Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 1934

Vol. 18 No. 7

Privileges of the House.

Cathaoirleach

Before Senator Blythe moves his motion I should like the House to be quite clear as to what is to be discussed. At our meeting last Wednesday, Senator Miss Browne raised a question of privilege under Standing Order 26, and I gave it as my opinion that the question that had arisen directly concerns the privileges of the Seanad. It is desirable, however, that the facts be duly investigated and verified by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and if this motion is passed the Committee will doubtless request Senator Miss Browne and other witnesses to attend before them and to give evidence. Regarded in this light, the motion is largely a formal one and does not call for any prolonged discussion on the rights and wrongs of the action alleged to have been taken. Further, any speeches made on the assumption that the act complained of is not a breach of privilege are out of order on a discussion of this motion. They should be reserved for a later occasion, when the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will have been presented to this House.

As the Minister for Defence is present, I propose to call upon him as soon as Senator Blythe's motion has been seconded.

Mr. Blythe

In view of what the Cathaoirleach has said I shall content myself with formally moving my motion:—

That the matter of the exclusion by military policemen of visitors to whom admission tickets had been issued by the Cathaoirleach for the sitting of the House on Wednesday, 21st February, 1934 be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for inquiry and report.

I am sure that all Senators have read an account of what Senator Miss Browne said, and also the report of the subsequent remarks.

Miss Browne

I second the motion.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken)

I wish first of all to say that I should be very sorry indeed if I knew I had even unwittingly transgressed my legal powers in carrying out my duty to afford protection to the Oireachtas. I should be very sorry also if I knew I had done anything which might even remotely savour of discourtesy to the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. Having said this, I wish to state that so far as I am aware I have done neither.

On 20th July, 1933, it came to my knowledge that certain persons intended to seek admission to Leinster House wearing the uniform of an organisation known at that time as the Army Comrades' Association. I consulted the Ceann Comhairle about the matter, and afterwards, with his consent, gave instructions to the military that persons dressed in the uniform of the organisation to which I have referred (other than members of the Oireachtas) were to be refused admittance to Leinster House. I advised the Ceann Comhairle and the Superintendent of the Oireachtas Staff that I had issued these instructions. I did not advise the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. The explanation is a very simple one.

I have here files going back over several years dealing with the protection of Leinster House. Not once does the name of the Cathaoirleach appear in them. There is a permanent Committee on the Protection of Government Buildings and Leinster House. It was set up following a letter from my Department to the Ceann Comhairle on 2nd April, 1932, which reads:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Defence to state that he has had under consideration the question of the future arrangements to be made for the safeguarding of Government buildings. Whilst he is of opinion that from the point of view of defence, the responsibility for the buildings is primarily a matter for his Department, he considers that the question can be most suitably dealt with by a committee whose functions would be mainly on the lines of the existing committee.

"The Minister will be glad if you will kindly nominate a representative to act on the committee about to be appointed. He suggests that in view of his experience, Colonel P. Brennan would be a representative whose services would prove an acquisition to the committee which will be composed of:—

Chairman—Secretary, Department of Defence.

Representatives of—An Ceann Comhairle, Department of Finance, Department of Justice, Commissioners of Public Works.

Secretary—Private Secretary to the Secretary, Department of Defence.

The Ceann Comhairle's reply to this letter read as follows:—

"To: Rúnaidhe do'n Roinn Cosanta.

A Chara,—Colonel P. Brennan is willing to act as a member of the committee for the safeguarding of Government buildings, and I hereby nominate him as a representative."

I think I have said sufficient to show that there was no intention of being discourteous to the Cathaoirleach in not informing him of my instructions to the military, because, so far as my Department is concerned, we have had no dealings with him on such matters at any time. The practice has been that the Ceann Comhairle alone deals with this question in so far as it affects the whole of Leinster House. A lawyer going into the matter in order to make a case might find that this practice is not formally correct, but all I can say is that it has been the practice and that heretofore the Cathaoirleach has not objected.

