Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Nov 1947

Vol. 34 No. 10

Proposed Sale of Distillery—Motion for Tribunal

Mr. Hearne

I move:—

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say, the allegations affecting members of either House of the Oireachtas made in Dáil Eireann on the 22nd, 29th and the 30th October, 1947, in reference to the disposal or proposed disposal, since the 1st January, 1946, of the distillery of John Locke and Company, Limited, at Kilbeggan, County Westmeath, and of the stocks of the said distillery or any part thereof; the nature and extent of the connection which any member of either House of the Oireachtas had with any transactions relating to such disposal or proposed disposal and any other facts or circumstances connected with such disposal or proposed disposal which, by reason of the exercise or non-exercise, in relation to them, of any Governmental or Ministerial function, are, in the opinion of the tribunal, of public importance.

The Taoiseach

I do not know how far it is necessary for me to explain to the Seanad the nature of the allegations which have been made in Dáil Eireann with regard to the sale of a certain distillery and the allegations made suggesting that there was, on the part of members of the Administration, either negligence or worse. The allegations were made on three days, 22nd, 29th and 30th October. Senators who are interested, if they had not already seen it in the public Press, will have read in the Official Reports of the Dáil what the nature of these allegations was. The point is that, having been made, it is desirable that they should be inquired into and the proposal here is that a tribunal should be set up with the terms of reference indicated in the motion. I mentioned allegations made against members of the Administration, but I should also have mentioned those against a member of this House. The purpose of this tribunal will be to in-quite into these matters.

As I say, I do not know to what extent it is necessary for me to give a fuller explanation. Senators will have seen in the Press, or in the reports of the debates in Dáil Eireann, the nature of these allegations, and, as there is to be a tribunal to examine into them, I do not think I should be responsible for opening up the whole field again. I should prefer, if Senators are satisfied, to leave it at that. There is to be an inquiry to examine into all these details and possibly the only question which arises is whether the terms of reference are sufficiently wide to cover any aspect of the matter which is of public importance. Senators will appreciate that the Government cannot be held responsible for private transactions between individuals, so long as these transactions do not transgress the law. If there is a transgression of law, there is a way of dealing with it —the ordinary courts are available to deal with it. What we are concerned with is the attack on either private members of either House or on those who have been put by the Oireachtas in administrative positions. If you distinguish between the public and private aspects of the matter and agree that it is not our business to inquire into any aspect connected with the sale of that distillery which does not impinge on public administration, you will admit that the terms of reference are as wide as they could be drawn.

If it is suggested here, as it was suggested in Dáil Eireann, that there should be an inquiry into all the facts and circumstances of the sale of a certain premises or business, there could scarcely be any end to the tribunal's investigations. It might also be no harm to point out that this is a tribunal of inquiry. It is at liberty to choose its own procedure, and its duty is to inquire to the utmost extent into any of these transactions, in so far as they impinge in any way on public administration. You could not have, it will be admitted, an inquiry with terms of reference which would mean that the tribunal would never be really satisfied that there was an end to its investigations. Certain activities of people who wished to purchase that distillery have been the subject of public comment, but nobody can know what other people or groups of people may have been contemplating the purchase of that distillery. If they have anything to do with public administration they are open for investigation. I do not think it would be possible to draw the terms of reference wider than they are drawn here. I am quite willing to answer any questions relating to this matter which may properly be asked by Senators, but I would prefer not to go into it in fuller detail at present.

Mr. Hayes

I agree with the Taoiseach that it is not necessary to deal here with the accusations, but a very important question arises as to the nature of the tribunal which will investigate the accusations and as to the scope of the inquiry. We got this motion this morning. It is in a new form, the form given to it in the Dáil yesterday, and for that reason it might be still in order for us to propose an amendment. While I am opposed to the type of tribunal, I should like to propose this amendment:—

In the third last line, after the word "which", to delete all the words down to and including the word "function"

so that the subject of the inquiry would be the nature and extent of the connection which any member of either House of the Oireachtas had with any transaction relating to such disposal or proposed disposal and any other facts and circumstances connected therewith which are in the opinion of the tribunal of public importance. That would leave to the tribunal the decision as to whether a particular matter was or was not of public importance. Before I argue the amendment, I should like to ask if you, Sir, will accept it as an amendment from me.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes. In the circumstances detailed by the Senator, I accept the amendment.

Mr. Hayes

I move the amendment. This is a motion of very great importance. It is important not because any of us want to seek out evidence of corruption anywhere, but because of its application to the question of Parliamentary government and to whether Parliamentary government in this country can be conducted in a proper way and can survive and hold the esteem of the people. I agree entirely with the Taoiseach that it is not a matter for us here to go into these accusations. I have no interest in the Deputy who made the accusations in the other House, and I have no animus against any member of this House, no matter what his politics may be. For my part, I should regret that any member of this House or the other House should be convicted of any kind of improper conduct with regard to the discharge of his Parliamentary or public duties. I regret that the matter was debated twice in the Dáil. That it was debated twice in the Dáil, was, I think entirely owing to the inaction of the Government. They got from the Opposition in the Dáil a motion to set up a Parliamentary committee to investigate this matter. They got that motion on Friday. It was discussed the following Wednesday but the Government had, up to the following Wednesday, decided upon no line of their own. Late that evening, they produced an amendment to have a judicial tribunal, which amendment is now before us in the form of a substantive motion. That motion had to be discussed separately in the Dáil and, yesterday, that House spent a considerable portion of its time dealing with the matter.

It is very regrettable that the matter should have been discussed twice in the other House. Perhaps the most regrettable thing in connection with it was that, when an endeavour was made in the other House to discuss this matter entirely objectively and from the point of view of what type of tribunal should be set up, a member of the Government—the Minister for Industry and Commerce—thought fit to make a speech of a threatening, blustering, cross-examining type, which, unfortunately, lowered the whole tone of the debate.

So far as I am concerned, I am opposed to the type of tribunal the Taoiseach proposes to set up and to which the Dáil, by a majority, agreed yesterday. I am opposed to it because I think it is bad for Parliament that matters which arise in Parliament should be made the subject of judicial inquiry. I have no animus against anybody and I should like to say that I am not ashamed of this Parliament after 25 years' experience of it. Considered either by absolute standards or in relation to other Parliaments, I think that there is nothing we need be ashamed of, generally. I am interested in the survival of Parliament and in the retention of the confidence of the people in Parliament. The question we have to discuss to-day is not a Party question. It is not a question entirely of finding out facts or ferreting out some defect in somebody in the Parliament or outside it. It is a matter of vital interest to us and we have to discuss and decide upon this motion not in the light of our Party interests but in the best interests of Parliament and Parliamentary government. I do not propose to discuss in any way the accusations made. The issue is, accordingly, whether a Committee of the Dáil or, better still, a Joint Committee of both Houses, would be more suitable than the tribunal proposed in this motion.

Let us see how the matter arises. It arises from the exercise by a member of Dáil Eireann of his privilege. Privilege is absolutely guaranteed in the two Houses. It is an inheritance from the British and, in the most explicit way, the present Constitution guarantees, and the Constitution of 1922 guaranteed, that privilege. I am entirely in favour of privilege for members of both Houses and I think it should be guaranteed. It is necessary that it should not be diminished or hampered by any code of rules drawn up a priori, dealing with what members of either House may or may not say.

