Before the debate is resumed, the Taoiseach has asked to intervene on a point of personal explanation.
Committee on Finance. - Motion for Select Committee—Question of Member's Conduct (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That a Select Committee consisting of seven members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, be appointed to investigate the facts in the case of a certain member of the Dáil who, as appears from Press reports of evidence given in court recently, received financial accommodation from a company, in furtherance of whose business interests he made representations in his capacity as a member of the Dáil to the Department of Finance; to report on this matter and to consider and report if the member's conduct, as found by them, is inconsistent with the standards of conduct which should be expected from members;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the quorum be four.—(Deputy Dillon.)
I said on Wednesday night that I was satisfied that there was evidence that money had been repaid. Deputy Dillon suggested that I might have that evidence, but that others had not. I have tried to have the evidence in a form in which it would be available, and I would be prepared to let Deputy Dillon see it or the Leaders of the various Parties. That is all I have to say.
Deputy Fogarty to resume.
He has been warned off.
He has been ordered out.
Is this Deputy Dillon's motion?
I notice from the newspaper reports of the debate on the motion that an attempt was made by the Taoiseach to put this on a footing with the practice which, apparently, is common among certain Deputies of haunting Government Buildings in an effort to get things done for their constituents. That is a matter on which I certainly, and a lot of people in this House, would agree with what the Taoiseach said. It seems to me that the functions of a Deputy in this House are gravely distorted and warped by this proceeding. Viewed from another angle, the matter is highly objectionable. It means that people who, apparently, have rights cannot get those rights from a Government Department unless a Deputy, and particularly a Deputy of a particular political Party, intervenes on their behalf. It is highly degrading to the whole House, even to the people who have made it the practice to haunt Government Buildings in this way, that conduct of that type should be compared with the conduct of the Deputy to which the notice of the House has been drawn by Deputy Dillon's motion.
As regards what I know of that conduct, I am relying entirely on what took place in the court. I am not relying entirely on the newspaper accounts. I was in touch with a considerable number of people associated with that case. Surely, the Taoiseach must admit that there is a very distinct point about Deputy Briscoe's conduct which completely segregates it from the general type of conduct to which he referred, because, I understand, it was only a matter of tactics, attempting to cloak Deputy Briscoe by alleging that there was a whole lot of funny things and funny practices in connection with Deputies going to Government Buildings.
The one thing that stands out in this case of Deputy Briscoe's is this, that Deputy Briscoe was brought into a case to give evidence, and that he was cross-examined on the point which Deputy Dillon's motion is aimed at by counsel for the State. There was counsel briefed by the Attorney-General, and it must be presumed that the authority of the Attorney-General was behind the cross-examination of the matters that were suggested to Deputy Briscoe. What was suggested to Deputy Briscoe by counsel appearing for the State, briefed by the Attorney-General, was that it was a significant thing that he had emerged as getting some financial betterment from the people—the accused—before the court, and that he got that benefit at a time when he was engaged in haunting Government Buildings for their benefit. The time limit is accurately fixed. As I remember the case—and I challenge contradiction on this—the books were produced in court and counsel for the State brought Deputy Briscoe through certain pages. He tied him up to a particular date, which was the date upon which he began to intrigue with Government Buildings in connection with one of these two gentlemen.
Intrigue is a nice word.
Intrigue is the word I use. Intrigue was completely before the Special Criminal Court, and that suggestion of intrigue was made by counsel for the State. I am not getting away from that point: that this intrigue started at a particular date. Immediately on that intrigue starting accommodation bills were given to Deputy Briscoe, and Deputy Briscoe was asked to go through the pages of the books. Transaction after transaction was referred to, and then it came to the point when apparently the Deputy's persuasion of Government Buildings had taken effect and after that the accommodation bills dropped.
Let me confine the matter to these two points. There is the period as exposed by counsel for the State in regard to the criminal case. There is the period in which it is suggested that the Deputy was engaged on work that certainly was not his duty as a Deputy, work which, I suggest, was unworthy of him as a Deputy. At the time he started, he also begins to get moneys from these two gentlemen. Now the dates are of some significance in this matter, and I suggest that that alone marks out this case from the case of any other Deputy. If not, can I ask for some enlightenment? Is there any case known to the Taoiseach where a Deputy of this House has engaged in attempting to persuade some Department of Government to do something for a client, and that over the period in which he is trying to persuade Government Buildings to do something for a client, he is getting money on loan from that client? I suggest there is not a case of that except. Deputy Briscoe's.
How could I know that? Ask Deputy Dillon or Deputy Dockrell, or other Deputies who are business people, whether at one time or another, when they were making representations about their businesses, they were benefiting at the time that thing was happening.
When the Taoiseach mentions business men, he might have also mentioned Senator Quirke.
And others, too.
