Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Oct 1923

Vol. 5 No. 5

TUARASGABHAIL I DTAOBH CUR AMACH RITEACH I GCOIR BAILE ATHA CLIATH THEAS. - MINISTERS NOT MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.

Mr. PETER HUGHES

I beg to move that the report of the Committee elected to make recommendations as to Ministers who shall not be members of the Executive Council be adopted by the Dáil.

The report is as follows:—

1. Do ceapadh an Coiste do réir Rúin do rith an Dáil ar an 20adh Meán Fhomhair, 1923, mar leanas:—	1. The Committee was appointed in pursuance of a Resolution of the Dáil passed on the 20th September, 1923, in the following terms:—
“Go dtoghtar Coiste den Dáil, ar a mbeidh cúig teachtaí déag, chun molta a dhéanamh don Dáil do réir Airtiogal 55 den Bhunreacht i dtaobh na n-Airí i gcóir Talmhaíochta, Iascaigh, Rialtais Aitiúla agus Oifig an Phuist; go dtoghtar an Coiste do réir an vóta ionaistrithe shingil; gur aon duine déag a bheidh mar quorum den Choiste.”	“That a Committee of the Dáil consisting of fifteen deputies be chosen to make recommendations to the Dáil in accordance with Article 55 of the Constitution as to the Ministers for Agriculture, Fisheries, Local Government, and the Post Office; that the Committee be elected by the single transferable vote; that the quorum of the Committee be eleven.”
2. Do réir an Rúin sin thuas do cuireadh toghachán ar siúl Dé Máirt, 25 Meán Fhomhair, 1923, agus do toghadh na Teachtaí seo a leanas chun gníomhú ar an gCoiste sin:—	2. In accordance with the above Re solution an election was held on Tues day, the 25th September, 1923, when the following Deputies were chosen to act on the said Committee:—
Tomás Mac Eoin, Liam Mac Reamoinn, Risteárd Mac Liam, Tomás O Mathúna, Peadar Mac Aodha, Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh, Liam Mac Sioghuird, Risteárd Béimis, Liam O Daimhín, Don- ncha O Guaire, Peadar O Dubh ghaill, Criostóir O Broin, Pilib Mac Cosgair, Alasdair Mac Cába, agus Seoirse Mac Niocaill.	Deputies: Johnson, Redmond, Wil son, O'Mahony, Hughes, Mac Carthy, Sears, Beamish, Davin, Gorey, P.S. Doyle, C. O Broin, P. Cosgrave, McCabe, and Nicholls.
3. Tháinig an Coiste le chéile Dé Céadaoin, 3 Deire Fomhair, 1923. Bhí gach Ball den Choiste i láthair.	3. The Committee met on Wednes day, the 3rd October, 1923. All Mem bers of the Committee were in attend ance.
4. Do toghadh Peadar Mac Aodha mar Chathaoirleach.	4. Deputy Hughes was elected Chair man.
5. Do bhreithnigh an Coiste na nithe a cuireadh fé n-a mbráid san Rún san thuas.	5. The Committee took into consi deration the matters referred to them in the above Resolution.
6. Do cinneadh a mhola don Dáil na teachtaí seo a leanas d'ainmniú chun na nAireacht atá i gceist:—	6. It was decided to make the follow ing recommendations to the Dáil for nomination to the Ministries in ques tion:—
(a) Pádraig O hOgáin chun bheith ina Aire um Thalmhaíocht;	(a) Deputy P.J. Hogan to be Minis ter for Agriculture;
(b) Fionán O Loingsigh chun bheith ina Aire um Iascach;	(b) Deputy F. Lynch to be Minister for Fisheries;
(c) Séamas de Búrca chun bheith ina Aire um Rialtas Aitiúil; agus	(c) Deputy J.A. Bourke to be Minis ter for Local Government; and
(d) Séamas Breathnach chun bheith ina Aire Puist.	(d) Deputy J.J. Walsh to be Post master-General.
PEADAR O hAODHA,	PEADAR O hAODHA,
Cathaoirleach an Choiste.	Cathaoirleach an Choiste
3 Deire Fomhair, 1923.	3rd October, 1923.