I am entirely in favour of that undiminished privilege but I agree that the privilege should be carefully exercised. When a Deputy or Senator exercises his privilege and makes an accusation, it may serve the good purpose of exposing evil or it may be used recklessly, as it has on some occasions been used, to injure the innocent. When such a charge is being investigated, it seems to me that it should be investigated in two aspects: (1) whether the accusations are true or not and (2) whether the exercise of privilege by the member of the House who made the accusations was justified or not. But a member of either House may be very grievously at fault without acting either illegally or criminally. That is another reason for my objection to this tribunal of judicial persons. They are concerned entirely with the law—with illegalities and with breaches of the criminal code or some other legal code. They are not concerned with the propriety, or otherwise, of the conduct of members of Parliament and they may take a very different view from that which Parliament or a committee of both Houses would take. A member of the British Parliament has just been expelled from that Parliament by a completely non-Party vote for an offence which did not bring him within the law at all, which did not merit his trial in a court of law in England, or sentence by any form of judicial tribunal. A committee of the House of Commons, and, subsequently, the House of Commons itself, acting entirely apart from the Party Whips, acting as a House without regard to Parties, considered the offence, which was not a criminal offence, to be so serious that the member in question should be expelled from the House. No judicial tribunal would have come to that conclusion. It is not the business of judges to come to a conclusion as to the propriety or otherwise of the conduct of members of Parliament. That is a very grievous defect in this motion. We have to watch and make sure, not in our capacity as members of different Parties but in our capacity as members of this House and persons who believe in Parliamentary Government, that members of both Houses shall conduct themselves in such a way as to merit the approval of their fellow-members. That is quite a different thing from approving of somebody's opinions. There must be a code of conduct and, if that code of conduct is broken, it is the House, or a committee acting for the House, that should come to a decision. Members have rights and privileges but they also have duties and, while we should be jealous to see that our privileges are preserved, we should also be jealous to see that we carry out our duties properly.

Let us consider what a judicial tribunal is and what the ordinary duties of judges are. In the first instance, it seems to me that it is very objectionable that judges whose function it is to administer the law and who are supposed to be removed and aloof from politics, and politicians, if possible, should be dragged into this kind of thing—I should say, advisedly and literally, dragged down to this kind of thing. That should not be the case. I am sure that the judges find it distasteful work. I am sure that none of the judges desires to turn aside from his ordinary work which, I understand, is sufficiently heavy at the moment, to take part in this kind of business. Another question is whether judges are suited to make this kind of inquiry. I think the answer is that they are not, that their whole training and the exercise of their ordinary functions makes them unsuitable for investigating a matter of this kind. Our judicial system is based upon the notion that an accused person is innocent until he is proved guilty. Judges are accustomed to come to their decision only after the case has been put to them by counsel on both sides, after examination of witnesses by skilled counsel, cross-examination, sometimes re-examination, and speeches made on both sides. Judges are not in any sense persons who probe for information or who themselves carry out investigations and examine witnesses. In fact, I think that it is not disrespectful to say that the judge who himself acts the part of prosecutor is generally regarded at the Bar and in the courts as not a good judge but the very reverse. The good judge adopts an attitude of aloofness, he hears the evidence, allows counsel to cross-examine the witnesses, within certain limits, and then takes his own line. He is not what is known in France as a juge d'instruction, a title which has never been properly translated and which it is almost impossible to translate. The French functionary examines an accused person with a view to proving that he is guilty. No such officer is known to the British code or to the code we have adopted from the British.

That is exactly what you want in this case. It is exactly what you might have in a Dáil Committee or a Joint Committee but exactly what you cannot get from the Bench and that you cannot get from any form of judicial person. The judges are accustomed to having the facts put up to them and indeed it is in many cases for a jury and not for a judge to decide on the facts—in other words, for a body of people similar to a Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad to decide the facts. The tendency also of judges, I think, is to be narrow—quite a proper tendency when they are doing their own ordinary job—and to decide matters on legal principles. This tribunal which the Taoiseach suggests to us now will have no prosecutor and no defending counsel. I understand. Although this tribunal has power to prescribe its own procedure. I wonder if the Taoiseach has given any consideration to this point, as to whether the tribunal could appoint counsel either to prosecute or to defend. I think it would be very difficult. Anyhow, the matter at issue in this case is not a legal matter and that is the point that I want particularly to insist upon. A Dáil Committee would be better or a Joint Committee would be better still to get the facts and report to both Houses their view on the facts.

My experience of committees is a fairly wide one and even at a time when feeling ran high in the Dáil, when feeling was, so to speak, made to run high by manufactured excitement on the part of an Opposition front bench which was manufacturing excitement for its own political purposes, under the able guidance of the Taoiseach himself, even then Committees of the Dáil worked absolutely smoothly—the Committee of Public Accounts, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the Dáil, and Committees in this House too. Members on all sides of this House who have acted on committees can have brought away from these committees only one feeling, that is, a feeling that a committee is a place where there is no friction, no acrimony and very rarely divisions.

It is alleged, for example, against a Dáil Committee that it would report entirely on political considerations. I do not think it would. Committees have always worked well and their opinions and verdicts have been fairly given. In the other House the Taoiseach himself quoted reports of a committee dealing with certain mining rights and he read the unanimous report of that committee which contained members of the Opposition and members of the Government and members of the Labour Party, and which was presided over, I think, by the Leader of the Labour Party, and which was able to present an unbiased, calm, well-reasoned, unanimous judgment. Therefore it is not true to say that a Dáil Committee cannot investigate this kind of thing. It is, I think, rather true to say that a judicial tribunal given very strict terms of reference and construing them very strictly, itself, will not be able to do the job at all.

It is vital, I think, that Parliamentarians here should decide these things for themselves. Remember, now, what is called the Ward Tribunal was a different thing. The aspects of the Ward case which were considered by a judicial tribunal similar to this one arose by the intervention of a person outside the Dáil—a letter to the Taoiseach from a non-member of the Dáil—but a matter which arises within the Dáil or within the Seanad or within the Oireachtas should be decided, I think, within, instead of by an outside tribunal. It is vital that we should decide these things for ourselves and it is all-important that we should not be threatened, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce threatened in the other House, I think, with great deliberation, because I admire the Minister for Industry and Commerce as a Parliamentarian. He never loses his temper, and if last Wednesday he pretended to lose his temper, he certainly had not lost it at all but, for his own political purposes, he was taking a particular line. He did succeed in reducing the level of the debate.

I do not agree for a moment that members of the Dáil or Seanad should be subjected to a code drawn up beforehand, but I do think that as cases arise, like this case, and as other cases have arisen, they should be investigated and opinions should be given by a Dáil Committee or by a Joint Committee and the decision should serve as a guidance for the future and be accepted. If we do not do that it seems to me we will have completely failed to keep our own House in order.

There is a peculiar feature about this question of tribunals and reports. Numerous things have happened which have never been reported upon and things have happened which seemed to me, with my view of Parliament, to be nothing short of outrageous. I have heard the Taoiseach, as Leader of the Opposition, making an accusation against the head of the Government which was rebutted that night in the Dáil and had to be withdrawn, but there was no inquiry into it. The Taoiseach, from his place as Leader of the House and head of the Government, made a very foul accusation against Deputy Mulcahy, which he gave a run to for a week and then came in and said it was not true; his informant would not stand over it. But nobody ever inquired into it and nobody ever heard who the informant was and nobody ever heard what happened to the informant. There was no inquiry. So, the position we are in is that wild accusations have been made before but were never inquired into and were never violently protested against by the people who are now so enthusiastic that we should have in this case a particular type of inquiry with a particular type of terms of reference.

Indeed, so far as I am concerned, I think the worst thing that ever happened for the Dáil happened some time ago and there was no inquiry into it at all, when a Minister of the Government, at a political meeting of its Party, attacked the present Ceann Comhairle, and there was no inquiry and no punishment. If a Committee of the Dáil had ever considered that, they would have decided unanimously, irrespective of Party, that that was an outrage upon decency in Parliament because a person was attacked who had no opportunity of making a reply of any kind, either inside or outside the Dáil. Yet, the Taoiseach, by a familiar example of casuistry, was able to say it was not a crime to do that until the Ceann Comhairle had said so. It is an extraordinary state of affairs.

