|
|
|
|
IMEACHTA AN CHOISTE.PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE.Dé Céadaoin, 18° Abrán, 1934.Wednesday, 18th April, 1934.1. The Committee met at 11 a.m. 2. Present: The Cathaoirleach (in the Chair), the Leas-Chathaoirleach. Senators Mrs. Wyse Power, Douglas, Colonel Moore, O’Rourke and Wilson. 3. A letter from the Clerk of the Dáil in reply to the letter addressed to him by the Clerk of the Seanad was read. This letter is printed in paragraph 23 of the Report of the Committee. The Committee decided not to invite the Clerk of the Dáil to appear before them. 4. The Draft Report prepared by the Chairman was read a first time as follows:— DRAFT REPORT The following resolution was passed by the Seanad on the 28th February, 1934:— “That the matter of the exclusion by military policemen of visitors to whom admission tickets had been issued by the Cathoirleach for the sitting of the House on Wednesday, 21st February, 1934, be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for inquiry and report.” The Committee have investigated the matter referred to, and evidence has been given before them on two occasions by Senator Miss Browne and the Superintendent of the Oireachtas (Colonel Patrick Brennan) and on one occasion by the Minister for Defence (Mr. Frank Aiken). The Committee find as follows:— 1. On the 20th July, 1933, the Superintendent of the Oireachtas was given a verbal order by the Minister for Defence that persons dressed in blue uniform shirts were to be refused admission to Leinster House. The Superintendent showed some hesitation in accepting this order from the Minister, who thereupon informed him that the Ceann Comhairle had sanctioned the issuing of the order to him. (Qq. 69, 264).* There is no doubt that the Minister for Defence had no authority to issue such an order to the Superintendent of the Oireachtas. The Minister himself appears to recognise this fact. (Qq. 71, 233). 2. On the same date (20th July, 1933) the Minister for Defence addressed the following minute to the Ceann Comhairle:— “An Ceann Comhairle. As Minister responsible for the protection of Government Buildings and Leinster House I have reason to believe that it is necessary in order to carry out such protection adequately that all persons, other than members of the Dáil and Seanad, wearing the blue uniform shirt of the organisation known as the A.C.A. be prohibited entry to those buildings. I am accordingly about to issue instructions to the military guard that all persons so attired be not permitted to enter Leinster House or Government Buildings and I request your co-operation in the effective carrying out of the order. Is mise le meas, “FRANK AIKEN, “Aire Cosanta.” (Seanad Debates, vol. XVIII, no. 4, cols. 453, 454.) It is now admitted that these instructions were not in fact issued to the military guard. (Q. 69). 3.—(1) On the 24th July the Ceann Comhairle gave a verbal order to the Superintendent to the same effect, adding that he had been advised to do so by the Departments of Justice and Defence. Members of the Oireachtas were excluded from the terms of the order. (Q. 265). (2) Such an order from the Ceann Comhairle could apply only to those parts of Leinster House over which he has exclusive jurisdiction, viz., the Visitors’ Galleries of the Dáil under the Dáil Standing Order No. 71 and possibly such other parts of the premises as are used exclusively by members of the Dáil. So far as the Seanad was concerned, and also as regards any parts of the premises in joint occupation, the order was clearly, void and of no effect. The Cathaoirleach was not consulted in the matter (Q. 74). (3) It is to be noted that, on the dates in question, persons wearing blue uniform shirts were, in the eyes of the law, in the same position as other members of the public. The Army Comrades Association, the uniform of which was the blue shirt, was not declared to be an Unlawful Association until the 22nd August, 1933 (Q. 129). 4. From July, 1933, until the 21st February, 1934, persons wearing blue uniform shirts were stopped at the entrance gate by the Superintendent of the Oireachtas and his staff, pursuant to the order received by him from the Ceann Comhairle. They were not stopped by the military guard, who had no orders to stop them. This occurred on about a dozen occasions, but in no case were the persons stopped intending to visit the Seanad or in possession of cards of admission to the Visitors’ Gallery of the Seanad. The Minister for Defence was unaware that any persons wearing blue uniform shirts had ever attempted to enter Leinster House and had been refused admission, though the facts had been reported in the newspapers (Qq. 37, 99, 270-277). 5. On the 13th February, 1934 Senator Miss Browne addressed a letter to the Clerk of the Seanad, intimating that at the next meeting of the Seanad she desired to introduce to the Visitors’ Gallery two visitors who would be wearing the blue uniform shirt of the League of Youth, and requesting the Clerk to place the matter before the Cathaoirleach and to ask if he would give his approval (Q. 1). 