I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Appropriation Bill, 1939—Second Stage.
There is one matter I would like to mention. I regret to have to do it, but it is important that it should be referred to. The position of Uachtarán has been set up as a national institution, and I think nothing should be lightly done that would injure that institutional position. We made it possible in our day to have an institution like it, although we did not attach the same magnitude and importance to the particular type of President that the members of the present Government do. The members of the present Government considered that it was well worth while for this country to suffer severe losses in men and money to establish such an institution, but here we have an organ of the Press, that the Government Party have control over, within the last few days making use of the occasion of the Presidential garden party to cast ridicule on the whole thing.
Can the Deputy say on what aspect administration arises?
Probably the police.
Administration?
Yes.
The Minister for Finance has no responsibility for articles that appear in newspapers.
We are allocating a substantial sum of money here for the upkeep of an important institution; or one that ought to be, and within the last few days we had a function of the President ridiculed by one organ of the Press in this country. I say that that thing should not be allowed, and I take this opportunity to indicate the nature of the objection that I take to what has been allowed to happen, as reflecting on the Presidential position without, apparently, any rebuke or action of any kind. I want to draw attention to it and to ask what action is going to be taken to prevent the Presidential institution being insulted or degraded. In particular, I want to ask what steps are going to be taken by members of the Government who, as I say, considered that this country should suffer very severe losses in order to have this institution set up. In the Irish Press reference is made by a writer to the presidential Garden Party. The type of invitation is ridiculed in the first paragraph, the type of scrutiny to which visitors to the garden party were subjected is ridiculed in the second paragraph, and the arrangement by which the guests were received and the various type of bows——
On the Appropriation Bill the matter for discussion is administration during the past 12 months.
Yes.
I do not see how the Deputy's point arises.
Surely we are voting money to-day that is going to be spent during this year for the upkeep of this office, and I want to ask at the beginning of the financial year whether what I am referring to is going to be allowed to continue.
The Deputy and Chair do not see eye to eye. The Deputy is raising a question of policy and of Government attitude to some newspaper article. The matter for debate is administration, and there is no Government responsibility nor Ministerial responsibility in this matter.
I submit that on the Estimates we discuss matters of administration, and that on the Appropriation Bill there is an opportunity even for a discussion of general matters.
Not on policy or taxation.
May I make the point that a certain sum of money is being appropriated for this particular office? Is it not in order to discuss whether the money should be spent in a way which apparently exposes it to ridicule amongst those who claim to be the majority Party, namely, the majority of the people of the country? Is it not in order to discuss whether public money should be spent in—if we are to judge from this particular organ that claims to speak for the majority— a contemptible practice?
What about the freedom of the Press of which Deputies talk so much?
I am not speaking of the freedom of the Press.
The Chair does not see what responsibility the Minister has in this matter. If the Deputy desires action to be taken he might put down a question.
Is it not possible to discuss expenditure of money that the Minister is responsible for and that appears in the Appropriation Bill? Therefore, I point to the attitude, apparently, of the majority of the people and suggest that this is strictly in order.
I differ completely with the Deputy. It is not permissible to discuss on the Appropriation Bill the views of the majority of the Irish people. It has not been shown that the Minister has any jurisdiction in the case.
I raised this question for the reason that I object to money being allocated for any national institution in this country, if any organ of the Press is going to be allowed to ridicule it in the eyes of the people, in the way that the Irish Press ridiculed the position of the Uachtarán the other day. I am asking the House to take this opportunity of considering whether it did or not.
You want a Press censorship.
I want that kind of thing stopped if we are to spend money on a particular institution.
You talked about freedom of the Press and now you want a Press censor.
The Dáil may not be asked to set itself up as a board of censors.
I am going to vote against money being provided for the purpose of keeping up the institution of the President as long as public action of this kind can take place, and I want to express my opinion in this House, if I am allowed, as to why I object to this particular action. If we are going to be asked to pass money in the Appropriation Bill to maintain the institution——
The Minister is not answerable for what appears in that or any other journal. The matter is not relevant and the Chair will not hear the Deputy further.
I want to submit, Sir, that you are ruling rather narrowly, and if we cannot, on an occasion like this, speak on a public happening, reflecting on the position of the Uachtarán in the country, then I do not know of any other opportunity concerning this institution other than the Appropriation Bill.
It is not for the Chair to point out what the Deputy may say but what he may not say. The matter is out of order, and I so rule.
Are you ruling that I cannot read out a statement that was published in the Irish Press the other day, reflecting on the dignity of the Presidential institution?
That is easily inferred from my ruling.
Question put and declared carried.
When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?
I thought perhaps we might take it now, but, if there is any objection, I will not press the matter. If Deputies desire to have a discussion, I thought that we might have that on the Fifth Stage.
There is no discussion on the Fifth Stage of the Appropriation Bill.
The Minister can have all the remaining stages next week. He could take the Committee and Final Stages on some day next week.
I am quite agreeable.
There is no precedent for discussing the Appropriation Bill, except on the Second Stage.
Committee Stage fixed for Tuesday, 27th June.