On a point of order, Sir, before we proceed I would ask you to allow at the end of Question Time a debate on the staffing and equipment of Naas County Hospital. You notified me that this was out of order as the matter was one for the health board concerned. However, I have discovered since that the staffing of the hospital is a matter for Comhairle na nOspidéal.

I will look later into what the Deputy is saying.

They are responsible directly to the Minister so the only way in which I can communicate with them is through the Minister. I am asking that an adjournment debate be allowed in order to discuss this matter which is of vital importance to the people of Kildare and in circumstances in which there is no registrar at Naas Hospital.

The Deputy may not pursue the question now but I shall have another look at the point he is making.

Will time be made available for discussion of the matter?

I shall investigate what the Deputy is saying in order to ascertain whether he has been done any wrong by this decision and I shall communicate with him later.

On a point of order, has the Chair received any communication from the Clerk of the Dáil in relation to an incident in the House yesterday?

Yes. I have only just had time to know of this and I shall have the matter investigated further.

When may I expect a statement to be made in the House in this regard?

When the Dáil meets again on Tuesday next.

As I may not be here then I would prefer if the statement could be made on Wednesday. In the meantime I want it to be known that I am very annoyed about the whole issue.

The Deputy will be here on Wednesday, then?

Yes.

On a point of order, I would draw your attention to the fact that the Order Paper for Tuesday, 28 February contained a question, No. 38, which at the time I indicated that I wished to have postponed. I discover now that the question has disappeared from the Order Paper. On discovering this I inquired from the Editor of Debates as to the record and was informed that in the report you are quoted as having said, when the question was reached, that it was being postponed. Therefore, I am raising the matter as one of urgency and am asking you to add the question to the Order Paper for today.

I do not know whether that can be done.

Who is in control of the Order Paper?

I am.

Do you have the authority to add the question to today's Order Paper?

I have never done so before but I would see nothing wrong with the question being answered at the end of Question Time today if we had a copy of the question.

Hear, hear.

Is the Deputy sure that the question has not been answered already due to a mistake, perhaps?

It has not been answered. May I take it that you will ask one of your officials to provide a copy of the question for the Minister during Question Time so that he may answer at the end of Question Time? You will appreciate the reason for adding it today—by some extra-ordinary circumstance, the Minister may finish today.

By some extraordinary co-operation.

Is the Deputy sure that a written reply was not supplied?

I have checked and rechecked but there was no reply.

There is no way that the Minister could communicate with his office at the moment because he will be answering questions from now on.

A reply to the question today is subject to the Minister being in a position to reply.

Is the Minister's difficulty related to the telephone strike that there is no attempt to settle?

That is a brilliant interjection.

If it is not answered today will it be postponed for a number of weeks? Would the reply not have been prepared already?

I would not know that.

Is it being added to the Order Paper?

I shall see if that can be done.

Perhaps I can help the Chair. I do not know what the question is but if I can get it I will answer it.

On a point of order, what right has the Minister in relation to examining a Dáil question tabled by a Deputy through the General Office in regard to interpreting the question as put? Also, what right has the Minister to examine the original question and, further, what right has the Deputy to be questioned by the General Office or by your office in relation to any question he puts down and which may be subject to one or two interpretations?

The question of what right the Minister has in relation to a question is not one for the Chair to answer but there has to be a decision as to whether a question is addressed to the proper Minister. That would entail necessarily the Minister having the right to see the question. With regard to the office into which the questions are handed, I am responsible and I think that the office act in a courteous and helpful manner, helping Deputies to reconstruct questions if necessary and frequently having to contact Deputies regarding the possibility of ambiguity in a question as it is framed.

If in relation to any question tabled either for oral or written reply there is the possibility of more than one interpretation, may I take it that the Deputy concerned is consulted automatically in relation to the proper interpretation or is the matter allowed to go to the Minister for his interpretation, as happened apparently in respect of a question for answer yesterday and which was answered by the Minister who chose to comment in an unparliamentary way on the occasion?

I object strenuously to that statement from the Deputy. I got a question about examiners——

Am I not in possession?

Order.

I will not be intimidated or bullied, and neither will I lose my temper.

Is the Chair prepared to allow this improper effort on the part of the Minister?

The Deputy may not spend so long drawing attention to a matter to which he is objecting. This is without precedent. I have assured the Deputy already that I will have this matter investigated fully and will give him a suitable reply.

Some of the remarks yesterday were without precedent, too.

I accept what you say, Sir, but I am asking by way of a point of order about the continued protection of the rights of Deputies in this House. In this context I am merely asking whether a Deputy who puts a question has the right to be consulted in relation to its interpretation or if it is now the position that the question is passed to a Minister for his Department's interpretation?

It is passed to the Department to be read. If the word "examiner" appears in the question I answer it on that basis. I told the Deputy yesterday that if he puts the word "examinee" in the question I shall answer it on that basis. There is far too much heat but too little light about the whole matter. Examiners as well as examinees can be put under pressure and I consider that I was perfectly reasonable in answering the question as I got it, but I shall answer the other one also if it is tabled.

The fact is that the original word, which so far as I was concerned was "examinee", was open to interpretation. What happened was that the Minister got hold of the question, which incidentally was changed in the General Office without my permission. This has been admitted. Surely then on this basis any Deputy is entitled to the same privilege.

The Deputy may not continue in this way.

We have lost ten minutes of Question Time already.

I am endeavouring to get an assurance that in future, if a question is passed to a Minister or to one of his servants for interpretation, the Deputy concerned will be consulted too. Otherwise, there is gross disrespect in relation to the procedure of the House.

We should not be holding up the House unnecessarily in talking about something that is not in order. In regard to the Questions Office. as it is known popularly, a Deputy is responsible for the wording of his questions, and it is only out of courtesy that the office may contact him at any time to amend, improve or change a question. I am calling Question No. 1.

On a further point of order, is the General Office entitled to change a word without consulting a Deputy? That is the core of my argument. Or is it the position that questions put down in longhand are re-referred to the Minister for his interpretation? If so, this is a gross abuse of parliamentary procedure.

Am I to understand the Chair as having given a ruling in regard to Question No. 38 of Tuesday last?

I have given a ruling that I am prepared to accept the question if the Minister can answer it. If he has not got the answer I cannot compel him. I am prepared to accept it.

Are we assured by the Minister that he will answer the question?

I do not even know the question to which the Deputy is referring. I understood Deputy Horgan to say that he was afraid that, in the unlikely eventuality of all the questions on education being finished, his question would consequently be postponed for several weeks. I understood that this question would come from Deputy Horgan and I will answer it when I come to it in my ordinary list.

I would ask the Minister to clarify the point as to where this question fits into his ordinary list. Does it fit at the end of the questions which are down to him today?

Yes. It is at the end of the questions put down to me today as Minister for Education.

Today?

If the Deputy will resume his seat, I will tell him that we have now procured a copy of the question and the answer.

I have the question now and with the indulgence of the Chair I will answer it.

With the permission of the House.

With the permission of the Chair. The Chair decides.

I must be guided by the Chair. I thought Deputy Collins was helping Deputy Horgan.