I think that we should be concerned entirely for Parliamentary decorum and I am not enthusiastic about Parliamentary decorum being stodgy, and I never was. We should be concerned to defend the privilege of Deputies but we should also be determined to see that when Deputies exercise their privilege they will do so with due sense of responsibility and, if they overstep the bounds, they will be exposed, and the opinion, not of judges who are not competent to discuss it, but of their own colleagues, will be given as to whether or not they did overstep the bounds of decent and proper use of privilege. I think that is due, not only to members of the House, but to outsiders outside the House who have in this particular case been maligned, if that is the right word.

Now, Sir, my whole case is this, that no one can save Parliament except itself and that, when something of this kind occurs in Parliament, Parliament itself, through a committee, must investigate it, must get facilities for investigating it and must declare quite clearly its opinion on the matter. I have no concern as to what the opinion is. I have no hopes in the matter beyond what I expressed in the beginning that, looking at Parliament as I do, and as I always have done, I would regret that any member of this House or of the other House, of any Party or of no Party, should be found guilty of improper conduct, because that is a come-down for every single one of us. We should remember that. It is in that spirit, I think, that an investigation would be conducted by a committee selected from the Dáil or from the Dáil and Seanad. I do not think anyone can save us but ourselves. I do not think judges can do it nor judicial inquiries nor judicial decisions. In cases of this kind these decisions are always unsatisfactory. They are always canvassed after the event. The responsibility is ours and I think that we should carry out that responsibility.

I say we should carry out that responsibility acting in the spirit, not only of justice, but also the spirit of charity because this thing seems to me to be entirely a matter concerning the future of our people and the future of our institutions, not so much the reputation of any individual. We must establish a proper kind of conduct and I think when we go to appoint a judicial tribunal we are shirking the issue ourselves and we are refusing to accept a responsibility that should be ours and that should be nobody else's. That should be our position in this particular case.

With regard to the amendment, I wish to say a brief word. If we are not to have a Dáil Committee—and I think we ought to have a Dáil or a Joint Committee, and I am going to vote against this motion for that reason and for no other reason—I think that the tribunal set up should be as little hampered as possible. I suggest that my amendment is a reasonable one and would leave entirely to the tribunal the settlement of whether or not a particular matter was of public importance. They should be able to discuss all the facts and circumstances of the proposed disposal, not only as it concerns either House or any Government Department, but in so far as any other matter may, in the judgment of the tribunal, be of public importance.

I make an appeal to the Taoiseach not to consider this matter in the light of the defence of anybody, but to have some confidence in this Parliament. If confidence were reposed in Parliament and in a committee or a joint committee, the results would be more in accord with justice and would tend more to raise Parliamentary prestige than the kind of tribunal and inquiry now suggested.

Mr. Douglas

I second the amendment, reserving the right to speak later.

Sir John Keane

I am not going to speak on the merits of the amendment, but on a point of procedure. I notice that this tribunal is to "inquire" into these charges. Would it not be necessary to say "and report"? An inquiry might be held and the judges get the facts without giving their opinion or their conclusions. It appears to me that this is inadequate and fails to meet the clear intention that the tribunal should report.

Mr. Quirke

With your permission, I propose to read a short statement I wish to make. I only intervene in this debate to make a very short contribution to it.

It need hardly be stated that there is no one in either House of the Oireachtas more anxious than I for an inquiry into the slanderous allegations which have been made against me for the part my firm and I played in the transactions concerning the sale of Locke's Distillery at Kilbeggan.

In other circumstances, I would intervene with more vigour, but I purposely refrain from doing so to-day in the assurance that in another place I can put every fact of which I am aware and every record which I possess before the public of this country. We will see then whose reputations are affected by the malicious activities of the last few weeks. We will, perhaps, see that political blackmail boomerangs on the author of it.

I would like to say also, that from my personal point of view, I do not mind how wide the terms of reference to this tribunal are drawn. I wish them to embrace every suspicion and innuendo which has been hinted at or uttered against me. My regret is that the persons responsible for originating these charges or who have assisted in furthering them or made other or similar charges cannot be made responsible in a court of justice.

Mr. Crosbie

As I intend to vote against this motion, I feel I must crave the indulgence of this House to explain why. Allegations have been made in the other House, allegations which cast aspersions upon the honour of a member of this House. These allegations reflect on the honour of the member, not as a private individual but as a public representative. This House is jealous of its honour: it is equally jealous of the honour of its individual members. We in this House should be very slow to permit the safeguarding of our honour and the honour of our members to pass outside this House. I feel that when a member of this House is publicly accused of improper or dishonourable conduct in his capacity as a Senator, he is entitled to defend his conduct and his honour before his colleagues in this House and under no circumstances should he be answerable to any other body or any other tribunal.

I would, therefore, appeal to the Taoiseach to abandon this idea of setting up a judicial tribunal. In fairness to this House and in all fairness to the Senator who finds himself in this, to say the least of it, embarrassing position, he should be given the opportunity to explain the accusations to his colleagues in this House and not to any outside tribunal. Therefore, I will vote against this motion and in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Summerfield

Rightly or wrongly, the public assumes that the type of tribunal suggested by the Taoiseach is the type most calculated to bring about the result we all desire. I listened very carefully to the speech of Senator Hayes and I found myself in very great sympathy with much of what he said; but there is something far more important than the matter of privilege in either House. When a matter has received the publicity that this case has received, then—whilst the arguments of Senator Hayes should weigh in normal circumstances—I honestly feel that the integrity of public life itself is at issue even to a greater degree than the integrity of ourselves or this or the other House as public representatives of a particular type.

I feel handicapped in that none of us can go into the charges. We are not qualified to do so, in any event, and it would be very impertinent of us to do so; but if—as I believe, and as the majority of those with whom I have been in contact believe—the type of tribunal suggested in the motion before the House to-day is the one which will elicit the facts of this unsavoury series of charges, then I feel that not merely the majority in this House but the majority of people in the country will be behind the Taoiseach in hoping that the motion itself will pass, that the judicial tribunal will speedily get into action, speedily elicit the facts of the situation and speedily allay the unrest in the public mind at present.

After all, these charges are of a scandalous nature. If they are true, the persons against whom they were made should be put out of public life; if they are untrue, they should be vindicated as quickly as possible. That, I understand, is the gist of the statement read to the House to-day by Senator Quirke. Therefore, while I have no particular leanings one way or another for or against one tribunal or another, the Taoiseach has made a case for this tribunal that it is the one most calculated to get rid of the cobwebs and get at the facts. For that reason, I intend to support the motion and I hope it will have the support of the House.

Mr. Baxter

First of all, we should, all of us, on every side of the House, congratulate Senator Hayes on his speech to-day. I listened, perhaps with a great deal of disgust, to much that went on in the other House. Senator Hayes has put the whole problem on an entirely different plane and it is very important for the Oireachtas and for all the institutions of the State that we, in this House, anyhow, should keep the debate on that plane here to-day in anything that is said. Quite frankly, I feel that the Government handled this matter badly. Much of the discussion which took place in the Dáil might not have taken place and ought not to have taken place.

I know something—I have occasion to know much—of what was in Deputy Mulcahy's mind, and I am quite satisfied—I can assert positively—that he never, in his wildest dreams, anticipated the sort of discussion which took place in the Dáil as a result of his motion. I drove back with him from the elections in Waterford and Tipperary. We talked about this matter, but I need not dwell on that at any great length. I am satisfied that what I state is true, that the Government handled the whole situation very, very badly indeed. I think myself—I have no authority to say this except the exercise of my own judgment—that if some sort of effort had been made to try and discover what was at the back of the mind of the Leader of the Opposition, all the talk and all the allegations and assertions that were made and the challenges that were flung across the House, need never have been made at all.

