Vol. 24 No. 2
I move for leave to introduce a
Bill entitled an Act to amend the Constitution by deleting Articles 47 and 48 thereof and making the necessary consequential amendments in other Articles.
I have already taken up a considerable amount of the time of the Dáil in dealing with this matter. I also dealt with it in other Parliaments, and I do not think it would be fair on my part to occupy the time of the House any further.
We will do so.
The Bill is now introduced in order to settle this matter finally to the satisfaction of all parties.
Is your case too weak to argue?
Not at all.
We are opposed to granting leave for the introduction of this Bill. As I said at the outset, it is the nearest thing to sharp practice, if it is not sharp practice, that I have ever seen, and I have seen a fair amount of it from the gentlemen on the opposite benches. I brought in a motion a short time ago asking that a certain Petition should be presented to this House. An amendment was moved to the effect that that question should not be considered until a Joint Committee was set up to frame procedure for the presentation of such Petition. When I was speaking against that amendment and looking at Deputy Thrift, who had moved it, I said that it was, in effect, a trick, or would be used as a trick whether he meant it or not. I suggested that the policy that was going to be adopted in order to defeat the purpose of the Petition and to avoid the obligation which this House was under under Article 48 of the Constitution meant that the amendment was going to be used as a trick. I remember how deprecatingly Deputy Thrift looked across the House and said "No, no." I said that the policy that was going to be adopted was the policy suggested by the "Irish Times." I said that we were against the amendment, not because there was anything in it, if honestly carried out, to which we objected, but because we realised that the attitude of members opposite was such that it was going to be abused. Deputies who voted for that amendment on that occasion in good faith have an opportunity now of letting us know whether they were acting in good faith. If they were, they ought to refuse to become a party now to giving leave to introduce this Bill, which is trying by a side issue to get round Article 48 of the Constitution and to wipe it out. That Article was there when the Petition was initiated. It was there the whole time in which people were got to sign that Petition. A good deal of trouble was taken by those responsible for it in getting the Petition signed before Peace Commissioners and others so that the signatures might be verified.
Everything that is in the Article was scrupulously fulfilled and now, when the Petition is presented, and the conditions rigidly and scrupulously carried out, we are going to have the whole thing put aside by the simple process of introducing a Bill to get rid of the whole Article in the Constitution. I said on a former occasion that it was nothing new for us to be faced with tricks of that particular kind. On a former occasion there was a Constitution, too, and it was put aside in the same manner by the fiat of the Executive of the day. There was here in this country at that particular period a truce which had been sanctioned by the Dáil Eireann that was in existence at that period. That Truce was broken by the Executive. That Executive——
The Deputy is going beyond any possible relevant statement on this stage of the Bill.
I think it is necessary for my argument to show very clearly that this is not a new thing, that it is not the first time Deputies who are in the Executive Council to-day have done this sort of thing. I think if I can show these things that it can be adduced as a reason why the House ought not to give them the opportunity of doing it again. (Interruptions.)
I suggest that Deputies ought to restrain themselves when a Deputy is speaking. The only interruption that we should have in an orderly way is on a point of order, and Deputies might leave a point of order to be dealt with by the Chair. This is a Bill for a constitutional amendment, a Bill to delete Article 47 and Article 48 of the Constitution. The position is that when leave is asked to introduce a Bill a statement may be made against the introduction of the Bill. This is a Constitutional Amendment Bill, and the Deputy is allowed to make a statement against it. That statement need not be kept within very narrow limits, but examples of the action taken by the Executive Council do not seem to be at all relevant to the question of altering the existing legislation. It is a question of the House, not of the Executive.
I have been most obedient, A Chinn Comhairle, I think, as far as your rulings have been concerned in this House, but I submit that it is not fair that arguments that are definitely relevant to this particular issue should be ruled out, particularly after the statement made by the President when he was speaking on this subject before. We have not got his statement now, but he referred to it previously. Let us go back on these previous statements, and let us see whether they can be answered or not. I wish to go over this ground, because I am anxious to convince members that they ought not to allow this Bill to be introduced in this particular way.
