It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 7 and 8 and, in No. 8, Votes 45 and 23. Private Members' Business will be taken from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. It is proposed that Motion No. 39 on the Order Paper be taken in conjunction with No. 45.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, there is a matter of some gravity which I should like to raise with the Taoiseach. You, Sir, have frequently ruled in the House that it is no part of your function to call on or to compel a Minister to answer a question.
I have not any power.
No, and that, therefore, falls clearly within the prerogative of the Leader of the House. I want to submit to the Leader of the House, and to the House in general, that, if Parliament is to function effectively one of the prerogatives of individual Deputies must be their right to constrain a Minister to come before the House in answer to a Parliamentary Question, to answer that question in public and submit himself to supplementary questions and, with the permission of the Chair, to a discussion on the Adjournment, if the individual Deputy is dissatisfied with the reply.
I direct the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that there is on the Order Paper to-day a long series of questions addressed to the Minister for Finance in the name of Deputy Oliver Flanagan. For the first time in my experience in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance has resorted to the expedient of seeking the permission of the Chair to answer these questions by way of a tabular statement. I submit to the House, and to the Leader of the House, who is responsible in these matters that this is to abort the fundamental right of Deputies to ask Ministers to answer questions in the House and to satisfy individual Deputies with their answers; and I would request the Leader of the House now to give an undertaking that the device employed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance today will not be employed hereafter.
The right of a Deputy to ask Questions of a Minister on matters coming within that Minister's functions, is a very important right, but I think it is an abuse when a Deputy tables a whole series of questions seeking information which has already been supplied to him and is then not here to ask the questions himself.
I suggest this is a matter of the utmost gravity and not one on which it is suitable for the Leader of the Opposition to seek to make debating points. He knows, as well as I do, that these questions arise from a new departure initiated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. Many of us take the view that we have a right to approach either the ministerial head or the permanent head of a Department with a written inquiry and that ordinarily— certainly in my 30 years' experience of this House, any written inquiry I have addressed to the permanent head has been answered by the permanent head——
Not always.
Always.
Not during the Coalition time.
Order.
If they are addressed to the Minister, the Deputy is entitled to expect and, in my experience, has always received, an answer from the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is the first person who has elected to say that he forbids correspondence between the permanent head of the Board of Works in relation to employment schemes under the Board of Works, over which he presides as the Minister's deputy, and insists that all such requests should pass through him. If Deputies do not choose to have recourse to that procedure, their alternative is to ask Parliamentary Questions. I think the Parliamentary Secretary's alteration of the normal methods of procedure does create a problem by multiplying the number of Questions that appear on the Order Paper. I am convinced that if the normal practice in the Board of Works were restored, this problem would not arise; but, pending a reasonable settlement of the situation, I want to put it to the Leader of the House, who, after all, may himself be one day Leader of the Opposition, that we have a mutual obligation to protect the fundamental rights of Deputies for, if these rights are not protected, Parliament cannot function.
The Deputy is running away from the point he raised.
No, no, and I would invite the Leader of the House to accept the proposition that questions addressed to Ministers will be answered by Ministers in this House, Ministers who will subject themselves to supplementary questions and, if necessary, a debate on the Adjournment.
I ask the Deputy to accept the proposition that the elected representative who is nominated as Minister or Parliamentary Secretary is the proper spokesman of the Department of which he is in charge, and not any official.
That may be so, and I will be prepared to argue that case on another occasion. Here the net point is: are Deputies whether they belong to Parties or whether they be Independent, still entitled to require any Member of the Government, from the Taoiseach to the most junior Parliamentary Secretary, to come in here and verbally answer a Parliamentary Question?
That is what Parliamentary Questions are provided for, but I submit to the Deputy it is an abuse when a Deputy puts down Questions seeking information which has already been supplied to him and is then not here to ask the Questions himself.
May I take it the Leader of the House agrees with me that the principle whereunder any Deputy who puts a Question on the Order Paper is entitled to a verbal answer from any Minister of the Government stands and will be honoured by whatever Government are in Office?
The Government are not on the defensive in this matter.
I think this matter has been fully ventilated now and I do not think it can be allowed to go any further.
I think the Taoiseach ought to give that undertaking so that the essential prerogatives will survive. Is the Leader of the House prepared to say to me that Deputies are entitled to an answer to Questions on the Order Paper.
There are certain practices established in this House which make commonsense. If a Deputy asks for information and that information involves the compilation of statistical tables, it is not reasonable that a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary should be asked the read out that reply. The normal practice of making the reply available to the Deputy in the Official Report is a very sensible one. Indeed, there are many questions on the Order Paper which should, in my view, be starred to permit of a written reply only being given. If an oral reply is asked for such questions, it merely delays the time of the House.
I want to warn the House that if the right of a Deputy to get an oral answer from a Minister to a question put on the Order Paper, within the Standing Orders of this House, is denied, Parliament will cease to function.
And the abuse of it.
Order.
I want to see it function successfully, no matter who are on the Government benches and who are in Opposition, but I warn you it cannot be made to function on the basis that Ministers claim the right to refuse an answer to a Parliamentary Question, and it will not function on that basis.
Yesterday, Sir, I asked the Taoiseach in connection with Vote No. 18, which relates to Law Charges, if it would be possible to arrange for a separate discussion on that particular Estimate and he suggested to me I could find means to bring about such a situation? I put in a notice of motion in the Office referring back Vote No. 18 and that motion has not appeared on the Order Paper. I understand it cannot appear separately on the Order Paper.
Last July, when this particular Estimate appeared on the Order Paper and in respect of it a motion to refer back was tabled, as it is here on the Order Paper for July, in the names of Deputy Dr. Browne and myself, the Taoiseach stated at Column 1956 of Volume 196 of the Official Report of 11th July last:
If a separate discussion is desired on any particular Estimate that can be arranged.