This report has been circulated to Deputies, and I do not think it necessary for me to do more than formally move its adoption.

PADRAIG O MAILLE

Cuidighim le sin.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I would like to ask the Chairman of the Committee whether it is his intention in moving the adoption of the report that the names of the four Ministers proposed should be taken together, or whether each should be proposed separately. I think the previous procedure was that each name was submitted separately, and I think it might be better to continue that procedure.

Capt. REDMOND

Before this motion is disposed of I would like to make my own position perfectly clear. I was elected a member of this Committee of Selection for the purpose of selecting external Ministers. I want it to be clearly understood, as a member of the Committee, that I accept no responsibility whatever for the nomination of these gentlemen. The Committee was elected on the principle of proportional representation. Of course, the Government, having a majority in this House, naturally had a majority upon the Committee, and, therefore, I want it to be realised that these gentlemen, strictly speaking, are Government nominees. Now I regret, very much, that the Committee and the Government did not see their way to take advantage of the Constitution whereby they could have appointed gentlemen who are not members of the Dáil, but who might be experts in the various Departments over which they might be called upon to preside. I think that is a pity. However, the Government have a majority in this House, and the Government had a majority on this Committee, and the Government are perfectly entitled to make whatever choice of Ministers they choose. They have made their choice; the responsibility is with them; and I want personally to disclaim, and to dissociate myself from any responsibility for the Ministers who have been nominated.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to say I do not accept that interpretation of members duty in this Dáil, nor of members of a Committee of this Dáil. As I understand public business—and I presume I have some experience of it outside of this House in other institutions than this—I understand a member's duty is not to wash his hands of every responsibility that comes before him, if he has not got a majority, but on the contrary to table better proposals, and, in this case, to have tabled the names of persons he considered more expert in the discharge of the administration of these positions than those who are named here, and then to come along here if his proposal was not accepted in the Committee, and say to this House: "We put on the paper the names of better people for consideration than those who have been selected, but we have been beaten because the Government have a majority, and we have been beaten because they are filling up positions with the aid of their majority, and so on." But what has occurred here? Not a single suggestion is made; no constructive proposal whatever is put forward, but the Deputy simply comes here and says: "I wash my hands of all responsibility in this matter." That is not my interpretation of the duty, or the responsibility of a member of this House.

Mr. JOHNSON

The remarks I want to pass on this motion are somewhat different from those made by Deputy Redmond. I want to express my regret, and to enter a protest, that the spirit of the constitutional provision in respect of the appointment of external Ministers was not entered into in the discussion in the Committee. The object, I understand, of this particular provision was to make possible, the appointment of Ministers for certain offices who would be outside the ordinary political parties, and their operations and jurisdiction. It might have been possible, no matter what enquiry had been made, or what examination there had been of possible Ministers, that the same four names would again have been recommended.

The objection that I make is that there was no pretence or no attempt even to consider qualifications; there was no attempt at enquiry into possibilities. The decisions were made at Party meetings beforehand and the names were tabled. Of course the rights are there for the majority and the minority have to accept the decisions of the majority. The point is rather that the intentions of the Constitution were not carried through, and if the same procedure is to be taken as a precedent for future action, then I think that the provisions of the Constitution in this respect are entirely misapplied, and the responsibility for nominating Ministers for these External Departments ought to be, as is the case with the Executive Council, upon the President of the Council. If that responsibility is to be taken by the Dáil under the terms of the Constitution, then, at least, some examination should be made by the Committee of the possibilities and Party decisions that have been come to beforehand ought not to be applied. That is all I have to say.