Now that we have heard and read so much, I feel with Senator Hayes that this motion is a challenge to our institutions. The method suggested by the Taoiseach is a challenge to our own competence to determine our own conduct and the conduct of our fellows. I am no more happy about the Taoiseach's motion than Senator Hayes is. I think it is the wrong approach. I suggest that this is an error of judgment on the part of the Taoiseach and of his Ministers.

I feel that what is at the back of the Taoiseach's mind in deciding on this form of tribunal is the belief that you could not get fair play for those who are charged from the people, let us say, on the other side of the House. I personally can say with Senator Hayes that I would feel very aggrieved if Senator Quirke, as the aggrieved party in this, should for one moment have the idea or the opinion that he could not pick from this side of the House any day in the week a group of men— that he could not close his eyes and pick from the people on this side of the House a group of people—to whom he would entrust the responsibility of finding the facts and of finding the value of the allegations, assertions and charges that have been made, who would bring in findings that would be in accordance with justice. I feel that Senator Quirke himself, if he were challenged on this point, would be quite prepared to leave it to his fellows, to his peers in this House, and my view is that is how the matter ought to be decided. My view is that this departure is a departure not for to-day but rather that we are establishing a precedent that will be followed to-morrow.

Senator Summerfield says that we want to find the facts. Yes, that is true. It is terribly important to find the facts and to assess the value of the facts. There is something else of importance also. It is true, from all that has been said, that there is no obligation on anybody who has made a charge to go before this tribunal. There is no power, as far as one can judge, to take him before the tribunal. Let us see what happened in the British House of Commons the other day when a member of the Labour Party was tried by his peers and not by a judicial tribunal. We have seen that they expelled him from membership of the House. I do not know whether, under the tribunal which the Taoiseach is going to set up, it is possible to do anything like that.

Our Parliamentary institutions have now been in existence for about 25 years. They have withstood a good many shocks during that time, shocks from all sides. This is not the first shock that Senator Quirke has given our Parliamentary institutions. That was away back 20 years ago—we have passed out of that, and we have come up to the present, and perhaps these are only just the growing pains of a new State. Perhaps it is the way in which people learn to appreciate, in the first place, their privileges and, in the second place, their responsibilities towards their own institutions. Sometimes people feel that they have privileges without responsibilities. There are bound to be many disagreeable happenings when you try to clear something up, and mark out a way for the future. I think it is terribly important that the Government should act wisely. In all honesty and sincerity I want to say that I do not feel this is the best method or the wise method.

I am not going to argue the matter any further. I agree with Senator Hayes that, if the task were set the Oireachtas, it would be approached, as it ought to be, in an atmosphere of charity and justice. I do not know in how far charity enters into consideration in our courts—Senator O'Dea and some other members of the House may tell us more about that—when they are seeking after justice and truth, and whether they would be seeking after something else as well. I honestly believe, whatever the Taoiseach may think and whatever other people may feel about this—I have heard this assertion made in the other House—that there are on all sides of the House people who will make charges—perhaps wild and irresponsible charges—and yet if you put upon those people the conscientious duty of answering the truth with regard to the charges the value of which they were called upon to assess, you could trust them absolutely. The Taoiseach, I am afraid, has not the same view, and hence we are getting this form of tribunal. I do not think it answers the situation. I would wish that the Taoiseach would hearken to the advice and to the approach made to this whole matter by Senator Hayes in his very fine speech. I would commend the wisdom of Senator Hayes's words to every side of the House.

Mr. O'Dea

I intend to vote for this motion. It seems curious that I should agree with very much of what has been said by speakers on the other side. I generally disagree with Senator Baxter, but to-day it is a very curious thing that when he was speaking I felt wholeheartedly that I was inclined to agree with him. I have read the report concerning this matter. I have known certain matters about it, irrespective of those reports, and I am as convinced as I stand here that there is not a scintilla of foundation for any of the suggestions made against any member of this House or any member of the other House or any member of the Government. That has been entirely borne out in the debate that took place in the other House. If I had my way about this inquiry I would leave it to any member on the opposite side—to any three members on the opposite side—feeling perfectly convinced that when they had heard the evidence they would come in with a report exonerating every member against whom these terrible charges have been levelled. If that could be done, I feel certain that would be the verdict.

I read with regret the reports of the proceedings in the Dáil. I was thoroughly ashamed of the debate. Senator Hayes has mentioned that we ought to be jealous of our privileges, and he also spoke of the danger of the abuse of those privileges. The Dáil, as we all know, is the world platform of this country and certain members of the Dáil did their best, by repeating the word "corrupt," to suggest that everybody in this country was a corrupt person and that there was no honesty in public life here. It is a disgrace that the honour of the country should be sought to be besmirched in this way, and it is a disgrace that even the suggestion should be thrown out, without a shadow of foundation, against a man who had the respect of the world. We will have to see that, because we have privileges, these privileges will not be abused. I did have the feeling that we should leave the slanderers to be dealt with by their constituents, that the people of the constituencies which these slanderers represented would say: "That slanderer does not represent us. We want decency in public life and we will have him no longer," but I do not know if we are, as yet, educated up to that point. There is a danger that we are not and that we will have to protect our privileges.

Senator Hayes objects to the judicial inquiry and he makes the point that, even though the court of inquiry may hold that privileges were abused, they are given no powers to deal with that abuse. That is so, but we have here a Committee of Privileges, and if the report of this tribunal comes back to us stating that there has been an abuse by any member of his privileges, I take it the matter can be referred to that Committee of Privileges which can deal with it as they ought to deal with it. I would leave this question of inquiry to any three or four members, or even one member, of the House, with perfect confidence. The reason I am voting for this is that I want an immediate inquiry, an inquiry about which there will be no delay, an inquiry by people who have the respect of the country which fortunately the judiciary, every member of it, has in this country. I know that their report will carry conviction. No matter what other committee you set up, there will be talk about it.

Senator Hayes mentioned also that there was an inquiry set up which came unanimously to a certain conclusion with regard to the leasing of mines in Wicklow. But what did a member of the Dáil say about that inquiry? He said it was composed of a majority of the supporters of the Government.

Mr. Hayes

It was unanimous, was it not, in its report?

Mr. O'Dea

Yes, but, even so, he said that. He threw that aspersion on its findings.

Mr. Hayes

I would not mind what they say like that.

Mr. O'Dea

They cannot say anything about a report by independent judges who will investigate these matters. Judges are men accustomed not alone during their term of office on the Bench but as members of the Bar to inquire into matters. They know how to sift evidence and they will not accept hearsay evidence. I do not know what a Committee of the House would do. Would they accept hearsay evidence as was given in the Dáil, or would they insist, as a judge will insist on the persons with the evidence coming before them and giving evidence of what they know and of what they said and as to whether they said the things alleged? No people can investigate matters of that kind as judges can. That is the reason I vote for this motion—because I want a judicial inquiry, an inquiry which will have the respect not alone of the country but of the world, and an inquiry which will sweep away the dirty charges made against the Government.

Mr. Douglas

I am in almost entire agreement with the views expressed by Senator Hayes. My principal reason for rising is that I want to address myself particularly to the terms of the amendment, but, before doing so, I should like to say that, whereas I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what has been said by Senator O'Dea, I do not agree with his view of what would happen before a committee of this House or a joint committee of both Houses. I believe that there would be exactly the same care exercised as to what was permissible evidence by any of the persons in this House at all likely to be appointed chairman of such a committee as any judicial inquiry.

