Can the Minister make any statement on the point raised by Deputy Cowan in relation to the possibilityof expediting the consideration of a more comprehensive measure through the medium of a Committee of this House?

The Minister for Social Welfare indicated that he was willing to establish a Dáil Committee to consider the heads of a comprehensive Bill. I assume that stands, but I am not in a position to say when he intends to establish the Committee, whether during the recess or after the resumption.

Could it not be done during the recess?

It may not be convenient.

It is not necessary, in any case, to report the names of the Committee to the House and it could, therefore, be done during the recess.

That is a matter on which there may be some discussion. Conceivably there might be Deputies who would be useful on such a Committee who might not find it convenient to come to Dublin during the recess.

Is the motion that the House adjourn disposed of?

Yes.

I thought the Tánaiste said he was going to put it.

The Chair made it an order of the House.

Deputy Kyne has asked permission to raise a particular subject on the motion for the Adjournment of the House. I presume he will be allowed to raise the question of which he gave notice.

The Chair can give no such permission. Deputy Blowick has given notice that he will raise the subject matter of Question No. 39 on to-day's Order Paper, and permission has been given to Deputy Blowick.

I am not objecting to Deputy Blowick's question being taken, but I want to differentiate between the taking of a question, permission for which has been requested, and the raising of a particular point or points, on the adjournment of the House.

I understand the order for the adjournment of the House has been made.

Yes, but in recent years it has been the practice in my memory to debate Government policy on some particular issue that calls for clarification.

It was certainly stated here on Thursday last that no adjournment debate was desired on this occasion.

Oh, no.

The order for the adjournment of the House was agreed to-day.

Last week the Tánaiste suggested he would make it an order of the House that day. We objected to it being made an order of the House that day.

The question of the adjournment of the House has been made an order and agreed to.

It was never put before the Dáil.

The Chair put it. I distinctly heard the Chair put it to the House.

I do not want to delay the House, but am I to understand that Deputy Kyne would have been entitled to raise this particular issue at 4 o'clock when we had the general motion for the adjournment of the House?

If he had given notice at that time it would have been considered.

The usual thing in my memory is that Deputieswho want to raise any of these particular points hand in notice during the last sitting day.

It is not necessary to give notice. If we understood the motion was being put at the time we could have discussed it then, but I thought the Minister was giving notice that he was going to put it at the end of the Workmen's Compensation Bill.

This is an old trick when a man has a particular point to raise.

The House has agreed to adjourn at a certain time.

It will not take five minutes. It is in the interest of the country that assurances be given as to whether or not something which purports to be done in the name of the Government is or is not done in the name of the Government.

I am calling on Deputy Blowick.

If it is a question of information, we might take it.

It is a question. If the Chair permits I would like to ask the Tánaiste a question.

Would the Chair permit the Deputy to put the question so that we may know what it is he wants to raise?

The question is that the unemployed associations have received instructions that they are not to parade unless they give certain guarantees, one of the guarantees being that they must not parade to the Dublin Horse Show. Has that the sanction of the Government? The document handed to the unemployed leaders by a Garda superintendent was unsigned. Has it the sanction of the Government?

That is entirely a police matter. The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána is responsible in the matter of maintaing order, independently of the Government.

The Minister will appreciate that everyone in this House wants to see an orderly demonstration and no conflict with the law. That is true so far as our Party is concerned. Surely it is stretching the law beyond the limits when guarantees must be given beforehand that the law will not be broken. If the unemployed demonstrate and march to any particular part of the city and do something which is contrary to the law, the Garda are then entitled to act.

On that I can only say that, as I understand it, the Guards have power to take action if they think a breach of the peace is likely to occur. In any event, if it is suggested they are proceeding outside their authority, that is a matter which must be challenged in the courts.

Surely there are constitutional rights of free assembly.

The constitutional rights of citizens are protected by the courts.