Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Mar 1927

Vol. 8 No. 9

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - MESSAGE FROM THE DÁIL.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I have received a Message to the following effect from the Dáil:—

Dáil Eireann has passed the following resolution:—

"That it is not expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be appointed to consider and report upon the advisability of amending the Articles of the Constitution which prevent members of the Seanad being appointed members of the Executive Council."

I have to remind the House in this connection that this Bill was referred, after it passed Second Reading, to a Select Committee instead of being treated by a Committee of the whole House. That Select Committee when they met, came to the conclusion that it would be desirable to postpone consideration of the Bill with a view to seeing if they could obtain the appointment of a Joint Committee who would go into the general question as to the eligibility of Senators for the position of Executive Ministers. Accordingly, the Select Committee sent forward a Report recommending the House to pass such a resolution as that and, in the meantime, to postpone further consideration of the Bill.

The Seanad, on receipt of that Report from the Committee, adopted its recommendations and its resolutions postponing further consideration of the Bill and agreeing that a message should be sent to the Dáil asking them to concur in the appointment of the Joint Committee. The Dáil has sent back a message to say that they do not concur, and the position is that this Bill has now to be proceeded with, that is to say, if it is the wish of the House. It has not gone through Committee Stage because the Select Committee, to which you sent it, did not deal with it in the ordinary way but passed this special resolution which I have mentioned. Therefore, if the House consider that the Bill should now proceed through its ordinary stages it will be necessary for a motion to be put down for that purpose. At present the position is that the consideration of the Bill is hung up. We can do nothing in connection with this Message. The Dáil passed this resolution. That does not call for any action.

Mr. DOUGLAS

Would it not call for some discussion as to what action we should now take on the Bill?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I could not prevent you discussing that, but the difficulty is that we cannot consider any further proposal regarding the Bill without notice of motion. Of course, if any Senator wanted to make a personal explanation, this is the time, but in reference to the Bill itself, until there is a motion to go on with the remaining stages, of which notice must be given, we cannot discuss the Bill.

Mr. DOUGLAS

My point is that there were certain implications made in the Dáil as to the aim of certain members here, particularly certain Senators. Senator Jameson moved the adoption of the report, and I, in Committee, moved the resolution which was adopted. It seems to me that the Minister for Justice—I do not for one moment suggest that he did so intentionally—misled the Dáil as to the intentions of this House in, I think, two respects. In the first place, he stated that there was an implied threat that this Bill would not be passed unless the Dáil were to agree to set up a Joint Committee and to go further and agree that members of the Seanad might be members of the Executive Council. I would like, if I might, to point out the circumstances. A large number of members of the Seanad expressed the view that the bringing in of this Bill was a convenient and suitable time to raise the question of the eligibility of members of this House to be members of the Government. The question, as I understood it, was perfectly clear. It was not claimed that members of this House must be appointed as members of the Executive Council, or even as extern Ministers, but that the special restriction in the Constitution should be removed, leaving the Dáil free to take any action which it thought fit. There has been no other suggestion. It was proposed in Committee, I think by Senator Kenny, that that amendment should be made in the Bill. On this point a ruling was asked, and the Chairman ruled that it would be in order to amend this Bill so as to amend other sections of the Constitution. Some of us felt that it was a mistake to deal with these two matters in one Bill.

In view of your ruling, sir—you were Chairman of the Committee—it was clearly possible, and the majority wished, to amend the Bill. I moved, and I think Senator Kenny seconded, that we should endeavour to get a Joint Committee, and that, in the meantime, the Bill be held up, not for the purpose of any threats implied or stated in any shape, but held up until we saw if any action could be taken in the direction we desired. The reason for the Joint Committee was not an attempt to force the Dáil. There were various ways of doing it. It could be provided that if the full twelve members were Ministers, one could be a member of the Seanad. I could see some reason if there were only five or seven that one could not be chosen outside the Dáil, but if there were twelve in the Executive it would be a different matter. What I want to emphasise is that the Minister was—no doubt unintentionally —misleading the Dáil in asking them to reject our proposals on the grounds that there was an implied threat. There was no such threat implied or in any way suggested. The Minister himself stated in Committee that he would be prepared to recommend the Dáil to agree to a Joint Committee, not to the principle, but when he went to the Dáil he reversed that decision. He said that there was an implied threat in the request and an attempt to make a bargain. As a matter of fact, there is a number of us who are in favour of the Bill and who would be very slow indeed to use a constitutional amendment as a matter of bargaining between the two Houses.

