Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The ruling to adjourn the Dáil earlier. I rang the Taoiseach to question him on what was happening, and to say that I did not understand why the Dáil was adjourned. The Taoiseach subsequently rang me back to say he agreed and that he had asked for the Dáil to be reconvened. We have 19 junior ministers. I am not sure what the legal basis was for this. Under the Constitution the House sets its own rules, as we all know, but a precedent has been set here. We are living in different times. This could happen again and there could be issues like this again. The Dáil adjourned in such a rush that we did not get a full explanation, dare I say it, from the Ceann Comhairle of whichever Standing Order under which it was done and the manner in which it was done. What was the chain of communication by which the Ceann Comhairle came to this decision, who told him and what was the chain of that conversation all the way back? That all needs to be outlined to Members in this special situation. I am not sure, but I doubt that if I had not made that phone call to the Taoiseach we would be back here now. He queried it and I acknowledge he was not fully aware of the facts at the time because he had just come back, but in fairness he subsequently questioned it. I would like to know who the Taoiseach spoke to. As a result of that we are now back in the House. On what basis was the decision made? What were the Standing Orders? What were the communications by which the Ceann Comhairle was communicated with to make that decision? Why did the Ceann Comhairle not just come into the Dáil and instead of saying what he said, which took everybody by surprise, just explained it in the detail that was necessary? This is unprecedented. I am not sure it has ever happened in this way before. I would like a lot more information on how the decision came about. Was there a role whereby the acting Chief Medical Officer advised the Chief Whip who advised the Clerk of the Dáil? What was the process? This could have other ramifications.

See this speech in context