Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Apr 1947

Vol. 105 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Sinn Féin Funds Bill, 1947—Committee Stage.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McGilligan

The question was asked on Second Stage as to whether the Chief Justice had been consulted about acting on this board and I had understood from the Taoiseach that the answer was more or less in the affirmative. The Taoiseach was then asked as to whether this matter had been discussed with the Chief Justice in the light of the discussion or even in the terms of the type of discussion that emerged here, which was, that the courts might give an unreal decision in this matter, and as to whether he had been asked in these circumstances, because I do want to put to the House that it was a very peculiar situation. One motion in connection with this matter is before the court over which the Chief Justice presides—the Supreme Court. It is the liveliest, so to speak, of the two motions that are actually pending in court and the last information I had about the matter is that the Supreme Court will get this particular side of this action either to-morrow or Friday, or Monday at the latest. The situation then is that the Chief Justice who, as the senior of that court, will have to preside at its deliberations, has been told publicly, through this House, that the court over which he presides may give an unreal decision in the matter.

Therefore, as the Taoiseach has ordered, we propose to remove this matter from the courts which might operate in an unreal fashion upon the points and then we will ask the chief of the judiciary, which is condemned by the phrase the Taoiseach used here, to preside over a board to distribute these moneys about which the Chief Justice of the court might not give a decision because it might be "unreal". In that connection, on an earlier occasion when the present Chief Justice was Attorney-General, legislation was brought in here of a particular type and when he was questioned about it he said he wanted to prevent judicial misinterpretation of that particular point. It is rather the irony of circumstances that he should now be asked to do what he sought to prevent his predecessors doing. He is now being held up to a certain amount of public scorn—that they cannot be trusted to give a decision which would commend itself to those who know the background of this. I thought it was putting him in a very unhappy position. I think it is still more unhappy than it was at the time I first spoke because he certainly could not have been forewarned, at least I do not presume he was addressed on the subject by the Taoiseach in the terms which the Taoiseach thought fit to use about him and his colleagues when the Taoiseach was addressing the House on this particular matter. In what terms was he approached when it was suggested to him that the courts were not worthy to consider the matter because he——

An Ceann Comhairle

Would not that be more on Section 4?

Mr. McGilligan

It says: "Chairman of the board".

An Ceann Comhairle

"Courts would judge properly or not". Section 10.

Mr. McGilligan

We are asked here to appoint a board of which the Chief Justice is to be chairman. The point was raised before whether his permission had been sought to do this. The reply was "yes". I want to know the circumstances.

The Taoiseach

If there has been indelicacy about the courts I think it has been on the part of the Deputy who has spoken. I did not myself directly approach the Chief Justice and I do not know the circumstances exactly. All I know is that the Chief Justice was apprised, probably by the Attorney-General, that this section was proposed in the Bill and the Chief Justice agreed, at least I understand he agreed, as I said here on the last day, on the basis that whatever this House passes is law if it is passed within the Constitution, properly passed, and as such he is prepared to take notice of it. That is an assumption on my part and I have not heard anything that would lead me to think the contrary. The Deputy said we are condemning the courts for giving an unreal decision. I take it the courts would have to take a strict, narrow, legal interpretation and such an interpretation, in my opinion, in view of the circumstances, might very well be unreal. I said here that this was probably the best assembly before which the disposal of these moneys could go inasmuch as the old Sinn Féin organisation which preceded the Dáil at the time was in fact intended as the council to a National Assembly and that these funds were collected from the members of the organisation, comprising practically the whole of our people, for a general national purpose. There has been no condemnation, then, on our part, of the judiciary by that statement. If anything of that kind has been said in this House it is very much more at the door of the Deputy who has spoken than of the Government.

Mr. McGilligan

Let me repeat what happened. With regard to the people who are the plaintiffs in this action we are told that they were an insignificant group; that they had no merits in the case they were making, and when he was asked if the people were so insignificant and if their merits were so poor, was not that a proper matter to be decided by an independent judicial authority the answer he gave was that the courts might give an unreal decision. I did not use these terms. I did not say anything condemning the judiciary.