There is a well-known tactic on the part of a marine animal, the squid, which throws out a lot of inky substance when it wants to get away. That is the Taoiseach's squid ink. That is the tactic at the moment. The suggestion has been made here that what is being alleged against Deputy Briscoe is in some way analogous to something that has taken place in the case of other Deputies.
Analogous to the extent that he is supposed to have benefited by his representations.
I want the Taoiseach to tell me one case.
I am sure there are several cases that could be brought. There are business people who have made representations.
The Taoiseach is throwing out this flood of inky comment to defend Deputy Briscoe. If the squid wants to eject his stuff, let him do it at the proper time. The other day Deputy Dillon was charged with hypocrisy by the Taoiseach's son.
He is Deputy Major Vivion de Valera, as well as being the Taoiseach's son.
He may be that, but he has very high ranking title when it comes to hypocrisy. He knows it through his family circle.
If the Deputy wants to bring in my family circle, he will get it back.
I am open to a charge about my family circle. Make it now.
It is what we would expect from the Deputy.
Oh, keep quiet. I will get back to the motion before the House.
And get away from personalities.
Is it personalities for Deputy de Valera to talk about hypocrisy on Deputy Dillon's part?
I do not think there was a charge made.
The charge of hypocrisy was made against Deputy Dillon, as far as the newspapers are concerned.
I do not know.
The Taoiseach does not know. Does he know if there is any example in the political history of this country of a Deputy trying to get something for a constituent, and, at the same time, receiving money? I am awaiting the challenge on that. There have been no instances.
Am I to be asked questions and then to be told if I do answer to keep quiet?
Give an example.
I am not going to interrupt any more now.
I bet you are not.
The Deputy can put any question to me that he pleases, but he will get no answer.
I thought I would not. The Taoiseach is not very easy to get on detail. All the tactics he used were used for the purpose of evasion—the Taoiseach used what, in the recent war, were described as evasive tactics. If there is any case, and I suggest there is, surely it is a scandal to the House and an insult to the members of the House that when one case is raised the answer should be: "Oh, well, what is the difference between that and the conduct of other Deputies? We know that Deputies hunt through Government Buildings for this, that and the other."
I suggest this is a unique business. A Deputy is brought up by the court to give evidence. He is cross-examined by those appearing for the State. Under their cross-examination it appears that inside a limited period he is doing two things: (a) going to Government Buildings to get some favour for particular clients, and (b) taking money from these clients. That is a single instance that certainly deserves some inquiry. May I say further, though perhaps I cannot say it with the same assurance, that the case in which a Deputy was brought as a witness went to the Court of Criminal Appeal and, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, Counsel for the State asserted to the members of the court that Deputy Briscoe's evidence had not been believed by the Special Criminal Court. I suggest that is so, that he made that statement. I will bring it a bit further. What he swore, according to counsel appearing in the case, was not believed by the members of the court. That is a further addition to this particular matter and, surely, it ought to be inquired into.
Surely this case ought to be segregated from the general conduct of Deputies, whatever criticism there may be of the conduct of these Deputies. I suggest that this is a case with a certain amount of bad atmosphere about it, until it is dissipated, as it may be, by an inquiry. We should not have the whole House slandered in the way in which it was slandered by the general statements that fell so easily from the Taoiseach.
Unfortunately, there is a section of our people outside this House who believe that Deputies are a low lot, who believe in what Deputy Flanagan said the other night when he challenged the Taoiseach to point out one honest man in the House. It is an unfortunate thing that there is a large section of our people who have that opinion of the national legislative Assembly and it should be the duty of this Assembly to remove that opinion for all time and to raise the status of the House in the eyes of our people. Our independence here, and the fact that we have a Parliament of our own, are not the result of a few days' work and are not the result even of a few years' work: they are the result of 700 years of a grim and bitter struggle, of enormous sacrifice and suffering, and, with that record behind the establishment of our freedom, it is surely essential that nothing should be allowed to happen which would drag this House into the mud.
The reports of the legal proceedings which appeared in the public Press cast a grave reflection on one Deputy and, indirectly, on every Deputy in the House. Many people reading the report and, perhaps, reading it with a little prejudice against this Assembly, said: "This is the way Deputies live; this is one of the sources of income of politicians in this country. They carry out services for their constituents and they get substantial financial rewards for those services." That is the conclusion that many citizens have drawn from the reports of the proceedings in which Deputy Briscoe was involved.
A proposal is put before the House to clear that matter in the interest of the House, in the interest of democracy, in the interest of every Deputy and in the interest of the nation. The proposal is simply that an inquiry should be held into this whole matter to find out if Deputy Briscoe received financial benefit as a result of the services which he gave to a business firm.