According to his statement in the Seanad the Cathaoirleach was aware that I had issued these instructions. Up to this minute I have had no communication from the Cathaoirleach or from any of his officials objecting to or stating that he desired the revocation of the instructions I issued in July last. Without consulting or advising me, he directed tickets to be issued, knowing they were to be used by persons wearing uniforms and whom the military guard would certainly stop at the gates unless I cancelled their previous instructions. Until I read his statement in the Seanad on the 21st instant I was not aware that the Cathaoirleach had approved of visitors entering Leinster House wearing the Blueshirt uniform.

There is undoubtedly a problem to be settled as obviously serious practical difficulty will be caused by conflicting regulations being made by the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach governing the admission of visitors, but I think that with goodwill on the part of all concerned there should be no difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory solution. The Ceann Comhairle has control of the admission of visitors to the Dáil. The Cathaoirleach has the same control of admission of visitors to the Seanad. The Minister for Defence has the responsibility of the protection of both Houses. I am in frequent consultation with the Ceann Comhairle on this question, but the Cathaoirleach has never even once raised the matter. No Act has been passed by the Oireachtas defining the point where the responsibilities of the three cross. In the absence of such an Act it is only commonsense to assume that while the Ceann Comhairle and Cathaoirleach have a constitutional right to admit visitors, there must be a reasonable limit to the exercise of that right. I submit that one reasonable limitation is the admission of persons carrying arms or persons other than members of the Oireachtas wearing the uniform of an organisation which, in the interests of public peace, the Government found it necessary to ban.

Although the obvious way to have approached this matter would have been to have had a conference between the Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach and myself, I see no objection to the matter being considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I suggest also that a solution to the difficulty which has arisen could easily be found if it were examined by the Protection Committee already in existence with the addition of the Cathaoirleach or a representative appointed by him.

Cathaoirleach

I feel that I must intervene at this stage. I quite accept what the Minister for Defence has said, that he had no intention of being discourteous to this House or to me. The matter of discourtesy to me is of no importance, but the matter of a breach of the privileges of this House is of importance—of great importance. I think that the reply of the Minister for Defence, while being largely inaccurate, is no reply to the breach of privilege which, to my mind, has undoubtedly been committed. What are the facts as adumbrated by the Minister for Defence? He stated that he had no knowledge—at least, if I understood correctly—that certain persons wearing blue shirts were to be admitted to this House on the afternoon of Wednesday of last week. I cannot accuse the Minister of stating what he thinks is untrue, or what he believes would be untrue.

Mr. Aiken

May I intervene at this point, with a view to correction? I did not say that I had no knowledge that two persons were to enter Leinster House wearing blue uniform. I did say that not until I read the statement of the Cathaoirleach in the Seanad did I know that they came with his consent or approval.

Cathaoirleach

That is a question of fact. On Tuesday afternoon, the day before this occurred, I was in this House, and I thought it my duty to see if there was any shadow of doubt that the Government were not seised of the facts. I got into telephonic communication with the Minister for Justice who, I assumed, and still assume, is the correct protector of these premises. The Minister for Justice came to the other end of the telephone and I told him the facts, that I proposed to admit on the following day two visitors wearing blue shirts, as I had been requested by Senator Miss Browne to do so, and that relying on my constitutional position, and if I may say so, our domestic position, under the Standing Orders, I meant to allow that these two persons should be admitted and had so ordered. These are the facts. You may take it if you like that the Minister for Defence has forgotten the matter, but these are the facts. That being so, I think it is my duty to show you that no condonation of breaches of, or abrogation of the rights of this Seanad has at any time occurred, either during my tenure of office or that of my predecessor.

