Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Apr 1945

Vol. 96 No. 23

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Defence Conference.

This afternoon I had a question on the Order Paper as follows:—

"To ask the Taoiseach if he will state if the National Defence Conference has met recently, and, if so, on what date; and if he will state, further, how the Defence Conference is presently constituted; who are the present members; and if it will function in future."

Never in all my memory in this House did I hear such a feeble reply as was given by the Taoiseach. I asked him if he would give the names of the members of the conference and his reply was:—

"The position in regard to the Defence Conference is that it has not met for some months and it is proposed to summon a meeting at an early date for the purpose of bringing it formally to an end."

Surely every Deputy knows that that was no answer to my question. It is about time the Taoiseach realised his responsibilities to members of this House, and when a question of national importance such as this is put to the Taoiseach or to any responsible member of the Government, the least that a Deputy would expect is an answer in accordance with the terms of the question. This question of the National Defence Conference is one which is on the lips of practically every citizen in the State to-day. They are wondering what has become of the conference, which was established with a view to dealing with the situation arising out of the emergency. The Taoiseach did not tell the House to-day at Question Time, as he is very anxious to hide from the people the fact that there are some people on the Defence Conference who refuse to act.

The Deputy on the Adjournment elucidates his question and asks any further questions he may have to put. If the Deputy has further questions to put arising out of to-day's question he may do so.

I would like to ask the Taoiseach if he is aware of the fact—although I am convinced that he is—that there are members on the Defence Conference who refuse to sit on that conference, on account of the lying propaganda that was put out by himself and his Government at the recent Dáil elections.

That does not arise out of the question. If the Deputy reads his own question, he may ask anything arising out of it.

Surely, Sir, that arises out of my question?

If the Deputy reads his question and tells me from what clause it arises, I will agree with him.

It arises out of the point "who the present members of the conference are."

But that has nothing to do with what was said at the last election.

I am anxious to know if members have resigned or refused to act.

The Deputy has asked who are the members of the conference.

That is what I want to know.

That is not what has been asked.

I would like to ask the Taoiseach if he is aware of the fact that some members of the Defence Conference have refused to act and I would like him to tell this House if it is a fact that other members of the conference have resigned. Will the Taoiseach tell the House if he or his Government have made an attempt to remove from office one of the most straightforward members of the Defence Conference, a member of a Party in this House who was appointed by the Taoiseach.

The Deputy should confine himself to his question and what arises out of it. The Deputy is asking who were the members and proceeds to discuss the members, apparently without knowing who they are or finding out who they are.

Surely, it is quite clear to this House that the Defence Conference is not in existence at the moment and surely we are entitled to have a reason as to why the Fianna Fáil Party——

The Deputy need not have asked why the Defence Conference has not met, if what he states is a fact. If he reads his own question, he may base questions on that and not on afterthoughts that do not arise.

I would like to ask the Taoiseach, arising out of my question, to give this House the reasons why the Defence Conference has not met recently and if he will state if the conference has met since the last general election and, if not, why not; and if it was not the usual practice, while the conference was in existence, to place before it the annual Estimate of the Department of Defence and if that was ever done and, if it was done, why it was not done this year.

The Deputy is using this to make all sorts of allegations which he knows perfectly well I will not go into. He is abusing the privileges of the House.

I am very anxious——

I suggest there is a way in which, if he wishes, he can raise any additional matters. He cannot do it by asking any question and then bringing me along to deal with it.

Surely this House is entitled to know why certain members of the Defence Conference have been prohibited from taking part in it?

That does not arise out of the original question.

Since I cannot deal with the personnel of the conference—

Certainly not, because it is not in the original question.

I would be glad, then, if the Taoiseach would give a full explanation to the House.

I will do nothing of the kind.

Because you cannot. You are afraid.

The Deputy will have to conform to the ordinary rules of debate and ask any questions arising out of the original one.

But when I deal with the question, I am ruled out of order.

Yes, because the Deputy is not in order. I have been appointed by the House as judge of that matter, and not the Deputy.

Surely, it is in order to ask the Taoiseach a question arising out of my question, as to why the Defence Conference has not met? Is that not in accordance with the terms of this question? The Taoiseach has informed me this very minute that he refuses to give the information.

This is a new question.

The Deputy has asked many questions other than that, and is fully aware of the fact that he has so done.

With all respect to your ruling, Sir, and I am prepared to bow to it, I am asking on behalf of the whole Irish people, because I think that we should have an explanation, as to why the Defence Conference has not met. It has not existed, simply because I am in a position to give the Taoiseach as many facts as he has himself about the Defence Conference.

Then there is no need to ask.

That has nothing to do with it and, if the Deputy cannot get inside the rules of order, he must sit down.

Well, in order that I may comply with the rules of order, I will ask the Taoiseach to explain why the Defence Conference has not met and if he would say when it is going to meet and who are the members. When I asked this question to-day, I stated very clearly in it that I wanted to know who were the members. I said: "Who are its present members?" but the Taoiseach did not tell me who the present members are. If he recollects it, he said that he does not know who the members are. Surely, that is a most extraordinary statement from the Taoiseach, who was responsible for bringing the Defence Conference into being, to admit in this House that he does not know who is on it. I think it is only right that a statement should be made letting us know how the Defence Conference stands. There was a clear admission that there is——

The Deputy did not ask how it stands.

With all respect, I did ask that. I asked who are its present members and how it is at present constituted. Very clearly the expression "how it is at present constituted" means how the Defence Conference stands at the present time.

I do not agree with the Deputy's interpretation.

There is a difference of opinion, naturally.

There is, and, unfortunately for the Deputy, I am the judge.

