Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Jun 1986

Vol. 367 No. 8

Oral Parliamentary Questions: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Barrett,

Dún Laoghaire): I move:

That paragraph (1) of the Order of the Dáil of 28th May, 1985, which relates to Questions for oral answer appearing on the Order Paper, is hereby amended by the substitution of `and until 4 November, 1986' for `and for a period of one year'."

The motion before the House proposes the extension until 4 November 1986 of the experimental period for operation of the new system of answering oral questions in this House. The original experimental period of one year ordered by this House on 28 May 1985 will conclude on 11 June 1986. The extension has been agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges who are currently carrying out an assessment of the operation of the new system. While it is generally accepted that the new system is successful, a number of points have been raised and suggestions made with regard to its operation and these will need to be taken into account in the course of the committee's assessment.

The committee require additional time so that detailed technical consideration can be given to the operational aspects of the new system before the question of writing it into our Standing Orders comes before the House. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Haughey

We are not opposing this motion. We agree to the extension of the experimental period, although everyone will agree that, as we have had experience of the new arrangements, a number of difficulties and inconsistencies have arisen. This extension motion gives us an opportunity to review the situation and possibly to come forward with improved arrangements.

Putting this motion before the House gives me the opportunity to make some comments on the operation of Question Time. I feel that, on behalf of this side of the House, I have to express considerable dissatisfaction with the manner in which Question Time has been conducted for some time. I want to preface my remarks by saying that most parliamentarians will agree that the Parliamentary Question is one of the most important processes available to any Parliament, and to parliamentarians generally. It is something which was developed by our neighbour across the water, in what is often known as the Mother of Parliaments, and it has been copied in different Parliaments around the world to the advantage of parliamentary procedure and to the working of parliamentary democracy.

Our Parliament and other Parliaments have various mechanisms open to them to discuss matters, to ventilate subjects and to come to decisions, but none of them is more important than the proper full use of Parliamentary Questions. They enable Deputies on all sides to raise matters which are of particular importance, either nationally or to particular Deputies and their constituents. They enable Parliament to have a constant investigative role over the Government's administration of our affairs and, in particular, of the operation of bureaucracy. I do not think anyone would disagree that Parliamentary Questions are one of the great safeguards available to people in a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, it is very necessary that, consistent with good order, they should be given the greatest possible freedom to serve the parliamentary process.

I have to say, a Cheann Comhairle, that in a number of matters your rulings have inhibited the full and proper use of Parliamentary Questions.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must intervene. Standing Orders relating to Question Time and the procedure at Question Time are of course proper subjects to raise or discuss in this debate but I have to rule firmly that the rulings of the Chair are not open for debate or for criticism on this motion.

Mr. Haughey

I find that extraordinary. Here we are discussing oral Parliamentary Questions and the Chair seeks to inhibit me from discussing the type of Parliamentary Questions which can be raised and allowed. That is all I want to discuss.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will take Standing Orders as ruled by the Chair as correct. If the Deputy wants to change those Standing Orders in relation to Question Time——

Mr. Haughey

Maybe I should make a case for changing Standing Orders——

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, but on the basis that the Chair's rulings are correct and that Standing Orders need to be corrected.

Mr. Haughey

Whatever the reason, whether the Standing Orders or the interpretation of those Standing Orders which has grown up over the years, I believe there is a very real cause for complaint about the present position. I also believe it is in the best interests of this House that the system of Parliamentary Questions should be operated as freely, as openly and with as little restraint as possible.

Most Deputies are aware of the fact that, in the media and among the general public, there are complaints about the relevance of this House. It is often said in public that this House does not always deal with matters of urgent public importance and that sometimes our debates seem to be unrelated to what people would call the real world outside. But if there is one way this House can make itself totally and completely relevant and serve the very best interests of the people in looking into every aspect of their national life and the administration of their affairs, it is through the proper use of the Parliamentary Question. I believe it is the duty of the Chair to strain Standing Orders to try to give the greatest possible latitude and freedom in this regard. That is of the essence of parliamentary democracy and it is essential for the proper administration of our affairs in this House.