6. The Clerk received this letter on the following day and sent for the Superintendent of the Oireachtas, who informed him of the verbal orders given to him the previous July by the Minister for Defence and the Ceann Comhairle respectively (Qq. 278, 279). The Clerk thereupon conveyed this information to the Cathaoirleach in a letter with which was enclosed Senator Miss Browne’s letter to him (Q. 2). 7. On the 15th February the Cathaoirleach replied, giving the required permission; and on the next day the Clerk wrote to Senator Miss Browne so informing her and enclosing the requisite cards of admission (Q. 2). On the same day as that on which he wrote to the Clerk, the Cathaoirleach also wrote to the Ceann Comhairle informing him of the action he had taken (Q. 280). 8. On the 16th February the Clerk informed the Superintendent of the Oireachtas of the Cathaoirleach’s order. The Superintendent told the Clerk of the Dáil, who directed him to await instructions from him before doing anything definite. The Clerk of the Dáil added that, where the Superintendent was concerned, the orders of the Clerk of the Dáil would override all others, whether from the Cathaoirleach or the Clerk of the Seanad (Qq. 280-284, 346, 347). 9. On the 20th February the Clerk of the Dáil sent for the Superintendent and instructed him that persons wearing blue shirts were not to be admitted to Leinster House even though they had cards of admission to the Seanad. In view of the serious position, the Superintendent asked for the order to be given to him in writing and the Clerk of the Dáil said that he would do so; but he did not in fact do so (Qq. 285, 348, 350). 10. At 4 p.m. on the same day (Tuesday, 20th February) the Cathaoirleach, as a matter of courtesy, telephoned to the Minister for Justice, whom he then supposed to be the Minister responsible in the matter, and informed him personally that he had given instructions that Senator Miss Browne’s visitors, who would be wearing blue uniform shirts, were to be admitted. He replied that he would telephone this information to the Minister for Defence, who was the appropriate Minister (Seanad Debates, vol. XVIII, no. 4, col. 453). The Minister for Defence subsequently informed the Cathaoirleach that the Minister for Justice had omitted to do so (Qq. 92-94). 11. The 21st February was the day of meeting of the Seanad in respect of which the tickets had been issued to the visitors. At 12.30 p.m. on that day the Superintendent of the Oireachtas received verbal instructions from the Cathaoirleach that the visitors in question, wearing blue shirts, were to be admitted to the Seanad Gallery (Q. 291). At 12.35 p.m. the Superintendent went to the room of the Clerk of the Dáil, the Ceann Comhairle being also present, and stated that he had received strict orders from the Cathaoirleach to admit the visitors, indicating that he felt bound to do so despite orders from anybody to the contrary. The Minister for Defence’s minute of the 20th July (quoted in paragraph 2 above) was mentioned, and the Clerk of the Dáil said that the military had orders and would stop the visitors in any case. The Superintendent replied that. so far as he knew, the military had no such orders. The Clerk of the Dáil thereupon requested him to verify that and, if the orders did not exist, to acquaint the Minister for Defence of all the facts. The Ceann Comhairle concurred (Qq. 292, 293, 296-299). 12. As instructed by the Clerk of the Dáil, the Superintendent made inquiries and ascertained that there were no such orders on the Guard Orders for Government Buildings and Leinster House (Qq. 293, 296). He accordingly telephoned to the Chief of Staff and informed him as follows:— “(1) I have orders from the Cathaoirleach to admit two Blue Shirts to the Seanad to-day. (2) I have orders from the Clerk of the Dáil not to admit them to Leinster House. (3) I got an order from the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Defence last July not to admit Blue Shirts. (4) I feel bound to obey the Cathaoirleach in this matter. (5) I have been directed by the Clerk of the Dáil and the Ceann Comhairle to have the Minister for Defence informed that there is no trace on Guard Orders for Leinster House of the exclusion order against Blue Shirts, stated by the Minister in his letter to the Ceann Comhairle dated the 20th July, 1933, to be about to be issued to the military. The Ceann Comhairle and the Clerk of the Dáil desire to know whether the Minister for Defence thinks that the military should be given that order” (Q. 298). 13. This telephone conversation took place at 12.47 p.m. (Q. 301). The Chief of Staff telephoned to the Minister for Defence, who gave him the appropriate order for the military (Qq. 79-81). The Chief of Staff telephoned to the Superintendent of the Oireachtas that an order was being issued forthwith to the military guard. The Officer of the Guard came to the Superintendent five minutes later and informed him that he had received instructions that no persons wearing blue shirts were to be admitted to Leinster House (Q. 301). 