I beg to move:—
That the Dáil approves of the statement of the Ceann Comhairle reporting to Dáil Éireann the result of his investigation into the complaint of privilege made that an assault had been committed on a Deputy by the Minister for Education, Mr. Seán Moylan, in the precincts of the House on the evening of the 23rd July, 1952, and in view of the finding by the Ceann Comhairle that this assault constituted an action in contempt of Parliament, the Dáil directs that the Minister be suspended from the service of the House for such period as the Ceann Comhairle in his discretion considers proper.
We deem it a matter of urgent public interest that a motion of this kind dealing with the incident on which you reported your judgment to the House to-day, Sir, should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment by this Assembly. Shortly after you had announced the result of your investigation into the allegation that I made yesterday of an abuse of privilege in the assault that had been committed by the Minister for Education on Deputy Collins, the Taoiseach explained his attitude to the matter. I immediately expressed dissatisfaction with that attitude. He repeated a few moments ago his views on the subject of the proper method of dealing with the regrettable incidents which have been of such frequent occurrence in the last six months.
I move this motion in no sense of vindictiveness against the Minister for Education. That that is so I think can be seen from the terms of this motion.
The terms were carefully framed for the purpose of implementing the decision that had been come to and the judgment given by the Ceann Comhairle on what eventually came to be admitted as the facts of yesterday's occurrence. We feel that this incident is an incident on which, judgment having been given by the Ceann Comhairle, this Dáil should take action immediately. This is an incident on its own, with its own consequences and its own implications. It may be, as the Taoiseach has said twice to-day, that these incidents give rise to the necessity for a general consideration of the whole problem of the privilege of Deputies, the manner in which these privileges shall be safeguarded and the steps which must be taken to secure the maintenance of freedom of debate, free speech and the rights of Deputies to carry on their business inside and outside this House.
Article 15, paragraph 10 of the Constitution empowers this House to take its own steps to ensure the freedom of speech that is so essential for Deputies and the public interest, if they are to carry out their functions. The paragraph of that Article of the Constitution provides — I am quoting only the relevant parts—that each House:—
"shall have power to ensure freedom of debate... and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons, interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties."
That Article of the Constitution confers upon this House, without any further legislation or any further steps taken in the way of Standing Orders or rules, ample power to deal with persons who molest Deputies or who attempt to interfere with the institutions of Parliament in its proper functioning as a democratic institution. There is no necessity to wait further to discuss the general matters that arise out of these unfortunate incidents which have occurred in the last six months. We have a particular incident here to deal with. Action in my submission to you, Sir, and through you, Sir, to the Deputies of all Parties, must be taken in reference to that matter. Action is all the more desirable and essential in view of the terms in which you reported your judgment on the incident to the House to-day.
Let me recall to Deputies the relevant portions of that judgment so that they may see the importance of this motion and appreciate the fact that each Deputy of this House, to whatsoever Party he belongs or if he belongs to no Party, must vote for the motion if he has any sincerity in connection with the maintenance of order and the dignity of this Assembly. You, Sir, have investigated the charge I made yesterday in this House and I want to say in reference to Deputy Cowan's interpolation a few short moments ago that, so far as we are concerned, we shall stand for nothing in the nature of cloaking of any effort that may be made by any private Deputy, no matter to what Party he belongs or whether he belongs to no Party at all, to ventilate a grievance where he alleges that his privileges as member of this House have been violated by anybody.
Deputy Cowan has questioned the propriety of bringing this allegation before the Dáil by way of an ex parte statement as the Deputy, in his legal jargon, terms it. Those of us who are accustomed to making ex parte statements in court know that a fundamental principle behind the making of such statements is that the utmost good faith must be exercised by the person making the statement and punishment follows very swiftly if he is found to have made an error, deliberately or otherwise, in the making of that ex parte statement. Every statement I made was carefully weighed, carefully framed and was in no way tendentious. My statements conveyed a sufficient indication of the facts to enable a prima facie case to be established that a breach of the privileges of the House had occurred. One of the most precious rights of a private Deputy in this House is to be able to stand up in this Assembly and to make known in public any abuses to which he may have been subjected, to be assured through the force of public opinion, that he will get a proper hearing and a proper appreciation by this House of the matters of which he complains. It should not be the practice, as Deputy Cowan suggests, that he should be forced to make his complaint behind closed doors where perhaps his allegations could be stifled by virtue of the power exercised by a tyrannical majority in the House.
