Before entering on public business, Deputy Pádraig O Hogáin desires to make a statement to the House.
RESIGNATION OF LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
The matter of my resignation from the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle is one upon which I am anxious to say not one word more than is absolutely necessary. I am jealous of the dignity of this Dáil, jealous of its institutions, and I therefore desire neither by expression or implication to injure the tradition amidst which they grew and developed. But I feel that I would not be true to myself as a member of this Dáil, and as a Deputy charged with a duty, in co-operation with others, to a constituency, if I continued in a capacity which carried with it, in the opinion of the Ceann Comhairle, restrictions which would prevent me from being, in my opinion, a useful Deputy. Clearly there could not be efficiency where agreement did not exist between the two principal officers of the Dáil on a matter so vital as the rights of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The incident which precipitated my resignation is: on the forenoon of Friday last I handed into the office a notice of motion. I did expect it would appear in the usual way and be circulated. I was away from Dublin in the interim between the adjournment of the Dáil and its resumption on Wednesday. I did not hear anything about the motion meantime. I was told on Wednesday that the motion did not appear on the Order Paper because the Ceann Comhairle was of opinion that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should not move that motion. In fact I learned in conversation with him that he was of opinion that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should not engage in any controversial debates. He suggested that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should confine himself to matters peculiar to his own constituency. I could not accept that position. I consider I have a duty to discharge to my constituency and to the State in even controversial matters, and a right to discharge that duty, and I was not prepared to relinquish that on any consideration. I am a Deputy first and Leas-Cheann Comhairle afterwards, and clearly my position regarding debate and motion must not be subject to any consideration other than my own discretion within the rules governing proceedings in this Dáil. As between the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the interests of my constituency I decided in favour of my constituency. Clearly, when agreement as to the rights of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle could not be secured between the principal officers of the Dáil there could not be efficiency and the Dáil would suffer.
That statement has been made by way of personal explanation, and, under the rules. of course, it does not give rise to a debate. I myself had the advantage, through the courtesy of Deputy Hogan, of seeing his statement yesterday, and I think that there are in the statement two matters with which I would be concerned. One of them is a particular matter with which I do not propose to deal; the other is a general matter on which, seeing that my name has been mentioned, I might be allowed, in accordance with the ordinary procedure, to make a brief statement. The question at issue is, in my judgment, not a question of the rights of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, whether as Leas-Cheann Comhairle or as a Deputy; the question as I understand it is whether the exercise to the fullest extent by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, whoever he may be and to whatever party he may belong at any particular time, of his righs and privileges as an ordinary Deputy of the Dáil is compatible with the discharge of the duties which the House has imposed upon him and which he has accepted from the House. I do not propose to go into that aspect further, beyond saying that my view upon the matter has been communicated at various times to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and has actually been concurred in by a minute of that Committee on a particular occasion. Obviously, a matter of that kind involves a great number of details and a great number of arrangements, and I wish to say that, while recognising to the fullest extent that the statement of Deputy Hogan—which, as I say, he had the courtesy to show me—is made in the utmost good faith. I do not accept the views attributed to me in the statement as a complete or an accurate presentation of my mind upon a matter, which is necessarily delicate and complicated.
With regard to the general question of the relations of the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Chean Comhairle, it has to be remembered that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is appointed by the House and is responsible to the House; he is not appointed by the Ceann Comhairle and is not responsible to the Ceann Comhairle, nor is the Leas-Cheann Comhairle at any time obliged to accept any view stated by the Ceann Comhairle, nor could he be coerced into accepting any view of the Ceann Comhairle. While it might be useful for him to have that view, and while it might be necessary in many cases for him to have that view, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is entitled to ask, if he so desires, for the guidance or assistance of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on any question that arises in regard to his duties. I would favour the latter course. I do not want that statement to imply in any way that there is any question at issue now as to how the Leas-Cheann Comhairle carried out his duties. There is no such question at issue. But with regard to what I may call the scheme of carrying out his duties, if any difficulty arises, in my opinion that should be put before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. In this instance, when the notice of motion was handed in, I felt it my duty to give my view, but I did not in any way coerce the Leas-Cheann Comhairle into any action, and it seems to me that, before another Leas-Cheann Comhairle is appointed, it will be necessary for the general question which arises here to be considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That would be a fruitful and profitable consideration, and I have only to regret that it could not have taken place before the actual resignation.