14. Acting under these instructions, the military guard prevented the visitors from entering, and they went away quietly (Qq. 8-19). This was the first time that visitors had been prevented from entering by the military (Q. 295) and they acted under the direct instructions from the Minister for Defence (Q.48). 15. Shortly after the commencement of the sitting of the Seanad on the same afternoon (Wednesday, 21st February) Senator Miss Browne raised the question of the exclusion of the visitors as a matter of privilege under Standing Order 26, and the Cathaoirleach requested the matter to be postponed for the attendance of the Minister for Defence. This was agreed to, a message being conveyed to the Minister to that effect (Seanad Debates, vol. XVIII, no. 4, cols. 408, 409). 16.—(1) The Minister did not attend, but sent a letter to the Cathaoirleach, with which he enclosed a copy of the minute addressed by him to the Ceann Comhairle on the 20th July, 1933. This minute is printed in paragraph 2 above. The covering letter runs as follows:— “To the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. A Chara, I understand that the question of the admission of persons dressed in blue uniform shirts has been raised in the Seanad to-day. In reference to this matter I enclose herewith a copy of a letter I sent to the Ceann Comhairle on the 20th July, 1933. “Is mise, “FRANK AIKEN, “Aire Cosanta.” Both the letter and the minute were read to the House by the Cathaoirleach in the course of his statement on the question of privilege (Seanad Debates, vol. XVIII, no. 4, cols. 453, 454). (2) The Minister, in writing to the Cathaoirleach, omitted to state that the visitors had been excluded by the military acting under direct orders only issued by him on that day, with the result that the Cathaoirleach and the House were misled as to the actual facts of the incident. The only conclusion to be drawn from the Minister’s action in sending to the Cathaoirleach, without further explanation, the minute and covering letter referred to is that the Minister had issued an order to the military in the previous July and that the two visitors, attired in blue shirts, who were stopped on the 21st February at the gate, were prevented by the military from entering pursuant to that order. But on the day on which the Minister wrote this letter to the Cathaoirleach it had been brought to his notice that no such order had in fact been issued by him to the military and then, and for the first time, he issued an order to the military but for which the visitors would, in fact, have been admitted (Qq. 79-81). 17—(1) On the 28th February, on Senator Blythe’s motion for reference to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the Minister read to the Seanad a typed statement, admittedly prepared after he had consulted his files. In this statement the Minister went further and stated explicitly that:— “On 20th July, 1933, it came to my knowledge that certain persons intended to seek admission to Leinster House wearing the uniform of an organisation known at that time as the Army Comrades Association. I consulted the Ceann Comhairle about the matter, and afterwards, with his consent, gave instructions to the military that persons dressed in the uniform of the organisation to which I have referred (other than members of the Oireachtas) were to be refused admittance to Leinster House. I advised the Ceann Comhairle and the Superintendent of the Oireachtas Staff that I had issued these instructions.” (Seanad Debates, vol XVIII, no. 5, col. 458). and further on:— “Without consulting or advising me, he [the Cathaoirleach] directed tickets to be issued, knowing they were to be used by persons wearing uniform and whom the military guard would certainly stop at the gates unless I cancelled their previous instructions” (Ibid., col. 460). (2) The Minister when he made these statements must have known (1) that he did not give instructions to the military in July, 1933, that persons wearing the uniform of the Army Comrades Association were to be refused admittance to Leinster House (Qq. 69, 79); (2) that he did not inform the Superintendent of the Oireachtas that he had issued these instructions; and (3) that the persons in respect of whom the tickets were issued by the Cathaoirleach would have been admitted but for the fact that the Minister himself, on the very day on which the visitors presented themselves for admission, caused orders to be issued to the Military for the first time that persons wearing blue uniform shirts were not to be admitted (Qq. 48, 81). 18.