Mr. BEAMISH

As a member of the Sub-Committee, I was surprised to see two red herrings drawn across the track. Generally one red herring is sufficient, but we have here two red herrings drawn across the track of what happened in that Committee. The Committee were perfectly prepared to listen, however much they might have disagreed by a majority regarding the other nominees, but practically no names were brought forward. It was destructive criticism. It was not constructive criticism. It was a distinct attack made by means of these unfortunate red herrings as to the procedure we should adopt. Certain names were proposed. I had the pleasure of proposing one name myself. I heard a murmur, a wave of dissent, with regard to the Deputy I proposed, but no better man was proposed. In fact, no name at all was proposed. The red herrings remained. I think under those circumstances we will all agree that unless better men are proposed the men who are proposed will be generally accepted by the Dáil.

Mr. DAVIN

As a member of the Committee, I desire to protest against the procedure that was adopted by the Government Party in regard to the selection of their nominees. It was quite apparent that a Government Party meeting was held and that certain selections were made. That may be quite right in its own way, but on the morning of the day that Committee was summoned to meet, on very short notice, the newspapers that had the ear of the Government side published the names of the selected nominees of the Government Party. I suggest, with all respect to the Ministers, and with all respect to those who were responsible for giving that information, that it was very discourteous treatment of the members of the Committee who did not belong to the Government Party. That is my protest in the matter. I think it a very discourteous way for the members of the Committee to be treated. The names selected by the Government Party were published on the morning of the day of the meeting and in that way prejudiced the decision of the Committee. I hope those who are elected to serve on any such Committee in the future will not be treated in that discourteous manner by the Government Party who are responsible for giving away that information.

Mr. D. McCARTHY

I would like to endorse what the President says. This is absolute hypocrisy. No suggestion at all came from the other members of the Committee. They had no other candidate to put up. We put up our candidates, we voted for them and they were elected and they come before the Dáil now. They want to wash their hands of it. Why did they not put up their nominees? I think the members of the Government Party who were on that Committee were open to examine any nominations that were put before them. They did nothing of the sort, but they now come to the Dáil and say we have nothing to do with this.

Mr. WILSON

The last speaker has misrepresented what happened, because I put up an alternative name for one of the Ministries, knowing full well that no matter what particular qualities the member I nominated had he had not the slightest chance of being accepted. However, to try the thing, I put him up and he was turned down, and I take it what happened in that case would happen in every other case.

Mr. HUGHES

As Chairman of the Committee, I wish to point out that some of the statements of the last speaker are not quite correct. He put up a name and when he was asked if he had the authority of the man whose name he put forward he said "No." If he had persisted a vote would have been taken, but the Deputy withdrew his name rather than have a vote taken. I do not like this kind of thing, that men should sit down, come to a decision and then try to wriggle out of it. I do not think that it adds to the dignity of the Dáil or the dignity of those who undertook public responsibilities. It is what you might call "sharp practice."

Mr. T. O'MAHONY

Surely all this is a pretence of piety. I wonder what would the Labour members do if they were in a majority? I wonder what would the Farmers do if they were in a majority? I wonder what would the Independents do if they were in a majority? They would do exactly what they accused the Government members of having done last week.

Mr. WILSON

Question.

Mr. O'MAHONY

There is not a shadow of doubt about it. I am particularly surprised at Deputy Redmond, who has had so much experience in that direction, coming here and catechising us. Our memories are not so short as to forget when it was a political sin to rebel against the Irish Party or against a nominee of theirs. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. To the victors the spoils of war. The Government Party has only done in this case what the high priests who are condemning them, in all the moods and tenses, would do if the same opportunity turned up for them.

Mr. GOREY

As one member of the Committee, I would like to say that I have heard a good number of inaccuracies, even from the gentleman who was Chairman of the Committee. He said that Deputy Wilson withdrew his nomination. That is not true. As a matter of fact, a vote was taken. I think the Minutes will show that ten were for and three against that motion. I only intervene on a question of accuracy. I have nothing to say to the decisions that were made. Deputy Redmond did not vote on this particular division that was taken. We admit that we had not alternative names to put up. The thing was rushed, at half an hour's notice. As a matter of fact, we were sitting there and we did not know that the meeting was to go on, and it would not have been held only that Deputy Beamish was fished up in some part of Dublin. By fishing him and hooking him and landing him at the table the meeting was able to go on. I knew the decision of that meeting would be the same, in any case. I hope Deputy Hughes will accept my statement that a vote was taken.