The Taoiseach

You were complaining of the action of the Chief Justice, if words mean anything.

Mr. McGilligan

I was complaining of the action of the Chief Justice? The Taoiseach evaded giving me an answer, so I cannot criticise. But if the Chief Justice was told that a statement was going to be made in this House that the court over which he presides may give an unreal decision in this matter, and of the subtraction of this matter from his court, and then he was asked, as the head of that court which could not give a reliable decision, to distribute the funds, I might be tempted to say things condemning him as an individual. I have asked that this matter be left to the courts in the belief that they will give a decision and a proper decision. First we are told it might be an unreal decision—to-night we have the facile phrase "the courts would give a narrow legal decision". Are courts' decisions always narrow?

The Taoiseach

They might be.

Mr. McGilligan

They might be? It would be particularly unlikely in this. Therefore, we are going to remove this matter from them and the chief of the court, who may join in the narrow legal decision, is going to be asked to supplant his own court, or to agree to its supplanting, and to become chairman of a board to carry on in substitution for the independent judicial authority established by the Constitution. Not merely are the words used by the Taoiseach demeaning of the Chief Justice and his colleagues but his whole attitude throughout the Bill has been entirely and highly derogatory to the courts.

I again ask in connection with this whole matter, what is the distinction between this case and any other case in which a trust fund is involved? So far all we have been told is that there is a certain background to this trust fund and consequently the courts might give a narrow legal interpretation to it. I do not suppose it has been argued that they may give a narrow legal interpretation to this case above all other cases. It is, so to speak, their habit of mind that they may give narrow legal decisions. Is that to be used hereafter as an excuse for taking other actions that are before the courts away from them, or what is the point of discrimination that is being made? I know this House has on occasions intervened by legislation in matters that were before the courts or have interfered when matters have been decided by the courts to say that the decision is not in accord with the intention of this House which passed the legislation and the House then wants to re-establish its intention. But the present case is not that type of case. This House did not pass the legislation. This is not a question of our having passed a piece of legislation for the disposal of these funds and finding that some court, lower than the Supreme Court, had made an unreal decision or had given a narrow legal interpretation on what was before them. But we swoop down on this and we only swoop down at a time when the Taoiseach feels he is going to be made a witness before the court.

The Taoiseach

That is not true.

Mr. McGilligan

It is true.

The Taoiseach

It is untrue.

Mr. McGilligan

It is the attitude of the Irish Press.

The Taoiseach

The attitude of the Irish Press has nothing to do with me.

Mr. McGilligan

Oh, definitely it has to do with you and with a number of your colleagues. The Irish Press got a letter. They cut one sentence out of that letter. A letter was sent to the Press generally with regard to this matter. The Irish Independent has taken up the attitude all the time that this matter has been before the court and it is still sub judice. Therefore they would not pass any comment upon it and they have adhered to that attitude, which may or may not commend itself, and they would not publish the letter. But the Irish Press did publish the letter, but they did not publish the whole letter. They left out a phrase and that phrase was: “The evidence of Mr. de Valera is very important. He must be aware that we propose to bring him as a witness in the action.”

The Taoiseach

What do I care about that?

Mr. McGilligan

Pardon?

The Taoiseach

I have nothing to do with that.

Mr. McGilligan

It is an amazing coincidence.

The Taoiseach

It may be.

Mr. McGilligan

It may be a narrow interpretation of the letter to the Irish Press.

The Taoiseach

I had nothing whatever to do with that.