When a proposal of this kind comes before the House affecting Deputies very intimately, affecting the House intimately and affecting the privileges of the House, we always hear some very foolish speeches. There have been foolish speeches delivered in this debate. A foolish speech was delivered by Deputy Major de Valera, which added some heat to the debate but no weight to the arguments against the motion. A very foolish speech was delivered by Deputy Flanagan and also by Deputy Fogarty. The speech delivered by the Taoiseach was not a foolish speech. I admire the Taoiseach as a Parliamentarian. I was deeply impressed by the manner in which he faced this motion. He proceeded immediately to divert attention from the direct matter which was raised in the motion by referring to the more general question of the manner in which Deputies make representations to Government Departments.
I have great sympathy with the views of the Taoiseach in regard to the percentage of Deputies' time taken up by making representations to Government Departments, appealing to officials on behalf of constituents. I think in the House there is considerable agreement on that matter. It is a difficult problem. It was a wise, shrewd move on the Taoiseach's part to divert attention to a complicated problem in order to avoid meeting a clear-cut, direct issue such as is raised in this motion. We might be able, if we sat down and thought over it, to devise some set of rules governing a Deputy's conduct in the making of representations. We are a very good, a very efficient people at laying down high-sounding rules and principles. The Constitution is an example of such skill on our part. But we are not so good at seeing that deviations from the standard which is expected and violations of ordinary rules of good conduct are dealt with. That is what this motion proposes to do, to find out if there has been a direct breach of ordinary standards of honesty and integrity on the part of Deputies and, if there has been a violation of those standards, to see that action will be taken to prevent it happening again.
The Taoiseach, in meeting this motion, produced some fairly strong arguments. He suggested that he had some very good evidence which would effectively clear Deputy Briscoe of any serious charge. If there is good documentary evidence which can be produced, surely a Committee of Inquiry is the proper body to deal with such evidence. Surely a Committee of Inquiry can be relied upon to deal fairly, justly and impartially with any documentary or other evidence produced before it, and to produce a verdict which will be absolutely fair, a verdict which, if there is no ground for any charge against Deputy Briscoe, will clear him for all time in the eyes of this House and in the eyes of the nation, and remove a slur which has been cast upon our Parliamentary institutions by these Press reports, and, by removing that slur, raise the dignity of this House. That is all that is asked for in this motion, and I think it is a demand which should be acceded to by the Government.
This motion is in line with a definite policy started a good many years ago by the Opposition, that policy being to create the impression that there is tremendous corruption and rottenness in the public life of this country, and especially in Government circles. We had that exemplified in a motion a few years ago in relation to the proposed transport merger, and we know how it turned out. We know what a damp squib it turned out to be.
Do you think so?
I am sure of it.
Do you remember that they reported against the Minister?
The Deputy must be allowed to make his speech.
I did not interrupt the Deputy, nor am I in the habit of interrupting. It is innocently suggested that the putting down of a motion for an inquiry into the conduct of one Deputy is not going to do that Deputy any harm or damage whatever. We must all be very innocent if we accept that. Anybody who accepts it or honestly believes it must be a very innocent person. No matter who is the member of the House who is the subject of such an inquiry, in the eyes of a great number of the public, he will come out of it smeared. There is no shadow of doubt about that, because there will remain in the back of the minds of certain people the old saying that there is no smoke without fire.
We have this class of thing being suggested here. We have Deputy Dillon, the proposer of the motion, saying, in the most pious way, that he would not be guilty of anything in the nature of anti-Semitism. In my opinion, this motion stinks of it, and this is not the first occasion on which Deputy McGilligan got up to make a personal attack on the Deputy concerned. To my knowledge, he has done it on several occasions.
When now?
I have not got the Official Debates with me, but the Deputy has only to read back through the reports.
I will give you one— the gold inquiry. Maybe you would like to refer to that?
What came out of it?
He talked about the Deputy haunting Government Buildings. The people expect us to do certain things when we are elected members of this Assembly. Our constituents write to us and expect us to interview different public Departments. I do not think there is anything wrong in it, and, what is more, I think it would be wrong to deprive Deputies of that right. It would not improve public life in any way to deprive Deputies of that right.
This much has come out of this matter, that Deputy Briscoe was not guilty of any irregularity or dishonesty. He had a long personal connection with the man who made this request to him to get particular facilities for him. It was a common transaction between them, of a business nature, to lend money and because, in the course of their discussion, this man asked him, as he might have asked any other Deputy, if he would go to the Department of Finance and make this request for facilities for him, he is now guilty of corruption. We had it here in the House quite recently regarding myself, when I was accused of corruption because I did exactly what every other Deputy is doing every day. I recommended a man for an appointment and was attacked for doing so. It subsequently came out that the very Deputy who attacked me had recommended another person for the same appointment. Yet I was dishonest and guilty of corruption, but the other Deputy was quite upright, honest and consistent.
This is part of the general policy to try to create the impression that there is tremendous corruption and rottenness in public life. I think we can safely say, without boasting at all, that the standard of conduct of public representatives, both in Parliament and in local bodies throughout the country, is at least as high as it is in any country in the world, if it is not higher than in a great many countries. I have been in Irish public life for at least 30 years. I have been a member of public bodies and I have been a member of this Assembly for about 20 years, and I have yet to see any definite proof of corruption. I have seen bitter political feeling, if that can be called corruption. Probably men will do things through bitter political feeling which they might not do, if they did not feel bitter, but if, by corruption, is meant that things are done for a cash consideration, I have never seen it.