Mr. HUGHES

I accept that statement, that a division was taken, but the members asked that it should not be recorded.

Mr. GOREY

They did not ask——

Mr. WILSON

On a point of personal explanation, I moved this gentleman's name. The nomination was not withdrawn. There was a vote. The decision of the Committee was that the matter was not to be published in the Press, that it was to be recorded in the Minutes. I wish to ask the Ceann Comhairle in what part of the Constitution it is specified that where a member of the Selection Committee puts forward a name he must get the consent of that particular candidate. How can we get the best men in Ireland, if, say, we had to go down to Cork, where all the good men come from, and ask for their consent? The thing is impossible. We did the best we could in the circumstances. The nominations are practically the nominations of the Government, and they must accept responsibility.

The PRESIDENT

May I intervene for a moment to suggest that, in order that the matter be properly discussed, I should move each one of these members for a particular office and then if there are any alternative suggestions we can hear them.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That must be done in any event. We have to agree with the Committee in their report, and then each name will be taken separately. The motion is "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in their report."

Agreed.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

On a point of order, I wish to deal with the suggestion made by the President that the names here having been proposed, alternative suggestions may be put before the Dáil. I suggest that the Constitution clearly does not permit of any such course of action. The Constitution definitely states that each such Minister shall be nominated by Dáil Eireann on the recommendation of a Committee chosen by Dáil Eireann. That means that every nomination must come through the Committee and cannot come before the Dáil in any other way. I ask if that is not the case, according to the Constitution?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

First and foremost we had to get this report adopted. That has been done. When the proposal is taken that Deputy Hogan be elected Minister for Agriculture that proposal can be rejected or accepted. What is Deputy Figgis's point of order?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

My point is that under Article 55 of the Constitution, the report may be accepted or rejected, but it is not in order for any other name to be placed before the Dáil except such name comes from and through the Committee.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is so.

The PRESIDENT

When I move that Deputy Hogan be elected, it should be open to an intellectual prodigy to select a better man, and back that up with reasons as to why a better man should be selected. If Deputy Hogan's nomination is turned down, all this pabulum goes to the Committee again, and they will have to select another name and get a man who will be up to the standards that have been set by some of the critics of the proposals which have been made. I think the Constitution will permit of that. I think it is within the knowledge of Deputy Figgis that a course of that kind is open under the Constitution. If Deputy Figgis extended his view somewhat and took a larger outlook on broad constitutional questions, I think the Dáil and the country would benefit, and we would make some progress instead of showing up and exaggerating the little infirmities that are in our character and the little mistakes that we make now and then.

Speaking to this particular motion, that Deputy Hogan be elected, I have to say that from my experience of something like twelve or eighteen months, that he held the position of Minister for Agriculture, I am perfectly satisfied that if left to the free vote of the people concerned—in this case the farmers of the country—Deputy Hogan would be their nominee. I think it is right Deputy Redmond should know that.

Captain REDMOND

I know that already. I have great regard for Deputy Hogan.

The PRESIDENT

It is unnecessary, then, to waste the time of the Dáil. I move the motion.

Mr. GOREY

I second the motion. I think it is within my right. I took the same action at the Committee, and I am proud to take the same action here. I do not desire to make a speech, but Deputy Hogan has filled the office of Minister for Agriculture and has administered it as it should be done. His ability has met with the approval of the farming community. We differed with Deputy Hogan in connection with some matters under the Land Bill, but that was an honest difference. We recognise his abilities and we recognise that there is no man in the Dáil able to take his place.