Mr. McGilligan

They are a little bit sensitive at least to what the Taoiseach would like published in their paper. It is an amazing coincidence that they purport to publish a letter which they get from the Sinn Féin organisation and at the same time cut out the sentence which says that the Taoiseach will be called as a witness; and he knew he would be called as a witness because he was president of Sinn Féin from 1917 to 1926, when he resigned to found Fianna Fáil. That does not appear in the letter published by the Irish Press, but it did appear in the letter sent to them. There can be no doubt in the mind of anybody who thinks over this matter that what the Taoiseach is evading is the fact that he does not want to stand up and take his oath and give evidence because his conscience will be in conflict with history.

The Taoiseach

Not a bit—not a bit.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the situation that is thought to be present and that is why——

The Taoiseach

The Deputy might judge his own conscience and not try to judge another's.

Mr. McGilligan

I have given one point upon which the Taoiseach's conscience might be a little bit timorous. Will the Taoiseach tell me anything about which my conscience ought to be afraid?

The Taoiseach

No more than the Deputy about mine.

Mr. McGilligan

The Taoiseach talked before about the "squib in the ink". I do not like black ink. If there is to be a charge made, make it clear and precise. I make my charge clear and precise. The Taoiseach knows well he will be summoned as a witness.

The Taoiseach

I would not have the slightest difficulty.

Mr. McGilligan

Not the slightest difficulty in telling the truth?

The Taoiseach

Not a bit.

Mr. McGilligan

The Taoiseach would not have the slightest difficulty in giving this information—that he called an Árd Fheis of the Sinn Féin organisation in 1926 and now he would have to appear in court to take up an action which says that Sinn Féin disappeared in 1924. If the Taoiseach can justify this court——

The Taoiseach

I have nothing to do with the form——

Mr. McGilligan

I do not want to be misled and I will not be misled. Is there any point upon which the Taoiseach might fear to be cross-examined?

The Taoiseach

None whatever.

Mr. McGilligan

There is one point. There is a dilemma which has to be faced and there is some problem to be resolved. The Taoiseach, as an individual, called Sinn Féin together in 1926 as president of that organisation. The defence in this pending action is that Sinn Féin disappeared before 1924. I would like to hear the Taoiseach's answer.

The Taoiseach

Any time.

Mr. McGilligan

Wait. I would like to hear the answer on oath.

The Taoiseach

Any time—any time.

Mr. McGilligan

And I do not want to hear it here.

The Taoiseach

Of course the Deputy does not.

Mr. McGilligan

I would like to see the Taoiseach presented with a Testament and made to swear and asked to explain that.

The Taoiseach

I would have nothing whatever to explain. I would simply tell the truth.

Mr. McGilligan

There is a gorgeous opportunity to explain it by letting this action go on to trial. There would be a marvellous arena for the Taoiseach to get into in order to explain all that historical matter.

The Taoiseach

I do not want to explain it. It needs no explanation.

Mr. McGilligan

I suppose there is no explanation. At any rate it is something which people can query, as to how a man who paraded himself as the president of the Sinn Féin organisation in 1926 could now take up a defence to an action founded on the fact or the belief that the organisation disappeared in 1924.

The Taoiseach

I would give my evidence as it is and let the court come to its decision.

Mr. McGilligan

You would?

The Taoiseach

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Then why do you not do it? Why would you not do it? Because you do not want to do it. Because you cannot stand being put upon your oath and asked that question. Is there any doubt about that? Can there be any doubt about that? In any event in order to get the Taoiseach out of that dilemma—and I suppose he can be helped out of that dilemma by the Irish Press refusing to publish the full contents of letters sent to them to explain the matter—the Taoiseach now says that the courts are not to be trusted in this matter. The courts are not to be trusted in this matter. May we just pause now quietly here and survey the courts and the personnel of the courts as they stand at the moment. Who is responsible for the majority of them? Are they people of good judgment?

The Taoiseach

I wonder how this arises on this section.

