I desire to raise a question of members' privileges, and I assure you, sir, that I will only take one or two minutes to state my case. I asked one question of the Minister for Finance to-day, and I asked one supplementary question which did not commit his Department to a controversy of any sort. The supplementary question did not ask for figures and I was refused the courtesy of a reply. I merely asked the Minister whether he would inquire from his Department whether letters or applications were received from certain people. I asked the question twice but the Minister sat silent. I take this opportunity of stating that this is not the first occasion on which I have been selected for the apparent discourtesy of Ministers. Perhaps the reason for that is that I am not supported by any party whose votes may count for something. I hold, however, that, having been elected to this House, I come here and try to show my constituents the utility of Parliamentary representation, and I take this opportunity of complaining of the way in which I am received when I put questions affecting my constituents. I think the time has arrived when not alone I but members of various parties should protest against the discourtesy of Ministers. I may say further that the language that they use very often in the House is typical of that which you would expect to hear outside. The language that has been used does not add to the dignity of the House, for which I have great respect. I hope that Ministers have some respect for the Chair and the House, but they are not showing good example to people outside or to many members on the back benches by the discourtesy that they show to members, especially to myself. I ask you, sir, whether I was in order or not, or whether I asked questions which were not worthy of reply?
DEPUTIES' PRIVILEGES.
As regards the question that Deputy Byrne has raised, I desire to say that about ten days ago I was treated with incivility and discourtesy by a Minister. He was not the first who did so, and I desire to say that that is not good enough.
May I make the point a little more definite? Personally, I never have had any reason to complain of incivility on the part of Ministers, but I think the Minister for Finance in dealing with the supplementary question asked by Deputy Byrne to-day adopted a wrong line. He was asked a question about a matter concerning a branch of his Department, the Board of Works, which probably did not come under his notice. He replied: "Personally I have no knowledge of this." Surely Standing Order No. 24 lays down that questions addressed to a Minister must relate to public affairs connected with his Department or to matters of administration for which the Minister is officially responsible. A Minister's personal opinion has nothing to do with it. What the Minister was asked, in general, was whether any representations had been made to his Department or a section of it. It does not matter whether they came under his notice or not. He ought to be in a position to answer not only questions on the Order Paper but supplementary questions on matters which reached his Department from ordinary channels. In this case complaints have been made to the Board of Works which may not have come under his notice, but he ought to be acquainted with the facts. Personally, I have no complaint to make of incivility and I may say that I have always been treated with courtesy. I should say that the point of view of replying to a question in the shortest possible way is wrong. We are entitled at Question Time to all the information in the possession of Ministers.
I have never declined unreasonably to answer questions, but, just perhaps as Deputies have their own way of trying to pursue a thing, a Minister must be allowed reasonable latitude in the way he may answer. The supplementary question was one which I could easily have asked the Deputy to put down.
I am not like Deputy Byrne, who has a party behind him. I have no party behind me, but I desire to say that I was treated with the utmost courtesy ever since I became a Deputy in 1922, by every Minister, and any supplementary questions which I have asked have been answered to the best of their ability. I do not think that there is much ground for complaint as I believe that Ministers are doing their best.
There is only one question which concerns me and that is whether a question on the Order Paper or a supplementary question is in order. Deputy Byrne asked whether he was in order to-day. He was in order. A question has arisen before as to whether the Chair has any power to compel Ministers to answer questions. It has been explained that the Chair has no power to compel Ministers to answer either questions appearing on the paper or supplementary questions.
We are at least entitled to courtesy.
The courtesy which Deputies get depends on themselves.
That is rather narrow.