Senator Summerfield said he preferred a judicial inquiry because we had to defend the integrity of public life. I respectfully suggest to the House that the members of the Oireachtas are the only people who can defend the integrity of public life and that no judicial inquiry could possibly do it for us. No matter whether you have an inquiry or not, no matter what the report is based on, it is on our own good faith, common sense and fairness towards each other, no matter how much we may differ, that the integrity of public life is going to be based. I believe it would be perfectly possible for the Committee of Selection to pick a committee in which there would be unanimous confidence and from which I, Senator Quirke, or any other member who might be charged could feel sure of getting fair play, patience and sympathy, at the same time with the conviction that we are unanimous in our desire to maintain the integrity of public life.

Senator Summerfield also said that if the persons charged were guilty they should be put out of public life. I express no opinion on that because frankly I read a certain amount of the report of the debates in the Dáil and got rather sick of them and decided that I would not read any more; but if that be a true statement with regard to the charges—and I do not for one moment suggest it is—it is not the function of a judicial inquiry to put people out of public life. That is a matter for the people or for Parliament. No one else can decide it, and it will not be the business of any judicial inquiry to report to us whether or not privileges have been abused. I would have preferred a joint committee partly because I believe that this is a matter on which this House, which has developed both a friendly and a fair atmosphere and which can discuss most questions with a minimum of heat and certainly could discuss a matter of this kind without personalities and heat, could have contributed and helped a committee of the Dáil. I would have preferred it to a judicial inquiry, because I believe, in spite of what I read in the debates, such a committee would have brought out a report which would have enhanced the integrity of Parliament and the position of Parliament.

I believe that honestly, and I have had very considerable experience of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, of which I have been a member for a long time. So far as this House is concerned, whenever any question of procedure or maintaining the privileges of members arose, we were almost always unanimous, and, if we were not, it was usually a matter of a minor difference which enabled the chairman of the committee to function. I do not think I have ever seen that varied over a long period of 25 years. For that reason, because I believe we could have established a better position, I would have preferred a joint committee, but the fact is that the Executive have decided that they do not want a committee of the Dáil. I do not know whether they considered a joint committee or not, but I presume they have decided against that as well, and we are now in the position in which a judicial tribunal is proposed. I would much prefer not to bring our judges into questions of our Parliamentary procedure and good faith, but that is the position. Surely we want it to be as competent and successful an inquiry as it can be. It is going to be set up and, that being so, everybody hopes that it will be successful and that every possible fact will be brought before it. I do not think that any of us want it to report as to what was or was not a breach of privilege. That must be our own concern but we, certainly, hope that the facts will be ascertained and set forth in a way that will be generally acceptable. When I read the amended resolution in to-day's newspaper, I was asked by relatives what on earth the words meant "by reason of the exercise or non-exercise, in relation to them, of any Governmental or Ministerial function". The comment immediately was: "That is to prevent a tribunal from hearing some kind of evidence which they may think they ought to hear." I do not know whether that is so or not because I do not know what these words mean. I respectfully suggest to the Government that they should take out those words and leave it to the members of the tribunal to decide what are matters of public importance. I cannot conceive any three judges desiring to waste their time in the discussion of trivialities. I cannot see them allowing evidence to be introduced unless they are satisfied that it deals with a matter of public importance. It does not seem to me that there should be legal argument as to whether a matter which the tribunal feel to be of public importance can be related to these words or not.

I admit that it would be very difficult to think of anything which could not in some way be related to the "non-exercise of any Governmental or Ministerial function". I can hardly think of anything that would not come within that phrase. With great respect to lawyer Senators, I can easily picture two of them arguing at great length on either side. I suggest to the Government that they would lose nothing by deleting those words and that it would give confidence in the tribunal if it were left to the members to decide whether a matter was one of public importance or not. Men who attain to eminence on the Bench will have an idea of what is of public importance and there would be no danger of the discretion being abused. If we now decide that this tribunal should be set up, I think that it would help everybody concerned if those words were deleted.

Mr. O'Donovan

The speeches we have had to-day show a great change from what we heard recently from Senators on the opposite side as to their confidence in the judiciary and in judicial inquiries. Recent speeches in the Seanad favoured the reference of matters to the courts which, we were told, were the only proper tribunal to decide those matters.

Mr. Hayes

Within their own sphere.

Mr. O'Donovan

This matter is being referred to a court. That court should be competent to decide, as has been so often emphasised by Senator Hayes and other speakers——

Mr. Hayes

I did not criticise the judges this evening.

Mr. O'Donovan

You contended that they were not competent people to decide this matter and you said that a joint committee would be far more competent.

Mr. Hayes

Certainly.

Mr. O'Donovan

What has this House done to provide machinery for dealing with these matters? A resolution was passed by the Dáil and appears in our Order Paper seeking that such machinery be set up. Members of the other House intimated that they would not co-operate. Members on the opposite side are speaking with their tongues in their cheek when they tell us that a joint committee, or a committee of one of the Houses, would be competent to summon and examine witnesses on oath in connection with this matter. I do not think that we have any such machinery.

On the Order Paper of our House to-day, there is a motion which opens: "That the Seanad concurs with the Dáil in their resolution communicated to the Seanad on the 11th day of March, 1947, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee... be appointed with the following terms of reference —to examine and report generally in respect of each House of the Oireachtas on the powers and privileges possessed by it for the protection of itself and its members and to advise as to the methods and procedure which should be adopted for the effective recognition and enforcement thereof." That resolution was passed in the Dáil, at the instigation of the Government, and they were told that the Opposition would not co-operate. The second paragraph of the motion deals with the limitations and obligations which should be imposed on members, including limitations and obligations which might be deemed advisable in the case of members who hold Ministerial or Parliamentary offices. The third paragraph sets out that the committee would "advise as to the procedure which should be adopted for bringing to the notice of the House concerned alleged breaches of the rules governing members' activities and conduct or alleged breaches of privileges by members or other persons, as to the method for investigating any such matter and as to the action to be taken by the House concerned in any case where such breaches have taken place."

Senator Hayes spoke of what happened in the British Parliament, where a member was expelled. If the Opposition had co-operated when that resolution was passed, a committee could have sat down and calmly considered and formulated a scheme for bringing before a tribunal of the House any misconduct by a member. We have not done that. If we had, it is probable that we should not be discussing this motion to-day. When that resolution was passed by a majority in the Dáil, the Government were told by the Opposition there that they would not co-operate. If they had co-operated, there would now be a system of control regarding the conduct of members of either House and we should not have the situation which exists. We are told that any member on this side could quite confidently place his case before three or four members on the opposite side. Senator O'Dea would be quite satisfied to leave the issue in their hands. I would not. I would not have such confidence in members of the Opposition. I would not like to have my case decided by people who have decided not to establish a system which would prevent accusations like this being made in either House.

Mr. Douglas

The motion which the Senator has been discussing has been on the Order Paper for some time, but we have never had an opportunity of debating it. Nobody here has stated that he would not co-operate.

Mr. Hayes

Nobody knows our view.

Mr. O'Donovan

I did not refer to members on the opposite side as having expressed their opinion. I referred to the opinions expressed in the other House by members of the Opposition. Perhaps I am not entitled to refer to that. I shall accept the ruling of the Chair if I am out of order. What happened was as I have stated. If that had not happened, the situation we are discussing would not have arisen. We have had two tribunals of this nature. Very few people objected to the findings of those tribunals, even though the findings were not in accord with what they thought would be the ultimate result.

