I beg to move Article 18—"Every member of the Parliament/Oireachtas shall, except in case of treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest in going to and returning from, and while within the precincts of either House, and shall not be amenable to any action or proceeding at law in respect of any utterance in either House."
CONSTITUTION OF SAORSTAT EIREANN BILL (COMMITTEE). - ARTICLE 18. PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. KEVIN O'HIGGINS
Mr. EAMON DUGGAN
I beg to move as an amendment to delete all the words after the word "House"—"and shall not be amenable to any action or proceeding at law in respect of any utterance in either House"—and to insert instead thereof the words—"and shall not in respect of any utterance in either House be amenable to any action or proceeding in any Court other than the House itself."
The amendment, while it preserves the privileges of members in respect of utterance in the House, reserves to the House the right to deal with any gross breach of that privilege by a Deputy.
Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS
It may be a narrow point, but I suggest to the mover of the amendment, with which I am in entire concurrence, that perhaps the last three or four words want a little more elucidation than they themselves suggest. It may happen that a member of the Senate, under certain provisions, may speak in the Chamber of Deputies. Would the action or proceedings be in the House in which he might speak or in the House of which he was a member? I assume it would be in the House of which he is a member.
Mr. DUGGAN
The House in which he made the statement. The words of the amendment are "and shall not in respect of any utterance in either House be amenable to any action or proceeding in any Court other than the House itself." That is the House in which he made the utterance.
Mr. JOHNSON
May I ask for a little more elucidation? Whether the House itself constitutes itself a court, and would be able to indicate the nature of the offence and the punishment unless these were already set out in some legal instrument. This practically suggests that the House may set itself up as judge and jury for some offence committed by one of its members, not in contravention of any particular law. I think that deserves some elucidation.
Mr. DUGGAN
The point is this. As the Article stands a member could not be made amenable at all in respect of any utterance in the House. I mean the privilege to which Deputies are entitled in respect of their utterances would have that effect. The wording of the Article, as it stands is, that the House itself could not deal with the members. We want to make it quite clear that the House will have the power, if it so desires, to deal with such a breach, as that.
Mr. JOHNSON
Supposing it was a case of libel or slander. Does this suggest that the House itself might constitute itself a Court of Law to try that offender as a legal case, and punish him?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I take it what is aimed at, at any rate, is to preserve the right of the House to commit any member for what it considers gross contempt. Parliament is the highest court, and the power must not be taken away from Parliament to protect itself, and the power must not be taken away from it to commit a member for contempt, just as any other court.
Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON
I think that is a matter fora lawyer. It seems to me in the way it is phrased one might read it, that the House should constitute itself a court to try a member for anything that may be considered an offence; this phrase does not protect a member in the way I think the Ministry desires.
It is proposed in this case that statements made in the House would be privileged. That is to say, an action for libel would not lie against a member making a statement in the House. It was pointed out that the second part of the Article would prevent the House from taking disciplinary action with a member who was responsible for disorder, or committed contempt of the House. It was to preserve that right of the House to make such Standing Orders as would enable them to deal with such a member that the alteration is proposed. If it does not meet the purpose for which it is intended, if the amendment be not sufficiently full, we would be open to take recommendations with regard to it; but what I have mentioned was the real intention.
MR. THOMAS JOHNSON
I suggest it should be considered in the light of what has been said.
Very good.
Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS
It occurs to me that the point intended to be covered by the mover of the amendment is actually covered in Article 20, which reads: "Each House shall make its own rules and Standing Orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate." The point intended to be covered is dealt with in the Constitution, and it does not, I suggest, require an amendment.
Mr. E.J. DUGGAN
We want to have it beyond all possible question of doubt, and I therefore press the amendment.
As far as Article 20 is concerned, the precise ground upon which Deputy Figgis takes his stand would be the child of that Article, and it would be scarcely held that the child would be sufficiently strong to overrule what is the parent instrument, the Constitution. When there is no exception taken I think we ought to take precautions to see that no such complication should arise.
Amendment put and carried, and Article 18, as amended, adopted as part of the Bill.