Captain REDMOND

I am afraid that the President rather misunderstands my attitude. My attitude is in no way an objection to the personnel of the nominees, but my attitude is to make it perfectly clear to the country, beyond all sham, that these are the Government nominees, and that it is the Government who are responsible for them. I do not think it is very dignified or worthy of a Government to be endeavouring to shift its responsibilities on to others. Deputy Hogan was proposed at this Committee meeting, and, like Deputy Gorey, I signified my assent because, strange as it may appear to the President, I had heard of Deputy Hogan before. I had heard also of the esteem and regard in which he is held by the agricultural community. But, apart altogether from Deputy Hogan's character and his ability, the point that I want the Dáil to understand is that these gentlemen are the Government nominees, and that it is the Government, who have the majority here, and who have the majority on the Committee—and who are entitled to have the majority on the Committee, and who are entitled to nominate their own Ministers—it is they, and they alone, who are responsible to the country for the nomination and support of the Ministers whom they have named.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Galway):

This is the right time for me to make a speech, and I make it apropos of the statement Deputy Redmond has just made now. This is a storm in a teacup from start to finish. I think I am expressing the truth when I say that the Government and the Government Party did make up their mind as to whom they would propose for certain offices. That is the truth. I think it is equally true to say that not a single Party in the Dáil wish to take the responsibility of putting forward a nominee for any of these offices. I say "wish to take the responsibility." I do not think the Labour Party wanted to fill any Ministry and stand over that Minister and his policy for the year. I have never been told that they did or that they did not, but I think what I have stated is the truth, and that the Dáil will realise it is the truth. I do not think the Farmers' Party wanted to take the risk of putting forward anyone for any particular Ministry, and standing over the policy and taking responsibility for the Minister for a year or two. It is not going to be a bed of roses. I do not think that the Independent Party desired to do so either. That is the spirit of the Constitution. The spirit of the Constitution is not so much that a number of men should be chosen from any one Party for any one office, but that the various Parties in the Dáil should put forward men representing their point of view. That was never done. There is no use disclaiming responsibility at this stage. The Government Party took the responsibility of making certain suggestions. The other Parties did not wish to take the responsibility of nominating any members of their own. What is happening just at the moment is that the other Parties see a chance of getting a score and they are making a virtue of necessity. Every Party in the Dáil knows that if we offered them Ministries at present, they would not take them.

Mr. GOREY

Question! Make the offer.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think it is necessary to say that there are different interpretations of the intentions of the Constitution from those mentioned by Deputy Hogan. Everything that was said in respect of the method of appointing Ministers who would be responsible to the Dáil and not to the Executive Council, and who would not go out of office if the Executive Council lost the confidence of the majority, suggests that the appointment should not be a Party or a group appointment. It was possible to examine the qualifications whether members were in the Dáil or outside the Dáil. That is the intention of this clause, and it is quite apparent to everyone who was present when this discussion took place. Deputy Hogan, however, tells us that this is, and ought to be, a Party question, and that the names ought to be put forward as Party names——

Mr. P. HOGAN

On a point of order I never said anything of the kind. What I did say was——

Mr. O'CONNELL

Is that a point of order?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is a point of personal explanation.

Mr. P. HOGAN

What I did say was that not any Party except a Government Party—and this is not a mere technicality—ever seriously put forward a nominee of their own over whom they were prepared to stand and for whose policy they were prepared to stand. That was the spirit of the Constitution. They should have done that and the failure to carry out the spirit of the Constitution was not due in this instance to the Government Party.

Mr. JOHNSON

There is no question of the responsibility of Party at all. Deputies go to this Committee to make a selection and presumably to discuss the merits and not Party allegiances. When we were approached on the necessity of such a meeting we were informed plainly by the majority that it would be over in half an hour. There was no question then of considering the merits of any nominee or any Party or individual. A decision had been made and the Committee was a farce.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The motion is that Deputy P.J. Hogan be nominated Minister for Agriculture. When the Report of the Committee was being adopted there was sufficient opportunity for discussing the operations of the Committee. Speeches will now have to be confined on this motion to the fitness or otherwise, as Deputies may possibly think, of Deputy Hogan as Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. SHAW

It is perfectly evident to the Dáil that the reason the other Parties outside the Government Party did not put on anyone was because they were well aware they could not find any more competent man than Mr. Hogan.

Motion put and agreed to.