Deputy MacEntee has notified his intention to raise the subject matter of Question No. 2 on to-day's Order Paper, on the Adjournment. The Deputy will deal with the subject matter of that question.
Private Deputies' Business. - Adjournment Debate—Visit of Dutch Soldiers.
I do not know exactly whether my intentions have been expressed by the intimation which you have given to the Dáil, Sir, as to what I propose to discuss on this particular motion on the Adjournment.
The Deputy got a letter from the Ceann Comhairle.
I did and that is precisely what I propose to read before I deal with this matter. The letter goes:—
"Dear Deputy,
As it might be inferred from the supplementary questions put by you in regard to the Taoiseach's reply to Question No. 2 on to-day's Order Paper, that you intended, on the Adjournment, to raise more general issues——"
On a point of order; is it permissible for a Deputy to read in the House a letter he has received from the Ceann Comhairle?
It is, of course.
Why not? It raises very important issues.
I only wanted to be clear on the point.
I shall have to begin again because of that unseemly interruption from Deputy Cowan:—
"As it might be inferred from the supplementary questions put by you in regard to the Taoiseach's reply to Question No. 2 on to-day's Order Paper, that you intended, on the Adjournment, to raise more general issues than arise from the actual subject matter of the question, I would like, in allowing you to raise the matter, to make it clear that I do so on the understanding that you will deal solely with the definite issues arising from the circumstances set out in the question."
I suggest that that limits me unduly and limits me, if I may say so, contrary to the rights and privileges of Deputies in this House.
I cannot allow a decision of the Ceann Comhairle to be discussed in this fashion. If the Deputy disagrees with the decision of the Ceann Comhairle there is a perfectly regular manner in which it can be discussed, but this is not the manner.
This is not a ruling of the Ceann Comhairle; it is not binding as a ruling.
If the Deputy would allow me. The Ceann Comhairle is the authority on order in this House. The Deputy indicated that he would raise a certain matter. That matter was submitted to the Ceann Comhairle. The Ceann Comhairle has indicated what matters can be raised on the question. There is no way of discussing that now. There is a perfectly regular manner in which it can be discussed if the Deputy so desires, but this is not the method to do so.
The Ceann Comhairle's ruling is binding on Deputies when it is delivered from the chair, not otherwise.
The Ceann Comhairle's ruling is binding.
When it is delivered from the chair of the House, not otherwise.
There is no ex cathedra indication in the Orders. The Ceann Comhairle is the final authority on order. I will not discuss it further with Deputy MacEntee, and if Deputy MacEntee endeavours to continue I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle deal with the matter? Apparently I cannot discuss the reply. It is not the question, however, I wish to discuss, but the answer. The answer is important because it indicates the attitude of the Government on this matter which is of great public importance. That is the issue I propose to raise on this matter, and I want to know whether I am prohibited in advance from raising that issue. I would refer the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to what the Ceann Comhairle has said:—
"You will deal solely with the definite issues arising from the circumstances set out in the question."
The circumstances set out in the question have nothing to do with this; what are of importance are the terms of the reply which the Taoiseach gave to Deputy Maguire.
The Deputy does not know what he wants to raise.
It is to the substance of that reply and in particular to the phrasing of it that I wish to address myself and that is the question which I propose to raise in the House. I would be glad to know whether I am in order in proceeding on that basis.
The Deputy does not expect me to make his statement for him.
The Deputy does not know what he is raising on the Adjournment.
I hope that I am perfectly capable of expressing myself and making statements on my own behalf, if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will pardon me. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle, when I proceeded to explain to him the difficulty in which I found myself, said that the Ceann Comhairle had given a ruling and that that ruling was binding on me. I accept the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's decision on that point but I do suggest that the Ceann Comhairle should have given his decision on this matter from the Chair. Leaving that aside I asked the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to direct me and guide me as to whether I could discuss not merely the circumstances set out in the question, but the terms of the reply which the Taoiseach gave in the House this afternoon. It is on that matter that I want direction and guidance. I do not wish to be in conflict with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The function of the Chair invariably is to indicate what cannot be discussed rather than what can be discussed.