I think it would be undignified, and I think we should vigorously protest against the statement of the Minister to the other House that we attempted to use a constitutional amendment for the purpose of bargaining. I think, however, a motion should be put down to take the Committee Stage of the Bill next week and to proceed with it in this House.

I very much regret that the Minister for Justice, whom we all respect so much, should have been misled in that matter. I think his memory must have failed him. I do not think that a statement like that will help the good relationship that should exist between the two Houses.

Mr. KENNY

I must confess that I myself had gathered the impression from what the Minister had said at the Committee that he rather favoured this idea, and it was his attitude on the matter in Committee that led us to our coming to the resolution that we did come to in Committee. Now we are face to face with this position—I think the House still holds the view that it is eminently desirable to have some connecting link, a link closer than any links that are provided by the Constitution, between the Government and this House in order to make for a smoother working of the machine. I think if there is any direction in which the Constitution could be usefully amended it would be in the direction of making some provision that would prevent a recurrence of the situations that have been created in this House through no fault of this House, but simply through the want of better machinery. Time and again this House has protested against the attitude of the Government in the casual way in which we are treated by High Ministers, and our protests have gone unnoticed. The same thing has occurred again, and under the plea of urgency Bills have been brought here and we have been asked to suspend our Standing Orders and to rush Bills through the House at one sitting. This House has been jocularly referred to as the cooling chamber. What opportunity does the Government give to allow legislation to cool in this House——?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Now, Senator, you are on a different matter altogether.

Mr. KENNY

The question now is whether we should allow the Bill to proceed in its regular form or take up this attitude, that as far as our powers permit we will——

CATHAOIRLEACH

Even that question does not arise. The only reason I did not stop Senator Douglas a while ago was that he was defending himself and his Committee from the charge that their action contained a threat to the Dáil, or to the Minister. We cannot discuss what is going to happen to this Bill in the future until we have removed our decision to postpone the consideration of it. Upon that, of course, it will be then open to any Senator to discuss it. There must first of all be a motion put down by some Senator moving that we resume the discussion of the Bill.

Mr. KENNY

Then I thoroughly endorse the view put before the House by Senator Douglas. There was not in the Committee Stage, or in any discussion in this House, any suggestion of a threat to the Ministers or to the Dáil. What did transpire in Committee was that a general discussion took place as to what might be the outcome, if we thought fit to take such action as this. But in the unanimous resolution come to by the Committee, and also in the further resolution, there is not a single word which should warrant the words used by the Minister for Justice, and these two resolutions are all that the Minister for Justice has to go on. It was a unanimous decision and not an individual decision.

He has read into that resolution in the way best known to himself a threat or an implied threat or suggestion of a threat to the Dáil. I state here in support of what Senator Douglas has said that neither I nor any member here would corroborate the Minister in his interpretation of the language used——