In view of the statement that you have made that there can be no debate at the moment on this question, which I think is one of vital importance to the procedure of this House, could you state how and when the matter will be brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges could consider the matter at its next meeting, which it may be possible to hold next week. The Committee could then have the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting at which this matter arose before, and it could have a general discussion on the question, which, I would like to repeat, is not a question of rights, but a question as to whether the exercise by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the time being to the fullest extent of his rights and privileges as an ordinary Deputy could be made compatible with the duties which he has to perform in the Chair. That question could, I think, be brought up before the Committee at a very early date, and I think it must be discussed by that Committee before a Leas-Cheann Comhairle is appointed, although I think that that appointment should not be delayed.
I understand that you are Chairman of the Committee?
Yes.
I take it that you will bring this matter before the Committee at the earliest possible opportunity, because, I submit, this raises the whole question of the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in contradistinction to the position of one another and of ordinary Deputies of this House.
I do not think it raises the question at all of the relations of the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but the matter will be brought before the Committee at a very early date. As a matter of fact, already this morning, although meeting for another matter, the Committee had a word or two on this matter.
I wish to point out that before the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was appointed, Deputy de Valera appealed to the House to outline the duties of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. If that had been done and the thing had not been rushed, this matter would not have arisen at all.
Might I ask a question? I do not, of course. want to go into a debate. As you say, this is not a proper time for a debate. But I want to know if I am correct in what I gathered from the statement made by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that he handed in his notice of motion on Friday, and that he heard nothing until he came back to Dublin on Wednesday; that he was then told by somebody —I do not know whom—that his notice did not appear on the Paper, and why it did not appear. Was there not any communication sent to him that it would not appear, or why it would not appear? One would imagine that a courtesy of that kind ought to be extended, not alone to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but to anybody else.
I should like to ask who was directly responsible for keeping that motion off the Order Paper?
I do not propose to enter into a debate as I said at the beginning, on this particular issue. The answer to Deputy Flinn's question is that the Ceann Comhairle was directly responsible. As to the general question it not infrequently happens that a motion handed in on Friday does not appear on the Order Paper on Wednesday. If it is a motion to which exception is taken for any reason, the Deputy who hands in that motion may be far away in a remote part of the country and he cannot be communicated with. No communication except a verbal communication is satisfactory to settle the terms of a motion. It frequently happens that when the Deputy who hands in that motion goes away to the country, if he is a Deputy belonging to a Party, the Party Whips are communicated with and consulted about the form of the motion. In this particular instance I informed the Chairman of the Labour Party that I was holding up the motion until I saw the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I thought I would see him on Tuesday but I did not see him until Wednesday. I am not prepared at this particular juncture to enter any argument or on a defence of that action in any way beyond saying that it is a common practice that motions handed in are frequently held up. In this case it was necessary to have a word with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in person.
I did not intend to criticise what happened. I wanted to get information. If you state that at the earliest opportunity you informed the Chairman of the Labour Party I think that was quite adequate but I thought there was a suggestion in the paper read out by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that there appeared to be a lack of essential courtesy in dealing with the matter.
The statement could leave that impression but the motion handed in by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle must be treated on the same footing as a motion handed in by an ordinary Deputy. When a Deputy is in the country there is frequent communication with the Whips of his Party in Dublin. It may happen that a motion made here in the name of the Deputy appears in a different form from that in which he handed it in although he did not know the particular form it was to take but the responsible people in his Party were satisfied and their word accepted that he would be satisfied subsequently. In this instance a settlement of the question would be prejudiced if the motion had appeared.
Are we to infer from your statement that the reason for holding up the motion was the form in which the Deputy put it down or was it due to the fact that you objected to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle putting down a motion owing to the position he held?
It has been made quite clear by the statement of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that the motion was not put on the Order Paper because it had been the practice, and it was my view that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should not put down that particular kind of motion. I had never an opportunity of discussing that matter with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and until I had the motion could not appear on the Order Paper. As regards the rights of the Chair, there is no right whatever in the Ceann Comhairle to refuse to put on the Paper a motion proposed by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and no such right was ever claimed.
May I take it that the conclusions arrived at by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will be communicated to the House and that the House will be given an opportunity of debating them?
I feel that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which is a very representative Committee and has always proved and is still proving itself a Committee capable of dealing with matters of procedure referred to it by the House in a very satisfactory way, should be left to deal with the matter. I think the matter should be left to them without making any preliminary conditions. What should be done with the matter is a question to be considered by the Committee.