I ask the House, in all common sense and reason, not to be carried away by this pretence of innocence and this suggestion that such an inquiry as is proposed will not do harm to an innocent person. It is intended to do harm and that is the reason for which it is asked. As I say, this motion is in the pattern of the mean attacks made by members of the Opposition not alone on Deputy Briscoe but on other members of the Government Party.
As a junior member of the House, I must say that I was deeply grieved by the attitude of some of the members of the Opposition on this question. It seems to me that when Deputy Dillon put down this motion, which amounts to a charge of corruption against Deputy Briscoe, it was bad enough that he should do so simply on newspaper reports, that he should have taken no steps to verify these reports or to find the full facts, but, since then, he has had the opportunity of hearing the statement of the Taoiseach that he went fully into the case and that the documents, the bills and cheques were all produced in court, backed up by the statement of Deputy Ruttledge who was the solicitor in the case. That, to my mind, wiped out completely the prima facie case he said he had made. But in spite of that he is still persisting. As a lawyer he should know that if any question of corruption had arisen in that case it would have been the duty of that court to order the papers to be sent to the Attorney-General. Deputy Dillon, apparently, is trying to make us believe that he is zealous for the reputation of Deputies. I did believe that at first when he put down the motion, but by persisting in this when his case has collapsed, I am afraid that he is not zealous for the reputation of Deputies, but wishes to throw further mud.
I do not like to think that the mover of this motion was in any way prejudiced against Deputy Briscoe. I rather give him the credit of having in mind the clearing up of the general reputation of Deputies and providing a means by which the conduct of Deputies may be investigated and of desiring that, if found guilty, due punishment should be meted out to them, or, alternatively, that they should be vindicated. As to improving the standard of Deputies' conduct, that would be an ideal thing. I am sure that nobody in this House will hesitate to say that the greatest care should be taken to provide that the conduct of Deputies should be an example to the general public. Knowing Deputy Briscoe, I do not believe for one moment that he has been guilty of any irregularity in the way of receiving money in compensation for services rendered in his position as a Deputy. From my knowledge of him, I have no reason to believe that that would be true. Nevertheless, the Taoiseach in his reply the other evening, implied that while the Deputy borrowed money in the ordinary way of borrowing—perhaps if he was not interested on behalf of these people he might have borrowed money from them —the fact of having borrowed it at a time when he was trying to assist them through the Department was injudicious.
I have been looking for some time for a medium through which I could air very serious charges made against me, but not made specifically. I have been deprived of every means of private inquiry. I asked the Taoiseach to facilitate me by affording me means which would enable me to bring my case into court so as not to be lying under those charges. I welcome every suggestion made by Deputy Dillon for the setting up by this House of some medium by which people suffering injustice and wrong could have their grievances brought to light and investigated.
In his reply the other evening the Taoiseach said that he had in mind the setting up of some select committee of the House. If that committee is merely to set up standards to which Deputies should conform, perhaps it would be a good and necessary thing. It would be a guide to everybody. But, from my experience of life, the only standards that should guide any man are his own standards. If these standards are not inherent and lived up to by the individual, it might be a good thing to set up a precautionary code of laws.
If the Taoiseach had in mind merely the setting up of a committee for the purpose of laying down standards by which Deputies might be guided in making representations to Departments, or depriving them entirely of that right, which I consider would be a retrograde step as far as the public interest is concerned, I would say that the purpose to be served would be slight and the gain would be very small. Would such a committee as he visualises be empowered to safeguard the reputation of Deputies who have been slandered by a whispering campaign or suggestions such as have been made in this House? I remember that some years ago a very responsible Minister of the Government was the victim of a campaign of suggestion that was most damaging. Fortunately for the Minister he had the goodwill of the Taoiseach who stood by him and made a pronouncement, or at least his next in command did, vindicating the character of that man and repudiating these charges which were widespread. Unfortunately, in my case, I had none of these. Instead, the Taoiseach went down to the constituency of Leitrim-Sligo during a general election and made a charge against me there, but not in a way which would enable me to bring him into court.
I should like to point out that I made no charge. I was asked at a meeting why a Deputy had not been selected and I said that there must be some good reason from the point of view of the body making the selection—that they expect to have candidates they can put through.
What is the reason? Were you afraid that I would not succeed?
I made no charge against the Deputy. I was asked why a certain Deputy was not selected by us and I said that there must be some good reason for not doing it.
What were the good reasons? Until I get that made clear, I say you are using a subtle way of destroying my character. I will take you into court if you make the charge.
I made no charge whatever.
Here is your statement, ultimately used by the Fianna Fáil Party in the form of a leaflet to destroy my character.