—(1) If the House, acting on the statement read by the Minister, had considered it unnecessary to proceed with the motion for reference to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the actual fact, namely, that the only order of the kind given to the military guard was the order given to them about 1 p.m. on the 21st February, might not have been ascertained. (2) The Minister in his evidence admitted that the military had previously received no such orders. “There were no instructions issued direct to the military on that occasion [i.e., on the 20th July, 1933] and until the date of this particular incident. Until the day this particular incident occurred, there were none issued direct to the military. I do not want to leave you under a misapprehension about that.” (Q.79). (3) As has been seen in the previous paragraph, the Minister by his statement in the House on the 28th February left the Seanad under a complete misapprehension as to the actual facts. In his evidence to the Committee, his explanation of the discrepancy between the statement he read to the House and his evidence to the Committee was that the Superintendent of the Oireachtas, to whom he actually gave the instructions in July, “had control of the military staff within the precincts of the House here for ordinary police purposes” (Q. 69 and Qq. 102, 103), the implication being that to have given instructions to the Superintendent of the Oireachtas was substantially the same thing as to have given them to the military guard. This explanation is inconsistent with other evidence given before the Committee. In the first place, the Minister in his statement to the Seanad drew a distinction between the Superintendent and the military. He stated that he gave the instructions to the military and advised the Superintendent that he had done so (paragraph 17 (1) above). In the next place, the suggestion that the military staff were under the control of the Superintendent for any purpose whatever is not the fact. When the question was put to the Superintendent, in the course of his evidence, he stated positively that he had no control whatever over the military guard, and that the Minister was misinformed (Qq. 319, 324, 325, 336-341). And the Minister himself negatived any such idea when, later on in his evidence and in another connection he said: “The military will obey the instructions of their officers unless they get a countermanding order from their officers.… They will not take orders from anybody else” (Q. 99). The Superintendent of the Oireachtas is not a military officer. The Minister also agreed that in regard to the exclusion by the military of the visitors on the 21st February, nothing that the Superintendent might or might not have done would have altered the position (Q. 86). 19.—(1) As stated in paragraph 12, shortly before 1 p.m. on the 21st February, the Superintendent of the Oireachtas telephoned to the Chief of Staff under the following five heads:— “(1) I have orders from the Cathaoirleach to admit two Blue Shirts to the Seanad to-day. (2) I have orders from the Clerk of the Dáil not to admit them to Leinster House. (3) I got an order from the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Defence last July not to admit Blue Shirts. (4) I feel bound to obey the Cathaoirleach in this matter. (5) I have been directed by the Clerk of the Dáil and the Ceann Comhairle to have the Minister for Defence informed that there is no trace on Guard Orders for Leinster House of the exclusion order against Blue Shirts, stated by the Minister in his letter to the Ceann Comhairle dated the 20th July, 1933 to be about to be issued to the military. The Ceann Comhairle and the Clerk of the Dáil desire to know whether the Minister for Defence thinks that the military should be given that order” (Q. 298). (2) The Chief of Staff immediately communicated by telephone with the Minister for Defence, and if he conveyed to the Minister what the Superintendent had conveyed to him, the Minister must have known that the visitors in question were coming to the Seanad with the Cathaoirleach’s knowledge and consent, and that if he issued an order to the military guard to prevent them from entering Leinster House his action in so doing would run directly counter to the Cathaoirleach’s order. But the Minister, in his statement in the Seanad on the 28th February, said that he was not aware that the visitors were coming with the Cathaoirleach’s consent or approval (Seanad Debates, vol. XVIII, no. 5, cols. 460, 461). (3) The Minister in his evidence repeated that he knew that two persons dressed in blue uniform shirts were coming to Leinster House, but that he did not know that they were coming with the authority and consent of the Cathaoirleach (Qq. 88, 89, 91, 95, 150, 207, 248). So far as his information went, it came from the Chief of Staff (Q. 90). Apart from this, with one exception, which will be referred to later (sub-paragraph (e) below), the Minister’s account, repeated eight times throughout the evidence, of what the Chief of Staff said to him over the telephone was that the Superintendent of the Oireachtas wanted to know whether the Minister’s order of the previous July still held good (Qq. 80, 83, 89, 181, 182, 232, 239, 240, and 247). The Superintendent stated definitely in evidence that such a query was not in his mind when he telephoned to the Chief of Staff (Q. 331). In dealing with this conflict of evidence, the following are the material