On a point of order, my priority question was removed from the Order Paper at the instigation of the Ceann Comhairle's office. The excuse or reason given was that the Technical Group had submitted a Private Members' motion that would allow this question to be addressed. When I complained about this, I was told I could submit a substitute question. I could have done so but it would have been turned down for precisely the same reason.

Every aspect of health was covered by my question and I am very annoyed that it was refused. As the Minister will be aware, the health questions were moved today to facilitate him. I readily agreed to this but did not do so on the understanding that I would not be allowed a priority question this month. It is very strange that two questions of mine were disallowed while nobody else's were, although they all deal with health and could have been dealt with under the terms of the motion. I realise nothing can be done about this but I am very annoyed.

I assure the Deputy that it is in accordance with long-standing practice.

I appreciate that. I object to the fact that I was singled out for this treatment, whereas every other health question was permitted despite the fact that they could all have been covered under the terms of the motion.

There was nothing unusual in——

It would have been possible for the questions office to telephone my office with an explanation, particularly because health questions were moved with my agreement to facilitate the Minister. I realise it is not the Minister's fault. Nevertheless, I want to place on record my annoyance.

On a point of order, I strongly protest at this development, for which there is no precedent. If such a precedent were to be applied, all questions would have been ruled out of order and there would be no health questions. This has happened three or four times during my time in this House, but with increasing frequency recently. It is totally unacceptable. It cannot be accepted by the Opposition because it may be of benefit to one side today and to another side tomorrow. If this continues, we will have to seek other means of redress.

As I assured Deputy Olivia Mitchell, the decision on this matter was in accordance with long-standing practice. It probably can be raised in another forum. We should proceed. We cannot have a debate on the matter——

We could have a debate on it.

Already, some Member has lost the opportunity to ask a question because the Deputies are eating into the time allowed for doing so. The longer this discussion proceeds, the fewer the questions that can be dealt with today.

I support Deputy Olivia Mitchell. I have lost three questions as a result of this decision. It is grossly unfair.

Hear, hear.

It does not matter whether it happened before, it should not happen now. Deputy Olivia Mitchell in particular has a grievance because hers was a priority question. This problem must be sorted out. It is simply unfair.

The place to sort it out is the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform, not on the floor of the House.

No, it is not.

It cannot be sorted out today. All the Members are accomplishing by prolonging the discussion is that fewer questions will be attended to today.

If this occurs again, we will reconsider the position of co-operation with the Government. It is as simple as that. It is not a matter for the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform.