Normally, there should be no comment arising from a personal explanation of this kind except by the Member directly involved but since Deputy Dowling has brought the Chair into the matter I feel I should explain the position to the House. Deputy Dowling pressed me yesterday to take action in relation to some alleged misbehaviour on the part of a Minister in answering a question last week. I tried to explain to him that the way a Minister answers is not a matter for the Chair but on being pressed further by the Deputy I promised to consider the matter.
The Deputy had raised the matter without giving me the courtesy of prior notice and thereby the opportunity of looking at the Minister's answer. When I did subsequently look at the answer I did not find anything in the way of a prima facie breach of privilege on which the Chair should act. I wrote accordingly to the Deputy, the text of my letter being as follows:
9th March, 1976.
Dear Deputy,
Earlier today you pressed me to consider allowing a matter of a Minister's answer to a question to go to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I tried to explain to you that the nature of a Minister's answer was not a matter for the Chair but on further pressure from you I agreed to consider the matter since I was not clear as to the nature of your complaint.
I have now had an opportunity of looking at the Official Report of the Minister's answer and I find there is nothing therein which would warrant action by the Chair. If you are dissatisfied with the Minister's answering, as you seem to be, it is open to you to pursue the matter by normal Parliamentary Procedure e.g. you can consult with my office in relation to putting down a further question, you can seek to raise the issue on the adjournment or you can submit a motion for debate in the House, etc.
Yours sincerely,
Ceann Comhairle.
Since the Deputy raised the matter as one of privilege I dealt with it as a matter of priority at all stages and published it having informed Deputy Dowling beforehand.
Furthermore, the Chair is entitled to defend itself. The Deputy has accused me of protecting the Minister. I reject that charge as totally untrue and contemptible. I also reject any charge of collusion with the Minister or Government. Neither I nor my officials had any communication directly or indirectly with the Minister or Government at any time prior to the issue of my letter. Indeed, I did not know what the Deputy was charging the Minister with. If it is inaccuracy in answering a question, that of itself would not constitute a prima facie breach of privilege and would not be a matter on which the Chair should act.