I very much regret that the Minister has not seen fit to withdraw from the position that he has taken up. He talks about a certain committee having been appointed by him and by the Ceann Comhairle. That is the head and fount of his offence: that he ignored us, and the head and fount of his offending now is that he continues to ignore us and, forsooth, that he has a committee of assistance who will protect in an adequate way our privileges until we shall sit down meekly and submit to what that committee may decide as to our rights and our privileges as an integral part of this Oireachtas, as a part of the Oireachtas without which no legislation can be conducted. If I may say so, this is a House that I think is as much concerned with the peace and order of our land as the other House, and that it is no less jealous of the advance and the constitutional rights of the people of this country. As I have said, I regret that the Minister has sought to justify his action, in face of the Constitution and of the Standing Orders, on the alleged ground that the privileges of this House have been abandoned by non-user of such privileges and have been abrogated by condonation of breaches of them. Even if there had been condonation, it would not be possible for the privileges of a House of Parliament to be abrogated thereby, because such privileges are inherent and continuous. They assuredly could not be held to be so abrogated during the brief period of eleven years during which this House has been in existence.

Before coming to the particular case, I should like to say in general that the privileges of this House have throughout been jealously guarded by my predecessor and myself. From time to time there have been attempted encroachments upon such privileges, but Lord Glenavy and I have always tactfully, I hope, but firmly insisted on our rights as an integral part of the Oireachtas, with the result that the position taken up by the other side has invariably been abandoned. Hence it happens that throughout these eleven years the question of privilege has been raised only twice in this House. On the one occasion, the breach complained of was promptly remedied by an adequate apology. The other occasion I shall refer to in a moment. So much for the general aspect of the question.

In regard to the particular aspect, I gather that the Minister's argument is that the presence of a military guard in and about Leinster House is a fact of long standing, and that the existence of such a guard, responsible to him and not to me nor to this House, might itself be regarded as a breach of privilege, which we have hitherto condoned and of which the present instance is only an extension. This, of course, is not the case at all.

Practically from the beginning, there has been a military guard in and about these buildings. It was then essential, in view of the fact that the members of the Oireachtas were meeting in the face of threats of arson and murder. It is perhaps not so necessary to-day, but even in those perilous days it was never contended that such a military guard had any right whatever to take action directly contrary to the orders of the Cathaoirleach. Had such a proposition ever been advanced, it would at once have been challenged and I am convinced that the Cathaoirleach and Senators of those days would have seen to it that such a contention was unconditionally withdrawn. The military guard is here for our protection, and its presence is unobjectionable and constitutes no breach of privilege so long as the acts of that guard, and the orders given to it, do not run contrary to my orders.

On the 17th December, 1930, Senator Comyn raised this question of the military guard and asked for a ruling that the fact of his having been stopped by the guard for purposes of identification was a breach of privilege. I stated on that occasion that had there in fact been a breach of privilege I should have felt bound to request the House to take action in the matter, but that I could not subscribe to the view that a breach of privilege had been committed. With regard to the defence of Leinster House and what the Minister has stated, all that I can say is that that is the first I heard of it. My concurrence was never sought. In my opinion any act of such a body, set up without Parliamentary authority, is as much subject to the rights and privileges of this House as the act of an individual.

I am not sure whether it is seriously contended that the absence of any action on my part following the communication sent by the Minister for Defence on the 20th July last to the Ceann Comhairle of the other House constitutes condonation of a breach of privilege. How could it? I was only aware of the existence of such an order on last Tuesday, when I heard casually that the Ceann Comhairle had issued such an order. I wrote to him for information on the matter. The first of the actual facts that I knew about the whole thing was on the day before the question was raised in the House —on the Tuesday. Then I ask you in all calmness and in all sincerity whether my action in getting in touch with the Government was not dictated solely by the desire to prevent anything occurring that could embarrass the Government in this knotty problem? I approached the person whom I believed to be the responsible person, and whom I still believe ought to be the responsible person, the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Justice replied that it was the Minister for Defence that was doing these things and that he would communicate with him. I take it that he did communicate with the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Defence has now come before you and you have heard him in defence: that there had been a condonation of matters of which I had no knowledge, and which I could not possibly have had knowledge. It is alleged, forsooth, that I had abrogated the authority of this House and had surrendered its right to a Committee appointed by the Minister for Defence. I have not done so. I shall never do so, and I believe that while this House is in existence for the defence of constitutional rights in this State that it will never consent to do so.