I do not wish to destroy the Deputy's character. It is a lie to state that I wish to destroy the Deputy's character. It is untrue.
The word "lie" has been used.
I withdraw the word "lie". I say it is untrue.
There is one motion before the House and another motion may not be raised in the middle of the debate.
The Taoiseach did so in his speech. He raised three or four hares.
At your request, Sir, on another occasion I withdrew the word "untruth".
The Taoiseach has withdrawn the word "lie".
He substituted "untruth". I withdrew the word "untruth" in response to your appeal that that was a word that should disappear from the Parliamentary records. It is now being reintroduced. I do not mind; I am only pointing out the different rulings.
Will the Taoiseach withdraw the word "untrue"?
I regard the word "untrue" as being quite Parliamentary. If I believe a thing is untrue, I have the right to say it.
That is the same argument. I am pointing out to the Chair that we had a discussion—I do not think the Taoiseach was here— over a phrase used by the Tánaiste. Eventually, in response to the request of the Chair, it was agreed that these words should not be used in this House. Apparently they are being reintroduced. I do not mind, but I want to mark the new point.
The trouble is in distinguishing between subjective and objective truth.
The day I was pulled up for using this word I referred you to an old debate in which the Taoiseach had very correctly stated that the words "falsehood" and "untruth" were perfectly correct terms. Notwithstanding that, better judgment prevailed here and the words were withdrawn. But, apparently, the Taoiseach must have improved his vocabulary.
I refer to a statement made the other evening by the Taoiseach in which he said he would welcome a proposal to set up a committee of inquiry to deal with the conduct of Deputies generally. He states that he examined in full the case and that there was nothing in the form of a criminal nature involved in it. Money was borrowed in the ordinary way and the loans were repaid. I seriously suggest to the Taoiseach that if he proposes to set up a committee of investigation that he would give that committee power to examine into charges made against Deputies so that the Deputies will not be pilloried by public misrepresentation or insinuations made against them which could not be substantiated in the courts of this country.
The Deputy suggests that I have made some charge against him. I have made no charge at any time against the Deputy.
He was going to read the statement when he was interrupted.
The Deputy is debating another matter and not the one that is before the House.
I understand the Taoiseach more or less welcomed this.
I would welcome it.
I understand you were welcoming it now.
I welcome this—the clarification of it.
Now?
Will the Taoiseach clarify his own statement?
What statement?
Let the debate proceed.
Am I to understand that the Taoiseach is agreeable to setting up a committee of investigation in this House to investigate charges made against Deputies here when those Deputies are deprived of any facilities for justifying themselves before this House or justifying themselves before the courts of justice? Is the Taoiseach prepared to set up such a committee? If he is, then I shall welcome the setting up of such a committee. I think, in fairness, such a committee should be established. I have suffered more serious wrong and injustice and mental torture, as a result of the implications made and the insinuations, beyond what any man should be made to suffer by another. I think the Taoiseach should take all steps to enable any man in that position to justify himself——
I think that is a most serious allegation to make against me and I think I should be given some opportunity of replying to it.
When?
On condition that the Deputy is permitted to read his statement.
On no condition at all. There are rules of order laid down in this House and they must be adhered to, even by the Taoiseach.
I am charged with deliberately inflicting torture on a man.
I say that you as head of the State are responsible.
I was not acting in my capacity as head of the State. I was acting as chairman of a political Party in the selection of its candidates.
We are not selecting candidates now.
But the Deputy was prevented from reading his statement.
I do not know why.
I think it is a very sad thing that this motion was ever set down at all on the basis of incomplete newspaper reports. These Press reports were made at a time when there was a grave shortage of newsprint and all reports had of necessity to be condensed and were, therefore, to some extent incomplete. Certain facts, which would have cleared Deputy Briscoe of even a shadow of suspicion, did not appear in those condensed reports. We have been told here that the whole matter has been inquired into and investigated, and that the facts, which did not appear in the newspaper reports, have been brought to light and would clear the Deputy of any blame in this matter. We have these assurances now from what I can only regard as an unimpeachable authority.
The only shadow of suspicion which might arise in connection with Deputy Briscoe comes from the mention of these accommodation bills. Most of us here know that such bills are an everyday occurrence among business people. There is no shadow of proof to support the belief that Deputy Briscoe received one single penny for his work as a Deputy of this House. All Deputies here or practically all are I am sure sorry that these charges were, in effect, made against Deputy Briscoe. I feel this whole matter more deeply than most Deputies in this House because I was reared in the town of Arklow and I was almost a next-door neighbour to very near relatives of Deputy Briscoe. These relatives of the Deputy's were the only Jewish family in that large town, and they were the most respected, or among the most respected, people in the town or surrounding neighbourhood.
