Before the suspension of the sitting Deputy Cluskey was seeking to raise a matter.
Business of Dáil.
I think it would be appropriate to refer to the unfortunate incident which necessitated a vote, a Member's suspension and the suspension of the sitting, and to make the comment that this has come about because of the extremely restrictive interpretation of the legitimacy of questions tabled in the House. This has become particularly obvious during the last few months. There is another development which has led to further difficulty in the House: legitimate questions tabled for answer by the Taoiseach are being placed by him with other Ministers——
I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but he knows that these are matters that we cannot go into here. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges might have a look at these matters. Indeed the Chair would like if they did. The Chair is merely interpreting Standing Orders as interpreted by all my predecessors. The grave disorder which unfortunately upset the House today was the result of a question being rejected on the same grounds as those on which many questions have been rejected before now. Whenever a question is rejected, my office is open for Deputies to come in and ask why. I frequently oblige them by telling them why. There is always a definite reason for it and the Chair is not protecting anybody.
My comments were intended to try to prevent a recurrence of what happened here this morning. I wish to assure the Chair that I and my party feel very strongly about the highly restrictive nature of interpretation of legitimate questions tabled by Deputies of my party. This is a development that has taken place only in recent months. The practice of the Taoiseach in regard to questions tabled about statements made by the Taoiseach personally—I tabled such questions in recent days on his statements to the Ard-Fheis—has been to hive such questions off on other Ministers because the Taoiseach wants to evade having to elaborate and clarify or to deal with supplementaries. That will lead to open conflict in the House, which should be avoided.
I wish to rebut the accusation against me. It is just part of a continual process of personal attacks which have been made on me here in the past few months. I want to assure the House that in so far as any questions are addressed to me I take very little initiative in having them transferred. Normal procedure in this matter is adhered to and it is no wish of mine to transfer any questions for purposes of evading the answers. There is a fairly well established procedure through which ministerial responsibility is practised. Following that procedure, questions are dealt with more or less as a matter of routine by my office.
However, I wish to assure the House that I do not take any positive measures to transfer questions, nor has the practice in this regard been altered one iota since I assumed office.
The Taoiseach referred to personal attacks on him. I wish to assure the Taoiseach on this matter and ask him to point out any remark or statement I have made that could be interpreted as anything but political. I will continue to attack the Taoiseach politically when I think it appropriate to do so. It is part of my responsibilities as an elected representative in this House. However, I repeat that there has been a radical departure in regard to dealing with questions addressed to the Taoiseach.
We cannot have a continuing debate on this. We have to get back to business.
On the point made by the Taoiseach, I cannot see, when a question is put down about a statement made by the Taoiseach, how it could be appropriate for any civil servant, behind his back and without consulting him, to transfer that question elsewhere. If that is the true interpretation of the Taoiseach's suggestion, then what is happening in his office is wrong. The transfer of questions addressed to the Taoiseach must be done with his authority, and although questions may be misdirected to the Taoiseach or can be directed to him in relation to departmental matters when it would be appropriate to have them transferred, when they relate to statements made by the Taoiseach he must be answerable for his own statements. That principle must be adhered to.
I should like the House to accept that I was not saying that civil servants were transferring questions behind my back or without my knowledge. It is a well recognised function of the Taoiseach's Office when questions come in, to deal with them in the normal way. I understand it to be a well established practice that questions are dealt with by the Taoiseach's private office in this way and transferred to appropriate Ministers and not necessarily brought to the attention of the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach has said that he accepts the principle that statements made by him personally would be dealt by him when questions are addressed to him on such matters. I have submitted at least three questions in the last few days to the Taoiseach in relation to statements made by him at the Ard-Fheis. The Taoiseach has refused to answer them and they have been transferred to other Ministers. Can I assume now that when we submit questions to the Taoiseach they will be answered by him?
I accept the principle that questions about statements made by me should be dealt by me. There may be a dividing line in relation to questions about statements made by me which relate more to Government policy, but in so far as possible I will see——
Surely the Taoiseach is in a position to interpret and to clarify Government policy?