One thing that could make this House instantly relevant and enable it to deal topically and contemperaneously with matters of importance in the public mind, as they arise, is the full use of the Private Notice Question. For some time we have consistently had question after question ruled out because it was stated that, apparently, the questions did not conform with the requirement of being either urgent or of public importance. There is a real need to bring about a change in that regard. When something happens of public interest, when something arises quickly, as happens very often today, that matter will be discussed in our newspapers, on radio programmes, and in interviews on radio and television right through the day but very often this House cannot discuss that particular issue. We have to wait a certain period before we can come to grips with it if at all, and very often then it has been forgotten and the public mind has moved to another issue.

I know from my experience on the other side of the House — I am sure the Taoiseach and Ministers often feel the same — that Ministers often wish to have an opportunity to reply to some Private Notice Questions because it would give them an opportunity to explain the Government's position and their reaction. But just as we are impeded, limited and inhibited from raising particular issues, so the Government are inhibited from being given the opportunity to put their point of view in regard to a particular issue.

On a matter which has arisen recently, a matter of some very considerable public importance, there was a great deal of speculation, probably unfair speculation — maybe unfounded — in our newspapers, and we sought to have the matter dealt with authoritatively by the Taoiseach so that the record could be put straight. The question was not——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not raise a specific question.

Mr. Haughey

I certainly may. Why may I not?

Mr. V. Brady

Why not? You are protecting the Taoiseach.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Brady will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Haughey

Why may I not?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not going to be distracted. I have been accused twice of protecting the Taoiseach and I must protect the Chair.

Mr. V. Brady

Will you not allow him to make——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am asking Deputy Brady to withdraw that remark

Mr. V. Brady

I withdraw.

An Ceann Comhairle

Thanks.

Mr. Haughey

I will withdraw from the House unless you allow me to refer to one question. I do not see what is the——

An Ceann Comhairle

Let me help the Deputy. If the Deputy wishes to cite a certain question for the purpose of showing that Standing Orders need to be changed the Chair could not and would not object to that, but if the Deputy is citing a certain specific question for the purpose of showing that the Chair erred either innocently or wilfully then he would be grossly out of order.

Mr. Haughey

I am not at all concerned with saying that the Chair erred. I am just outlining the position we find ourselves confronted with. A matter of very great public importance was dealt with at large in the newspapers and as a result of the newspaper reporting a number of people were placed under suspicion and it was absolutely proper and necessary that the matter be dealt with here authoritatively by the Taoiseach at the earliest possible moment in everybody's interest. The question that was put down by Deputy Michael may say it, put down by Deputy Michael Woods as a Private Notice Question because that might have led to its being ruled out of order because it was not of urgent public importance. Deputy Michael Woods went the other way and exercised patience and restraint and put down a question in the normal way to the Taoiseach.

The question was to ask the Taoiseach if he will give the Dáil an assurance that no Minister has been involved in matters which are the subject of an investigation by the Garda into fraudulent transactions. That is a very straightforward, reasonable and responsible approach by Deputy Michael Woods in regard to this matter. He very carefully and rightly refrained from making any implications, imputations or accusations against anybody. He simply asked the Taoiseach to give, as is his duty as Taoiseach, a statement of what exactly the position is. I think I can say for a number of people that, if the Taoiseach were in a position to give us a certain assurance on that, there would be great relief all round this House. However, it seems that this question had to be ruled out under Standing Order No. 33 because, it was stated, it contained argument.

An Ceann Comhairle

And imputation.

Mr. Haughey

The letter written to Deputy Michael Woods says nothing about imputation. I will read the letter which you sent to Deputy Michael Woods:

Dear Deputy Woods.