Whatever ground the President went over relevantly with regard to the deletion of Article 47 or Article 48 of the Constitution will arise if the Bill goes to a Second Reading. Before the Bill goes to a Second Reading, and at this particular Stage, it will be impossible to open up all these matters. In any event, even on the Second Reading of the Bill, I am not prepared to agree that what the Deputy wants to do now, namely, to go back to certain events in 1922, would be relevant. The debate which took place in another Dáil is not relevant at all to the position now. The President did not choose to make an explanatory statement. He has the right to make an explanatory statement if he chooses, but he did not choose to do that. Deputies who speak against the introduction of the Bill are confined to making a statement of the reasons why the House should not allow the Bill to be introduced. I do not think that that can possibly be construed in such a way as to give the liberty that the Deputy demands. I am not to be taken as saying that even on Second Reading such a question will arise.
On a point of order. Under that Standing Order is not the President bound by obligation to make an explanatory statement? How is the House to know what he is dealing with if he does not?
If the Deputy means that I have the power to compel the President to make an explanatory statement, I have no such power. The Ceann Comhairle is compelled by the Standing Orders to permit an explanatory statement, but the Ceann Comhairle is not given any such power as that, nor could he exercise it if he had it.
I suggest that although you have not power to force him to do it, you have power to rule out of order the bringing in of this Bill at all, if he does not comply with the Standing Order.
The Bill has complied with the Standing Order in so far as it corresponds with the Title. That is the only function I have, under the Standing Order.
In introducing the Bill the President referred to a certain previous statement of his on Articles 47 and 48. Did he not by that reference make a discussion of his earlier speeches relevant now?
No.
That constituted his explanatory statement. I submit that the Deputy opposing the Bill is entitled to refute the statements made by the President in his explanatory statement, which included a reference to a previous statement he made in relation to Articles 47 and 48.
That is a rather important point of order. I am not prepared to admit in that way: that the mover of a motion for leave to introduce a Bill can, by restricting his own explanatory statement, restrict the debate. He could not in any way do so. The rights of a Deputy opposing a Bill are to be determined by the Chair, and must not and cannot be determined by the Deputy who moves the motion. Similarly, I am not prepared to accept from Deputy MacEntee the reverse case, that because the President referred to his own views on the matter as having been previously given to another Dáil, the Chair is obliged to allow anything that the President said on another occasion to be canvassed.
It is a question solely for the judgment of the Chair. Neither the brevity of the explanatory statement nor the length of it can be construed so as to give a right to or restrict the right of a following Deputy.
I should like to correct what may be a misapprehension. I understood the President referred to his previous speeches in this Dáil.
He did, but even so the same principle applies.
Would a Deputy in introducing a Bill be in order in relating the circumstances which he believed were responsible for its introduction?
That is a hypothetical question which I do not propose to answer.
The point we are faced with is, that if that question were answered it would decide the issue as to whether a Deputy opposing a Bill would be entitled to give his view of these circumstances.
The Deputy is putting a hypothetical question which I could not answer. I can decide whether what Deputy de Valera proposes to do is or is not in order, but I cannot decide a hypothetical question.
The unfortunate thing is that the reason the President gave amounted to this: that the reasons for which he asked leave to introduce this Bill were stated by him to the House on a previous occasion. Is not the Deputy who opposes the Bill placed at a disadvantage if he is not permitted to refer to the grounds stated by the President for introducing the Bill, even though those grounds may not have been stated in the course of this debate, but in a previous debate in the Dáil?
The grounds the President has for introducing the Bill are not relevant at all. What is relevant at this stage is an explanation of what the Bill is, which the President did not give and which he would be in order in giving, if he desired to do so now. What is relevant is an explanation of the Bill and a statement that the Bill is not acceptable and is going to be voted against, but the whole intention of the Standing Order is to restrict the discussion at this Stage, and Deputies cannot, by any possible point of order, avoid that fact. Standing Order 82 was specifically framed for the purpose of restricting the discussion at this Stage, and the debate is restricted by the Standing Order.
I am raising this point because this is a very serious matter. I think that if it is dealt with in a particular way it may probably bring about a change of attitude on all sides. The point is this: There is a very considerable amount in our minds to be said on this question, and I suggest that the Ceann Comhairle should allow the most ample possible statement of our attitude on this question by the Leader of the Party. This is not by any means in the nature of obstruction. It requires the most ample explanation.
