asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state if the Ministerial sanction given, in or about July, 1935, to the discharge of Dr. Ward's duties, as dispensary medical officer and medical officer of health of the Monaghan district, by deputy, during any further absence of Dr. Ward from his district, was given prior to 25th July, 1935, and in anticipation of Dr. Ward's letter, dated 25th July, 1935, to the Monaghan Board of Health; whether, before receiving such Ministerial sanction, Dr. Ward had represented to the Minister that he proposed to resume duties as such dispensary medical officer and medical officer of health while still holding his post as a Parliamentary Secretary; and whether the Minister was aware that Dr. Ward was retaining some part of the salary and/or fees paid by the board of health for the discharge of such medical duties.

The sanction referred to by the Deputy was given on the 25th July, 1935, from which it may be understood that Dr. Ward was making application to the Monaghan Board of Health and Public Assistance for authority for the performance of his duties by deputy. The records of the board show that applications from Dr. Ward for authority to discharge his duties by deputy came before them at their meeting on the 27th July, 1935.

There is no record that Dr. Ward represented to the Minister that he proposed to resume the discharge of his duties as medical officer and medical officer of health of Monaghan dispensary district. I am unable to say whether or not the Minister at the time was aware of the arrangements made between Dr. Ward and his deputy.

Is it correct to say that the records of the local authority on that occasion taken in conjunction with the letter sent by Dr. Ward to which the Minister has referred, give ground for the belief that Dr. Ward was either present at the meeting of the local authority or was in an adjoining room and addressed a letter to the local authority from the premises of the local authority to which he was writing?

There is no evidence in any documents available to me that that in fact was the position. I am not prepared to controvert it.

Is it correct that the date of Dr. Ward's letter signifying the assent of the Minister to the proposal made by him is identical with the date of the resolution taken by the local authority under which the arrangement was confirmed, showing that the letter was written in the town of Monaghan on the day the council met? Is that correct?

I have no evidence on that matter at all.

These documents have not been laid before the Minister?

No. The only information I have is this, that sanction was given on the 25th July, 1935, to Dr. Ward for authority for the performance of his duty by a deputy and that at their meeting on the 27th July the Monaghan Board of Health assented to that authority being given.

Will the Minister raise the matter as to whether in fact the communication made by Dr. Ward, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, in fact on its face bears evidence that it was drafted and delivered to the local authority on the same date that the council took steps to adopt the procedure proposed by him and will he consider the propriety of his Parliamentary Secretary attending at a meeting of the local body and recommending a certain arrangement to them?

That is a separate question, surely.

I think it arises clearly out of the Minister's reply. Perhaps the Minister will look into these matters.

I think the Deputy misapprehends what information is available to me. The only information I have is the record of sanction having been given to the appointment of a deputy. I have no information beyond what is contained in the Press report as to the circumstances under which Deputy Dr. Ward asked the local authority to permit him to appoint a deputy.

Will the Minister say under what Order or regulation Ministerial sanction was given for the performance of Dr. Ward's duties by a deputy?

That, I think, is quite a separate question. If the Deputy puts it down I will give him a comprehensive reply.

When?

That will be next October.

That is not my responsibility. If the Deputy wanted that information earlier he could have secured it in a regular way.

asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state if Dr. Ward did, in fact, resume duty as dispensary medical officer and medical officer of health of the Monaghan district at any time between 1st August, 1935, and 25th October, 1935, or if he signed any records as such dispensary medical officer and medical officer of health during the said period; if any dispensary duties carried out during the said period required the confirming signature of the doctor attending thereto, and if Dr. Ward on any date in this period signed as the doctor attending to any such dispensary duty.

The records of the Monaghan public assistance authority show that Dr. Ward resumed duty as medical officer and medical officer of health of Monaghan dispensary district during August, 1935, and that he signed the vaccination register and the register of births on various dates during that month.

A number of registers and returns require the signature of the medical officer, but some of them need not necessarily be signed at the time the duty is discharged.

With regard to the last part of the Deputy's question, I am informed from the offices of the Monaghan County Council that the medical officer's report book, including the month of August, 1935, that is the book which shows the date of each dispensary day, the time of the medical officer's arrival at the dispensary and the time of his departture therefrom, was included in records which were disposed of as waste paper in the year 1942.

Would the Minister say if it is in accordance with the rules of propriety laid down by him for the conduct of his colleagues in the Department of Local Government and Public Health that a Parliamentary Secretary should be in full-time employment as his Parliamentary Secretary and at the same time in full-time employment as dispensary medical officer in the County Monaghan, even though he elects to discharge the duties of the latter post during holiday periods of his employment as Parliamentary Secretary?

It is not the function of the Minister for Local Government to lay down rules of propriety to govern the conduct of any member or officer of this House. That is the responsibility of Dáil Éireann.

Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to say is it correct for a Parliamentary Secretary engaged in full-time employment to engage at the same time in full-time employment as dispensary medical officer and, if such a proposal is in future submitted to him, will it receive his approval?

I have reminded Deputy Dillon that these are matters which only the House can dispose of.

Are we to understand from the reply which the Minister has just given that a Parliamentary Secretary, appointed to that position by this House, while holding that position, was also acting as dispensary medical officer?

That is right.

That is so.

That is so?

And the Minister has seen nothing wrong in it?

Dáil Éireann has seen nothing wrong in it, so far.

Surely we are entitled to ask does the Minister for Local Government and Public Health now say that any dispensary medical officer in full-time employment is free to accept another full-time post and to draw the salaries of both posts and to purport to discharge the functions of both posts? Surely that is a relevant question. The Minister says that these are the facts in reply to the question. I ask him now if a dispensary doctor in full-time employment——

The Deputy is now repeating his question.

——can take another full-time job and purport to do the duties of both?

Deputy Dillon ought to be better informed than to believe that a dispensary doctor holds a full-time post.

If there is such a person.

Of course, if it suits Deputy Dillon to put up hypothetical cases——

Ministers may not be asked to answer hypothetical questions.

It seems to me that there are certain questions which they do not want to answer at all.

He need not answer, if it does not suit him.

If it does not suit him!

Go bhfóiri Dia orainn.

Question No. 22.

May God defend him from his friends.

Evidently no reply is required to Question No. 22. Question No. 23.

Question No. 22.

The House would not listen.

It has not been asked. No Deputy apparently is prepared to sponsor it on behalf of Deputy McGilligan.

I have already asked it twice.

The Deputy did not rise to ask Question No. 22.

I did, Sir.