On the Order of Business this morning Deputy Jack Lynch, the Leader of the Opposition, asked for a statement on the disallowance of a matter for the Adjournment on the ground of lack of ministerial responsibility when the same matter had been permitted to be raised by way of parliamentary question.
I wish to thank Deputy Lynch for the opportunity he has given the Chair to clarify this point.
In so far as parliamentary questions are concerned, the Standing Order is specific to the effect that questions to a Member of the Government must relate to public affairs connected with his Department or to matters of administration for which he is officially responsible. In interpreting this Standing Order the Chair has always taken the view that questions should not be disallowed unless (1) they are quite clearly outside the scope of the functions of any Department or (2) they relate to matters for which Ministers in the past have refused to accept official responsibility. Under this latter heading a whole series of precedents, going back many years, has been established in relation to State-sponsored bodies set up under Statute. In the case of a large number of these, for example, CIE, Aer Lingus, the Arts Council, Bord Fáilte, ESB, RTE —questions relating to their day-to-day administration have been disallowed because Minister have refused to accept official responsibility.
There are, however, many other State-sponsored bodies about whose general activities Ministers have supplied information in response to parliamentary questions even though they could not be held in law to have official responsibility. The most obvious example in this category is the Land Commission. Down through the years successive Ministers for Lands have supplied information on the acquision and division of land, a matter which is by law reserved entirely for the Land Commission. I am sure that the House would not wish that the Chair should apply the rule relating to official responsibility so strictly that it would be denied information of a kind it had traditionally received.
The position in relation to matters raised for debate on the motion for the Adjournment of the Dáil is, however, quite different. There are, basically, five criteria for the admission of such matters and they have always been strictly applied by the Chair. The first of those is official responsibility. The others, as a matter of interest, are advocacy or criticism of legislation, repetition or anticipation of debate, sub judice and matter more suitable for a substantive motion. The Chair examines every matter raised for the Adjournment to ensure that it is not in conflict with these criteria. If official responsibility cannot be established, the matter is not in order. Some examples from past rulings will highlight this point. The Social Welfare Acts provide for deciding officers and appeals officers to determine the amounts of benefit due to social welfare claimants. Parliamentary questions in this area have never been disallowed, but no matter for the Adjournment has been permitted which sought to deal with the amount of benefit awarded as it is not the official responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare to make the determination in any particular case. A similar position obtains in regard to matters which are within the statutory responsibility of the Land Commission, to which I have referred, or of State-sponsored bodies in general.
I trust that this statement clarifies the position for the Leader of the Opposition and for the House in general. Perhaps I should make it clear that the procedure I have described relates only to Questions and the half hour Adjournment Debate. The House is not, of course, precluded from debating such matters as the Leader of the Opposition refers to on other occasions. For example, a Deputy can table a substantive motion dealing with the matter in question and have it brought forward for debate. I trust that this assists the Leader of the Opposition.