That can be done on Second Reading.
The Ceann Comhairle is not accusing Deputy de Valera of obstruction for a moment. I have already stated that I am prepared to allow a pretty wide statement on this particular First Reading. That statement, I think, cannot include a recital of the alleged sins of another Executive altogether at an earlier period.
What I was anxious for was to get the House to do the only thing that I consider would be consistent with its dignity, if it has any, and that is to refuse even a First Reading to this Bill. I say that the circumstances in which this has been introduced merit for it that particular treatment. Deputies who in good faith brought in an amendment to establish a Joint Committee in order to arrange for the procedure under which petitions should be received, if they were really honest in their attitude, are bound to see that the complete idea which was in their minds, and which was in that amendment, is carried out. There is no need of any explanation as to what is intended by this Bill. It is before us in black and white. This Bill is entitled an Act to amend the Constitution by deleting Articles 47 and 48. Some members may be interested in Article 47. I am interested in Article 48, and the deletion of that particular Article, as to which we had a discussion recently, and in which by their signatures 96,000 people are interested, is the question to which I am speaking. Let us see once more what it is that is going to be deleted from the Constitution. We have had it already, but it is no harm, as somebody said, that you should get your last look at it, for that is what it will mean if the present majority are going to persevere in this course, assisted by those who have been their allies up to the present. The Article is this:—
"The Oireachtas may provide for the initiation by the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments. Should the Oireachtas fail to make such provision within two years it shall on the petition of not less than seventy-five thousand voters on the register, of whom not more than fifteen thousand shall be voters in any one constituency, either make such provisions or submit the question to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum."
You have had a petition here presented, and you know it is in existence. You know that in so far as our word goes we are prepared to have any examination which may be deemed proper by this House to test the fact that it is prepared honestly and in accordance with Article 48, but if that Article goes that petition goes, and, in addition to the petition, there is the bigger question of the Initiative, which also goes. Now there are a number of us who would be interested in the Initiative independent altogether of its bearing on the petition presented here or presented in the sense that it was brought to the notice of the House. We believe that the Initiative is a very good thing. We believe that by the very nature of things at elections a number of questions will mix up and that it is very important that for certain types of questions the people should have an opportunity of giving their judgment upon those questions independent of any other questions likely to be involved at election time. We do not want to see that power the people have removed because it is simply an inconvenience to the Executive Council to have it there at the present time. We all know that the Executive succeeded in getting a majority of the people to their side mainly by pretending that they were the section that stood for the rights of the people. Their whole history during the whole time has been one of pretence that they were democrats in the broadest sense. It is necessary when this Executive brings forward measures that we should have before our minds their past history in order to judge how they are likely to act in the future and to see what is the purpose of their present actions.
If a stranger were to come in here and did not know the past history of the present Executive his position in this matter would be very different from the position of those who do know, and I think it is only fair that Deputies who may not have had an opportunity of that intimate knowledge of what was done by that Executive should have it brought home to them. They can test these things, and see whether what we say is truth or falsehood. I say, in any case, that everybody knows their cry against us was that we were acting against the will of the people and that they were acting in favour of the will of the people. Who is in favour of the will of the people now? These people opposite are afraid that the people should have an opportunity of deciding by Referendum—which would be the last thing in the Initiative—any of these questions. They prefer to have the people confused, as they are at election time, by a host of conflicting issues of different kinds. They want to deprive the people of their right and opportunity of taking up these individual questions, judging upon them, and giving their verdict. I say that every member of this House ought to oppose the deletion of that particular Article. When it was introduced into the Provisional Parliament these are the words——
Deputy Fahy was prevented from quoting previously. I think we ought not to have quotations under the existing Standing Order except in so far as the Articles of the Constitution may be quoted. I think we ought not to have quotations from previous debates. I think that the word "statement" in the Standing Order excludes quotations from debates.
I submit we are in a different position with regard to this particular Bill from any up to the present, and I believe that the only course consistent with the dignity of this assembly would be to kick it out at the very first opportunity, and that is why I think that there ought to be greater latitude allowed in order to make a case for doing that. As I said when this was introduced—Am I forbidden to quote?