The Deputy did not know what he wanted to discuss. He wants the Chair to tell him what he should discuss.
If, by any chance I should unwittingly stray outside the rules of order, I hope that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be forbearing and remember that I have nothing to guide me in the matter except the communication I received this afternoon from the Ceann Comhairle. Deputy Maguire put down a question on to-day's Order Paper asking the Taoiseach whether he was aware that at the recent Fine Gael Ard Fheis the Minister for Education made certain remarks which, in the view of the Deputy, seemed to be in conflict with the policy of the Government in so far as that policy was expressed by the Minister for External Affairs. It is undoubtedly very difficult for members of the general public or for Deputies to know what is the policy of the Government in relation to any particular matter because they speak with so many voices, but, in any event, I assume we may take in that the Minister for External Affairs did speak for the Government as a whole and that when he spoke he carried with him the collective responsibility of the Government for the conduct of this country's relations with other States.
Arising out of that question the Taoiseach gave a reply which I think I shall read in part, because the first part of the reply is not one to which I would take any exception. Having stated that the Government had made its attitude quite clear regarding the arrival of the Netherlands air unit to our territory in the Six Counties, the Taoiseach went on to say:
"I am also aware that the Minister for Education made a statement substantially to the effect indicated in the second part of the Deputy's question. Whether it is proper or advisable for individuals or groups to take any action, on their own responsibility, by way of protest against the coming of the Netherlands air unit, is a matter of opinion and does not necessarily involve Government policy. Lest there should be any misunderstanding on this point, however, I think it well to say that I personally agree with the Minister for Education in deprecating any such action."
I wish to address myself to the implications contained in the last two sentences I have read. The Taoiseach said it was a matter of opinion and did not necessarily involve Government policy. I think it does involve Government policy and that the Government ought at least to have made it clear what their general attitude was in relation to this question.
We have agreements with other countries. We have entered into a trade agreement with the Netherlands. Surely if other people outside, rightly or wrongly—and I am not criticising what has been done outside: what I am criticising is the attitude of the Government as expressed by the Taoiseach—as a matter of private policy, decide to try to nullify the Netherlands Trade Agreement, the Government has some responsibility in the matter, and it is not sufficient for the Taoiseach to wash his hands of this problem by saying, as he has said, that it does not necessarily involve Government policy. If the Minister for External Affairs tries to knit the bonds between this country and the Netherlands closer by entering into trade agreements with them, by trying to establish good relations with them, surely the Minister for Justice has some responsibility for seeing that the efforts of the Minister for External Affairs are not going to be nullified.
The big stick.
I am not talking about the big stick but about two members of the Government who are bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility which is written into our Constitution. How does the Taoiseach reconcile the efforts of the Minister for External Affairs to do what he has been trying to do with, shall we say, the inaction or inertia of the Minister for Justice? I ask that question not because I agree or disagree with what has been going on outside but because I hold very strongly that the Government of this country cannot be conducted in a proper manner unless the doctrine of collective responsibility is enforced.
I go on from that to read the last sentence of the Taoiseach's reply:—
"Lest there should be any misunderstanding on this point, however, I think it well to say that I personally agree with the Minister for Education in deprecating any such action."
