It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 6 (resumed), 7, 8 and 9. By agreement it has been decided that the House should sit next Tuesday at 3 o'clock with Questions from 3 to 4 p.m.
Order of Business.
Why is the Taoiseach not honouring the undertaking he gave in the House last week that he personally would be responsible for answering questions directly related to statements made by him in this House?
Deputy Cluskey has written to me about that and I have replied. Perhaps when the Deputy receives my reply he can raise the matter again.
I have received the Taoiseach's reply which in the last line said that it would interfere with ministerial responsibility. That is somewhat of a joke considering that the Taoiseach treated his Ministers with public contempt in some of their ministerial responsibilities. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy that an elected representative, particularly one who occupies the position of Taoiseach, should be responsible in this House and answerable for statements he made in relation to national policy.
The Chair has no view on this other than——
Surely the Chair must have a view on the preservation of parliamentary democracy and accountability. I certainly have a view.
There is absolutely no change in the procedure adopted here by me from that which has obtained for decades and for a number of people who held the office of Taoiseach. I am following precedent fully.
The Taoiseach knows that statement to be at total variance with the facts. Surely in a parliamentary democracy, as the Taoiseach accepted in principle under pressure last week——
Deputies
Hear, hear.
——statements made by him would be answered by him in this House. I refer to two questions directly related to the Taoiseach's speech at the Ard-Fheis covering matters of national policy. The Taoiseach has again refused to be answerable to this House and to the country for statements which he has made on national affairs. It is not good enough to get into the limelight in ministerial Departments and not be answerable——
I have allowed the Deputy——
This is fundamental to the preservation of democracy.
It is not in order to raise this matter.
It is in order when the Taoiseach offered his assurance last week that he would answer such questions and has since refused to do so. It is surely in order to raise that in the House.
This matter is quite simple and straightforward. My position and the position of my predecessors has been and is that so far as a question is put down to me about a matter which is my responsibility as Taoiseach, or seeking clarification of some statement which I have made in that capacity, I will deal fully with it in the House. So far as questions are addressed to me which, even though I may have made statements about an aspect of policy, are in effect simply seeking statements of policy which are the responsibility of particular Ministers, I do not answer those questions. That is in accordance with established precedent and tradition in the House and I do not intend to depart from that. Both Deputies may continue this personal harassment as much as they like but I will deal with the office of Taoiseach as I see fit.
(Interruptions.)
I can quote the two questions:
With reference to the Taoiseach's statement during his address to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis that a review of the extent of this country's reliance on foreign-owned industry is needed, if he will indicate who will carry out that review, what its specific purpose will be and when it will commence.
The second question is:
If in view of the Taoiseach's statement at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis that there are still areas of discrimination and difficulty for women in Irish society, he will indicate which aspect of existing discrimination against women the Government is most immediately concerned with and the proposals he has to end such discrimination.
There is no way in which those questions would not be the responsibility of the Taoiseach, who made the statement. The Taoiseach should be answerable to this House and to the country.
That matter——
Serious disquiet was expressed on the election of this Taoiseach regarding the preservation of parliamentary democracy.
(Interruptions.)
We are not having a debate now on that matter.
This is one area where there is serious concern but there is also serious disquiet about the many aspects of the operations engaged in by the——
We are not having a debate on this matter.
(Interruptions.)
I would point out that the words used by the Taoiseach just now that he would answer questions arising from matters for which he is responsible in his capacity as Taoiseach were not used last week. The words "in his capacity" were not used last week so the Taoiseach has gone back on the assurances given last week.
I have not gone back on anything.
It is essential that the Taoiseach deal with integrity, honesty and honourably in his official dealings in this House.
It is quite clear that the question of a transfer of questions is irrelevant to this matter. What Deputy Cluskey is seeking is to continue this vindictive campaign of personal harassment of me in my office as Taoiseach.
Rubbish.
The position is quite obvious from both the questions Deputy Cluskey has read out that both matters are the responsibility of particular Ministers and therefore should statutorily and according to proper parliamentary procedure be dealt with by those Ministers. That is the tradition of this House; it is well established precedent. This is simply an attempt to continue this process of personal harassment which, I would point out to Deputy Cluskey in particular, is rebounding on him and not on me.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I am not as sensitive as the Taoiseach apparently is.
(Interruptions.)
I again invite the Taoiseach, as I did last week, to name one instance which was a personal attack on him——
Order, please. Order.
——and not directly related——
We are finished with this, we have had enough.
——to his responsibility to this House and to this nation.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Taoiseach confirm or deny that instructions have been issued in the last couple of weeks to heads of Departments that where Deputies make inquiries about individual grants or otherwise, from now on Deputies should go to the office of the Minister of State?
We have no notice of that question.
(Interruptions.)
The erosion of democracy is of serious concern.
I would like to finish my statement. Last week I telephoned the Department of Agriculture——
That is not relevant.
Are ordinary Deputies being cut out and is the civil service being eliminated?