I regret that I have had to disallow the question addressed by you to the Taoiseach asking him to give the Dáil an assurance that no Minister has been involved in matters which are the subject of an investigation by the Gardaí into fraudulent transactions and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The letter goes on to say:

The question contains argument.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Fitzpatrick, T.D., Ceann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to bear with me for one second. I must put on the record with the Deputy's consent that subsequent to that letter Deputy Vincent Brady called to my office. I referred him to Standing Order No. 33 which reads:

The Ceann Comhairle shall examine every Question in order to ensure that its purpose is to elicit information upon or to elucidate matters of fact or of policy, that it is as brief as possible, and that it contains no argument or personal imputation. The Ceann Comhairle, or the Clerk under his authority, may amend any Question, after consultation with the member responsible for the Question, to secure its compliance with Standing Orders.

I told Deputy Brady I realised that "imputation" did not appear in the letter but that it was ruled out under Standing Order No. 33 and I referred specifically to imputation.

Mr. Haughey

I am aware that you had discussion with Deputy Vincent Brady but I can only take your letter to Deputy Woods as the authoritative statement by the Chair on this matter. That letter is quite specific. It contains one short, curt sentence: "The question contains argument." In your rejection of Deputy Woods' question by letter to Deputy Woods there is no reference whatsoever to imputation. I am very glad to say that in my view Deputy Woods made no imputation against anybody and, very rightly, simply asked for a statement by the Taoiseach. I know from Deputy Woods that if the Taoiseach made a statement or gave us an assurance with the full authority of his office, as far as we are concerned that would end the matter and I think there would not even be a supplementary question. However, I am concerned that a question of this kind is in the public interest and not because of anything that has happened, not because I am making any accusation or implication against anybody but because of stories that have been carried in the newspapers, it was absolutely essential that a statement be made in this House by way of reply to Deputy Woods' question. If these Standing Orders and the interpretation of them are such that questions like that cannot be answered by the Taoiseach, much as he might wish to do so, then something will have to be changed. Let me direct your attention, Sir, to another matter in this regard. You are relying, or you relied, or your office relied——

An Ceann Comhairle

I will not have my ruling questioned.

Mr. Haughey

Your ruling was based, as you have told me, on Standing Order No. 33 so I am sure that there is no argument of that. You relied, in rejecting this question, on Standing Order No. 33.

An Ceann Comhairle

I interpreted Standing Order No. 33 as I thought it should be interpreted and I ruled accordingly and that ruling cannot be questioned.

Mr. Haughey

Standing Order No. 33 provides that:

"The Ceann Comhairle, or the Clerk under his authority, may amend any Question after consultation with the member responsible for the Question, to secure its compliance with Standing Orders".

I have had occasion previously to raise that very aspect of Questions, that Deputies through no fault of their own but perhaps through inexperience or lack of knowledge of the niceties and subtleties of Standing Orders and precedent may put down a question in such a way that there is no alternative but to rule it out. I remember in this House when if a Deputy put down such a question very often the staff or somebody deputed by the Ceann Comhairle's office would approach that Deputy pointing out that the question had to be ruled out because of this or that aspect of it but that if it were reframed in this way it could be allowed. That did not happen in the case of Deputy Michael Woods.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is obviously questioning or criticising the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. N. Treacy

No, the order.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure if the Deputy realised he was doing that he would discontinue it.

Mr. Haughey

I must ask you, Sir, in the course of these few remarks of mine if you directed anybody to consult with Deputy Woods and make any suggestion to him because of the importance of this matter from many points of view; if anybody under your direction or guidance approached Deputy Michael Woods and suggested to him or consulted with him as is envisaged by the Standing Order as to how the question could be reframed within the ambit of Standing Orders. That is a reasonable question for me to ask in this context. It is a major matter when a question of this kind is ruled out because it was suggested that it contained argument. I cannot see for the life of me how, when you ask the Taoiseach to make a statement, that is argument, but perhaps we can leave that for another day. If the question by Deputy Woods was incorrectly phrased, surely somebody should have indicated to Deputy Woods why it could not be admitted and in what way it might be reframed to enable it to come before the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Standing Order says that the Ceann Comhairle may. Further to that, I teased this out. We discussed the question with the Chief Whip of Fianna Fáil for nearly ten minutes and there was no question of amending it.