Mr. O'Neill

It might have been much better when Senator Blythe had proposed his motion that the matter had been left with you, Sir. I feel that if you had been disrespected or if any of the privileges of your office have been interfered with that every member of the Seanad should stand behind you.

Mr. O'Farrell

In view of the ruling given by the Chair, I understood that the question was not to be debated now.

Cathaoirleach

I would rather that it was not. If the motion is passed, then when the question comes back from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges there will be ample opportunity for discussion by everybody— criticism of the report and of the whole matter—but not now.

Mr. O'Neill

The remarks that I intend to make—I will be perfectly frank about the whole matter—will be directed against the motion, because in my judgment the motion that has been proposed is not necessary. When you, Sir, made your statement last Wednesday I left this House with mixed feelings, with the idea that you above all people in the Seanad, who have always been impartial and always kind, should be treated with disrespect or that the privileges of your office should be interfered with. But when I read your statement in print and when I heard the statement of the Minister for Defence to-day and also your statement to-day, my feelings completely changed. I admit that there is a Standing Order giving you full power as to whom you will allow to come to the gallery of this House, but is it seriously contended, as it has been contended, that the Minister for Defence, who has charge of the peace of this country and of this State—that he in his position is not to prevent people whom he considers dangerous from entering Leinster House?

Cathaoirleach

Now, Senator, you are going outside the subject matter of the motion. So long as you keep to the question that the motion ought not to be adopted you will be quite in order, but whenever you go outside the subject matter of the motion, you are out of order.

Mr. O'Neill

It is very hard for me——

Cathaoirleach

I quite agree and I sympathise with you.

Mr. O'Neill

——to keep in order after your ruling, but at the same time I think I am entitled to give my opinion as to why the motion should not be adopted.

Cathaoirleach

I think you are, and I am allowing you to do so.

Mr. O'Neill

The reason why I am giving you my opinion that the motion should be adopted——

Mr. O'Hanlon

You mean should not be adopted.

Mr. O'Neill

Yes. The interjection of my friend, Senator O'Hanlon—I have had a fairly long experience of public life—reminds me of this, that no matter how sad or perplexing a situation may arise in this country it has its humorous side. If I am not infringing on your ruling, may I say that in my opinion that we have here one of the most Gilbertian situations that could possibly arise in this country? The Minister has stated that Blueshirts are dangerous and should not be admitted into Leinster House: that they should be prevented from coming into the grounds, to the gallery of the Dáil or into Government Buildings and then, on the other hand, that the gallery of the Seanad should be made a haven of refuge, of hope——

Cathaoirleach

I think you are not judging the matter accurately, Senator. You talk so interestingly that I find it hard to stop you, but you may not go outside the rules of debate.

Mr. O'Neill

As I said before, Sir, it is very hard for me to do so after your ruling. Again, however, I want, in my own plain, business, blunt way, if I may put it that way, to show that this is all a bottle of smoke.

Cathaoirleach

You cannot say that at all, Senator. You are challenging my ruling on the matter and I cannot allow that.

Mr. O'Neill

I wish to say at once, Sir, that I would not for a moment describe any ruling of yours or anything that comes from you as a bottle of smoke.

Cathaoirleach

Thank you very much, Senator.

Mr. O'Neill

Sometimes however, smoke comes where there is no fire. At any rate, is it to be seriously contended that the Minister for Defence —and I am not a Party man in this matter; it is immaterial to me what Government is in power or what Government is not in power, and I merely look at it in a commonsense way—is it seriously contended that the Minister for Defence is not allowed to prevent dangerous people from coming into this House?

Cathaoirleach

You must stop, now, Senator. That contention has not been raised and cannot be raised now.

Mr. O'Neill

Well, then, in the name of God, and with a little help, I had better reserve anything I have to say until the matter comes up again.

Cathaoirleach

Very good. Thank you, Senator. I shall put the motion now.