I think the whole Standing Order, as I said many a time this evening, aims at restricting debate at this Stage. I am quite in agreement with Deputy de Valera that this is an important matter in which latitude should be allowed. It is a question itself without any latitude being allowed, which raises a number of matters relevant at the proper Stage, but on this particular Stage the question is different. If Deputy de Valera is precluded from doing certain things now he will have an opportunity of doing them at a later Stage, or in the alternative, he will have succeeded in having the Bill defeated. The whole purpose of the Standing Order and the precedents are to restrict debate at this Stage. No injustice will be done by that course, because at a later Stage such opportunity will arise, and if it does not it will be because the opponents of the Bill have succeeded in defeating it.
On a point of order I should like to have some explanation from the Ceann Comhairle as to how he defines the word "statement" as excluding quotations which may have a very relevant bearing.
I am not prepared to explain and argue all the things I have to rule upon. Deputy Little will agree that the Chair is faced with a great variety of problems and asked for a decision upon them without any preparation in a great many instances. The decisions must be given, but the comfort of the Chair is that the Chair is not called upon to argue on a decision when given.
I submit with great respect that if the Chair wants to carry the House with him he must give reasons for his decision.
The House wants to carry him.
I was going to say there is a distinction between a classroom of people and a House of representatives who want to know good reasons for everything that is done and for the conduct of the House.
I do not desire that the Chair should be asked to give reasons for its decision, but I submit that the word "statement" does include any relevant quotation which may be necessary to make a statement a complete one. The Standing Order does not say statement without quotations, and I submit that "statement" in that context may be held, I think, to imply the reading of any document or portion of previous speeches which may be relevant to the attitude taken up by the Deputy.
May I ask if the Chair could tell us what restriction on debates in the past there is to be? What limit of time is to be put on debates in the past? How far back is the limit to be extended?
If a quotation read is ruled out of order and if a Deputy is not allowed to read any statement here, why is it permitted to the mover of the motion to read the motion?
I do not quite understand Deputy O'Kelly's point. It does not seem to be relevant to the present question. Is it general?
It is a general point. It is a matter that has arisen before, and in all probability will arise again. What is in my mind is this: You say Deputy de Valera cannot now refer to the incidents of 1922. If he cannot refer to 1922, can he refer to 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, or 1928, or how recent must the incident be that he can refer to in the discussion on this matter?
Deputy O'Kelly is raising a new point not relevant to the point of order. The point I was deciding was whether Deputy de Valera was in order or whether a Deputy making a statement against the Bill under Standing Order 82 was entitled to quote from the Debates. I ruled generally that he is not so entitled to quote. The Deputy is asking another question.
With reference to the ruling you gave a short time ago, refusing Deputy de Valera permission to refer to incidents of 1922, how far back is the Deputy entitled to go in reference to any matter that he may think is relevant to this debate?
I am not called upon to answer that question, but I propose to answer it. The present Executive has been in office since the President was elected here last October, and this Government, as far as this Parliament is concerned, is only in office since then, and only their actions since then can be reviewed.
I can understand that we are reviewing the actions of this Executive, and naturally the Executive can only be reviewed, qua Executive, qua Government, from the time it came into office, but if there are events of importance in recent history that have a bearing on this debate, and if they can be demonstrated to be ad rem, I would like to know if you have made up your mind—perhaps you have not—what distance of time from the present moment must elapse before these things might become relevant.
The situation surely is that the Chair will have to decide every question as it arises. The Deputy asked me first a general question, which I answered. He has gone into another hypothetical question now. I have not made up my mind, but as I have already stated here, the situation in this House at this moment, and for some time past, is such that the Chair has no intention of endeavouring to fit that situation and these personalities summarily into all the niceties of Parliamentary procedure. That, I think, was the phrase I used here before. That being my view I have an open mind on a number of matters, but I have a definite view on certain other matters.
As you have an open mind perhaps you could explain this situation. Is it that you will rule as to the relevancy of quotations after they have been given?
Deputy de Valera.