I assure the House I had not given attention to this matter until the moment it was raised here. I will look into it to ensure that as far as possible the dignity of the House will be upheld and my duty to disclose information to the House will be upheld.
Sir, in your statement you said there is a procedure through which Deputies can come to your office for an explanation of the reasons why questions have been disallowed. It is my understanding that Deputy Harte went to your office for such information but he was told by your staff that he could not be so told. How can you reconcile that with your implied suggestion——
I did not meet Deputy Harte in regard to this question. He may have called at my office and I am sure he was told the reason why the question was being disallowed.
He was told that he would not be told the reason why, I have been informed. I cannot reconcile that with your statement and I would ask you to look into that matter.
He did not call at my office, unless he called in my absence.
It is my information that he called to your office and was told he could not be given the reason for the disallowing of the question. That is not compatible with the statement you have made. I simply ask you to look into the matter because there is disagreement on the point.
I suggest that this matter be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The Chair would like if the Committee on Procedure and Privileges would go into these matters because the Chair has undergone a severe personal attack this morning and the dignity of the House has been lowered considerably. Everybody seems to accuse the Chair rather than those who were grossly disorderly. Everyone elected to this House would like it to be a House to which he would be proud to belong instead of seeking to pull it down. The Chair has not a biased interest in any Member. He simply wants to uphold Standing Orders.
You have said you wish to have referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges the disagreement as to what happened, and whether you correctly informed the House on Deputy Harte not having sought this information. I am happy to have that matter dealt with by the committee because my information is that Deputy Harte called to your office and that he was told he could not be told the reasons. You have said the opposite and it should be investigated.
Natter, natter, natter.
I wish to make a final point of order. Deputy Harte's behaviour this morning was regarded by the House as disorderly and a vote was taken with that effect. I think the House will appreciate the genuine emotion that led him to behave in a manner which according to the rules of the House was disorderly. That should be accepted by everybody. I would therefore ask you, Sir, to withdraw the two statements you made, that he was getting mileage out of it and that he was seeking deliberately to be put out of the House. I think those statements were unfair to the Deputy who was labouring under deep emotion on the matter. I suggest that you would be generous and withdraw the two statements made in the heat of the moment—I can understand that your feelings were exacerbated by what was happening.
The Chair has undergone severe personal attack. There is not anything the Chair would resent more than to be attacked personally and being brought into the debate in reference to his constituency. There is not a precedent for this in the House. With regard to the reference to persons being expelled, all Members here, I am sure, will remember my predecessors frequently making references such as, "I am not going to oblige the Deputy by putting him out".
I am asking the Chair to consider, as a matter of generosity and for the dignity of the House, withdrawing the two remarks made about getting mileage out of it and seeking deliberately to be put out which, in Deputy Harte's case, are uncalled for. I accept that he acted in a disorderly manner but the Chair knows Deputy Harte well enough to agree that he did so because of his deep feelings on the subject.
The Chair would not like to have contributed in any way to what was already a disorderly performance. If there is anything the Chair said to which exception would be taken, I would regret it.
Arising from what the Taoiseach said earlier in relation to questions directed to him, I would ask him in view of the assurance he gave yesterday——
This was raised in an exceptional manner by Deputy Cluskey and I permitted him to develop it to some extent. We cannot have a debate on it.
The Taoiseach indicated that he would take this question. My assistant rang his office yesterday afternoon and we were given to understand that this would be the case. The question is still down to the Minister for Fisheries.
In that particular case the question is a combination of two elements, my statement, my assurance and also the steps to be taken and the measures to be implemented. In that context it was decided that it was more appropriate for the Minister to elaborate on the policy aspect, but if the Deputy wishes to reframe the question and relate it specifically to my statement, that can be considered.
Regarding Question No. 41 on the Order Paper——
We will not have a debate. The Deputy should allow business to proceed. There is nothing on the Order of Business regarding this matter. I am not permitting it now.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the matter of stray horses, particularly in the Finglas area, which resulted in the death of a young man within the past few days.
(Interruptions.)
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy, though I am not clear as to the matter he wishes to raise.
Question No. 41 was addressed directly to the Taoiseach in regard to his Ard Fheis speech. It has now been referred to the Minister for the Public Service.