We will now take Priority Questions.
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Priority Questions.
May I make a point of order?
Very briefly.
A Cheann Comhairle, I received your letter at lunchtime outlining the reason my priority questions have been disallowed. I have spoken to you on the telephone about this matter but I find this situation most unsatisfactory. If priority questions in particular are to be disallowed, some notification should be given to the Deputy concerned. This matter should be raised at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Notwithstanding that, this practice allows the Minister to avoid questions and results in less accountability in this House. Regrettably, the Minister did not come before the committee on health and children on the question of SARS and the fact that our questions on SARS and the public health doctors issue—
The Deputy has made his point.
It is important that you listen to us, a Cheann Comhairle, and in future rectify this situation.
I wish to record my objection to the removal of a priority question tabled by the main Opposition spokesperson and the Green Party spokesperson. It was erroneously removed and I have argued that point with you, a Cheann Comhairle. However, what I really object to is the grave discourtesy shown to me. I have not yet received your letter, although I accept that it may be in the pigeon hole since lunchtime. The reality is that I was in touch with the General Office and with your office yesterday on several occasions and nobody took the time or the courtesy to inform me that one of my questions might have to be withdrawn. That situation is intolerable. It means, in effect, that the issue I want to raise, which is of national and international importance, will not now be discussed. You must take up this matter, a Cheann Comhairle, and ensure that it never happens again.
I take exception to the suggestion that I should have put down a number of priority questions. It makes a farce of tabling a priority question if I have to put down a number of questions in order for one to be chosen. I tabled a priority question last Monday, and last Friday I put down a matter for this evening's Private Members' business. Your office, a Cheann Comhairle, and the General Office knew that both questions were tabled but nobody took the time to accord me the courtesy of a telephone call.
I draw your attention, a Cheann Comhairle, to Standing Order 34(1) which states:
The Ceann Comhairle shall examine every Question in order to ensure that it conforms with the provisions of this Standing Order. The Ceann Comhairle shall rule out of order any Question which does not comply with Standing Orders: Provided that the Ceann Comhairle, or the Clerk under his or her authority, may amend any Question after consultation with the member responsible for the Question, to secure its compliance with Standing Orders.
I was not accorded that courtesy nor given that opportunity, and that is my objection.
I support the expressions of unease by the other speakers and voice my objection having also had a raft of questions disallowed on the anticipatory rule referred to. I do not accept that ruling in my case because the questions were submitted before the debate on health in Private Members' time was decided. It is a discourtesy to Members of the House to find that the time and energy they put into tabling questions on the Order Paper is wasted because they are set aside. It was decided many years ago in this House that the anticipatory rule would not apply. The intention to change the rules is not acceptable.
This is not a personal attack on the Minister but I received a telephone call from his office regarding questions on health looking for clarification on the question being raised. I tried to be helpful only to find that my question was then disallowed. I put it on record that when Ministers seek the assistance of the Opposition in future they will not get it if that is the way we are to be treated.
It is correct that Deputies Olivia Mitchell and Gormley raised the matter with my office this morning. A number of questions to the Minister for Health and Children, including those of the Deputies, were ruled out of order as they anticipated the debate on the Private Members' motion before the House this evening.
I dispute that.
The Chair does not have discretion to override Standing Order 34(6). That is a matter for Dáil reform. Deputy Durkan pointed out there was some agreement in the past – I do not know where – to remove the rule relating to anticipation.
That is correct.
However, Standing Order 34(6), on which the Chair is obliged to rule, states quite specifically: "A question shall not anticipate the discussion of any subject of which notice has been given and which is scheduled to be brought before the Dáil within the same week in which the question is to be answered." The Chair ruled in accordance with the Standing Order. My ruling stands.
Deputy Gormley said he would like the matter brought before the Committee on Procedures and Privileges while Deputy Olivia Mitchell said it was a matter for the Chair, which is not the case. If the Whip of Deputy Gormley's party wishes to bring the matter before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, that is fine, and if the committee on Dáil reform wishes to change the Standing Order, that is equally fine, but the Chair is obliged to implement the Standing Order as it stands. We are moving to Question No. 55.
You know that debate was decided previously.
The Standing Order is quite specific and there is no ambiguity about it.
It had been decided previously on finance.
If the House wishes to change the Standing Order, the Chair will be delighted to implement the new Standing Order.
Will you support us, a Cheann Comhairle?
I am not a member of the Committee on Dáil Reform. I call Question No. 55.
Will you consult the Deputy who tabled the question, a Cheann Comhairle?
The Minister for Health and Children will support us.