Surely the Taoiseach speaks as the head of the Government, and not as a mere independent unit in that Government or a mere independent unit in this House, when he speaks in this House as Taoiseach. When the Taoiseach answered that question to-day he did not speak as Deputy Costello, he did not speak as plain Mr. John Costello: he spoke as head of the Government. Are we to take it from what the Taoiseach has said that when he stated that he, personally, agreed with the Minister for Education, there were members of his Government who did not agree with the Minister for Education? That, I suggest, is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the expressions used by the Taoiseach in his reply this afternoon. Is the Government united in opinion with the Taoiseach in relation to this matter or are there members of the Government who disagree with the view? If there are, then surely, in the circumstances of to-day—with grave crises confronting us, as they may, during the next few months—we ought to have a united Government and a Taoiseach who speaks here on a question, not for himself personally, but who is able to speak for every member of his Cabinet and for those who sit behind him on the Government Benches and who give him a majority in this House. Is that not the vital principle involved in this reply by the Taoiseach to-day? I know, of course, that outside this House people are saying that we have no Government—that, as I said somewhere else, we have six Taoiseachs and no Government. It is time that that were ended. Ireland cannot face the perils of the future unless we have one Taoiseach and a united Government.
Without you.
What is Dev's opinion on it?
I suggest that if the Taoiseach's position as head of the Government is so insecure that he has to make a pronouncement, upon a matter so grave as that which was raised here by Deputy Dr. Maguire, that he has to speak with the reservation and qualification that he is speaking only personally, it is time the Taoiseach faced up to the situation and allowed the people of this country an opportunity to have a united Government headed by a Taoiseach who can speak for his own Cabinet.
I take it that the Taoiseach's reply to me to-day indicated tacit approval by him of the statement by the Minister for Education at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis——
Express approval.
——and also implies Government sanction of the sentiments expressed by the Minister for Education on that occasion. Does the Taoiseach approve of the principle which permits a country, with a view to ensuring its own liberty, to violate the liberty and the territory of a hitherto friendly nation—because that is exactly what the Minister for Education's sentiments, to my view, implied? At least, that is my interpretation of his statement. I admit and agree with the Taoiseach that the speech was capable of other inference. Indeed, I am wondering if the Minister for Education on that occasion did know himself the import of what he was saying. The Taoiseach described my supplementary question to-day as an alleged supplementary question. I do not agree that it was an alleged supplementary question: in fact, I think it was very pertinent to the main question. That was my only reason for asking the question at all. If it is a thing that the Minister for Education, in expressing approval of the Dutch invasion of Derry, expressed the opinion of this country——
A Deputy
He did not.
——then let us stop the hypocrisy, proceed to the defence of our country, join the Atlantic Pact and be done with it.
You fought for England before and you would fight for her again. You would be glad to join the Atlantic Pact.
Deputy MacEntee came in this afternoon bubbling over like a naughty schoolboy, determined at all costs to have himself heard and to get himself into the newspapers to-morrow. He was oppressed by the two months' silence that had been enforced upon him. Listening to him to-night, you would think that he was fired with indignation at the breach of the highest principles, constitutional or otherwise, that he had witnessed to-day in the Dáil when I was answering questions. I deduce from what he says, not so much expressly as by inference, that something extraordinary has happened in the last few weeks in connection with the conduct of certain people, the boycott of Dutch goods and things of that kind, which are breaches of the law. He brings in his old friend, the doctrine of collective responsibility. If Deputy MacEntee was so worried about all this matter, so desirous that the Minister for Justice should uphold the law, and so anxious that the present Government should in every way adhere to the doctrine of collective responsibility, it seems rather extraordinary that he did not put down the question himself but that he should have muscled in, so to speak, upon his colleague's question by way of supplementary, without leaving it to Deputy Maguire to deal with his own supplementary questions.
It is somewhat amusing to note the difference in attitude between Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Maguire in connection with the subject-matter that is raised in this question, because Deputy MacEntee—we infer from his reference to the Minister for Justice—thinks that the Dutch boycott is against the law, whereas Deputy Maguire thinks that we are, or that my colleague, the Minister for Education, was condoning what he, in my opinion very insufferably in this House, calls "the Dutch invasion of our country".
I am sorry to have to give Deputy MacEntee disappointing intelligence. Contrary to what he alleges, we are a most united Government, fully conscious of the doctrine of collective responsibility and entirely aware that when Government policy is in issue we speak with one voice. The Minister for External Affairs spoke Government policy in reference to this matter of the Dutch visit to the six north eastern counties when he gave his statement to the Press on 8th January, 1951.