considerations: (a) In the first place, it is very unlikely that the recipient of an official telephone message received for transmission to a third person should forthwith transmit to that person a message substantially different from that which he had just received. Such an occurrence would be credible if the subsequent action of the person for whom the message was intended was consistent with his having received the message which he said he received and inconsistent with his having received the message as originally given. But we find that the Minister’s subsequent action was consistent with his having received the message as originally given, and inconsistent with his having received the message which he said he received. (b) If the Minister was told that what the Superintendent of the Oireachtas wanted to know was whether his order of the previous July still held good after so many months, the natural reply of the Minister would have been “Yes” or “No,” as the case might be. But he gave no such reply. (c) The Minister told the Committee that the reason he did not, in July, issue an order to the military was that he was satisfied, after his conversation with the Ceann Comhairle and the Superintendent of the Oireachtas, that the object he had in mind namely, the exclusion of Blue Shirts from the precincts of Leinster House, would be attained by the action of the Superintendent (Qq. 165, 230). It seems incredible that a simple query from the Superintendent as to whether his order of the previous July still held good should cause the Minister so to change his mind as to tell the Chief of Staff that he had “overlooked” giving the military the order in question, and that he then, for the first time, gave the order that the military were to be instructed that the visitors were not to be admitted (Qq. 81, 224). The question therefore arises, what caused the Minister on the 21st February to cease to rely on the Superintendent for the exclusion of Blue Shirts from the precincts of Leinster House as he had done for the previous seven months? It must have been that it was brought to the Minister’s notice that the Superintendent felt bound to obey the Cathaoirleach’s instructions and not to exclude the visitors on the occasion in question; and this is intelligible only on the basis that the Superintendent’s telephone message, so far as the first four heads of it are concerned (paragraphs 12 and 19 above) was correctly retransmitted to the Minister. (d) So far as the fifth and last head is concerned, there is no doubt that it was conveyed to the Minister also, because he informed the Committee that the Chief of Staff pointed out to him that the military had not got the order in question and the Minister replied that he had “overlooked” it and gave he made then (Qq. 80, 81, 224). (e) The only occasion on which the Minister deviated from his account of the telephone message as given above was when he made the following statement:— “It is quite clear Colonel Brennan, having received conflicting instructions from the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach, sought to advise me that two Blue Shirts were going to come in notwithstanding the fact that I had told him definitely that I was against their being admitted.” (Q. 231). This goes to confirm the view that the Superintendent’s telephone message to the Chief of Staff was correctly retransmitted to the Minister. 20. For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraph, we are constrained to the opinion that, notwithstanding the Minister’s statement, eight times repeated, that all the Superintendent wanted to know was whether the Minister’s original order still held good, the Minister was fully informed of the fact that the Cathaoirleach had given an order to the Superintendent to admit two visitors wearing blue uniform shirts that afternoon and that the Superintendent felt bound to obey that order; and that, in issuing instructions to the military to exclude these visitors, the Minister acted in the full knowledge that by so acting he was causing the Cathaoirleach’s order to be frustrated. 21. It was put to the Minister that the visitors who were excluded were wearing the uniform of the League of Youth, which is an integral part of United Ireland, the recognised constitutional Opposition Party in the Oireachtas, and that neither the League of Youth nor United Ireland has been declared by the Executive Council to be an unlawful association under the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act, 1931. (Qq. 131, 132, 133, 139). The Minister disagreed. (Qq. 140, 148, 149, 212-215). 