Before we enter upon the business of the day I wish to draw attention to a matter which has come under my notice. Yesterday evening in the course of a debate in Committee on an amendment to delete paragraph (c) of Section 1 of the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Bill, 1923, Deputy Gavan Duffy is reported to have used these words: “In an earlier stage of the debate the Ceann Comhairle ruled that we could not have an amendment making mockery of the Executive. That I quite understood, but happily we are allowed to criticise the Executive in debate.” I was not in the Chair when that statement was made. If Deputy Gavan Duffy has been correctly reported, I take a grave view of such a statement. The rulings which I gave yesterday on certain proposed amendments of Deputy Gavan Duffy had been carefully considered and had been committed to writing. I am, therefore, quite sure of the words which were used. In ruling out one of Deputy Gavan Duffy's amendments I stated that it seemed to me to be offered in a spirit of derision, and that it did not aim at amending the Bill. Deputy Gavan Duffy admitted that. I made no mention of the Executive, nor had I given any consideration to the feelings or opinions of the Executive Council as such in making the ruling. It is my duty while I continue here to maintain the dignity and privilege of the whole Dáil, and see that no Deputy is allowed to lower that dignity or in any way to interfere with its privileges. When an amendment is placed upon the paper as a joke, or in a spirit of derision, that is an insult to the whole Dáil. It tends to lower our dignity and to take away from the seriousness of our proceedings. The Order Paper for the Committee Stage of the Public Safety Bill contains a considerable number of amendments in the names of various Deputies which are offered in a spirit of seriousness with a view to effecting improvements in the Bill in certain directions.
In my judgment it is improper and unfair that discussions on such amendments should be delayed by a consideration of amendments set down without serious intent. The statement which Deputy Gavan Duffy is reported to have made about my ruling is a wholly inaccurate account of the words used by me, and it seems to me to contain an implication that in ruling as I did, I was inspired by a desire to protect the Executive Council. I can see no other reason for the introduction of the word "Executive" which I did not use, nor do I see any other reason for the subsequent sentence. Now, on that point I feel that there is no need for me to refute such an implication. There is every need on the other hand for me to prevent my rulings from being misrepresented, and to prevent implications being made concerning them. The only course open to me is to ask Deputy Gavan Duffy to withdraw his statement and apologise for it.