When there is a difference of opinion, my interpretation of what is down here on the Order Paper is that I am asking the Taoiseach who the members of the Defence Conference are, and surely I am entitled to an answer to that question? I do not intend to hold up the House much longer. The reason I was anxious to raise this matter is not for publicity purposes; it is simply that I am very anxious that a statement should be made on the subject, because there are Parties in this House entitled to representation on the Defence Conference.

I am not prepared to hear the Deputy on that point, it does not arise out of the question.

Then, since I cannot ask this question, and since the Taoiseach is not prepared to answer any question I do ask, I will be glad if he will give us all the information he can. I think a statement ought to cover it. We are anxious to know how the position stands with regard to the Defence Conference. There was one member of the Defence Conference who was out to expose the rottenness and corruption of Fianna Fáil.

The Deputy is abusing the privileges of this House and, when he asks in future to be heard on the Adjournment, his request will get very careful consideration from the Chair, if he cannot observe the rules of the House.

Surely I was acting in accordance with the rules?

I say distinctly that the Deputy was not.

Well, you are the judge.

One of the most precious privileges of Private Members is that of asking questions. Questions, I take it, are asked in good faith, and when I receive them, anyhow, I treat them as such. The Deputy who has just sat down has quite clearly indicated the spirit in which he asked this question. The question he asked me was this:—

"To ask the Taoiseach if he will state if the National Defence Conference has met recently; and, if so, on what date;"

That was one part of the question. Then he went on to ask:—

"and if he will state, further, how the Defence Conference is presently constituted; who are its present members; and if it will function in future."

I took it that that question was asked in good faith and that the Deputy wanted to get information, and I proceeded to give him what I considered was the information that he required. I take it that anybody looking at that question would say to himself: "The Deputy wants to know, in the main, what is to be the future of the conference; what is its present position." Therefore, instead of answering each part of the question separately, I gave him a general answer which I thought would be satisfactory to anybody who had asked the question in good faith and was really anxious about the Defence Conference and its functioning. I summarised it by saying that the position in regard to the Defence Conference is that it has not met for some months and it is proposed to summon a meeting at an early date for the purpose of bringing it formally to an end. One would imagine that if a conference has not functioned for some months, and if it was intimated that a meeting was to be held to bring it formally to an end, the question of its present personnel did not matter a thraneen to anybody. If it was, in fact, as I have said, in abeyance, what was the point about its personnel and what did it matter to anybody what its personnel was?

I asked you a definite question.

If the Deputy asked a question ordinarily, in good faith——

It was in good faith.

The good faith that has been exhibited by the Deputy's remarks before I stood up—the good faith of trying to create all the mischief he could. Is not that the spirit in which the Deputy asked me his other questions in the most trying times——

Why was a Deputy from other Parties prevented from sitting on the conference? Was it because he might expose the treachery of Fianna Fáil?

There is the question of mischief which the Deputy has been trying to create all the time.

As I have already pointed out, the Deputy must observe the rules of order.

To any ordinary person the answer I have given would have been sufficient. The Deputy asked me a supplementary question as to who the members were. He pursued that matter. I told him the truth —that I could not tell him at the moment, and I could not because, before I could say exactly who the members in the present circumstances are, certain questions would have to be determined and, as it was proposed to end the conference, I did not see that there was any point in determining these questions, particularly as the determination of them might lead to controversies. Now, this particular body, this Defence Conference, has served the nation well over a most trying period. This conference was set up when there was very great danger threatening this country. It was set up at my request, by asking these bodies, the principal Opposition Party, to send three members, and the Labour Party, two members, to sit with three Ministers of the Government to confer from time to time in the national interest, particularly on matters related to defence. One of its principal values was that there could be, in the privacy of that conference, matters discussed with a freedom which would have been dangerous had it been exercised here in the open Dáil. That was how the conference began. As I have said, it worked particularly well.

Then might I ask when was the conference——

It was desirable that a body that had worked so well, and to which the nation owed much, should not end with controversies, particularly as the immediate danger against which it was intended to be a safeguard appeared practically at an end. But the Deputy is not satisfied with that. The Deputy is not satisfied if there is not some mischief.

I want the names of the members.

The Deputy will get no names from me. He will get all the information from me that it is in the national interest to give, but he will get no more.

Why did you expel some of them?

The Deputy must behave himself. He has had his say.

The Deputy will not get me to play any game for him that he wants—he may be sure of that.

I want only an explanation.

The Deputy will get no explanation further than the explanation I have given. I have said that the conference did not meet for some months. It held its 85th meeting some time in December last.

Will the Taoiseach give the names of those persons who were present?

The Taoiseach will give the Deputy no names now. I have said that to give the present constitution or the names would involve a determination of certain questions which I believe it is not in the national interest at this moment to determine, for the simple reason that this conference has served the country well. I think it should be allowed to meet formally and to say that the purposes for which it was formed are now no more. I believe it is the view of many of the members that, the position being what it is, it is better that some of the matters which it was desirable to discuss in the privacy of the conference should now be discussed openly in public. That is the present position. The Deputy got as complete an answer as anybody who was really asking the question in the public interest needed, but, as I have said, it is quite clear that that would not suit the Deputy.

But you did not answer the question yet.

If there are such people concerned, they are very well able to speak for themselves.

You will not allow them.

Since when was the Deputy briefed to speak for other Deputies?

As a Deputy, I can speak for whom I like.

Yes, the Deputy can, but there are people who can speak for themselves, if they want to.

You will not allow them. You refused to sit in conference with them.

They have the same opportunity of speech and of asking questions in this House as the Deputy.

Why did they resign from the Defence Conference?

The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 26th April.

Barr
Roinn