that a handyman is a man who undertakes to do work which in ordinary circumstances would be done by a qualified tradesman. The only thing about the handyman is this, that he does not get the same pay as the qualified tradesman; neither does the man for whom he does the job expect as good a job to be done, simply and solely because he does not pay as much.

I am arguing here to-day that the Attorney-General—I say this without offence; he is a very nice lovable kind of gentleman—is in the same position from the legal point of view as the handyman is in from the work point of view, because it is as plain as A.B.C. that if the job had been done right in the first instance the Louth County Council and the Cork County Council could not take the action they have taken with any hope of success. It is because of the bad job done by the law officers of the Government, for which they receive the wages that are paid to fully qualified tradesmen—I submit that it is only handymen's wages they should receive—that we are here to-day discussing the personnel of this committee. I agree that it is a very important committee. It is to decide whether a Bill passed through this House by the very small majority of six is a money Bill or not.

Leaving politics out of it altogether and looking at the position as I see it, from an honest point of view—of course, I cannot have the same degree of honesty as the gentlemen over there, but sometimes we do show signs of honesty—I would say that there is one man who should be put on that committee, and it is the ex-Attorney-General, who is familiar with the legislation which has been passed in this legislative Assembly all down through the years from the very first year that this Assembly was established. Of course, I am quite aware that the members opposite did not know much about the law at that time, and did not have much respect for the law during the first few years. I can understand that, and of course from their record up to the moment I could not hope that they would yet have the necessary respect for the law. They are only doing their apprenticeship still. But I think that the President must admit that the man who occupied the position of Attorney-General in the late Government for a period extending over eight or nine years should be included in this committee, if he wants to convince this House that he is really in earnest about having a properly constituted committee.

Of course, the President himself says there is no necessity. The President is the be-all and end-all of these things. He never made a mistake in his life. But they say the man who never made a mistake never made anything. The President states that there is no necessity. Whether there is or not, I think he must agree, in view of the reasons I have given, that —I say it without offence—he does not seem to have fully qualified lawyers advising him at the moment. I am prepared to argue that here or outside. He has not fully qualified lawyers, and it would possibly be in his own interests, as well as in the interests of the institutions of this State, if he would sink his feelings and appoint on that committee men who have proved themselves to be lawyers of the first degree—not handymen. That is what I would respectfully suggest to the President. Possibly there will come a time when many of the budding lawyers over there—Deputy Carty, Deputy Cleary, and others, who hope that some day in a few years time they will earn a few cheap pounds under Government patronage—will possibly show signs of having a greater knowledge of the law than the present law officers. The position as I view it is that we are paying from £1,200 to £1,400 a year to law officers who have proved beyond doubt in the last few weeks that they do not know their job, and who, as the result, have put this House to very considerable expense in the printing of Bills which would not be necessary if the law officers carried out their duties in an efficient manner.

Mr. Bennett

If the spirit and the manner in which the President has selected and put before the House the personnel of the proposed committee are any indication of what we are to expect under a Single Chamber Government in this country, then all I can say is that the fears expressed by the people who opposed the proposal in the last two days are justified.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The President to conclude.

The President

Of course, from the beginning, with perhaps the exception of a single speech, every Deputy who is in the House knows that this is all pretence. All the arguments put forward on the other side were all pretence. They were not believed in by the Deputies who made them. This is a committee provided for in the Constitution to be set up in certain circumstances, and anybody who knows anything about the Constitution knows that the circumstance it was really meant to deal with was where there would be an attempt on the part of this House to deprive the Seanad of certain privileges. That was really the fundamental function of this, because if by a wrong decision of the Ceann Comhairle he certified a Bill as a Money Bill he would to that extent be depriving the Seanad of its right to amend or delay the Bill over a considerable period. It was admitted that the Government and the majority Party had a right to get their work done quickly, and that that work was not to be stopped by a Second House over a considerable period. It was generally recognised that it was right to remove Money Bills from the power of the Seanad to delay them over a long period. It was in case there might be an attempt on the part of the Ceann Comhairle—who might originally have been elected as a member of a Party—to deprive the Seanad of its functions, by certifying as a Money Bill a Bill which was not a Money Bill, that this provision was made. The idea was that there would be three members of this House against three members of the Seanad, and the Chief Justice was not to have a vote except in a case where there was equal voting. Everybody who is not pretending knows that the present manoeuvre is not a question of that sort at all. It is a purely Party manoeuvre in my opinion. I may be wrong, but I think all the circumstances justify that suspicion on my part, and it is on that suspicion that I am acting, rightly or wrongly. I believe that the whole thing is a Party manoeuvre. This is considered a particularly good time when the Seanad is about to disappear, and when a good deal of inconvenience will be caused in the case of an important matter by delays of this kind. It is my duty, as one who is responsible for seeing that Government work is done, to see that manoeuvres of that sort will not be successful if I can prevent it. I am acting strictly here in accordance with my right, and with the right of the Government, and the right of the majority.

Professor Thrift

I am sorry to interrupt the President, but I think I should tell him definitely, on behalf of part of the Independent signatories, that is not the case.

The President

That may be, but I am not yet satisfied that the Independent members are independent in that sense. They vote on every possible occasion, as far as I can see, and it seems remarkable that they should always find right on the opposite side, and never right on this.

Mr. Dillon

Therefore they should be abolished.

The President

The position I am taking up—I am quite frank—is that I have read this over and over again to see whether I could find any grounds for their point of view. I have been unable to find it. I am perfectly convinced that this is a Party manoeuvre intended to obstruct the Government at the present time, and to cause delay which would cause a considerable dislocation of work.

Mr. Dillon

Anyone who disagrees should be abolished.

The President

I am proposing, according to my right, that there should be on this committee three persons who I believe would be free from that manoeuvre. If there are people, like Deputy MacDermot, who signed it and who say that they have not done so in that sense, I am not going to act on that assumption. I am not going to take any chances in the matter so far as I can avoid them. This is going to be settled by votes. The Chief Justice will not have a voice in the determination of the issue unless there is an equality of votes, just the same as in any other matter. We think we have a right to nominate these members. The word "elected" is the word here, and I am putting forward the names of these Deputies. The Party Whips, as far as we are concerned, will be on in the selection, because there is no question whatever that we could not allow a Party manoeuvre, such as we conceive this to be, to succeed in the matter. I do not think it is necessary to say anything further.

Question—"That the names of Conor A. Maguire, James Geoghegan and William Norton stand"—put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 37.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Carty, Frank.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corbett, Edmond.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Donnelly, Eamon.
• Flinn, Hugo V.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Coburn, James.
• Desmond, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• Good, John.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Reidy, James.
• Rogers, Patrick James.
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá Deputies Little and Sm ith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.