There was a tribunal established in connection with railway shares, and there was what is known as the Ward Tribunal. The speed and efficiency with which these tribunals were able to report is the greatest argument in their favour. I am quite confident that the tribunal which we are discussing now will report much more quickly than any committee set up. Considering the position, that we have not the cooperation that we should have, I feel that there would be great delay, that much more harm would be done and that the thing would drag out and would lose all its effectiveness because of the delay in reporting. I am confident that what the Government is recommending to us is the proper course, the best course and the course that ultimately will be found to be the best for the Houses of the Oireachtas and for the country.

Mr. Meighan

There is one point that I wish to stress. There are many people who do not even read the newspapers and they have to depend for their information on what they are told and, of course, in every telling the story becomes more serious or assumes a different aspect. For that reason it would be very necessary that there should be general confidence that nothing would be placed in the way of the tribunal getting all the evidence.

I have no hesitation in saying that this matter affects the public life of the country from the highest to the lowest official. For that reason it is important that assurance should be given to the country that the fullest and fairest inquiry would be held. That is only fair both to the accused, if you like, and the accusers. Personally, I have no doubt that any three judges would give a fair hearing to the matter but I am very much impressed by the case put up by Senator Hayes for a committee and I am in favour of the committee. If the Taoiseach still insists on a judicial inquiry, I want to issue a warning that anything that would create an impression in the minds of the people that anything was placed in the way of the tribunal getting the fullest information would be very detrimental to everybody in public life.

Mr. Duffy

There can be general agreement, I think, that the issue before this House is a narrow one. We are not concerned in trying charges or allegations made elsewhere. We are concerned only with the kind of machinery which ought to be set up for the purpose of investigating charges which have been made. Personally, I do not think the machinery proposed is the best kind of machinery. When a proposal was made a year ago in this House to set up a tribunal for the purpose of another investigation, I pointed to some of the difficulties which would confront the tribunal and, as a matter of fact, these difficulties did arise subsequently. In a previous instance, that is, in relation to certain transactions concerning Great Southern Railway shares, a tribunal was established and it will be noted that in their report the judges who presided at that tribunal drew attention to the inadequacy of the machinery provided for eliciting information. That, I think, is our difficulty here.

It is obvious that there is going to be a difficulty in a tribunal of this kind eliciting information, no matter how wide the terms of reference may be, and that gives rise to a further difficulty which does not seem to have been adverted to in the other House and I do not think it has been adverted to here. I do not want to reach conclusions which will have to be reached by the tribunal but let us assume that the tribunal was to report that a member of either House was guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the House. It seems to me that then there will be need for a second inquiry. The outside tribunal has no right at all to pronounce on the conduct of a member of the Oireachtas.

That is a function of the Oireachtas itself and I am quite certain that every member of this House or of the other House is most anxious that the reputation of Parliament and of its members will be protected. It is as essential to protect the interest of any ordinary member of either House as it is to protect the interests of the House as a whole. There is no use in pointing the finger at somebody and saying that he is all wrong and that our job is to punish him. That is not so. Our job is to find out whether improper accusations, unjustified accusations, have been made against somebody. If they have been improperly made, the place to investigate them is in the House. Senator Hayes mentioned in the beginning that he preferred a joint committee of both Houses. So would I but I submit, of course, that the time is passed for making that proposition. A proposal for a committee of Dáil Eireann was defeated by Dáil Eireann itself and I do not think there is any point in suggesting that we should propose to undo what the Dáil has decided. If we were to pass a motion proposing the establishment of a committee of the Oireachtas it would mean taking that motion back to Dáil Eireann and asking that House to reverse itself. It does not seem to me that it is a reasonable or practical proposition and the only thing that arises now is whether the proposed tribunal should have terms of reference wider than those on the Order Paper. My own view is that they should be very wide, that the investigation should be concerned more with the outer aspect of the question than with the conduct of Senators or Deputies. That is a subject which should be dealt with by the Houses themselves and not by any outside tribunal.

I think it is open to any member of the Oireachtas whose name is mentioned in connection with these transactions to refuse to go before this tribunal or refuse to give evidence in connection with his conduct as a member of the Oireachtas, and no one can attach blame or guilt to him should he refuse as a member of the Oireachtas to give evidence or be hailed before that tribunal. However, I am prepared to accept the position as it has been presented to us. The motion has been dealt with in the Dáil and this form has been adopted and I, for one, would not ask the other House to reverse itself. However, I urge on the Taoiseach that in framing this motion he should make it clear that he wants the fullest possible investigation which the tribunal, being a tribunal of judges, considers necessary. He should leave it to their discretion as judges to say what evidence they need and what line of examination they consider desirable in the interests of justice. That would be a reasonable line for the Government to take. If there is to be a body of judges, trained lawyers, let them determine the line of approach and to what extent they require to pursue this matter.

Mr. M.J. Ryan

The position in which we find ourselves this evening is a rather confused one. The amendment purports to deal with the deletion of portions of what might be described as the terms of reference to the tribunal, while the speeches dealt with the constitution of an appropriate tribunal for the purpose of the inquiry. I think we may take it for granted that this House must accept the motion passed by the other House as one for setting up of a tribunal other than a tribunal constituted from members of the Oireachtas. The resolution does not expressly provide that it should be a judicial tribunal—it is one which will be established pursuant to the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. A tribunal set up under that Act may consist of laymen, but having regard to the detached position of judges, the public would not be satisfied with a tribunal of mere laymen in this matter. Furthermore, the Act itself provides for powers to the tribunal which are similar to the powers given to the High Court.

The tribunal is to investigate certain allegations affecting members of either House of the Oireachtas made in Dáil Eireann on the 22nd, 29th and 30th October, 1947, in reference to the disposal or proposed disposal of the distillery of John Locke and Company, Limited, at Kilbeggan, County Westmeath. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the tribunal in endeavouring to ascertain and bring into proper order these allegations. I have read the debates in the other House and I must certainly say that it would require a certain amount of industry to reduce order out of chaos. Not only were allegations made against members of the Oireachtas, but they were made against persons who were not members and who had no power to defend themselves.

While the motion does not deal expressly with persons who are not members of the Oireachtas, I assume that the tribunal will be able to deal with those allegations which were made against persons who had no means of replying to them. The tribunal will have power to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and those witnesses may be members of the Oireachtas who made the charges. A great deal has been said here about the privileges of Parliament. The Constitution provides that while within the precincts of either House, the members of the Oireachtas shall not, in respect of any utterance in either House, be amenable to any court or any authority other than the House itself.

At the present time there is a grave danger of the Parliamentary privilege of free speech being abused. The findings of a judicial tribunal outside Parliament might bring to a halt that grave tendency and may benefit public life by inculcating into members some proper idea of their responsibilities when they speak in either House. If the tribunal could serve no other purpose than to show to the country how far the members were right in making charges under the protection of privilege, it would have done a useful work.

Senator Duffy has stated that if a member of the Oireachtas has made an allegation in either House, he would be quite entitled to refuse to go before this tribunal. I do not think he could take up that attitude successfully, because a tribunal has power to summon any person, including members of the Oireachtas. The Act setting up the tribunal—Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921—provides in Section 1, sub-section (3):—

"A witness before any such tribunal shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he were a witness before the High Court."

Therefore, a member of the Oireachtas who, under the protection of privilege, makes an allegation either against a fellow-member of the Oireachtas or against a person who is not a member of the Oireachtas, is entitled under that sub-section to the same privilege in the witness-box before the tribunal if he is prepared to substantiate what he has stated in either House of the Oireachtas. A member of the Oireachtas who makes an allegation and who is protected by privilege in whichever House he speaks will also be protected by privilege in the witness-box before this tribunal. Therefore, I think myself that the setting up of this outside tribunal is a good thing for public life in this country. It will show members of the Oireachtas that they ought not make charges in the Oireachtas which cannot be sifted by a tribunal at which all parties affected will be entitled to be represented or to appear.