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Senator refers to my recollection. I have no hesitation in saying, having been present throughout the proceedings and being in the chair, that nothing was said or done which afforded the slightest justification for the statement made by the Minister. I confess, in view of his attitude at the Committee, in which he said he welcomed a Joint Committee to look into the whole question, that I did not think he had any objection to our procedure. If he had any objections at that time he should have stated them when we were there instead of stating them in another place when we were not in a position to deal with them. Anything that happened in this House while I was present supplied no justification for the statement that we sent this forward under a threat of any kind.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think it is only fair that the House should have some indication of what the Minister for Justice was going on when he made the remark that has been adverted to here. The Minister for Justice did say in the course of the proceedings before the Select Committee:—"I am prepared to advise the Executive Council to set up a Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad to discuss the advisability of such an amendment as this to Article 52 of the Constitution." The particular proposition he spoke of was somewhat involved, and it was referred to later on, and the Chairman made this remark:—"That was not the Minister's suggestion. The Minister's suggestion was that this Bill should be allowed to go through unamended and that subsequently the matter we want to raise be referred to a Joint Committee." If there seems to be anything at variance between the Minister's statement in the Joint Committee and what he stated in the Dáil the explanation was given by you, yourself, sir.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That has not been done. That is quite right, but he approved of the matter being inquired into, and made a subject of reference to the Joint Committee. What I want to know is where the Minister found evidence of a threat?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am coming to that. There is a suggestion that the Minister made a promise and that he is going back on that promise. But the suggestion he did make was that he would be prepared to recommend the setting up of a Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad to discuss a particular amendment to Article 52 of the Constitution, and your own interpretation of that was that the Minister's own suggestion was that this Bill should be allowed to go through unamended and that subsequently the matter the Committee wanted to raise could be referred to a Joint Committee which was to be set up. If that were not done, then the Minister could be approached again and reminded of his promise. With regard to the threat, I do not like to go into it in any detail. I do not think we should emphasise phrases that may have been used in hypothetical circumstances. You remember that when the Minister used the word "threat" he added immediately afterwards "a leverage." He said the Select Committee's suggestion is that the Bill should be held up as a leverage to secure the passage of some other Bill. Then Senator Douglas interrupted and said: "You could not expect the Minister to accept that," and Senator O'Farrell said: "We can do without his agreement." Then the Minister said: "It would be absurd to suggest that the Seanad could not do it." Then Senator Jameson intervened and said: "I think the Minister is saying this: If the Seanad adopts the view that is put forward he tells us quite frankly it is a thing he could not agree to, and that he would advise the Dáil to reject it." Later on, when the same point turned up, Mr. O'Higgins made this remark: "I deprecate the point of view which says ‘hold up this Bill' or ‘we will not pass this Bill unless you pass some other Bill.'"

CATHAOIRLEACH

No one said that. No one suggested such a thing as that.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It should have been made clear to Mr. O'Higgins as to what the suggestion is. He may have been under a wrong impression, but he revealed to the Select Committee that it was the impression he had. Then was the time to correct the wrong impression if it were wrong.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce is also under a wrong impression. There were three proposals, one of which the majority of the Committee wished to carry on with and which the Minister for Justice did not approve of, that was the amending of this Bill. If the whole thing was read I feel sure it would be made clear that the proposal of mine was a way out of that. I was also opposed to amending this Bill. Others differed. I thought it was the best way for this House out of the difficulty to see if we could prevent other Senators from amending the Bill by coming to a joint agreement as to the way this could be brought about. The question of holding it up was a matter of acceptance, because Senators were not willing to let the Bill go through without seeing if they had a right to amend it. It may not have been made as clear to Mr. O'Higgins as it ought to have been when he used the word "threat," but I left with the impression that Mr. O'Higgins did not think that those of us who moved this compromise were, in any way, threatening. As a matter of fact, we took the same view that this Bill ought not to have been amended. Having taken this view in the Committee, we find ourselves described as having used a threat. We naturally resent it, and think it should be made clear that the intention was to find a way of dealing with the matter and not to be made to say: "We will hold up this Bill if we do not get our way."

Mr. BENNETT

Mens sibi conscia recti. I was at this Committee and agreed with the Resolution. I certainly think there was no threat made and I think the threat was unnecessary. I think if this Bill becomes an Act it will take away from the public and Senators a right which they now hold and we should be strenuous in resurrecting the Bill and bringing in such amendments as are necessary. I hope a Motion will be put down, and I have no hesitation myself in putting down a Motion to that effect.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think Senator Bennett is arguing the merits of the Bill a matter which is not before the House. It would seem a good thing to get away from the misunderstanding about this Committee. I intervened to point out that if the Minister used certain phrases he appeared to have a certain justification for them. Let me advert to what was said as to the advisability of setting up a Joint Committee to consider an amendment to Article 52 of the Constitution, apart altogether from this Bill. Let us take it first that as Mr. O'Higgins said, this Bill was passed by the House with amendments; then the other question can be opened anew. I do not know if it would not seem desirable to the House to keep the two things apart and to let the Bill, which is not before the House at the moment, be proceeded with and be subject to the ordinary course of debate in the House and after that the other question can be re-opened.

Mr. DOUGLAS

The Minister for Justice can deal with that when he comes to the Committee.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Minister for Justice has already committed himself in the strongest way to opposing any consideration of such a proposal.

