You, sir, have called my attention to a letter that appeared in the Press a few days ago over the name of the Secretary of the House Owners' Protection Association, of which Association I am President. Part of the letter dealt with a question of fact into which I need not now enter, but you, sir, regarded another portion of the letter, in which your decision to rule out of order certain amendments in my name was characterised as untenable, as constituting a breach of the privileges of this House. While I cannot on purely technical grounds admit that the criticism by an individual, or by an association, of your ruling is a breach of privilege, I exceedingly regret, on personal grounds, that any letter written by an association with which I am associated should be regarded by you as disrespectful. I wish to say that I never saw the letter until it appeared in the Press, and I hope the House will accept the assurance that on personal grounds I had no intention of, in any way, being disrespectful to your chairmanship and on personal grounds I offer my apology.
Private Business. - Question of Privilege.
I am sure the House will accept the statement made by Senator Sir John Keane, but I hardly think it is sufficient to clear up what has been a very misleading statement made by an individual and published by three responsible newspapers. In the first place the letter charges the Cathaoirleach with misleading the members of the Seanad. Senators who are here will remember that I made a statement to the effect that when a house became vacant it became decontrolled. I said I understood that was a fact. Senator Sir John Keane interjected "No." The Minister in charge of the Bill was present and by nodding his head agreed with my statement. You, a Chathaoirligh, saw the action of the Minister and conveyed the information across the House to Senator Sir John Keane by saying "I understand the Minister says ‘yes.'" This letter which those newspapers have published said that Senator Sir John Keane said "No," but that the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad intervened in the absence of the Minister and stated, "I understand the Minister says ‘yes.'" The letter goes on:—"It is very regrettable that the absence of the Minister on this occasion resulted in the Chairman, no doubt unwittingly, misleading the members of the Seanad." I want to make it clear that the Minister was present and that the Chairman merely conveyed the Minister's nod of assent to my statement across the House for the benefit of Sir John Keane.
I do not agree with the Senator that a very violent criticism of the ruling of the Chair in regard to amendments is not a breach of the privileges of this House. The Chairman's ruling is declared in that letter to be utterly untenable. This is the first occasion as far as I know in which the ruling of the Chair has been impugned in the public Press. I do not want unduly to exaggerate, but some of the statements made in the letter are so inaccurate and insolent that I think public attention should be drawn to them. Senator Sir John Keane did not question the ruling of the Chair in regard to these amendments. The letter concludes: "My association views with alarm the apparent lack of care and accuracy, quite apart from the obvious disregard of the interests of property, with which this legislative assembly, representative of public interests and paid out of the public funds, discharges its duties." This Rent Restriction Act, which has been extended from year to year, has been passed with the only opposition to it coming from Senator Sir John Keane and a few others. The Principal Bill, the 1923 Bill, passed through all its stages in one day when Sir John Keane was not present. In the case of the 1926 Bill, Senator Keane was present and he was the only speaker against it in the Seanad, and the same applies to the 1928 and 1929 Bills, against which he was the only speaker——
On a point of order. Has this anything whatever to do with the matter raised by Senator Sir John Keane?
Cathaoirleach
I think it has, Senator.
I will finish in a minute. I only just wanted to say that the statements in the letter are a gross misrepresentation of the attitude of the House towards the Bill, because the Bill has been an agreed measure, and on every occasion when it came before the House it has been passed with the single exception of Sir John Keane's opposition. The Senator always manifested his opposition to it. I am, of course, glad that the Senator has repudiated, to the extent that he has, the statement that has been made regarding the Chair. I do think that the journals that published that letter owe an apology to the Oireachtas for a breach of the privilege of one of its Houses.
Cathaoirleach
I am very glad that Senator Sir John Keane went into this matter. I am sure that if he had been aware of it he would hardly have allowed the letter to be published. All I can say is that I consider so ignorant and so ill-informed a letter calls for no notice from me, but since it has been mentioned, I regret for the sake of the good name of the Press that so irresponsible a letter should be published. I am glad that Senator Sir John Keane has on this occasion, as on every other occasion, upheld the dignity of this House.