Deputy Moore has given notice to raise a matter on the adjournment.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - THE ADJOURNMENT—DIVISION OF LAND—CHARGE AGAINST AN OFFICIAL.
On a point of order, before the Deputy proceeds I would like to know whether, in view of the notice that he gave on Friday, it is his intention to make charges of corruption against officials of the Land Commission, named or unnamed?
The Deputy's notice given on Friday states: "As this case indicates pretty clearly corruption in a public department, I beg to give notice that I will have the question raised on the adjournment." That question was not raised on Friday, and the Deputy was not prepared to go on with it yesterday.
There are three people in this case.
Will the Deputy answer the Parliamentary Secretary's question for the benefit of the Ceann Comhairle, whether he does intend to make charges of corruption against named officials of the Land Commission?
From the facts I have got in connection with this case, I consider that they indicate that there has been interference by a high official of the Land Commission on behalf of his relatives.
The Deputy, therefore, intends to make a charge of corruption against an official of the Land Commission?
I have said that the facts indicate that. That was in my statement the other day.
I want to get the matter clear before we enter upon the discussion. Is this a question of a charge of corruption against a civil servant?
I am going to make a statement in support of my statement the other day, that the facts indicate that a high official of the Land Commission has interfered with the division of land on behalf of a relative. I do not know what to call that.
I should be inclined to call it, if proved, what the Deputy himself calls it—namely, corruption.
Go ahead with it.
I want to make it quite clear to Deputy Flinn that he cannot interfere in that way.
I apologise. I did not know you were on your feet.
Whether I am on my feet or in the Chair, I do not want the Deputy to give a direction to proceed with business. There is a general principle involved in this case as to the making of charges against civil servants in the House. If the Deputy wants to make a charge against a civil servant, named, or so clearly indicated as to be capable of identification, I suggest that that charge should be made, firstly, to the Minister responsible rather than in the House under the cover of the privilege of the House. If the Minister responsible does not prove to the satisfaction of the Deputy that there is nothing in the charge, then the Deputy can attack the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in the House, on the ground that the occurrence took place in his Department. We are concerned here—I think the Deputy will agree with me—with Ministers and their administration rather than directly with civil servants. As a general matter of procedure, it is objectionable that a charge of corruption should be made casually—these adjournment proceedings might, perhaps, be regarded as somewhat casual—against an official. I do not know if the Deputy himself would like to proceed on that basis.
A lot of correspondence went on about this matter and it was not until my question had been handed in that I got any reply in writing from the Land Commission. Now, I am in the position that if I take the matter up with the Minister, I may have the same difficulty in getting a reply. However, I should prefer to be guided by you, a Chinn Comhairle, and for that reason I am content to leave the matter over.
The point I raised has not been dealt with by the Deputy— whether he is preferring a charge of corruption against the officials of the Land Commission, named or unnamed, or whom he is preparing the charge against. His notice states that the case is a very clear indication of corruption against the Department.
I think the Deputy explained that by saying he would make a charge against a particular official that he had interfered with the division of land on behalf of a relative. If the Deputy takes the matter up with the Parliamentary Secretary, it will be more satisfactory. If necessary, the matter can be raised at a later stage in the Dáil.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.40 p.m. until Friday at 12 noon.