That is not in order. We cannot have a free-for-all on the Order of Business.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Taoiseach explain to the House the reason why the instructions referred to by Deputy Ryan were given to the officials of the Department of Agriculture that Deputies' queries would not be answered except through the Minister's office? That is a very serious departure.
The Deputy should give notice of that question.
We will not have the right to give notice next week with the way our powers are being eroded.
(Interruptions.)
We were not given notice of the instruction.
Is this a dictatorship?
Is this Government policy?
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
What is the position?
I have no knowledge of this matter but I will look after it. If the Opposition were fair about these matters they would acknowledge that we have been endeavouring to facilitate them in this House on matters of current importance much more than has been the case for some time.
Is the Taoiseach prepared to look into this matter and when will he make a statement to the House?
I suggest that perhaps the simplest way is for the Deputy to put down a question.
(Interruptions.)
Does the Taoiseach accept the fundamental principle in a democracy that statements made by him——
I am calling item No. 6.
I did not get a satisfactory answer to my question. This morning I was told by an official——
I have no notice of these matters whatever.
On a point of clarification, the Taoiseach said questions put down will be answered. Does he mean that questions to him will be answered by him?
If the question falls within my ambit of responsibility as Taoiseach I will answer it. It may be that if it is a particular Departmental question it will be dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture. So the Deputy can put down a question and we will see what happens then.
It is another evasion.
It is not an evasion. I am inviting the Opposition to put down a question and it will be dealt with.
It is simple matter of asking an officer in the Department of Agriculture when a grant would be paid and I was told that he was no longer entitled to answer me and that I would have to put my question to the Minister of State.
I think it is important that I should point out that no such direction was given by me or by the Minister of State in the Department of Agriculture.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputies do not want to hear the truth. No such instruction was issued.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister told us it was issued. He told us this morning that it had been issued.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. I am calling item No. 6.
I want to raise a question with the Taoiseach.
I will suspend the sitting if there is not some order restored.
It is better than suspending democracy.
The Deputies know perfectly well that nobody can come into this House and start a debate without giving notice of some kind.
I want to raise a point. There is now a serious situation because the Minister for Agriculture has stated that he has not given an instruction which civil servants have told a large number of people that he has given. This is a matter which must be fully investigated and the truth discovered as to whether the Minister is telling the House the truth or not.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Desmond, on a point of order.
I would ask the Chair to ask the Minister for Agriculture to withdraw the statement he has made on the grounds that the integrity of certain public servants in the Department of Agriculture is being, impugned because a direction issued from the office of the Minister of State—and the Minister himself knows this and I can meet both of them afterwards——
That is not a point of order.
(Interruptions.)
I will suspend the sitting of the House unless order is restored. The Deputy got up to make a point of order and he has made no point.
Deputy Allen is denying it also.
(Interruptions.)
Is it in order for a Minister to tell a Deputy to keep his mouth shut? Is that in order?
I did not hear any such remark.
It was said very loudly. Everybody heard it.
If all the people who made remarks out of order would listen to the Chair we would have less disorder. This is a disgrace.
I was asked to keep my mouth shut by a Minister who has kept his mouth shut for 20 years.
It is seldom that I get involved in something like this but I was on to the Department of Agriculture this morning——
I have a point to raise on the Order of Business. Would the Taoiseach give me the courtesy of listening to my point and answering it? This is his second attempt to leave the House. Do the Government propose to take any action in relation to the very serious charges of political interference in the Garda made yesterday by the Association of Sergeants and Inspectors?
That does not arise on the Order of Business. A Deputy or even a leader of a party may not come into the House and raise a matter without notice and the Deputy knows that perfectly well.
It is a clearly established precedent.
The question of whether it is serious or otherwise is not for the Chair to judge. It is for the Chair to judge the question of its relevancy.
Surely the matter is of such importance that the Taoiseach is obliged to give Deputy FitzGerald some indication——
There are ways and means of dealing with these matters regularly.
This matter was raised properly on the Order of Business. Surely the Taoiseach is obliged to show some concern about the seriousness of the allegations. If he remains silent it is a very serious matter.
The Taoiseach cannot be asked a question on a Thursday. It is not open to us to put down a private notice question.
There will be other days. The Chair has no notice of this question and the Chair will not be tolerant any longer.
This is a matter on the Order of Business. If the Taoiseach wishes to remain silent it is very serious.
It is in order for any Member of this House to ask the Taoiseach or a Minister if he will make a parliamentary statement on a matter. It is the normal procedure on the Order of Business.
It is not in order.
It has been the practice for 60 years in this House.
Matters are sought to be raised by private notice question and the Chair is duly notified of them and not by rí rá which brings the House into disrepute.
The only thing that brings this House into disrepute is the Taoiseach not living up to his responsibilities.
I would challenge the Chair's ruling on that. It has been the practice for 60 years.
The Deputy may challenge it but it is not a matter to be raised in this matter.
(Interruptions.)
If the Taoiseach remains silent on this it is a very dubious silence.
I am calling item No. 6.