Mr. McGilligan

Are they people of good judgment and people of good legal conscience? Are they people who can be trusted to take a proper view of a case? Are they people with receptive minds to be played upon by the argument—the sound argument—addressed to them in this matter? If this were some sort of historical court and if we were back again in the 1921-1922 period, where there might be some allegation of there being an old British caste still in existence, one might say with some justification that a case with a political background was not a proper case to be brought before, say, the Supreme Court of this country under such circumstances. But we are now very far removed from those days. We are asked here to appoint a board and to put on it the Chief Justice of a despised judiciary, because that is what it comes to if we pass this piece of legislation, and the Chief Justice is the chief of that despised group. Yet, we include in our legislation a proposal that this despised person will be the chairman of the board established for the purpose of distributing the funds after this Dáil, with its Party majority, has set down the lines along which the distribution is to take place. The Taoiseach has not answered my question.

The Taoiseach said that the Chief Justice was consulted about acting as chairman of this board, and that he agreed. The Taoiseach was asked if all the circumstances surrounding the setting up of the board had been put before the Chief Justice. We were very nearly told "yes" to all that before, but now we are told by the Taoiseach that the Attorney-General saw the Chief Justice, and I take it that the Taoiseach is now going to present himself to this House as not knowing what the Attorney-General said to the Chief Justice. All I can say is that the Chief Justice has been informed through the public Press as to what the Taoiseach thinks of himself and his court. Yet, in all those circumstances, we are now asked solemnly to go ahead and accept that particular individual as the proper president for the board set up for the purpose of distributing this money. I wish that the Taoiseach would tell me, plainly and straightly, if any suggestion was made to the Chief Justice when he was asked to take up this position that the introduction of this measure would draw from the Taoiseach the comment that the courts might give a narrow legal decision, an unreal legal decision or be tied by narrow legal interpretations in this matter?

Mr. Norton

Some comments throughout this discussion seem to be appropriate to Section 10. At the moment we are really discussing Section 4, but the discussion has now reached wider issues than those contained in Section 4. Are we now permitted to discuss Section 10 and the machinery envisaged there on Section 4? Can we debate Section 10?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think we will come to that in good time.

Mr. Norton

But we seem to have come to it already, and I want to know can everybody now discuss it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When I came to the Chair I think the discussion was proceeding on rather speculative lines as to what might happen under certain conditions which might arise in the future but had not already arisen.

Mr. McGilligan

The speculation having been introduced by the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy is an adept at the false suggestion. He suggests, first of all, that the discussion here could have been anticipated. The attorney, I take it, who went to the Chief Justice, could, in the Deputy's view, have anticipated what would be stated here in the course of the debate. Everybody knows it would be quite impossible to anticipate it. When I came to this House with the Bill, I came on the grounds that, following the death of the surviving treasurer who was responsible for the lodgment of these funds in court, the representative of that survivor had come to me and suggested that these funds should be dealt with, that, after 20 years or so—whatever time they were lodged in court— they should be disposed of. I suggested he should go to the surviving members of the executive of the organisation and see whether the scheme he proposed to me would have their approval. He did that and the scheme was approved by the surviving members, with one exception.

A meeting was proposed to be held and it was only then, instead of our coming in to interfere with the proceedings of the court, the other party came in to interfere with the proceedings which were contemplated in this House. It was intended to bring in legislation, roughly on the lines of this Bill, to implement the proposals agreed upon. A case was brought to the court and we waited for four or five years. No further action was taken and we got to a position in which I found that most of the funds were going to be squandered in court actions. It is not new that things of that sort have happened. They have become almost proverbial. It has become proverbial, where there is a long case, that the lawyers get all the money and those contesting it on either side get nothing. It is something like the story of the pilgrims who, seeing an oyster washed up on the shore, had a dispute as to which of them had seen it first. A lawyer came along and they were foolish enough to take him as an adjudicator. He took up the oyster, opened it, though it was good, swallowed it, handed the two shells, one each, to the pilgrims and said: "No costs."

Mr. O'Leary

What are you going to do about these funds?