That was only as it should be, because in kindliness, helpfulness and upright dealing and conduct they had few equals. Those of us who know Deputy Briscoe know that he possesses these same good qualities. We know that he would be incapable of a dishonourable act or of the corrupt practices implied in this motion now before the House. I do not think that Deputy Briscoe did anything that any one of us, no matter to what Party he belongs, might not do. There is no proof of any kind that he received any money for discharging his duty as a Deputy— not the slightest proof. Any proof we have now lies rather in the other direction. The word "hypocrisy" has been used here to-day. I think it is most regrettable that it should have been used in the context in which it was used. The nearest approach to hypocrisy that we have here to-day is Deputy McGilligan's harping on the statement that here was a Deputy, carrying out the duties of any ordinary Deputy, and receiving money from the person for whom he was acting at the same time.
"Contemptible" was the word.
If it is a fact.
It is worse than hypocrisy.
It is not a fact. In any ordinary meaning of the word it is not a fact.
It is a fact now.
I know that Deputy Dillon, in spite of the fact that he differs very widely from the majority of us in his viewpoint and in spite of the fact that he makes some of us very angry on occasion, has excellent qualities and virtues. From yesterday's proceedings in the House. I had hoped that to-day he would stand up and make all the amends possible for the pain caused to Deputy Briscoe through this motion being set down at all. Is it too much to ask him now, at this point, as a gentleman, to make the amende honorable to Deputy Briscoe?
Deputy Dillon rose.
I have very little to say on this motion——
Deputy Dillon will get half an hour.
——except that I am not in favour of it. I am prepared to accept Deputy Dillon's statement that it was not from the point of view of anti-Semitism that he tabled the motion. There is no denying the fact that it is from the point of view of anti-Fianna Fáilism that Deputy Dillon tabled this motion for discussion here. Deputy Dillon's record, so far as Fianna Fáil and its administration are concerned, is very well known, not only in this House but throughout the country.
So is the Deputy's.
I am satisfied that Deputy Dillon is the one safeguard, the sheet anchor, of Fianna Fáil and their public administration of this country because he has proved conclusively over the years that his policy and the policy of Fianna Fáil, even with regard to the control of the various Departments and officials, are as far apart as the Poles. That is one of the reasons, in my opinion, why this motion has been tabled by Deputy Dillon, not so much to cast a reflection upon Deputy Briscoe, but rather to cast reflections upon Fianna Fáil administration, which he has always done his damnedest to belittle and to affect. I have heard charges made in this House against members of this House and made by one, in particular, Deputy Cogan, with regard to Deputy Dillon himself. I wonder what has come about that Deputy Cogan has changed his mind so rapidly?
Is it "Coogan" or "Cogan"?
It is Cogan.
I have made no charges.
Deputy Cogan, not "Coogan".
There is only one "O". You had better be clear about it.
There is very little between you politically, although you sit on separate benches. Deputy Cogan made a charge against a Deputy. He made a charge against Deputy Dillon which was infinitely more serious than the charge which Deputy Dillon has made against Deputy Briscoe, and that was made only last year. We could go back to other years and find various Deputies making charges against Deputy Dillon and no one tabled a motion for their investigation. There is another aspect to this public representation. I do know that there are very prominent members of the Opposition Party, legal men, who have been briefed by trades unions and by other organisations.
The Deputy should deal with the motion before the House.
It is analogous to the motion, I submit, Sir. I am setting out my reasons why I am not going to support this motion—that certain incidents occurred here and the Deputies involved themselves in certain actions and no motion was tabled to investigate these things. It is for those reasons that I am not going to support this motion for an investigation at the behest of Deputy Dillon. I recollect discussion on the Industrial Insurance Bill and it is a well-known fact, it is common property throughout the land, that there were three or four prominent legal men, who are members of this House——
Major de Valera
A Chinn Comhairle——
——and they were briefed—
Major de Valera
May I protest that this is not in order?
As stated by the Chair, bringing charges against other Deputies is not in order now.
They are not charges even.
Major de Valera
General aspersions on the legal profession.
It is not true, which is even more important.
It is true, and can be proved by investigation.
Deputy Dillon.
I find it very hard to believe my ears when I hear Deputies attemping to justify the proposition that if a Deputy of Dáil Eireann is approached by a constituent to ask his help to get him what is his legal right, it is proper and fitting conduct on the part of that Deputy, having heard his constituent's request, to say: "Will you lend me £50?" I ask Deputy Butler, who has intervened in moderate terms, can he conceive himself, in the event of any constituent of his, rich or poor, coming to him to ask him to move on his behalf with a Government Department in order to get for his constituent what his constituent believed himself to be legally entitled to, winding up the conversation by saying: "Yes, I will be glad to help you, sir, and will you lend me £50?"
That is not the fact.
That is an assumption on the Deputy's part.