Mr. Haughey

One way or another we have now arrived at the impossible position where serious matters are raised about Members of this House in the press and neither by way of Private Notice Question nor by way of normal question to the Taoiseach asking for a statement can the matter be raised in this House. Sir, you would have to acknowledge that that is putting Deputies in the House, particularly the Opposition in a straitjacket which makes it very difficult for them to discharge their responsibility to the parliamentary process because the Government have the primary responsibility in administering our affairs. However, the Opposition too, have a responsibility to the parliamentay process and to the public to raise matters here — and to seek answers to them — which are of concern to the public.

If there are Standing Orders and if the burden of precedent in interpretation of those Standing Orders is such that a question of this kind cannot, within a reasonable period of time, be addressed to the Taoiseach then everybody in this House should be concerned, particularly you, Sir, whose responsibility it is to see that this House functions well and efficiently in discharging its duty to the people and that every Deputy in this House is given every possible opportunity to fully discharge his or her role as a public representative. An examination must be made of the whole matter of the admission of Private Notice Questions, whether the existing rules in regard to them, as interpreted over the years, are too stringent and whether there is some way in which the process of Private Notice Questions can be used to make this House more relevant, topical and of greater interest to the general public.

In Standing Order No. 33 the concept that a question can be ruled out because it contains argument is one which if pushed to any distance, would rule out every question on the Order Paper. I looked through the Order Paper very carefully today and I can hardly see a single question on it which could not be regarded as containing argument of some kind. If the Standing Order forbids the putting down or the admission of questions which contain argument then the Standing Order should be changed.

I also wish to make the point that the very way in which Standing Order No. 33 is constructed recognises the danger that if it were pushed too far it would become unrealistic. That is why there is an addendum as it were, the last sentence in Standing Order No. 33, because the subtlety of whether a question contains argument is a fine one. The people who framed these Standing Orders obviously put in this proviso that the Ceann Comhairle may, through his office, have that situation rectified. Sir, I do not think you should place too much emphasis on the word "may" because as we all know, in parliamentary drafting "may" has a very significance which is different from the way it is used in ordinary parlance. The fact that the word "may" is used there is an invitation to you to use this power where necessary. This is certainly a case when it was necessary for you to consult or send one of your staff to Deputy Michael Woods to advise him as to how this question on this matter of great public importance could be raised.

Sir, I hope I have made my views fairly clear. We agree to the extension of the experimental period for questions but the whole administration of the process of parliamentary questions should be examined with a view to its improvement so that, above all else, this House can deal contemporaneously and urgently with matters arising from time to time which are the subject of widespread comment in the media but which, because of the way things are in this House, cannot be discussed at the time when we think they should be discussed.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope that if Deputies are not satisfied with Standing Orders that a proposal to amend them will be brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges before 4 November next when this matter is up for review again. A concrete effort should be made to at least have it considered there and it is not the duty of the Chair to do that, as a matter of fact it would not be in order for the Chair to do so.

The Taoiseach

I accept that the present operation of Standing Order No. 33 and the manner in which it has operated over many decades at times gives rise to a sense of frustration on the part of the Opposition. I have vivid memories of my own sense of frustration in that regard and I suspect, a Cheann Comhairle, if you were to delve into your own memory you might find a similar sense of frustration in the past. I understand and accept that and it is reasonable that the matter should be examined further by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges although there are obvious difficulties about departing from a well established precedent and difficulties in redefining the edges of boundaries if one does so. I must add, however, that the selection of the example cited by the Leader of the Opposition was ill-judged and inappropriate. It would be quite improper for me to comment in the House, under any circumstances, on any incomplete police inquiries simply because Deputies of the House have been interviewed by the Garda, one of whom has issued a statement of denial in respect of certain imputations. This matter must be left to the Garda and, if appropriate, to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Haughey

I fully accept that and all I require in regard to Deputy Woods is a simple statement by the Taoiseach.

Question put and agreed to.