While I am anxious to preserve and protect the privileges of the Oireachtas, I think we must be careful not to regard as privileges of the Oireachtas such privileges as would affect detrimentally the members of the community who are not members of the Oireachtas. In other words the Oireachtas cannot, and ought not, regard itself as a privileged class in the community, and that is the danger of extending Parliamentary privilege too far.

We have heard and read about the expulsion of a member of the British House of Commons by the House itself. The matter in respect of which that member was expelled was a purely domestic matter as far as the House of Commons was concerned. It dealt with, so to speak, the giving away of information as to what took place at meetings held in the House of Parliament and about allegations made against the sobriety of members of the British Parliament. These are all domestic or internal matters, but the question that we are now dealing with, as the motion on the Order Paper shows, is one in which a distillery down in Kilbeggan is involved—Locke's Distillery.

Mr. Duffy

Will the Senator say that proceedings at a Party meeting in a room outside the chamber is a domestic affair of Parliament?

Mr. Ryan

I cannot answer that question because the British House of Commons did not decide that specifically, but I think it is domestic in a relative sense. I think a Party meeting held in Leinster House is a domestic matter. That is my view.

Mr. Duffy

In the Parliament House?

Mr. Ryan

The whiskey in Locke's Distillery is not a domestic matter in the same way as, say, the whiskey in the bar of the Oireachtas building might be.

Mr. Baxter

It is a domestic asset.

Mr. Ryan

In any event, this is not a purely domestic matter. The whole country wishes to see the justification or the end of what would appear to be sweeping, if not reckless, allegations made under the umbrella of Parliamentary privilege. If the allegations are established the country will be satisfied that they have been proved home, because the country will have confidence in the tribunal. While I am, so to speak, a believer in the privileges of Parliament and in the powers of Parliament, I do feel that the country would not be satisfied with a Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas to investigate this matter. It has been investigated in the Oireachtas as far as it can be investigated, and the country now looks for an investigation outside the Oireachtas by persons who are detached from all politics, who have no axe to grind and who are independent in every sense of the word. I think, therefore, that in this case the tribunal which has been proposed is appropriate. I feel the more tribunals, like the proposed tribunal, that we have, the better, because such tribunals will, in the end, result in the purifying of public life in this country.

Mr. Hayes

Would the Senator give us the benefit of his advice on the amendment and on the meaning of the words that it is proposed to delete, "by reason of the exercise or non-exercise, in relation to them of any Governmental or Ministerial function"? Perhaps, as he has told us so much, he would tell us that.

Mr. Baxter

What did he tell us?

Mr. Hayes

Does Senator Ryan maintain that a member of the Oireachtas can be compelled to appear before this tribunal?

Mr. Ryan

That is my view.

Mr. Baxter

Where is his privilege then?

Mr. Hayes

The Constitution becomes queerer every day.

Mr. Ryan

A member of the Oireachtas can be compelled to appear before the High Court as a witness.

Mr. Hayes

To give evidence of what he said in the House?

Mr. Ryan

I never said that he could be compelled to appear because he made charges in the House, but he can be compelled to appear before the tribunal and he can be there examined and cross-examined.

Mr. Hayes

On what he said in the House?

Mr. Ryan

He can be cross-examined as to what he said in the House, but he cannot be made amenable for anything that he said in the House or for anything that he may say in the witness box because he is protected by the privilege of a witness of the High Court which is given to him by the Act setting up the tribunal.

Mr. Duffy

Can he be committed to prison if he refuses to answer questions in relation to his speech in the House?

Mr. Hayes

This is a very important matter, and I believe that Senator Ryan is entirely wrong.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

You cannot compel Senator Ryan to answer questions.

Mr. Ryan

I am not here to give legal advice to anybody. I have no intention of entering into a legal argument, but it appears to me that if a member makes an allegation in the Oireachtas under cover of privilege which may affect the lives and characters of his fellow-countrymen and if that member then refuses to appear before a tribunal to substantiate these charges, he stands condemned in the eyes of the community and, in my opinion, is not fit to be a member of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Hayes

That is a different matter. I am entirely in favour of recognising a tribunal set up by this House. I think members of this House and of the other House should recognise it, but there is a very important constitutional point from which Senator Ryan is now running away. The point is that a member of the Oireachtas is not amenable to any tribunal and cannot be brought before any tribunal, and I venture to say, without being learned in the law like Senator Ryan, that he is entirely misguided in his opinion.

Mr. Ryan

I do not want to pursue this matter further.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Nor does the Chair want to hear it pursued further.

Mr. Ryan

The Constitution provides that a member shall not be amenable to any authority other than the House itself in respect of any utterance made in the House, but I do say that, so far as answering a summons to attend the High Court in an ordinary action, or this tribunal, he cannot claim Parliament privilege. If he did, a member of the Oireachtas would be above the law.

Mr. Hayes

What a member of the Oireachtas says in either House of the Oireachtas is at present above the law. There is no doubt about that, and what Senator Ryan has said merely proves it. The question of whether he should say it and whether he should go before the tribunal is a different matter. I am in favour of using privilege intelligently—it should not be abused—and that is one of the reasons I want a Parliamentary committee to decide the matter, but a member of the House who speaks in the House is completely free and not amenable.

The Taoiseach

Senator Hayes and Senator Douglas can always be trusted to argue speciously on any aspect of question on which they speak. Senator Hayes very skilfully mixed up two things: one, the question of examination of the facts; and the other, the question of disciplinary action. If disciplinary action is to be taken in regard to members of the House, there is no doubt that it can only be taken by the House itself, but I hold, and hold very strongly, that if there is to be an investigation of facts, as here, facts which go to establish the truth or falsity of allegations, a judicial tribunal is far better fitted for doing it than a committee composed partly of political opponents. I wonder if there is anybody here on the opposite benches who, accused of improper or corrupt action, would wish to be tried by the people who made the accusation or those siding with the people who made it. It is contrary to all common sense. I have as much respect for members of the House in other Parties as any other people and I know that human beings can rise above prejudice when the occasion demands it. I am, therefore, not going to say that it would not be possible to get in this House a committee composed of representatives of all Parties who would rise above prejudice. I believe it could be got, but you would want to search very carefully and at the end you would have to make certain that they were such that the judgment, whatever it was, was one which would be accepted by the people at large.

What is essential here is that the people, who have been scandalised by these charges, made, as I believe, recklessly—I do not like to add the word "maliciously"—should see these charges being examined home. I know of no better way of examining them home than by getting three people who can be impartial, who have no political prejudice, on the one hand, or political interests, on the other, to affect their judgment, to examine into these things and to see how far the facts go to substantiate any of the allegations made. We are asking that a tribunal be set up. I do believe that such a tribunal will have the result that Senator Ryan has referred to—and very properly referred to—the result of making people careful. It is a grand thing to have privileges, but it is a damnable thing when these privileges are abused; and the wider the privileges given, the more heinous is the guilt and the crime of those who abuse them. We can here as members of the Oireachtas at least stand up and defend ourselves, but there are other people dragged into debates here and accusations made against them who have no opportunity of defending themselves. I am certain that in this case all the allegations, every one of them, can be linked up with an allegation against members of the Administration. Every one of the charges pointed either at me, the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Justice. We were the only people who could do anything that was regarded as corrupt. It was suggested that the President was affected. If he were to be affected, he could be affected only in so far as he could influence us and in so far as there is any question of influence upon us, the door for investigation is wide open.