I think I can claim that throughout the whole of these proceedings I have done my best to keep the tenor of our discussion on a basis of judicial calm. I have been even criticised for that. I insisted on reading out coldly and without comment the entire newspaper report because I feared, were I to attempt to take from it what seemed to me to be relevant extracts, I might do injustice to the man who gave the evidence. I put it to the House that that is the net question: Is it proper conduct when your constituent approaches you to bespeak your assistance, to hear his grievance, to declare your readiness to do what you can, and then to say: "Will you lend me £50?" If a Deputy does that, his conduct may be due to imprudence —and that is the interpretation the Taoiseach puts upon it—his conduct may be due to malice of a corrupt person, his conduct may be due to whatever motives moved him but, objectively, it is for this House to determine shall that course of conduct be passed over by the 137 elected representatives of the Irish people as the normal, as something that should excite no comment, as something that we think all of us on all sides of the House might do, as something that anybody might do anywhere. Or does it behove us, without regard to Party, without regard to anything but the fact that we hold what appears to me to be the most honoured position a man can aspire to in this country—that is, the position of elected Deputy of Dáil Éireann——
There is no connection——
——to say that we do not approve of the procedure of a Deputy, when consenting to act with a view to securing the legal rights of a constituent, simultaneously inviting that constituent to lend him £50? If I wanted to injure the Fianna Fáil Party, if I wanted to make this an occasion for political propaganda, will Deputies consider for a moment why I should have gone to the Ceann Comhairle, in the privacy of his room, laid the evidence before him and said: "This, Sir, is, in my opinion, a matter to which the attention of the leader of the House should be directed so that he may devise a procedure which will provide an effective remedy without acrimonious controversy on the floor of Dáil Eireann." I think that the Ceann Comhairle will confirm me when I say that I indicated to him that my hope would be that the leader of the House would take the initiative in the matter and that all Parties, without discussion, would consent to the establishment of a suitable committee to examine the facts, as reported in the public Press, to determine whether the proprieties had been observed, to report to the House and either admonish the Deputy who had done wrong or inform the public that, realising the possible misunderstanding that could have arisen from the Press report, they had taken the matter under consideration, investigated it exhaustively and, as representatives of all sides of the House, now certify to the public at large that, the Press report notwithstanding, a full examination of all relevant facts had satisfied the entire membership of Dáil Éireann that the Deputy referred to was blameless.
Was that communicated to me?
All I can say is that I do not know. I do not think that I am guilty of any impropriety in describing my conduct.
It would be very difficult for me to recollect all the circumstances of the case. The Deputy did make some such representations to me. I do not know whether or not I put them in those exact words to the Taoiseach. May I say now that it was only after considerable thought, indeed, I decided that this motion was one which should go down, not having any precedent to guide me and its being beyond my power to judge whether there was a prima facie case or not? That is the difficulty of the Chair with reference to any such motion.
Deputy Dillon has clearly stated that he suggested that another course of procedure might be adopted—that I might examine into the matter and take action so that we should not have acrimonious discussion in the House. I have no recollection that the Chair communicated any such suggestion to me.
I recited the circumstances attending this matter when introducing the motion. I referred to my call on the Ceann Comhairle. The Ceann Comhairle requested me to call on a later date. He deemed it inexpedient to say whether he had mentioned the matter to the leader of the House or not; other matters had been engaging his consideration. What I want to impress on the benches opposite is that it is not the interest of their Party or the conduct of the Deputy in question which is the important issue in this case. The important thing is to reassure the people down the country that all members of the House are satisfied that the Press report which appeared created a false impression, or, if the Press report was accurate, that the House dissociates itself from the course of conduct pursued; after examining all the circumstances, if they think that it was due to imprudence, the rebuke will be only light, but, if it was due to malice, the rebuke will be heavy. That is all I am concerned to secure.
I am rebuked by Deputy de Valera, junior, and his colleague, Deputy P.J. Fogarty, in two speeches which I shall not say more of than that they contributed very little of value to the discussion. They said that I did not make charges. I did not want to make charges. I wanted to put before the House the newspaper report which was perused by our people and, with that report facing the House, to ask them to consider that an impression was being created abroad which called for inquiry.
I envisaged the possibility of Deputy Briscoe's honourable vindication. I suggested the possibility that, when a committee of this House had summoned all the papers and all the witnesses who were in a position to assist, they might determine that Deputy Briscoe had acted improperly. But the important thing was that that inquiry, whatever its conclusions, should be conducted in a calm and judicial atmosphere, not for the purpose of dragooning any individual member of this House, not for the purpose of achieving any punitive end, but solely for the purpose of reassuring the people that the 137 men and women who sit here are proud of the positions they hold and are determined to safeguard the standards of conduct that our people are entitled to expect of those to whom they entrust the very sacred duty which all of us have.
The Taoiseach says: "I have studied the reports; I have seen the receipts; I am satisfied that the money was repaid". Suppose all that were true, suppose all the debts were repaid, will any Deputy on any side of the House get up and say that he believes it is conduct becoming a Deputy of Dáil Éireann to ask his constituent for a loan of £50 at a time when his constituent is seeking his suffrages with a Department of State? If the Taoiseach desires to say that his examination has satisfied his mind, I am not concerned to conduct the trial of any member of this House on the floor of this House.