The Taoiseach

I am going to do what this House desires to be done with them. Here is the position presented to me. Up to date close on £8,000 has been spent in preparing for this action. If it goes to court the estimate is that there will be £7,000 spent. That amounts to £15,000. If there is an appeal there will be another £8,000 and that will mean over £20,000 out of the £24,000. That is the way the money will go if we allow this action to go before the court to be decided. I said I believe this House is more competent to deal with it because it will take all the facts into account and it will not take any narrow legal interpretation of the position.

It has been suggested that I find myself in a difficulty as a witness. There is not a bit of difficulty. I would give the facts as I know them. I would not have to decide, and neither would I urge the court to decide, one way or the other. My duty would be to give the facts as I know them and leave it to the court to decide. There will be no conflict or dilemma so far as I am concerned and I have no fear whatever in facing the court as a witness. There is all this pretence about hesitation on my part in going as a witness. I would give the facts as I know them and let the body that is to decide come to a decision.

Long ago, when the other Executive was in power, I challenged them to put up a court to consider not merely this but a much wider question and I would be quite willing to go before it, but that was not accepted. In this case the Chief Justice was asked by the Attorney-General whether he would act in case the Dáil passed this Bill and in case such a body for the disposal of the funds was set up. I understood he accepted that and that is why, when I was asked about this before, I said the Chief Justice had been consulted; but the idea, when consulting the Chief Justice, that one could anticipate the phrases used here in connection with any argument that might arise, is clearly absurd.

Mr. Norton

The Taoiseach, both now and previously, has made an effort to indicate that this is the best authority to try the issues involved in this case.

The Taoiseach

To dispose of the funds.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a different thing. The Taoiseach said they would take all the facts into account.

Mr. Norton

The actual position is that there is a case before the courts. What the courts do with this money I do not care in the slightest.

The Taoiseach

I do. Think of the thousands collected from the Irish people.

Mr. Norton

To whom is it going to be given? Is it to the Italian people? Where is it going to go? The position is that there is a case before the courts. The people in this case are entitled to go before the courts. What the Taoiseach or I may think of them does not matter. They are entitled, under the Constitution, to go before the courts; they are entitled to exercise their rights. While the case is before the courts, the Taoiseach comes to this highly political Assembly and says: "You are the best body to deal with the issues involved in this case." I do not know of a worse body to deal with a matter of this kind. These moneys had their origin in the establishment of a political organisation for national purposes. Then in 1926 there was a split in the organisation; one group went one way and the other group contends that it remains in the old position, and the Taoiseach is a member of the group that went one way.

I am not going to get into the controversial arena for the purpose of a discussion on this measure. One group says it will ask the court to declare who are the lawful inheritors of the money. The Taoiseach says: "Not at all; do not let the courts deal with an issue of this kind; that is not a job for the courts, and they may give a narrow legal interpretation." Instead, we will bring the matter into a House elected as this House is and ask the House what it will do with the funds of an organisation outside this House which claims to be the legal inheritor of the money and which is in itself a political organisation. All the political organisations within the House are to be set up as a tribunal to decide what is going to happen the funds of a political organisation outside. I have no interest in that organisation. I do not mind what happens the funds of that organisation, but it is intrinsically wrong and ethically unsound to bring into this House an issue of that kind and ask us what we will do with the funds to which an outside organisation claims it has a legal right.

I know of no better body to deal with an issue of this kind than the judiciary of this country. With their unheated, unprejudiced minds they can apply themselves to the task of deciding who is the legal owner of the disputed funds. These courts are competent to try an issue of this kind. As Deputy McGilligan said they cannot be accused of the political bias that might have been associated with the judiciary we inherited in 1922. The courts are made up of people who live in Ireland, whose economic mould is cast in Ireland, whose destiny is in Ireland and who in their way made a contribution to the establishment of the institutions which exist in this State to-day. They are free from control by this House. They are free from political prejudice, in so far as one can insulate them against political prejudice. They seem to be the obvious body to deal with matters of this kind. Why take it away from them? The Taoiseach says it is because he does not want the funds frittered away, but look at the frittering process which will take place under this Bill? If the Sinn Féin organisation thinks it has a case, let it go into court and pay for the case that it is going to make there. If it loses its case, it has to pay the costs.