I was saying that we are interested in this Initiative. We would have been interested in it if the recent Petition was not in question at all. We would have been interested in it as giving certain powers to the people to deal with matters which they could not very easily deal with at general elections. I indicated my own view, that I was more in favour of the Initiative for constitutional amendments because the road was easier, because there was less difficulty associated with it than for the initiation of ordinary laws. I am not going to quarrel with any Deputy who is anxious to use it for the more general purpose of initiating ordinary law. I have no objection to it except that there are certain difficulties in the way, in the case of initiating ordinary laws, which would not be in the way of constitutional amendments. The body of law as a whole is a large matter; the Constitution generally is a comparatively small document which can be digested and understood by the average person, and he can get legal advice on matters where legal advice seems to him necessary. It is a very different thing from trying to frame a law and fit it in with the general body of laws. There are drafting and other difficulties. But as I indicated, we are not going to quarrel with anyone who wants the Initiative for ordinary laws. On this side we want it, and as a single individual I am anxious to see the power and the right of the Initiative maintained. One of the reasons why I am anxious for it is one of the reasons put forward here when it was accepted by the Provisional Parliament. At that time it was stated that it associated the people with their own laws; it gave them the feeling that they were the ultimate power, the ultimate rulers in the country; it gave them an interest which they would not otherwise have in legislation, and in the laws generally. It gave the people an opportunity of considering certain questions in a way in which they would not be discussed or considered at general elections at all.
It is proposed to wipe that out, and it is clearly indicated here that the Bill to be introduced is not going to provide any substitute. The result is that there are certain consequential amendments of the Constitution which must follow on the deletion of this particular Article, and the Bill is going to provide for these. There ought to be no reason why anyone should wait for the Second Reading to understand what is in this Bill. They ought to be able to make up their minds on the First Reading. They ought to be able to see from what has been said already about the Petition, and the bearing of this right on the general condition of the country, that if this power is removed from the people, and if it is made clear that this Constitution is only intended by the other side as a means of binding their political opponents, while they are free themselves—that it is something they need not give any respect to, but that they expect their opponents to give respect to—then I say the result of that policy is going to be that the people will despair of any effort by constitutional methods. At the present time we see the fruit—we saw it in the past— of the contrary policy, the policy of the Executive, that is trying to have its way and its own particular view-point secured by force. We see it in the position we have at Mountjoy at present, as I am told, where there are five Republican girls on hunger strike, who have been pursued—for what? For the very same sort of thing that the gentlemen on the other side supported formerly. They are standing out for political treatment. They are doing that in the very same way in which it was done against the British. This Constitution has been, to their minds anyway—however Deputies may differ on that matter—imposed on them, and if the avenue by which they could change it is to be closed, I say it is a bad national policy.
I think that it is a dangerous policy, and that it is not the policy of people who really believe that the people of this country are the rulers. What it means is that the particular majority here for the moment think that they are perpetual rulers. The people have a right to change their minds, and if those opposite are in a majority to-day, is that majority going to be a perpetual one? Are the people going to be prevented because they took a certain line on a certain occasion, perpetually from changing their minds and from doing something else if they want to? I always knew, once there was close contact here, that the people would very quickly find out who were the democrats, who really believed in the rights of the people and who did not. The militarists here, those people who are depending on force, were the people who were standing up for the constitutional rights of the people. We have a splendid example of it in this. The members of the Labour Party, for a considerable period in the past, were quite consistent in their attitude. Though I did not agree with the attitude they took up, I do admit, and did admit, that they were consistent for a long portion of the time, until they got involved in a certain position here, and I admit that they were trying, during the summer of 1922, to get a proper national policy adopted, with a proper reference to the people.
Will the Deputy tell the House when the Labour Party ceased to be consistent?
My view of it is that they ceased to be consistent in the winter of 1922, that what happened them was that they found themselves in this machine, found themselves being swept on by it, that they were in a dilemma, the dilemma being that they had either to support the particular Party that was in power or else appear to give support to the Party outside.
If we had help in 1922 we would have a different Constitution to-day.