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Connolly)

I should like to say a few words before you put the motion, Sir. I do not want to intervene in this controversy at all to any extent. I regret that I was not here last Wednesday and was only made aware of what happened later in the evening. I was waiting to go into the other House in connection with the Supplementary Estimates and I personally regret that this incident occurred. Because of my absence I did not know its background. I only stress the fact that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Minister for Defence here is concerned, we have always tried to keep within the rules of the House. We have appreciated the courtesy and the manner in which you, Sir, conducted the business of the House always as far as we were concerned. There are only two points I would like to make before this motion is put to the House, and they are these: First of all, with regard to the Minister for Defence; I have talked to him about this to-day and it is quite clear to me that, however right or however wrong he may have been in what he did, he was not conscious of the fact that he should have been in communication with the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad on the matter that is at issue. He has explained that he came to this conclusion in view of the position that has prevailed for a considerable time, if not all the time, since the Seanad was established. There is another reason, however, and it is this: Colonel Brennan, who is Superintendent of the General Oireachtas, that is, of both Houses, was appointed to this Committee with the consent or approval or direction of the Ceann Comhairle, and I understand that it has been at least the tradition and the precedent in this Oireachtas, covering all the House and the precincts of the House, that the Ceann Comhairle has operated. That may be a position that requires to be adjusted. It may be that the Ceann Comhairle should have communicated with you, Sir, or that there should have been closer co-operation between the Chairman of this House and the Ceann Comhairle of the other House.

It seems to me that in what has now emerged from this discussion, undoubtedly, co-operation should have been consolidated and maintained all these years. In how far the Ceann Comhairle is responsible for that not having been done, I do not know. In how far you, Sir, have been responsible for that not having been done, I am also not aware. I take comparatively little interest in these questions of authority within the House, or of procedure and such like; but I would like to make it clear to all concerned that in this matter the Minister for Defence acted in a perfectly bona fide way, however misinterpreted or however wrong his actions may have been. I suggest that the matter is not one that reflects in the slightest degree on the Minister for Defence, but that it does reflect on the responsible custodians of both Houses. It emerges now that a situation has arisen due to the fact that there has not been at any time, certainly within recent years, according to what the files disclose, that co-operation between the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. One thing may emerge from this, and that is that such co-operation might be secured for the future. I feel that it is a matter that could have been ironed out very simply by a consultation between yourself, Sir, the Ceann Comhairle, and the Minister for Defence, and that the storm in a teacup could have been overcome in that way. I suggest that even yet it would have been a much better approach to the matter than to refer it to a Committee of one House only. This House is one House of the Oireachtas. There is the other House. There are the precincts of the House, the corridors, and the grounds. I suggest, Sir, that whilst no one will dispute your absolute and complete control of the Seanad, there are peculiar circumstances whereby both Houses are within one enclosure, so to speak, which would make it desirable that the closest co-operation between yourself and the Ceann Comhairle should be effected.

I do not wish to intervene with regard to the other matters embodied in the situation. I do not propose to intervene in that, but I thought it wise to make these remarks and suggestions for what they are worth, so that the position will be clearly understood. I, personally, regret the incident very much and I would express the hope that the incident has developed in perfect good faith. I mean by that, that it has not been, as it were, deliberately provocative, or that a situation has been created which would prove at all awkward for you, Sir, or for any member of the Seanad That is all I wish to say on the matter.

Cathaoirleach

I should like to be allowed to say in reply to Senator Connolly that I very much appreciate what he has said. I agree that there should have been closer co-operation. I have always received from him and from the members of his Party the greatest assistance. I also agree that if a consultation had taken place and it had been represented to me that there was danger, if I had been asked by the Minister for Defence or by Senator Connolly or by anybody else to take action which was considered to be essential in the interests of peace and good order in the House, I would have done so. Unfortunately, that was not done. I am quite satisfied that the Minister for Defence had no intention of trying to do what he unconsciously did do—to take away our privileges.

Mr. Aiken

I should like to say that this whole crux has had its roots not within these last two years. I have searched the files myself and have had them searched by my officials, and I want to say that all the arrangements for the protection of Leinster House— I am not claiming that they have been strictly or formally formulated—have been made between the Ceann Comhairle and the Committee to which I referred.

