asked the Taoiseach whether he is aware that refusal by Ministers to answer motions moved by Deputies renders the proceedings of Dáil Eireann largely nugatory, and whether he will take steps to ensure that in future such motions will be replied to by the appropriate Minister on behalf of the Government.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Replies to Motions.
If there were any general practice on the part of Ministers to refuse to answer motions by Deputies, I would agree that the value of the proceedings of the Dáil would be, to that extent, impaired. There is no such practice, however, as the Deputy is well aware. It may happen that the appropriate Minister is unable to be present at the debate on a private Deputy's motion. Apart from this possibility, if in an isolated case the Minister concerned, for reasons which to him appear adequate, decides to refrain from taking part in a debate on a private Deputy's motion, I am not prepared to interfere with his discretion in the matter.
Arising out of the Taoiseach's reply, is he aware that on last Wednesday a motion was moved from the Clann na Talmhan Benches relating to a subsidy on tilled land, that the Minister for Agriculture was sitting on the Front Bench, and that, when the seconder of the motion sat down, the Minister took no part in the debate: that, in fact, the motion was put to the House without any discussion or any expression of opinion by any representative of the Government? Will the Taoiseach agree with me that, for future guidance of the House, such action is either discourteous or ill-advised and should not be repeated?
I do not agree that it was discourteous. The wisdom of doing so is, as I have said, a matter for the Minister to decide in the circumstances. My information is that the debate collapsed—to use a word that has been used in this House more than once in reference to some debates of the kind. The debate unexpectedly collapsed. After the motion was moved and seconded nobody, apparently, was prepared to speak. Now the House is well aware that sometimes it happens that there is an attempt made to force a Minister to speak very early in a debate. When there is a Minister dealing with a motion, it is obvious that it would be desirable for him to refrain from speaking until an opportunity was given to reply not to one or two points made, but to listen to what other Deputies and other Parties may have to say, so that when he comes to speak his reply will be a more or less comprehensive one. That has happened more than once in my case: that there has been a long pause between speeches, and then some members on other benches began to speak, but they only did so when forced, so to speak, by the alternative of the debate collapsing. That is bound, in certain circumstances, to lead to a situation like that.
May I take it, without unduly pressing the Taoiseach, that he is in agreement that, ordinarily, a Minister should reply to any motion proposed by a private Deputy in Private Member's time without regard to the merits or contents of the motion?
Well, I do not know that I would go so far.
Ordinarily.
Ordinarily. I have indicated—in fact, I think the Deputy himself when speaking on this matter indicated—that this was a very exceptional and rare occurrence. Whether a person should speak—whether any points have been made that should be spoken to—that, as I have said, is a matter that you will have to leave to the Minister concerned. For instance, if a Minister thinks that by speaking he is only wasting the time of the House, why should he participate in a debate? Deputies are here not merely to talk but to debate and to discuss matters that are worth discussing.
Even in the case where a motion appears to the vast majority of the House to be of little value, is there not an obligation on the Minister representing the Government even to rise and say that, in the judgment of the Government, it is of so little value that the Government does not propose to reply, rather than purport to ignore the fact that a private Deputy had moved a motion? Will the Taoiseach not agree that, in default of that gesture, the situation might arise in which the public would be led to believe that Deputies had, in fact, no means of forcing the Government to provide redress by Constitutional representations made in this House, whereas if there is an assurance that a Minister will either say that the Government does not think it worth while replying or, in the alternative, replies, then the Deputy is at least assured of having his grievance spoken upon by the Government, and has remaining to him his remedy of going to the people with the answer if he thinks it unsatisfactory?
What we are dealing with here is a very exceptional and rare occurrence. Everybody in the House knows that. Why then should we go and try to form an absolute rule and not, as I have said, leave it to the wisdom of the Minister who is in charge? If the Minister had done what the Deputy has suggested, I doubt whether it would not be very much more discourteous than simply to let the debate collapse. I had a talk with the Minister, and I am inclined to think that the whole thing happened inadvertently.
And ordinarily Deputies may rest assured that when they move motions in the House——
That the usual practice will continue.
And that ordinarily a Minister will reply on behalf of the Government?