22. The evidence given to the Committee shows clearly that the Clerk of the Dáil thought fit to intervene in this matter in spite of the fact that he was aware that instructions had been issued by the Cathaoirleach that the visitors in question were to be admitted. The view taken by the Clerk of the Dáil of his powers and duties is obviously untenable, and is quite incompatible with the co-equality of the two Houses of the Oireachtas under the Constitution. The Committee considered it desirable that the Clerk of the Dáil should be afforded an opportunity of stating whether the evidence constituted a correct, or substantially correct, account of what took place, land of furnishing any observations which he might see fit to make in regard thereto. The following letter was accordingly addressed to him by direction of the Committee:— 11th April, 1934. Sir, I am directed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the Seanad to inform you that they are at present investigating the circumstances of the exclusion on the 21st February last by the Military Guard at the Kildare Street entrance of the Oireachtas premises of two persons who were in possession of duly authorised tickets of admission to the Visitors’ Gallery of the Seanad, the ground of exclusion being apparently that the persons in question were wearing the blue shirt uniform of the League of Youth. The Superintendent of the Oireachtas (Colonel Patrick Brennan) has been examined by the Committee in regard to this matter, and in the course of his evidence he has given particulars, based on notes made by him at the relative times, of certain conversations which he stated he has had with you on the subject. These particulars are as follows:- 1. On Friday, the 16th February the Superintendent informed you that the Cathaoirleach had directed that Senator Miss Browne was to be furnished with two tickets of admission for the Visitors’ Gallery of the Seanad for the meeting of the Seanad on the following Wednesday, in respect of two visitors who would be wearing blue shirts. You inquired what he was going to do, and he replied that he would admit the visitors. You stated that the Ceann Comhairle had received a letter bearing on the subject from the Cathaoirleach, and you directed the Superintendent to await instructions from you before doing anything definite. He demurred, pointing out the dangers of your interferring in matters domestic to the Seanad, and you thereupon informed him that where he was concerned your orders would override all others, whether from the Cathaoirleach or the Clerk of the Seanad. 2. On Tuesday, the 20th February you sent for the Superintendent and instructed him verbally that persons wearing blue shirts were not to be admitted to Leinster House, even though they had cards of admission to the Seanad. He questioned whether you had power to give such an order and whether such an order had any force so far as he in his capacity as an officer of the Seanad, was concerned. You replied to the effect that you were the Civil Service Head of the Oireachtas Department and that your jurisdiction extended over the whole of Leinster House and over every member of what you called the joint staff. The Superintendent pointed out that he was an officer of the Seanad as well as of the Dáil, appointed in a particular way, deriving his powers from each House in matters concerning the House in question and, in the ultimate, responsible to the House itself and not to the Civil Service Head of the Oireachtas Department. You disagreed and informed him that he was to take it that he was responsible to you, in the ultimate, for every official action of his, whether performed on behalf of the Dáil or the Seanad, and further, that you were the person in whom was vested full jurisdiction over Leinster House and precincts. In view of the seriousness of the position which the Superintendent thought might arise, he requested you to give him in writing your order that persons wearing blue shirts were not to be admitted to Leinster House, even though they had cards of admission to the Seanad. You stated that you would do so, but you did not in fact do so. 3. At 12.35 p.m. on Wednesday the 21st February the Superintendent having just received direct verbal instructions from the Cathaoirleach that the visitors in question, attired in blue shirts, were to be admitted to the Seanad Gallery that afternoon, went to your room and, in the presence of the Ceann Comhairle, indicated in the course of a discussion which took place that he felt bound to admit these visitors, despite orders from any body to the contrary. You stated that the military had orders and would stop the visitors in any case. The Superintendent replied that, so far as he knew, the military had no orders to that effect. You thereupon asked him to verify that and, if the orders did not exist, to acquaint the Minister for Defence of all the facts. The Superintendent subsequently ascertained that there were no such orders on the Guard Orders for Government Buildings and Leinster House and, in accordance with your instructions, so informed the Minister through the Chief of Staff. The Chief of Staff telephoned to the Superintendent to say that an order was being issued forthwith to the military guard. Shortly afterwards, the Officer of the Guard informed the Superintendent that he had received instructions that no persons wearing blue shirts were to be admitted to Leinster House. The Superintendent so informed you at 1.5 p.m. 