I said at the start that there were two aspects of this. There is the public aspect, so to speak, in so far as it affects the Administration and that that is the only aspect with which we are concerned. We are not concerned with groups who may have been thinking about buying Locke's Distillery and we are not even concerned with the fact that it may be suggested that there was some attempt at black-marketing abroad; but if it can be shown that the Administration in any way had anything to do with it, it is open for examination. There is no need, therefore, to delete any words from the terms of reference. They are sufficiently wide, but the suggestion was made in the other House that the terms of reference should be opened further so as to send the tribunal on a wild-goose chase.

Senator Ryan very properly says he does not envy the tribunal its task of finding out exactly what the allegations were. The skill of certain people in throwing mud has been so well developed that they can, by suggestion as well as by direct attack, imply corruption and improper action, but I think it would not be beyond the power of anybody, by carefully reading through them, to catalogue these accusations in relation to the particular Ministers against whom they were directed. If they are catalogued in that way, the phrase in the resolution, the "exercise or non-exercise", to which reference has been made, will not present difficulty.

"Non-exercise of functions" relates to matters connected with the question, for instance, whether some people were allowed into the country who should have been prevented from coming in, whether there was negligence on the part of any member of the Government, or the Government as a whole, in regard to such matters. The public mind has been confused, as the mind of the Seanad has, apparently, been confused, with regard to this matter. Certain people who were, apparently, of very doubtful character were engaged in this Locke business. How is the Government to be responsible for things of that sort? I tried to explain yesterday in the Dáil that the Government can only be expected to see that the law is maintained and that it is amended whenever it is found to be inadequate for its purpose. The Government cannot make certain that a murder will not be committed. All we can do, if a murder has been committed, is to see that those who committed it will be brought to justice as quickly as possible, that there will be a thorough investigation and that all the power of the State will be used to trace down the criminal.

Surely it is not right to pretend that we are responsible for everything that goes wrong in the country. How could we be responsible? The public mind is confused and it is alleged that we are somehow implicated in things which we no less than the outside public would condemn. We are setting up a tribunal to examine and see in what respect we, as an Executive, or any member of either House, are responsible for any improper transactions which may have taken place. I hope the terms of reference are sufficiently wide to enable the tribunal to do that work, I hope it will be able to do the work quickly.

We talk of the honour of this House and its institutions. I hold the honour of this House as high as anybody else. I think, as Senator Hayes said, that our institutions compare more than favourably with those of other countries. I agree with Senator Hayes in that. Whilst I do so, I hope I am not a fool. I think the average man in the country will agree with me that, in matters of this sort, in which there are accusations by one political group against another, the examination should be conducted by somebody who is not himself in any way interested in the fortunes of either group. With regard to the question, whether or not a member of the Oireachtas can be hailed before the tribunal, I do not think that that will arise. I think that all those who have made accusations have said that they are only too willing to go before this tribunal and give evidence. Those against whom accusations have been made have indicated also that they are only too willing to go before the tribunal. As to whether the word "amenable" is to be construed in the strict sense in which it has been construed by Senator Ryan— that is to say, liable to punishment or disciplinary action of some kind—I do not know whether or not it is in the power of the court to summon, under penalty, a member of the Oireachtas before them to give evidence I leave that to the lawyers ultimately to decide. I do not know that it will arise in this case. If it did, apart from the legal aspect, there would be the tribunal of public opinion to be considered and it is the tribunal of public opinion on which we have ultimately to rely.

It has been suggested that we have mishandled this matter, that we would not have these debates and that these allegations would not have been persisted in if we had set up a tribunal——

Mr. Hayes

You would not have two debates.

The Taoiseach

——that we would not have these debates if that had been done. Were we, seeing that not even the slightest prima facie case had been made out, to say that public money should be spent on a tribunal—at least until the public were satisfied that reason for a tribunal existed? Of course not. When people were asked if they would stand by these allegations, nobody was prepared to say that he would except one member. In my opinion, there is no truth in the allegations and, from the point of view of the public interest and the clearing of the public mind, there is no need, in my view, for this investigation. There is not the slightest scintilla of evidence to prove even a prima facie case in regard to any member of the Executive. We have to spend the time of judges, we have to spend public money and we must have this public excitement simply because people recklessly abuse the privilege they have in Parliament. They would not dare to say these things outside and they know they would not. I admit that we have to put up with the evil in order to get the good. If a man honestly believes certain things to be wrong, then to enable him to point out these things and to say that he conscientiously believes they are happening, it is necessary that privilege should exist and so it ought not to be abrogated.

I do hold that the two Houses should go into this question of privilege. It was for that reason I put down the motion in the other House to which reference has been made to-day. It was carried by a majority of that House. That motion provided for an unprejudiced examination of this whole question. I did not think that a case was going to arise so soon. I do not agree with Senator Hayes that these things should be built up ad hoc, as cases arise. In connection with these things, there will always be political manoeuvring, whether in this Parliament or in a Parliament 20 or 25 years hence. Is it not very much better that these questions should be provided for, apart from any particular case, just as the courts of justice are set up with their rules and code apart from any particular case? Is it not clear that these matters should be considered in general before any particular case arises and that we should set up our own code and our own machinery? Some Deputies held that we had books dealing with the procedure of other parliaments to guide us. Why should we be guided by those? We have our own institutions, our own manner of life, our own difficulties and our own way of doing things. Why should we not take account of these things in advance and set up the type of machinery which would enable allegations to be examined home? If I were a member of a committee set up in the way suggested, with my experience of things, I should say that the fact-finding part of the work should be done by an outside committee—a judicial committee of some kind—and that, the facts having been established, the question of punishment or discipline could be determined by the House. I doubt that Senator Hayes fundamentally believes that the proper place for examining charges of this sort, in which political interests and political animus are involved, is a committee composed, as it would have to be composed, of members of all Parties in the House. You would probably have minority and majority reports. Questions would be asked which would have no reference to the proceedings—all this being done with a purely political motive and a purely political object. If those human beings are of such a high class, they are higher than the ordinary class of human beings I have come in contact with in my life in politics——

Mr. Baxter

You know only one Party.

The Taoiseach

I knew some of the people on the opposite side before the Senator did—when we were all one Party. I am not suggesting that they are any worse than any other section of the community. Notwithstanding the things that have been happening, I hope that, when there is a cleaning up in regard to these things, our political life in the future will be as good in the future as it has been in the past.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

Division challenged.

Mr. Sweetman

As a division has been called, I think it would be improper for me to vote, and for that reason may I put on the records a personal explanation? In my professional capacity as a solicitor my firm were instructed to make certain investigations on behalf of certain clients. These clients, I should add, are not persons who have been named in either House or in any part of this controversy. In fact, my clients did not make any offer for the distillery. They consulted me, however, and therefore immediately the tribunal is appointed I intend to inform it that I hold myself at its disposal. As the tribunal might wish me to give evidence, I think it would be improper for me to vote and, therefore, I ask leave to have it entered on the records of the House the reason why I did not vote.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 28.

Tá.

• Barniville, Henry L.
• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Butler, John.
• Counihan, John J.
• Horan, Edmund.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kyle, Sam.
• McGee, James T.
• Crosbie, James.
• Douglas, James G.
• Hayden, Thomas.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Meighan, John J.
• Ruane, Seán T.
• Smyth, Michael.
• Tunney, James.

Níl.

• Campbell, Seán P.
• Clarkin, Andrew S.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Farnan, Robert P.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hearne, Michael.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, Peter T.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• Longford, Earl of.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• McCabe, Dominick.
• McEllin, John E.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Dea, Louis E.
• O'Donovan, Seán.
• O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Ryan, Michael J.
• Stafford, Matthew.
• Summerfield, Frederick M.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Baxter and Crosbie; Níl: Senators Hearne and Hawkins.

Amendment declared negatived.

Main Question put.

Mr. Hayes

As the choice is between this tribunal and no tribunal I think it would be foolish to divide again.

Question put and declared carried.