The Taoiseach

It has not.

Mr. Norton

It has not to pay, the Taoiseach says. If the plaintiff in this case loses the case, the plaintiff, as in every other case, has got to pay. Similarly, if the defendant loses his case, he has got to pay the costs. Under this Bill, however, it is laid down that the court on the application of the Attorney-General shall be obliged to dismiss the case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not arise on Section 4.

Mr. Norton

We protested at an earlier stage that other people were allowed to wander from Section 4 to Section 10. It is necessary now, in order that we may deal with the points which were then raised, that we should have similar liability.

Mr. McGilligan

May I point out that the Taoiseach stated that £8,000 had already been spent in costs, that £7,000 would be spent in the case which is pending and that in the event of an appeal the costs would likely amount to another £8,000? How was that brought under Section 4?

Mr. Norton

That is the point I am going to deal with. After this Bill has been passed, the court on an application from the Attorney-General will dismiss this case. Then what takes place? The board to be constituted under Section 4, after the pending action has been dismissed, shall pay to Charles Stewart Wyse Power, "his costs of and incident to the pending action, as between solicitor and client, when taxed and ascertained".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What is the Deputy referring to now?

Mr. Norton

I am referring to the pending action. The section to which I am referring now is Section 10.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the section in connection with which the Taoiseach mentioned costs amounting to £8,000.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy not wait until we reach that section?

Mr. Norton

I would if the Taoiseach were not allowed already to made a reference to the manner in which this money was going to be spent. I tried to keep the debate straight at that time. Not only does the board propose to pay the costs of Charles Stewart Wyse Power but, in addition, they propose to pay the costs "of the other parties thereto" on the same basis and all these costs are to be paid up to the 11th March, 1947. So that the Sinn Féin organisation, if this Bill had not been introduced, would have to go into court and run the risk of losing their case and of bearing the costs. Now the Taoiseach proposes instead, under the plea of not permitting the money to be frittered away, to pay the costs of the representatives of the last surviving trustee and also to pay the Sinn Féin organisation its expenses up-to-date. So that even if this action were purely mischievous and frivolous and brought for the purpose of frittering away the money, as the Taoiseach suggests, the plaintiffs are going to be paid their expenses up to the 11th March, out of the money which the Taoiseach is anxious should not be frittered away.

By the time that everybody has played with this money, in the manner with which it has been played with up to date, there will be very little money left to be administered. There is no vital principle at stake in this case. There is no national interest which compels legislation to be introduced to prevent the courts functioning in this case. It is clearly a case with which the courts are fitted to deal. There is no international principle involved which calls for the intervention of this House to prevent the courts functioning. The obvious remedy is to allow the case to be tried in the ordinary way by the courts. The few thousand pounds which are at stake mean nothing in effect. We have £400,000,000 of sterling assets and if we want to relieve distress occasioned by the events of 25 years ago, distress which has continued for the last 25 years without any effort being made to remedy it, we have other resources to fall back upon instead of coming in here on a petty issue of this kind, in a fit of petulance, to take away from the court the natural right which it has to decide a matter which is brought before it, the natural right which every citizen should have to go to the court and seek the judgment of the court on the merits of his case. I think that this Bill should never have been introduced and that the court should have been allowed to decide the matter in the normal way. Instead of that, this money is now being divided amongst the representatives of the trustees and the potentially unsuccessful plaintiffs, and the House is being asked to interfere with the normal course of the law for the sake of a few thousand pounds because after the legal costs have been met, that is all that will be left.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question to be decided on this section is whether the Chief Justice shall be chairman of the board.

