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.