Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 1982

Vol. 336 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers.

Mr. Kelly

On a point of order, there are two matters of order that I should like, with the indulgence of the Chair, to raise. Both of them bear on the way questions are handled in the House. I put down a question on 3 June addressed to the Taoiseach asking him if he would outline the role which he personally played with regard to the conduct of foreign relations in the context of the Falkland crisis; and to say under what legal or other authority he was acting. This morning, at 10.40 a.m. — 12 days later — I was informed that that question was out of order. I regard a delay of 12 days — which would not have been a delay of that length had I not acquiesced in a request from the Taoiseach's Department to postpone the question last week while he was away — I do not care what the excuse or official reason may be — as an intolerable delay. It effectively means that your office — I do not say with bad faith — whether or not the Taoiseach's or any other Department is involved I do not know — is playing cat and mouse with Deputies. I was too late to put down a rephrased question, to mend my hand in such a way that it would have been answered today; and the best I can now do is to put something down this Thursday for answer next Tuesday; but I do not have any guarantee that I will not be told at 10.40 on the following Tuesday morning that it is out of order. That is something I feel I must say as a matter of order, and I believe that other Members, whether in the actual or in the prospective Opposition, will agree with me.

The second matter I should like to raise, although I am not quarrelling with the reasons which you were courteous enough to give me, is that the Chair implied that this question was out of order because the Taoiseach, you said, "had no official responsibility to the Dáil in regard to either part of my question." Are we to take it from that — I do not quarrel with what you are saying — that a member of the Government, provided he misconducts himself within the ambit of his own Department, can be questioned here; but that if he misconducts himself by interfering with the work of another Department, he is immune from Dáil questioning? Do I take it that that is what your letter means?

An Ceann Comhairle;

I am saying that there is collective responsibility and the Government are always responsible to the Dáil. That is what we discussed before. About the delay with regard to the Deputy's question, I should like to state that it was put down for answer on Wednesday last but, at the direct request of the Department of the Taoiseach, it was postponed by the Deputy until this week.

Mr. Kelly

For answer on Wednesday last but it was put down a week before that.

An Ceann Comhairle

They are processed as rapidly as possible but owing to the very large number of questions I am sure the Deputy will agree that it is not possible to process it sooner. Indeed, the staff are under great strain at present because there is a shortage. As a result of the embargo of last September we are not in a position to get the extra staff who are needed. The Deputy will have to have consideration for the staff with regard to this problem. I am afraid it is something over which we have no control at present. Certainly, it was not done with any intention to delay processing the question in any way. I sent the Deputy a letter this morning in which I stated that questions are processed as rapidly as possible but owing to the very large numbers of questions at present being handled some delay is inevitable. I said that the Questions Office therefore in general processes questions in order of proximity of date of answer. In the case of the question relating to the Falklands situation the postponement to the following week by the Deputy meant that other questions for answer earlier took priority over it for processing and as a result the letter ruling it out of order only reached the Deputy today. As a matter of fact, another question tabled by the Deputy for answer at the same time as this question had been processed before this Office was notified of the postponement of questions to the Taoiseach. The Deputy was notified that it was out of order last week. That was one submitted by the Deputy at the same time.

Mr. Kelly

That is so; but, with respect, it must be recognised that questions to the Taoiseach of necessity are priority questions, because they are taken every Tuesday and Wednesday. If I had been told at the time when the gentlemen from the Taoiseach's Department rang me at home in the middle of last week — I believe on Tuesday or Wednesday — that the question was out of order, instead of being allowed to suppose that it was still in order by the fact that he asked for it to be postponed, I would still have had time to amend my hand and put down an amended question by Thursday morning in time to be answered today. I have been deprived of that by the way the system operates; and I am afraid, with respect to the Chair, I do not accept that that is the inevitable way the system works. I would be grateful for the courtesy of a reaction to the other half of what I raised.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is very annoying for the Deputy that such should have happened but it is something we must bear with for the present time. I cannot guarantee any improvement on it under the present circumstances.

Mr. Kelly

Does the Chair recognise that that effectively means — I accept that there is no bad faith in the situation now — that if that ever did creep into the situation a Deputy could be indefinitely prevented from raising anything?

An Ceann Comhairle

I can only hope that the embargo will be lifted so that we will have the necessary staff to deal with problems such as the Deputy's.

Mr. Kelly

With the greatest of respect, I appreciate staff difficulties, but even when there are 600 questions we all know that questions from No. 50 onwards will not be taken on a particular day; why then does this pretence apply, of supposing that in terms of urgency of deciding whether they are in or out of order, one question is ranked the same as the other? In regard to the other point which the Chair was kind enough to make in response to what I said a few moments ago — and I should like to know if it is the case — that the Government shares a collective responsibility for a situation — how am I to explore the manner in which they have discharged that responsibility better than by inquiring from the Taoiseach, who makes a virtue and publicity plus for himself, when it suits him, out of pre-empting, moving in on and ursurping the functions which by law, not by convention, are attributable to other members of the Government?

An Ceann Comhairle

That ruling on the question of collective responsibility dates from the start of the State.

Mr. Kelly

If it is a collective responsibility I submit that it cannot possibly preclude any Deputy here from inquiring about the part personally played by a member of the Government in a particular episode. The fact that that part has been personally played in a Department other than his own cannot be a reason for making it immune from inquiry here. That is like the lawyer's paradox that it is cheaper to kill a man than to injure him.

An Ceann Comhairle

The rule is that you cannot inquire into relations between Ministers.

The Taoiseach

I hope that the Deputy will not apply that paradox to me.

Dr. FitzGerald

Our questions here are directed to Ministers so that they may be answerable for the area of responsibility allocated to them. They are so answerable, and in the event of major default a Minister may feel it necessary to resign because of his failure in his own Ministry. That is comparative and parallel with the question of collective responsibility. That being so, if we hold Ministers responsible individually for their Departments within the overall context of collective responsibility, on what grounds can Ministers not be held responsible when they go outside their Departments? That seems to introduce a very dangerous principle indeed under which Ministers can avoid responsibility so long as they do other Ministers' work and not their own. I cannot see that democracy will benefit from pressing that theory.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a matter of relations between Ministers and somethings about which we cannot ask questions. There are certain situations of collective responsibility and certain decisions are taken by Ministers in respect of their own Departments.

Dr. FitzGerald

We can deal with Ministers when they act in relation to their own Departments and they are answerable to us, but it is dangerous in a democratic system if Ministers act outside their own Departments and are not answerable to the House. That is the principle you seem to be introducing. We must challenge that if we are to have any concept of answerability of the Government to the Dáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Where a Minister may take on a certain responsibility he would do so at the behest of the Government, he would be answerable to the Government and the Government would accept responsibility for him.

Dr. FitzGerald

We are not talking of that. We are not talking of the Government asking the Minister to do something. We are talking of a Minister — in fact the Taoiseach — undertaking something in an area which is the responsibility of somebody else. It is a different situation. Is the Taoiseach not answerable for his actions as long as they do not come within the ambit of his own authority? It is precisely that danger that the country fears at present.

Mr. Quinn

Can we start Question Time?

Mr. Kelly

It is a responsibility which he is not willing to stand over and defend in this House at Question Time. That is all I have been able to observe from this episode.