It is proposed to take business on the Order Paper in the following order: Nos. 3 and 9 (Votes 60 and 3). Publicbusiness will be interrupted at 9.30 to take Private Deputies' business.
Order of Business.
In regard to the motion which stands in the names of Deputy Tully and myself with reference to the arrest and imprisonment of the elected representative of the people of Mid-Tyrone, Mr. Liam Kelly, I should like to ascertain whether the Government would make time available in the near future for the discussion of the motion. I do not know whether the Minister could ascertain from the Taoiseach whether he would be prepared to allow that motion to be taken with the Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department. It might possibly be a convenient time to have it discussed.
The Government have not yet given any consideration to the matter.
Will the Minister have inquiries made and I could ask the question again on Tuesday?
I am not quite sure what the position will be.
I presume we are sitting on Tuesday?
Yes.
No, Tuesday is a holyday.
Then on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday next.
What are the hours proposed for Friday?
The same hours as for Wednesday and Thursday, Tuesday being a holyday.
Are you going to sit in the afternoon?
If necessary, yes.
We used to sit on Friday morning.
If we could finish the business on Friday morning it might not be necessary to sit late. We can announce the arrangements to-morrowafter there has been some discussion with the Whips.
Might I ask a direction in regard to the procedure on questions? On Question 14, the Minister for Health replied to the effect that he would have the information in seven days' time and that he would send it to the Deputy who put down the question. I have always been under the impression that a reply to a question which appears on the Order Paper should be printed in the Official Debates and be available to all Deputies of the House.
It has been the practice for Ministers on certain occasions to supply information to Deputies by letter.
I put down a question in reply to which the Minister for Finance said he would send me a letter. I said I would put down the question again and when I tried to put down the question again, I was told it was out of order.
I cannot allow a discussion on a ruling of the Chair on this matter. The question was out of order because there was repetition of the same question as asked before.
It arose out of Deputy Dillon's inability to read. He was taught to talk but not to read.
There is one thing the Minister was not taught and that is a little manners in the House.
The matter raised by Deputy Mac Fheórais had reference to an entirely different question. It has been the practice for Ministers to send letters giving information that Deputies require. It has been the practice for years in this House.
I am sure the Chair will not take exception to my saying that when I put down a question, the answer should be available for every single Deputy in the Official Report
Has it not always been the practice if the Deputy concernedwanted information on the records of the House to deal with it by another question being asked and the information being put on the records of the House? That has happened to me twice. Are we to take it that if the question is repeated within seven days, it will not be ruled out of order as being repetitive?
If the same question is put down, it will have to be ruled out of order.
Are we not entitled to get the answer on the records of the House if the Minister is not in a position to give the answer on the day that the question comes up for answer?
The Deputy did not make that point. When the information is not available the question will be allowed.
If the Minister has not got the information when the question is asked in the House, the question may be put down when the information is available?
That is so. Deputy Dillon's point is entirely different.
It is not a bit.
It is exactly the same.
The Minister made quite a different answer. He did not say the information was not available but he referred Deputy Dillon to particular Government publications.
No, Sir. The Minister said to me across the House that if the information offered to me was not adequate he would write to me showing me how the information might be obtained. I said, not wishing to give him a dusty answer, that it would be much simpler if he would answer my question.
I have referred to the Official Report. The Minister referred Deputy Dillon to certain Government publications. Otherdiscussion followed and the answer of the Minister was to refer Deputy Dillon to particular Government publications. To ask a question about that later would surely be repetition.
I want to support Deputy Dillon in the statement that in the subsequent interchanges that took place the Minister said "Very good" and invited him to put down a question.
He said he would write him a letter.
Did I not say——
I cannot allow the Chair's ruling to be the subject of discussion in this fashion. I have informed Deputy Dillon of what happened from the Official Report. A question of the nature which Deputy Dillon suggested would be repetition.
On the general question, and in order that a precedent may not be set up by the statement from the Chair in this matter, if I put down a question and am told that the information is not available and that it will be sent to me by letter and if I get a letter in a few days and I think that it is a matter that should be on the permanent records of the House, is there anything to prevent my asking Deputy Sweetman or Deputy Dillon to put down the same question and to get the information published in this House by way of answer?
They are ashamed to tell where the hospital funds are invested.
That is a purely hypothetical question. It has been the practice of the Chair not to answer hypothetical questions. I am not prepared to answer that. In order that the question could be dealt with by the Chair, it must be a question related to fact or an actual question.
I do not want to put it as a hypothetical question. I want to put it as a statement of fact so that the implication in one of your statements as to the circumstances in which a question may be ruled out of order may not be taken as a precedent.
The acting-Minister for Finance, in reply to Deputy Dillon's question said:—
"If the Deputy genuinely does not understand the accounts right well, I appreciate that and I will send him a letter giving him an indication of how it is clearly set out in that statement."
What did Deputy Dillon reply?
I raised a simple point. The Minister for Health to-day told Deputy Hickey that he would not have certain information for another seven days and that he would send him that information. Surely it would have been easy for the Minister to ask Deputy Hickey to repeat the question so that he would be able to reply in the House and it would be inserted on the Official Records.
Deputy Corish is not raising a hypothetical question. He is raising a question which has been actually before the House, and if Deputy Hickey repeats the question it will not be ruled out as a matter of repetition.
The Deputy is going to get information from the Minister in seven days and why should he put it down? Deputy Hickey will get the information, but I want to have it on the Official Records.
Then Deputy Corish may put down the question himself if he wants that. The Chair is not prepared to answer 147 questions on this matter.
Might I have a ruling on this point? The Minister has undertaken to furnish Deputy Hickey with the information by letter and that letter will repose in Deputy Hickey's archives. But suppose another Deputy wants to get the same information I take it that a question by another Deputy will not be ruled out of order on the ground that it is repetitive?
When the information is not available to the Minister at the time he purportsto answer the question, I will not rule out a question asking for the same information when the information is available to the Minister.
Suppose a Deputy gets a letter from a Minister giving information which he seeks, no other Deputy has access to that and it will not be in the Official Records; am I to take it, therefore, that any other Deputy may put down a question framed exactly like the one which elicited the reply from the Minister?
My answer is that the question will be subject to the ruling of the Chair.
He will probably get a letter from the Minister.
Does the Deputy want me to control the Ministry?
It would be no harm when they misbehave.