Very well. In any case, I say that in this particular matter the members of the Labour Party are bound to refuse to vote for the First Reading of this Bill. I say equally that Deputies on the other side who were in good faith when they introduced that amendment the other day are similarly bound to vote against it, because otherwise it would simply mean that that amendment was nothing more or less than a mere trick to get rid of the petition. You know that such a petition was signed. If you have any regard for moral obligations of any kind you are bound to honour that petition, to see that you act in accordance with it and that you go further with it. But if you allow this Bill to be passed, it is quite clear that you are going to make the thing a farce by getting procedure set up for the consideration of the petition, getting the petition examined, and then finding that the Article on which it was based has in the meantime been removed. As I said, that was clearly the policy that the "Irish Times" indicated. When they realised that there was going to be tearing up of the Constitution in this respect they said: "Do not do it in the open; do not tear it up openly. Do not give Fianna Fáil and those who support them in the country the opportunity of saying `Very well, then. The Constitution of which they are talking they have no respect for themselves; they tear it up.' Do not tear it up, but pretend to honour it, pretend to act in accordance with it. Set up your committees and give the Executive a chance of doing the thing which they have already done. The Executive have been caught napping. Get them out of their difficulty." I hope that those who are Independents in this particular matter will act independently. Some of us have come in here with open minds as regards what "Independent" means. We have been watching very carefully to see what it really did mean, and to see whether or not we were going to have people who are Independents acting straightforwardly on their judgment on matters which came before them. As far as I for one am concerned, I base my judgment on the bona fides of the Independents—or of some of them—on their action in this particular case, and I say to them, and to other members of the House, that on the fate of this will largely depend what the course of policy of the country will be for the future. So far as we are concerned, anyhow, we intend, as long as we are here, if that Article is taken out, to oppose, so far as we can, every single measure that is brought in by that Executive, as long as this particular action is joined up with the other action, that of keeping the Republican prisoners, whose only crime is this, that they have not been able to take the sharp curve and the sharp turn that was taken by the people opposite.
By yourself.
As far as I am concerned, I have taken no sharp curves. My attitude to-day is the same as it always has been as far as the British Empire is concerned. I am not going to change round and say: "I am delighted now to be a member of the British Empire."
Let us not go into the British Empire now.
Very well. I wish we were out of it. Deputies who have any sense of their obligations with respect to the Constitution, and the Deputies who have any idea on the choice of the course which is facing them at the present moment in this particular matter, I hope will treaf this Bill as it deserves, and that is to refuse it a First Reading.
I do not wish to support the precedent of Second Reading speeches on the introduction of this Bill, but I would ask permission to say a word in explanation. Deputy de Valera has used the word "trick," with which I am not greatly excited, but which I must emphatically repudiate. I hand it back to him. I ask him whether it could not be better used with reference to the whole procedure in respect of which we are carrying on this very futile discussion. If Deputy de Valera had followed my argument he would not have found it difficult to understand why I intend to vote for the First Reading and for the Second Reading of this Bill, as I did for a similar Bill very nearly twelve months ago. I went to very considerable pains to make clear that one point that I was making was that so long as the Article remained in the Constitution, we ought to take what steps were necessary to work it, indicating clearly that when it was an Article we were bound constitutionally to follow it. Secondly, I went to very considerable pains to make clear that, so far as I could see—and I think I proved my point—the Article as it stands would be no use whatever for what Deputy de Valera laid down as his purpose in the Petition which he claims to have presented. Therefore, I see no reason whatever for not supporting this Bill right through, as I indicated I would do and as I did nearly twelve months ago in the case of the other Bill.
With reference to the word "trick," the Deputy has suggested that the whole thing was a trick. It was nothing of the kind, and if the Deputy used his intelligence he would be assured in his own conscience of it, whatever he might say in public about it.
Have I the right to reply to the Deputy? If not, I would ask your permission to say that I repudiate practically all that Deputy de Valera has said, and I content myself with saying that I stand pretty straight in the matter of the Constitution.
The Constitution, the whole Constitution, and nothing but the Constitution.
The whole of it, and I do not use one portion of it to break another. (Interruptions.)
Everyone has a right to be heard in the House.
You use one portion of it to abolish the rest.
I am carrying out the policy of the Government in this matter, as I already stated as far back as last July.
The President repudiates not only what Deputy de Valera said, but what the President himself said on former occasions.
No, sir. I repudiate nothing whatever that I said formerly.
On a point of order——
I am going to put the question.
This is a serious point of order.
I am not going to hear it.
A Chinn Comhairle——
No.
Question—That leave be given to introduce this Bill —put.