4. On the afternoon of Monday, the 5th March, you sent for the Superintendent and, in the presence of the Assistant Clerk of the Dáil, asked him whether he had heard anything about the inquiries of the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges. He replied that the Clerk of the Seanad had given him written instructions to hold himself in readiness to appear before the Committee when summoned. You thereupon stated that the procedure was irregular, and that the Clerk of the Seanad should have sent a notification to you in the first instance, saying that the Superintendent’s attendance was required; but you added that the Superintendent had better attend as a matter of courtesy. In the course of a subsequent discussion, you informed the Superintendent that the Seanad could not censure him, and that if any censuring was to be done, you yourself were the only person who could administer censure to him. The Superintendent, in defence of his position as an officer having responsibilities to the Seanad under the Standing Orders of the Seanad, pointed out that he was appointed in a particular way, and he hazarded the opinion that, consequently, the Seanad might be expected to have some control over him and, therefore, power to censure him if it thought fit. You disagreed with this point of view and stated that, if the Superintendent ventured to place before the Committee such a view of his position in the Oireachtas Establishment you would have to take a serious view of it and would treat it as insubordination on his part. I am directed by the Committee to afford you an opportunity, should you so desire, to state in writing for their information whether, in your opinion, the particulars given under the above four heads contain a correct, or substantially correct, account of the conversations and incidents to which they relate, and, if not, in what respects they are incorrect; and to furnish any observations which you may see fit to make in regard thereto. I am to add that it is desirable that any reply to this letter should be in my hands in sufficient time for it to be placed before the Committee at their meeting on the 18th instant. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, (Signed) D. J. O’SULLIVAN, Clerk of the Seanad.” The references to the evidence on which the above particulars are based are as follows:— 1. Qq.280-284, 346. 2. Qq. 285-288, 348-350. 3. Qq. 291-301, 331-335. 4. Qq. 353-360. 23. The Clerk of the Dáil replied as follows:— “12th April, 1934. A Chara, I have received your letter of the 11th instant containing what purports to be an account of certain conversations which took place between Colonel Brennan and myself and disclosed by Colonel Brennan in the course of his evidence before the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges. As I did not make notes of those conversations and as I have not been favoured with a transcript of Colonel Brennan’s evidence which, you state, was based on notes made by him at the relative times, I find it quite impossible to say whether the third party version submitted to me is correct or otherwise. I notice, however, the following statements:- Par. 1. “… and you thereupon informed him that where he was concerned your orders would override all others, whether from the Cathaoirleach or the Clerk of the Seanad.” Par. 2. “… that you were the person in whom was vested full jurisdiction over Leinster House and precincts.” Par. 4. “… and that if any censuring was to be done, you yourself were the only person who could administer censure to him.” These statements are manifestly absurd. On the general question of control and responsibility, however, I think the matter set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of your letter, with the exception of the statements referred to above, outlines the position tolerably well. If the Committee think it would be of assistance I would be prepared to meet them as Civil Service Head of the Oireachtas Staff and give them any information they might desire. Mise le meas, (Signed) COLM O MURCHADHA, Cléireach na Dála.” 24. It will be observed that, with three exceptions, the Clerk of the Dáil states that “on the general question of control and responsibility” the matter set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the letter addressed to him “outlines the position tolerably well.” That is to say, he not only admits having, by his action, procured an order to the military from the Minister for Defence for the purpose of setting at nought the Cathaoirleach’s order, but justifies his action. As regards one of the statements to which the Clerk of the Dáil takes exception, namely, that he informed the Superintendent that, where he was concerned, his orders would override all others, whether from the Cathaoirleach or the Clerk of the Seanad, this was felt by the Committee to be so important that they recalled Colonel Brennan and asked him whether it was possible that he was mistaken. His answer was:— “No, Sir. Those were the very words he used, and I made a note of them shortly afterwards while my recollection was fresh. I remember thinking at the time that the claim was an extraordinary one to make.” (Q. 346). The Clerk of the Dáil does not deny that he instructed the Superintendent that persons wearing blue shirts were not to be admitted to Leinster House, even though they had cards of admission to the Seanad, and this action seems to be explained only on the basis that his orders were to override those of the Cathaoirleach. 