I want to recall the relevant portion of your judgment, Sir, in view of the red herring which Deputy Cowan now seeks to introduce to this motion. The allegation which I made was brought before the House yesterday. It was investigated by the person whose authority it is to investigate, on behalf of this House, any complaint made by a Deputy whoever that Deputy may be, or whether he belongs to any Party or no Party. The charge, as I say, was investigated by the Ceann Comhairle, the sole person whose duty it is to carry out that investigation, and whose responsibility it is to see that private Deputies' rights are safeguarded and that the rights and institutions of this Assembly as a parliamentary democracy are maintained and preserved. That matter was investigated yesterday and it is no longer in the region of allegation. It has been investigated and judgment has been delivered upon it by the person competent to investigate it and competent to deliver judgment upon it. This is a case where judgment was given on undisputed facts, removed from all contentious or controversial matters. Judgment has been given upon facts which have been admitted and corroborated.
In that state of facts, the Ceann Comhairle delivered his judgment this afternoon and said:—
"There is no practical difference between the parties concerned as to the actual events. I am satisfied——"
the Ceann Comhairle said:—
"——that the facts are substantially as stated by Deputy Costello, the Minister for Education being admittedly the aggressor and having assaulted Deputy Collins."
Then he said:—
"I find that this assault constituted an action in contempt of Parliament."
He then goes on to consider the matters which the Minister had put in extenuation of his action, having admitted the charge. The Minister says that it:—
"....was in retaliation of a charge against the personal honour of a fellow-member of his Party made by Deputy Collins the night before."
The Ceann Comhairle says, and I think every decent Deputy in the House will agree with him, that:—
"....this cannot be considered in any sense as justifying or mitigating the offence."
Deputy Collins, this afternoon, when Deputy Killilea had made his statement in reference to the matters which gave rise to the unfortunate occurrence of the night before, stood up and apologised for the statement he had made and withdrew it unreservedly. I may say this, that it seems to me that Deputy Killilea accepted that apology and that withdrawal in as generous a fashion as it was made by Deputy Collins. So far as that is concerned that matter is at an end.
There remains this now, and, notwithstanding the extenuation, or attempted extenuation, by the Minister, the Ceann Comhairle has ruled that it "cannot be considered in any sense as justifying or mitigating the offence". The charge and the judgment remain, that a Minister of the present Government has been guilty of an act in contempt of Parliament.
Towards the close of his statement to-day, the Ceann Comhairle stated that:—
"The incident, however, constituting an act in contempt of Parliament, falls to be dealt with by Dáil Éireann in such manner as the members may in their wisdom decide."
He goes on to say that "such action must be taken in accordance with the rules governing procedure" in this House.
This motion is taken, we believe, in strict accordance with that ruling of the Chair and in complete compliance with the rules of this House, and I believe in entire accord with the letter and spirit of Article 15, paragraph 10 of the Constitution. We cannot leave that incident alone. We do not wish to be in any way vindictive in this matter against the Minister for Education, but we feel that where the simple, plain fact is that, on an admitted statement of facts, the Ceann Comhairle has adjudged a Minister of this Government guilty of contempt of Parliament, it cannot be shelved or postponed in the manner the Taoiseach wishes it to be.
I do issue this warning, that if the Taoiseach, the members of his Party, Deputy Cowan and the rest of them who are supporting him, defeat this motion through their majority, then they will be judged by public opinion as merely endeavouring to evade their responsibilities by starting an inquiry which will take, possibly, months and maybe years, an inquiry which will give rise to very considerable discussion and controversy and which may never result or eventuate in such a large measure of agreement, or in such unanimity, as ought to exist in a democratic institution of this kind so as to ensure freedom of debate and the freedom of individual Deputies from assault by any member of the House or by any person outside the House.
I repeat that the intention of the Taoiseach is to endeavour to postpone this matter which is an entirely different issue from the general question of whether or not we should lay down rules dealing with the manner in which the privileges of Parliament shall be maintained and the rights of private Deputies safeguarded. This is an incident in respect of which the Chairman of this Assembly has adjudicated on admitted facts, that a Minister of the Government has been guilty of contempt of this Parliament. This Parliament must here and now adjudicate upon that determination and that judgment without waiting to see whether or not certain steps are to be taken to set up a new procedure or new methods of dealing with matters of this kind.
