Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Dec 1923

Vol. 2 No. 7

DUPLICATE OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS. - QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS IN THE SEANAD.

I move:

"That the Seanad, being of opinion that it would be in the public interest if questions could be addressed in the Seanad to the Ministers of the different Government Departments, respectfully requests the President and his colleagues to make arrangements by which, after due notice had been given, Ministers would attend in the Seanad for the purpose of replying to such questions by answer or other explanation as in their discretion they think right."

May I remark that this is not the original motion that I handed in. You, Sir, have thought fit,—and you have every right to do so,—to alter my motion. The sense of it is really not altered. Let me explain to the Seanad my reason for putting this motion down. The fact of the matter is that there are some questions that are most important for us to put in the Seanad. I put some questions down and I was told it was against the orders that any question should be put to Ministers here, for the very good reason that the Ministers were not here. My motion is to enable the Ministers to attend. I do not wish to be impossible on the subject. If one puts down a frivolous question it is easy for the Minister to send his Secretary and say: "There is no reason for me to attend to answer a question of that sort. If the Senator likes to come and see me I have no doubt we can settle it." There are other questions of great importance which I think, and I hope, that the Seanad will agree with me, ought to be put to Ministers and ought to be answered by them. Now, Sir, you have suggested "questions by answer or other explanation." I should like to add after the word "answer" the words, "verbally or in writing," because there are questions that a Minister can answer in writing quite easily. Technical questions, and questions with regard to Departments, he can answer in writing, but there are questions that have to be put verbally, and I will tell you the reason.

It is all very well to say: "Lord Mayo can go and get a question put in the Dáil," but the real truth of it is that the man whom you ask to put the question does not know anything about it; it does not interest him; he has got his own job and his own questions to look after, and therefore it does not interest him. You may give in a typewritten brief, but that is read out in an informal sort of manner. It impresses nobody. The whole thing is, on the surface of it, done to please his friends and no notice may be taken of it. That is the reason I have put this down and I hope that the President and his colleagues will make arrangements to answer questions. We "respectfully request the President and his colleagues to make arrangements." You may call up spirits from the vasty deep, but the question is, will they come? Therefore, I should like to put it a great deal stronger, but as you think that the word "respectfully" should be used, I agree that it is perhaps more dignified as a Senator that I should put the motion in that way, and I hope the Seanad will agree with me and my idea. I should like to have the words "verbally or in writing," because there, at all events, if the Minister does agree to answer a question he can do it verbally or in writing. I do not think I need say anything further on the subject. I feel very strongly that we are here in the air with regard to these questions. I know they are very busy in the Dáil. I know they have a great deal to do, but I think that now and then that they might pay us a visit and answer important questions.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The motion proposed is that the House give leave to the Senator to insert in his motion after the word "answer" the words "verbally or in writing."

I suggest that that would not run well. You would not want Ministers to attend in the Seanad if they were to give written answers.... Would it not require re-drafting?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it would. You might put it in this way: "To make arrangements by which, after due notice had been given, Ministers would reply to such questions by answer either verbally or in writing," leaving out the words "attend in the Seanad."

They could not answer verbally except they attended.

Is it in order to discuss this without its having a seconder?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Perhaps I should take the House into my confidence, and say that I very drastically altered the phraseology of the motion as handed in to me. He good-naturedly accepted the alteration, and therefore I am anxious that he should have some latitude to have what he wishes put into it, because I may have misinterpreted his ideas. I think you had better leave it as it is, Senator, if you take my advice.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Then the motion stands in the order as it is in the paper.

I second the motion. I may mention this matter was discussed at great length when we were dealing with the Standing Orders, and there was a good deal of diversity of opinion on the subject. Nevertheless I was then, and am still, in favour of it; but I certainly would not like to be asking questions from all corners of Ireland on all sorts of frivolous subjects.

I think that if the Seanad is generally of the opinion that the substance of the motion is wise and wish to support it, it might be wiser first to refer it to the Standing Order Committee, because the matter is not as simple as it appears at first. Arranging the question of time for questions is difficult, in view of the fact that both Houses generally meet at the same time, and at the time questions would have to be answered here the Minister would have to be in attendance in the Dáil. That, no doubt, could be arranged if it is desired, and the Ministers agreed. Then, again, we could not demand in any way the attendance of Ministers here, and we would just run the risk that it might look, if the Minister failed to turn up, that he was either disrespectful to the Seanad, or that the Seanad was not a very important body and could be ignored. That is not insuperable either, and could be considered.

Then again—and this is of considerable importance—think that before any Order is added providing for questions that an effort should be made to define the kind of questions that are to be asked. Reference was made to the fact that certain members of the Seanad were nominated, but for all practical purposes, this is an elected House, inasmuch as the members have to go forward in three, six, nine or twelve years before the electorate. That means that the constituency of each member is the whole of the Saorstát. If the same kind of questions are to be asked in the Seanad as in the Dáil, it means that you may have letters from your constituents in the country, and we may be placed in the position of telling our prospective constituents that we think a question is stupid or silly, and that we would prefer not to have to ask it, or a Senator may ask the question and take the brunt of its silliness on himself. If there is a strong feeling that questions should be asked the Standing Orders Committee should have another try, first, to define questions, and second to approach the Ministers and endeavour to get consent in the matter.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Do you move an amendment that this matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee?

I second it.

While supporting the amendment, I think the Earl of Mayo is quite right in raising the question. I think we are often in great difficulties here through not having a Minister to answer questions. A great deal of business is held up in that way. If we could secure a better attendance of Ministers it would undoubtedly help in the working of the Seanad, but, as Senator Douglas has said, it is a very difficult thing to arrange to take care of both the dignity of the Seanad and the dignity of the Ministers. It will require judicious handling, and I think the amendment is a wise one.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I put the amendment first: "That the subject matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for their consideration and report."

Agreed.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That disposes of all business save in regard to when we are to attend again. I have ascertained that the final draft of the Judiciary Bill cannot be circulated before to-morrow night. In that case I think that with a Bill of such importance we could not reasonably ask the Seanad to take the Second Reading on Friday.

May I point out that there are some backwoods' members who would find it convenient to be here next week?

May I suggest that there are a great number of members of the Seanad, like myself, who come up from the country, and if we are going to pass over to-morrow, doing nothing, and be called again on Friday to consider the question of drafting amendments, it would be more convenient for us to sit to-morrow. I propose that we sit to-morrow, or, as Mr. Lysaght suggested, adjourn till next week.

I move that we adjourn until Wednesday.

I beg to second.

Motion put and declared carried.
The Seanad adjourned at 6 o'clock until 3 o'clock, Wednesday, 19th December.
Top
Share