25. As the essential facts are admitted by the Clerk of the Dáil in his letter, the Committee took the view that it would be of no assistance to them in their present inquiry to avail themselves of the offer of the Clerk of the Dáil to meet them as Civil Service Head of the Oireachtas Staff. 26. It is abundantly clear from the evidence of the Superintendent of the Oireachtas and from the letter received from the Clerk of the Dáil that a situation exists in Leinster House which could not be tolerated for a moment by any Second Chamber. As the position of control and responsibility claimed by the Clerk of the Dáil appears to be based by him on the fact that the Seanad agreed to his being regarded as the Civil Service Head of the Oireachtas Staff, we recommend that such steps shall be taken as are necessary to terminate the position created by paragraph 3 of the Report of the Committee on the Oireachtas Staff, laid on the Table of the House on the 15th January, 1924, whereby the Clerk of the Dáil was so constituted. 27. We further recommend that the Seanad refer to us for investigation and report what changes, if any, are necessary in the general basis of administration of Leinster House and in the status and powers of the officials of the Seanad and of the joint staff so as to ensure the absolute co-equality of the Seanad with the Dáil under the Constitution and the independence of the Seanad in regard to the control of its own officials vis à vis the Dáil and the Executive. 28. As regards the question of privilege, the Committee concur in the statement made by the Cathaoirleach to the House on the 21st February, 1934, as follows:— “As regards the constitutional position, Article 20 of the Constitution provides that each House of the Oireachtas shall make its own Rules and Standing Orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement. Article 25 of the Constitution provides that sittings of each House of the Oireachtas shall be public. Standing Order No. 70 of the Standing Orders of the Seanad, which was made pursuant to these Articles, provides that visitors may be introduced by Senators to such places as may be reserved for them by me and upon such conditions as I may prescribe. It follows, therefore, that no Minister of State, and no other person whatever, has power to debar from access to the Visitors’ Gallery of this Chamber, which is the place reserved for them by me, visitors duly introduced by Senators who comply with such conditions as I may prescribe. Anyone who so debars them, or attempts so to debar them, commits a breach of privilege.” (Seanad Debates, vol. XVIII, no. 4, col. 451.) 29. We find as matters of fact:— 1. That the Cathaoirleach duly authorised two tickets of admission to the Seanad Gallery for the meeting of the House on the 21st February, 1934, to be issued to Senator Miss Browne in respect of two visitors who the Cathaoirleach had been informed would be wearing the blue uniform shirt of the League of Youth. 2. That the visitors in question were prevented from entering by the military guard as the result of an order issued to them on the 21st February, 1934 on the instructions of the Minister for Defence. 3. That the Minister for Defence, in issuing those instructions, knew that the Cathaoirleach had authorised the visitors to be admitted. 4. That the Minister for Defence was thereby guilty of a breach of the privileges of the Seanad. 5. That the action of the Minister for Defence in giving instructions for the order to be issued to the military guard was procured by the Clerk of the Dáil. 6. That the Clerk of the Dáil was thereby guilty of a breach of the priviliges of the Seanad. 30. We are of the opinion that the circumstances in which the Minister for Defence committed the breach of privilege, as disclosed in this Report, are such as to render it unlikely that the Minister or his successor will commit a similar breach again. We therefore recommend that no action be taken in respect of the present breach; but should our opinion prove to have been unjustified, there are ample and effective means whereby the privileges of the Seanad in this matter may be safeguarded. 31. As regards the breach of privilege committed by the Clerk of the Dáil, we have suggested in paragraphs 26 and 27 above what action we consider should be taken. We report acordingly. The Committee decided to consider the Chairman’s Draft Report section by section at its next meeting. 5. The Committee adjourned at 12.30 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 25th April. |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