But if the Taoiseach chooses to put the matter on issue, I mention two points on which, I think, the people who read that newspaper report are entitled to demand reassurance. Mr. Samuels, the lender of this money, was asked why he lent it and his answer was that he knew the man was short and was running into debt. He was referring to Deputy Briscoe. This was Deputy Briscoe's old and confidential friend, the son of his father's friend, the man with whom he had grown up. He knew Deputy Briscoe was short and was running into debt. Deputy Briscoe was subsequently asked: "Why did you seek the loan?" The man who granted the loan did so because he believed that Deputy Briscoe was short and was running into debt. Deputy Briscoe was asked: "Why did you seek the loan?" and he said that he, Deputy Briscoe, was a man with a very large income but that he engaged in various business enterprises and frequently borrowed money. On the face of that, either the lender was a perjurer or the borrower was a perjurer, or Deputy Briscoe got the money from that person under false pretences.
Is it not a fact that a great deal of business is carried on on borrowed money?
This is the sworn testimoney that I took from the paper and I am quoting the very words: "He was short and running into debt."
A person may be short for immediate transactions.
"And running into debt." Counsel for the State produced the books and every loan to Deputy Briscoe was entered on the debit side. Has the Taoiseach seen the books of this company, showing every loan being repaid to the company?
I have the bills.
No, no. The books of the company were laid on the table of the court and when they were opened, entered on one side were ten items of loans of £50 to Deputy Briscoe. Now, that was the money of the watch company. These moneys were repaid. Has the Taoiseach called for the book where the debit entry was made and sought there a corresponding entry as these loans were being repaid and if it is not there, where did the payments go? I want all that matter to be considered calmly and judicially upstairs in a committee room, where all these questions can be answered exhaustively and where anybody can ask for the information he requires. I want to be able to say that it does not matter to what Party a Deputy belongs, that we all will combine to defend him against those who would traduce him and that we will combine to defend ourselves against any individual amongst us who would betray the standard we ought to maintain.
Here, then, is the net issue. Is it becoming conduct in a Deputy of Dáil Éireann, when approached by his constituent for assistance to secure his legal rights, having heard his constituent's representations and having indicated his readiness to serve him, to say: "Will you lend me £50?"
If that were so, it was not proper conduct.
And to say it ten times.
I say that that is not becoming conduct.
That is begging the question.
I do not believe there are five Deputies here who in their hearts believe that that is becoming conduct.
Nobody admits it.
I regret that the Taoiseach has deemed it expedient to meet this situation by raising a fog of irrelevance and manoeuvre. I think it was disreputable—I use that word advisedly—for the Taoiseach to say that Deputy Dillon and Deputy Dockrell frequently make representations to Government Departments, representations of a general character, which carried with them advantages for their own business. That is a dirty, disreputable and false innuendo.
Is it not a fact that these things have happened?
Lest the simplest creature in the country should be deluded into giving credence to that contemptible aspersion, I desire to place it on record that there is no scintilla of truth in it. As a private citizen, whenever I have had occasion to approach a Government Department, where my own personal affairs were concerned, I have always introduced my observations by saying: "On this occasion, the matter on which I wish to make representations relates to my private business and I am not to be addressed as a Deputy." I am perfectly certain, of course, that all of us who know him know that the same careful circumspection has always characterised the conduct of Deputy Dockrell.
Why not suggest that the same would be true of Deputy Briscoe?
It is contemptible to throw in a dirty innuendo of that kind.
Leave it to the public.
I exhausted every possibility, before bringing this motion before the House, to secure that this business might be transacted away from the forum of open controversy and in the calm judicial atmosphere of a committee room. It was when it became clear to me that I could not secure that and when, as it seemed to me, the Leader of the House was not prepared to take the steps that I conceived it to be his duty to take, that as a last resort I had recourse to this procedure. I believe the procedure adopted by me in the circumstances is the right procedure. Had I to undertake it again, knowing all I know, I would do precisely what I did. I believe that the conduct revealed is not becoming in a Deputy of Dáil Eireann. I believe it calls for explanation— satisfactory explanation—or condemnation by this House. Accordingly, if the Taoiseach adheres to his resolution and refuses Deputies an opportunity to get to the bottom of this matter and dispose of it satisfactorily by way of the Committee I have suggested, I shall challenge a division and let the country decide whether those who vote "yea" or "nay" are in the right.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 26: Níl, 42.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Davin, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hughes, James.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Donnell, William F.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
- Butler, Bernard.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- McCann, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Skinner, Leo B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
- Walsh, Laurence.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dillon and McMenamin; Níl: Deputies Kissane and O Briain.
Motion declared negatived.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Tuesday, 21st May, 1946, at 3 p.m.