Mr. DOUGLAS

That is for us to consider.

Mr. JAMESON

I was the culprit and expected to hear Senators abuse me, because certainly when I spoke I thought I was voicing a thing already approved by the Minister. In connection with the discussion from which Mr. McGilligan has read some quotations here, any one to understand the result of that would have to read the whole report. We had a discussion amongst ourselves as to what would happen, but the decision we came to was a unanimous decision to do a certain thing which we thought we had the approval of the Minister for, and the last thing in our minds was that we were doing anything to hold out a threat to the Dáil. I never was so astonished as when I read the remarks which the Minister made in opposing our proposal in the Dáil. I take it Mr. McGilligan's remarks are to the effect that the Minister for Justice misunderstood the situation.

I think after what has been said here by our Chairman, Senator Douglas, Senator Kenny and myself, that there can be no impression left on the minds of the Dáil or the public that there was any such intention whatever, either in the proposers, seconders, or anyone else's mind to do such a thing. Of course, if a means can be found, after we have discussed the Government's Bill, as I hold without any prejudice in our minds whatever, of meeting the wish of the Seanad to discuss the question as to whether the possibility of members of the Seanad to act as Executive Ministers can be taken away, I say it would be a most excellent thing and the Seanad should do nothing to prevent such a happy ending to what seems to be an unpleasant state of affairs.

Colonel MOORE

We seem to have long discussions here as to what Ministers say in the Dáil. We would save a great deal of time if Ministers refrain in future from making those reflections.

CATHAOIRLEACH

If Ministers feel they want to make those remarks they should make them in this House. With regard to Senator Dowdall's Motion you remember I stated I would try and facilitate him in getting an opportunity for discussing it. It seems to be crowded out again to-night. What I want to know is, how long do you think reasonable for its discussion?

Mr. DOWDALL

I think an hour.

Mr. KENNY

I think from the nature of the discussion concerning the Gaeltacht Commission's Report in another place, and the exposition the Minister for Finance gave as to the intentions of the Government, and of his own attitude, the discussion on this motion will not occupy much time.

Mr. BLYTHE

The only thing is that the Vote on account will be taken in the Dáil to-morrow, and I am doubtful if it will be possible for me to be here.

Mr. COUNIHAN

As Senator O'Connor and myself have to attend a meeting of the cattle trade to-morrow, and as I have an amendment to the motion, I would be grateful if the House would put off its consideration to another day.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Why should we not proceed now? The Dáil sits from 3 until 10.30 p.m., with a break of half an hour. Is there any reason why we should not sit until that hour, by adjourning now for a short time and coming back and discussing the matter?

Mr. DOWDALL

I am quite willing to go on now if the House wishes. I know that I am only pushing an open door in moving this motion, but the question arose at a meeting I attended in the country. I want to disabuse the minds of people and remove the misunderstanding that exists.

CATHAOIRLEACH

If it is the wish of the House to adjourn now until 7 or 8 o'clock, I am agreeable. But what do we gain by adjourning for an hour now? When I come back, then perhaps I find that there is no quorum. I think that we could take this Motion to-morrow as the first business and that the rest of the day will be free for the Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) Bill.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I think this attitude of closing down in the Seanad between 6 and 7 p.m. is not in conformity with the dignity of the House. We meet seldom, but we should have longer meetings and give more time to the discussion of our business.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot remember that the Seanad ever adjourned without completing our business.

Sir JOHN KEANE

The Land Bill.

CATHAOIRLEACH

On the Committee Stage. That was inevitable.

Mr. KENNY

I agree with Senator Sir John Keane that we might adjourn for half an hour now and then resume. As the Minister is here now, I think we ought to go on. The view the Minister will put before the House will cover the whole field as to the Government's attitude and intentions regarding the Gaeltacht Commission's Recommendations.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am prepared to sit until 11 or 12 to-night.

Mr. KENNY

The Minister is the only one who can throw light on this matter.

Mr. MacLOUGHLIN

I move that the Seanad adjourn until to-morrow at 3 o'clock.

Mr. BENNETT

I second.

Mr. FARREN

I move that the House adjourn till 7 p.m. and then resume.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I second.

Amendment put and declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.30 p.m., until Thursday, 3 p.m.