Mr. McGilligan

This debate is not closed on that point?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is only one question to be decided on the section, that the Chief Justice shall be the chairman of the board.

Mr. McGilligan

I would hope to be allowed on the section to answer the points made by the Taoiseach. He said the funds were going to be squandered in court. May I answer him on that? He talked about an oyster. I should like to give him another analogy. He gave figures as to the costs of the various proceedings —£8,000, £7,000 and £8,000 and he said that the House is more competent to take all the facts into consideration whereas the court cannot be trusted to do that. These are the points raised by the Taoiseach on Section 4 and I propose to answer them. The Taoiseach says that I am an adept at manufacturing or misrepresenting and misleading people. That is all in answer to a simple question of mine: when the Chief Justice was asked to become chairman of this board, was he told that what the Taoiseach proposed to say about the courts was that they might give an unreal decision in the matter? I am accused of misrepresentation by the man who has not yet found it possible to answer that question. He has answered a whole lot of other questions, showing a fair amount of skill, in misleading, misrepresenting and irrelevancy.

What does emerge now is that the Taoiseach says he sent the Attorney-General to the Chief Justice. He does not know what the Attorney-General said and in any event he could not anticipate what would be said in this House. He could, at least, anticipate one thing and that was what would be his own arguments. I say there was no Deputy in this House other than himself who made the case that the courts could not be trusted in this case, because they might give an unreal decision. Now it was either in his mind to say that when he came into the House with the measure or it was jerked out of him. If it was jerked out of him, it was something at all events which had been in his sub-conscious mind. I do not know what case he was making to himself for this Bill, what excuse he was going to give to himself for removing this case from the ambit of the courts except the only one he has given to the House, that is, that the courts might give an unreal decision.

To that, he has recently added that the courts might give a narrow legal interpretation and has further added, by implication, that the courts would not take the facts into account. He at least should have anticipated these three points, or some of them, when he sent the Attorney-General to ask the Chief Justice if he would preside over this board. Did he ask his Attorney-General to tell the Chief Justice that he, the Taoiseach, would, in all probability, be forced to say in the Dáil that the courts were not competent to deal with this, that they were not a proper body to deal with them and that the reason they were not a proper body to deal with them is that they might give an unreal decision, that they might go upon a narrow legal interpretation or that they would not take cognisance of all the facts?

I should like to know, without any more misrepresentation or misleading addresses, if the Attorney-General was told to tell the Chief Justice that any one of these phrases represented the Taoiseach's mind about the courts, because, if the Chief Justice was not so told, the Chief Justice has definitely been put into a very unhappy position, because all these things have now been said about the courts over which he presides and we are still asked to believe that the man who, probably without being made aware of any of these thoughts in the Taoiseach's mind, consented to act as chairman, is now equally happy in acting as chairman when the Taoiseach's mind with regard to the whole court system has been revealed to the public.

The funds are going to be squandered. The Taoiseach is going to do a fair bit of squandering of these funds himself. Where he got the costs drawer who made up the three sums he has given us, I do not know, but I wish I had him in a couple of cases I was engaged in. A sum of £8,000 has so far been spent. The Taoiseach is straining credulity to the utmost if he asks anybody to believe that figure. I certainly will not believe it until I see it broken up into details and am told where the £8,000 expenditure so far comes from. Then, there is added to that that if the action goes on there will be a sum of £7,000 more, and, if there is an appeal, there will be another £8,000. Certainly the person operating on these costs must be thinking in terms of the reduced value of the pound and multiplying by two.

In any event, what are we going to avoid by all this? A sum of £8,000, according to the Taoiseach, has been spent already, and it is to be paid under this measure. The Taoiseach, no matter what he thinks, cannot prevent an appeal being taken on the ground that this measure is unconstitutional. Is that going to run us into the second amount of £8,000, the third figure the Taoiseach gave us, because, if so, what we are faced with is a position in which we give £8,000 away by this measure and in which another £8,000 may be lifted out of the money and we save £7,000.