These incidents have occurred all too frequently. It is significant that in the case of every incident that has occurred since last February the assault has been by a member of the Fianna Fáil Party on a member of the Fine Gael Party. I made no ex parte statements to-night. I assert that the assault committed on Deputy Dillon to-night had no justification or extenuation by reason of any aggravating circumstances such, perhaps, as may have operated with the Minister for Education, and in respect of which the Ceann Comhairle has ruled that they did not mitigate the offence. Deputy Dillon in no way gave provocation to Senator Quirke.
I want to know what provocation was given to Deputy Flynn when he made an unprovoked attempted assault in the Dáil Library a few months ago on Deputy Palmer. Deputy Cowan would have this matter shelved, if you please, because of so-called allegations and slanderous statements made under the privilege of the House. We have here a separate problem, an individual item, and we suggest dealing with that item while in no way prejudging what may take place hereafter. We do not even suggest what the penalty may be for the Minister for Education in this matter. We say that he should get such penalty as is accorded to a Deputy in this House who contravenes the rules of order, when, for example, a Deputy, having been called upon by the Chair to withdraw a statement he has made — even a minor statement of no great import which was alleged, say, by a Minister not to be accurate— and he refuses to do so. Then, in accordance with procedure, that Deputy is named and is suspended by the Ceann Comhairle from the service of the House.
To mark our disfavour of the action of the Minister for Education in being, as he has been on the admitted facts, adjudged guilty of contempt, some action must be taken by this Dáil unless we are to render ourselves entirely futile. The least we suggest here is that precedent be followed — that the Minister be suspended from the service of the House. We do not suggest in this motion any particular period, whether it be for an hour, a day, a week or anything else, but we empower, by this motion, the Ceann Comhairle, who is impartial in this matter, to deal with the period of suspension in such a way as he, in his absolute discretion, may think fit.
We give him no directions, but we do this: we mark the sense of our displeasure of the gravity of the fact that a Minister of the Government, on his own admission, was guilty of an assault on a Deputy in this House. The question of mitigating circumstances, or otherwise, in reference to this matter, and the penalties to be imposed, we leave entirely in the hands of the Ceann Comhairle. What we do if we pass this motion is to assert our right to deal with order and decorum in this House and the dignity of its procedure and not to evade the issue, as the Taoiseach wants to do, not to put it on the long finger by this lengthy motion which he has put down for the next session of this Dáil, not to sidetrack this matter by putting down a highly controversial motion dealing with matters entirely outside the scope of this particular incident but dealing with the particular isolated incident now and asserting our right as members of a sovereign Parliament and democratic institution to see that every Deputy of this House, no matter what Party he may belong to or if he belongs to no Party, has the right of free speech and that he will not be intimidated by any assault from expressing properly his views in this House, from criticising the Fianna Fáil Government or any Government that may succeed that Government. The whole basis of democracy is that every Deputy should have the right freely to criticise the Government. If there is anything in the nature of curbing his power to do that then there is the beginning of the end of democracy and the right to free speech. Deputy Cowan does not, apparently, understand why members of this House are allowed an absolute privilege in regard to speech in this House subject to the control of the Parliament itself to prevent them.
It is in order that people may be free to discharge their duty and that they will not be subjected to actions for slander and libel by people outside. But slanderous or libellous statements by Deputies about another Deputy are a matter that can be dealt with by the Parliament itself in the Parliament itself by the exercise of its own powers under the Constitution to secure freedom of debate, decorum and dignity in its proceedings.
There is a very strong democratic principle underlying the right of any Deputy to speak under absolute privilege in respect of slander. That is a right that was gained through the democratic growth of Parliament in the country from which we have adopted our institutions, namely, Great Britain. It was a long period and a hard period and a long struggle to secure the right of members of a democratic Parliament freely to express their opinions. We put down that motion to assert that right and not in any spirit of vindictiveness towards the person of the Minister for Education. We repudiate the suggestion of the Taoiseach that the issue should be evaded and postponed ad infinitum and the whole matter gone into again. This matter has been adjudicated upon by the Ceann Comhairle. On admitted facts — again I repeat not on controverted facts — a Minister of the Government has been guilty of contempt of this Parliament. We would stultify ourselves as members of a democratic institution if we were to do what the Taoiseach wants us to do — to put it on the long finger, to postpone it, to talk about it, to do anything you like except to take action such as is urgently required this evening in the public interest in order to assert the rights of private Deputies to freedom of speech and debate in a democratic Irish Parliament.