Deputy Maguire was asleep then.
Deputy MacEntee knows full well that every proper step was taken, in strict accordance with diplomatic practice, to make our protest known in connection with this matter. The Minister also took occasion to make it clear to the Dutch Government and the Dutch people that we had for that Government and people nothing but highest esteem and affectionate regard. That statement expressed our attitude towards the Dutch Government and the Dutch people. We sympathise with them in the difficulty that they were placed in by the British Government in connection with all this matter.
Neither Deputy Maguire nor Deputy MacEntee, apparently, understands the difference between what is Government policy, for which there is collective responsibility, and matters which are in no way Government responsibility or in reference to which in no way the doctrine of collective responsibility emerges or arises at all.
I made it clear to-day, in answering the question, that I approve of what my colleague, the Minister for Education, had said at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis, because I anticipated that had I not done so it would have been said, when I did not make it clear in answer to the question, that I had not the courage to come out and say that what my colleague was saying at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis was my view as well as his. It is my view as well as his. It is a mere matter of personal opinion on a matter that is not Government policy.
I asked myself, when I heard Deputy MacEntee referring to the Minister for Justice, where is the breach of law that we ignored? He did not deign to tell this House to what he was referring, merely threw out some suggestion of that kind without making any definite charge against any single individual in this State, whether they were connected with the Dutch boycott or the pickets, or anything else. This Government has stood and will stand for the enforcement of the law. Equally, it stands for the liberty of the citizen of this country and, if Deputy MacEntee will ask any lawyer of his acquaintance, he will be told that any persons may gather together and agree together to do a lawful act in a lawful way and that is not Government policy. If a number of people, however misguided we may think them to be, agree together to boycott Dutch tomatoes or to try to prevent the entry into this country of much needed fertilisers from Holland, they have a legal right to do it, provided they carry out their agreement by legal means, in accordance with legal methods.
Where does Deputy MacEntee say there has been any breach of the law by any of these people? I disapprove, personally, of their action, which appears to me to be in accordance with the law. There is no question of Government policy involved in that. We have made it clear that we have, as Deputy MacEntee has pointed out, a trade agreement with Holland and, as the Minister for External Affairs made abundantly clear in his statement to the Press on this matter on 8th January, that we have nothing for the Government and the people of the Netherlands but the highest esteem and affectionate regard.
I express my personal view again here to-night, that it is something which cuts across our affection and esteem and regard for the Dutch people when our own citizens, even though they are acting in accordance with legal right, decide upon a boycott of Dutch goods. I think that that is not proper, however legal it may be, but that is not a matter of Government policy not can it be a matter in which the Government can intervene except there is a breach of the law and, if there is a breach of the law, then we will intervene.
I would like to teach Deputy MacEntee some little matters about the doctrine of collective responsibility, which he likes to roll trippingly off his tongue so frequently in this House— the difference between what is Government policy and what is a matter that is not necessarily Government policy but which may in certain circumstances become a matter of Government policy. If this matter of the Dutch boycott ever does become a matter within the ambit of Government policy, then we will deal with it as a unified Government and as a united Government, as we have done in every case and every aspect of policy that has come before this House.
I am sorry to disappoint the Deputy again. When he brings forth again the taunt that is so frequently on his lips and on the lips of other people, and which has been in the Irish Press from time to time by Dáil Reporter about five, six, seven or 13 Taoiseachs, if you like, that may be his taunt, but the fact is that we have lasted now for three years, when he and his colleagues said we would last only for three months. We have brought great benefit to this country and I can repeat here what I have said frequently in the last four or five weeks, reviewing the disturbed conditions of the world and the miseries that are being suffered by so many peoples throughout the world, that this country, under the auspices of this Government during the last three years, is now, relatively speaking, the best off and happiest country in the world.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 15th February.