Then Deputy Sweetman intervened to say:
As long as I have that undertaking from the Taoiseach, I am satisfied.
I am asking the Taoiseach now to honour that promise made in July and that he will allow a separate discussion on Vote No. 18, which relates to Law Charges.
Would not another method to solve the problem be that, by agreement, Vote No. 6, Office of the Minister for Finance, would be deemed to cover all the Votes for which the Minister for Finance is the accounting officer? It would, I suggest, enable people to raise anything they wished to raise in one discussion on every such Vote. Certainly in those circumstances I already indicated to the Taoiseach's Whip Office that it would be a much shorter method.
As far as I am concerned, the purpose of the submission of these taken Estimates was to permit the Dáil to have the same type of debate as would have taken place if the Estimates had been dealt with before the Summer Recess, and, so far as I am concerned any arrangement which would permit of this is acceptable.
This seems to be a mechanical difficulty, so far as Deputy McQuillan is concerned. Would it not be possible, for the purpose of enabling him to refer back an Estimate, to have it introduced now, a token sum for Vote 18?
The fact is that I hope the Dáil will adjourn for the Christmas recess on tomorrow fortnight and a great deal of business will have to be done in the meantime. I do not think we should try to complicate matters by introducing other business which is not strictly necessary.
It would be the same discussion.
I should perhaps make it clear that it is not necessary that all these Supplementary Estimates should be dealt with before Christmas.
Is it not possible, by consent of the House, that Vote No. 6 would cover all the Estimates for which the Minister for Finance is the accounting officer? Then I can put down a motion to refer back a Vote as can Deputy McQuillan or anyone else, as he wishes?
If that is the case, I am quite satisfied. The Taoiseach has stated that if a separate discussion is asked for on a particular Estimate, he will allow it.
The purpose of these token Estimates is to permit the same type of debate as would have taken place before July.
I have the Order Paper here on which Vote No. 18 appears for discussion and there is a motion to refer back in the names of the Deputies I have referred to. Why cannot that be allowed now, in view of the fact that last July we agreed to a proposition to have the debate postponed on the Taoiseach's undertaking that he would allow it in the next session?
Was this——
This matter could be more effectively decided outside the House.
If the debates had taken place before July, all the Estimates would have been debated together.
No.
And any motions——
May I suggest that the Estimate for the Department of Finance is one about which I have some little experience? What has happened on previous occasions, and the present incumbent of the position will remember that it happened last summer 12 months, is that we discussed Vote No. 6, his Estimate, and then had a separate discussion on Vote No. 18. That is on the records. We had a separate discussion on Vote No. 18. What we agreed to do was to have exactly the same sort of discussion now as we would have had last July, one discussion on No. 6 and on No. 18, as we had in 1961. It seems to me the obvious way of saving the time of the House is that it be agreed that a token Vote No. 6 would cover all the Estimates for which the Minister for Finance is responsible.
I agree with that, provided there is one discussion.
I am perfectly happy, but the Chair would have to make an order to cover it.
The difficulty involved in that is that if a Deputy wishes to vote against No. 18, he is forced to vote against all the other Estimates, even No. 6. All I ask for is for one discussion to take place and that there be a separate decision on No. 18. Is the Taoiseach prepared to do that?
The Deputy can put down a motion to refer back this Estimate with the intention of raising any point he has in mind.
Will it be allowed on the Order Paper that a Deputy wishing to refer back No. 6 with a view to dealing with No. 18 as such——
I will agree to anything, as long as there is only one debate.
I accept that, as long as the Taoiseach allows a separate decision on No. 18.
It is really a matter of Dáil procedure.
I think we all agree that there should only be one discussion.
I do not want to delay the House but I would like a separate decision on this particular Estimate.
The Copyright Bill.
Where are we?
I take it that all the Estimates for the Department of Finance will be discussed on No. 6, including No. 18.
Does that mean there can be a separate decision on No. 18.
There is only one Estimate on the Order Paper.
As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to any Deputy moving a motion to refer back, or to reduce the amount of the Estimate and debating any of the Estimates for which the Minister for Finance is responsible. I think this is only a matter of procedure.
I take it that is the order?
Was there not a separate decision allowed before on No. 18? Is this not an alteration?
There is only one Estimate on the Order Paper, No. 6.
But last July, No. 18 was on the Order Paper. Where did it disappear to?
It was passed by the Dáil.
I agree that a decision was taken on it to facilitate the Taoiseach, on his promise that a separate discussion would be allowed, if so desired.
I can only repeat that there is only one Estimate on the Order Paper.
The Deputy can say what he wants to say and he can get a vote on anything he submits.
Let me put it on record that is not the Taoiseach honouring his word.
It is.
It is not, and if he reads what he said, he will see that he is in honour bound, if anyone asks for a separate token Vote to be put down——
I did not say that; I said that where a separate discussion on a particular service was desired, it could be arranged.
Could we have an undertaking that such a separate discussion will be arranged?
I am not prepared to agree to separate discussions on two token Estimates for the same group.
The Taoiseach has said it here.
As long as there is one discussion on the Finance group of Estimates, the Deputy can get a vote on whatever amendment he moves but I am not prepared to agree to two separate discussions.
Nobody wants two discussions.
That is what I understood——
It is wrong that we should be asked to refer back Estimates in toto, when we disagree with only one. I do not see why we should not vote on that particular Estimate.
The Deputy may hold that opinion but the rules of procedure bind me.
The Deputy can move a motion to reduce the Vote or to refer it back and give his reasons.
I will be a lot more careful in future about what I agree to.