Mr. Norton

And we lose the other £7,000 if it goes back to the court.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Supreme Court should come to a decision, the action might then fail to run any further because there would be no more funds. Surely the Taoiseach has again not been fair with the House. Deputy Norton has asked him with regard to how the costs go. The Taoiseach, in an insinuating way, has put his viewpoint forward to-night, the viewpoint he expressed strongly and determinedly on the previous night on which we discussed this matter, that is, that no matter how insignificant this group, no matter how bad their case and irrespective altogether of their merits, they are to get their costs. Does the Taoiseach assert that? He certainly put that forward as his view on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter. From his interruption of Deputy Norton to-night, I understand that that is still his view.

The Taoiseach cannot always have it every way. He parades this matter before the House in this way: This is an insignificant group in no way representative of the organisation it claims to represent; it has no merits; and has clouded over with suspicion and distrust whatever little merits it might have had because of the amazing delay. Every one of these matters will be a matter which will count before any court which comes to try this issue. Although the Taoiseach bundles this group out of court so far as he is concerned on every ground—personnel, background, affiliation with the organisation and delay—he nevertheless says to the House that, no matter what court they go to—suppose they do not take a defeat in the High Court lying down and go to the Supreme Court—they are to get their costs.

I am not parodying the Taoiseach in that statement. That is his argument— I understood it to be so—and it is only on that argument that any justification can be made for this measure. The Taoiseach knows as well as I do that that is not the situation. If the court be of the opinion that these people are entirely unrepresentative, have no affiliation with the body they claim to represent and no merits one way or the other on any of the facts immediately in issue or in the background, they will not get their costs. I do not care how big the fund is, or how much it may be a trust fund of a peculiar type, they will not get their costs, and what the Taoiseach is faced with is paying some part of the costs—whatever the costs are—of defeating these people.

As a matter of fact, the only costs order so far made in this case is an order made against the defendants. No other order for costs has so far been made. At one point, the courts have certainly determined that the defendants ought to pay for bringing a certain motion before the courts. We are now dealing with this one day, two days, or, at most, four days ahead of the time when this matter will be going into court in respect of one of its aspects, and, so far as another aspect of it is concerned, an application was made to-day in court and the matter is to be mentioned to-morrow. With two aspects of this case in that position —one to be listed for hearing within a day or two and one to be mentioned to-morrow—we are asked to take the Taoiseach's view that this House is more competent and will take all the facts into consideration.

On that, may I ask this question? Who is making the plaintiff's case here? Deputy Norton says he has no interest in the association. I certainly have none and I am not making any case for them. I am merely asking that they be allowed to make their case where they will get proper treatment. Who has made the case here? We have passed the principle of this measure. Who made the case and put all the facts before the House, bringing the House to whatever judgment it passed by its vote the other day? Does the Taoiseach say that he put the plaintiff's case? The way he put it was by the use of these few derogatory phrases: an insignificant group, with no merits and no touch with the organisation. This House, having heard that, is supposed to be in a position to judge of the merits as between the plaintiffs and defendants and to come to the conclusion it came to on the last occasion.

Is that a fair way of treating this action? I am taking this action as a special action, and, it being a special action—and there have been special and peculiar points about it—does the Taoiseach say that anything he put before the House on Second Reading amounted to an impartial statement of what the plaintiffs suggested they had by way of case and a refutation of it? Is there any man listening to me who will say he heard the plaintiffs' case, that he knows what the issues are? Is there anybody in the House in a position to say that the vote he gave on Second Reading was justified, in so far as anybody voted for the measure, by what the Taoiseach said against the plaintiffs? Of course, if a person takes what the Taoiseach says as always being right, we need not go any further. His statement that there is no case and that this Bill ought to pass is sufficient, but that is not what the House is for. The House is here to deliberate and debate these matters.

Progress reported.