Cathaoirleach

I would not pursue that further, Mr. Aiken, because I am afraid I would take issue with you on that point.

Mr. Aiken

This Committee was set up in 1926, I understand, by Senator Blythe, who was then Minister for Finance. He wrote to the Clerk of the Dáil asking him to nominate a representative on the Committee. He did not write to the Seanad, and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad was not represented at any time in this. We take it that the Superintendent of the Oireachtas, who, I understand, is the representative of both the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil, is the representative of the Cathaoirleach. I think that, if the Cathaoirleach has been aware of the situation, he should keep touch with the Superintendent of the Oireachtas, who is his official. I understand that he is the joint official of the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach.

Mr. Blythe

I should like to say that I think Senator Connolly is not right in referring to this matter as a storm in a teacup. Perhaps it is not a very big matter, but, fundamentally, it is a matter of the first importance, and I think that also a quite new point has arisen in connection with it. There have been various conferences and various committees in the past for the protection of the Houses; but no question has ever arisen of the right of any person to refuse admission to visitors who were authorised to be admitted by the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad or the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil. I think that the suggestion put forward, and, I think, now held to, by the Minister, that he or other Ministers are entitled in the blessed name of protection—I do not want to discuss the matter—to stop persons duly authorised by the Cathaoirleach to be admitted, is a matter which touches fundamentally the privileges of this House and which must be fully examined and disposed of. Standing Order No. 26 says that a matter which, in the opinion of the Cathaoirleach, is one touching the privilege of the House may be dealt with immediately by motion. I think it would have been precipitate to have moved a motion last week. I should not like to move the motion to-day, but there is matter here which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should carefully consider, and I would hope that the Minister would also carefully consider it before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges disposes of it, and that he would see fit or be advised to mend his hand, because I do not think the Seanad could accept the view that its powers to make Standing Orders or to arrange for the publicity of proceedings and to maintain freedom of debate can be infringed by any other person. At the same time, while the Seanad, I think, cannot give up its rights to say who can come here, on the other hand it is undesirable that there should be any conflict between the Executive and the Seanad. There are legal measures, I think, which the Seanad could take to assert its rights, and there are other measures within the control of the Seanad; but I think, as I say, the Minister, representing the Executive Council should reconsider his position and not put the Seanad into the position of either having to let its rights go or to take measures of that sort to assert them. If anybody is dangerous, he can be arrested or he can be searched. There are dozens of ways by which the Minister can deal with anybody who is thought to be dangerous without infringing on the rights of the Seanad.

Mr. Johnson

May I express the hope that this motion should be passed unanimously and that the whole matter implicit in it may be discussed by this Committee? I think there are much more important matters involved in this than the mere question that has arisen, and it is probably fortunate that it should have arisen now because matters concerning the relative positions of this House to the other House, and of either House to the Executive of the day, are involved. I think that this may be an occasion for clarifying the position generally, and I hope it will be discussed, as I am sure it will be, with due regard to all the implications of the general situation that is involved in the constitutional rights of the Seanad.

Mr. Staines

I do not agree with what the Minister says as to how this crux has arisen. It is a very serious crux. I was the first person appointed to take charge of the defences of this House. I carried out that task at a much more serious time than the present time. I carried it out all through the civil war. This crux has not arisen owing to any trouble about the defence of this House. I want the Minister to bear in mind—if he admits this, I will forgive him almost anything—that the crux has arisen because the Government of the day have got the idea into their heads that a person wearing a blue shirt is a sheep in wolf's clothing——

Cathaoirleach

We ought not to debate that aspect of the question further.

Mr. Staines

That is the trouble. The sooner the Government realise their mistake the better. The Blue-shirts never did any harm in this House or in the other House. The Minister, if he looked into the matter, would see that a number of people have been admitted to the Dáil who actually threw papers and other things from the public gallery while law-abiding people are now prevented from coming in.

Cathaoirleach

That is out of order.

Motion put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges will meet next Tuesday at 4 o'clock. Notices will be sent out in due course.