On the motion for the Adjournment, Deputy Palmer gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of Question No. 12 on today's Order Paper.

On a point of order—I think you will agree, Sir, that I gave you notice that I intended to raise this point of order—after Question Time today, I gave notice that I wished to raise the subject matter of Questions Nos. 4 and 5, on the Adjournment, and I was told that the Chair would communicate with me in that respect. Subsequently, Sir, you communicated with me, indicating that I was in order in raising the subject matter of Questions Nos. 4 and 5 on the Adjournment. Some hours later, it was conveyed to me that you had altered your decision in that respect. I think I am entitled to an official explanation as to why you altered your decision in that regard.

If I may say so, Deputy Palmer has had a very strenuous evening in the House on the last Bill, and I am certain he would waive his rights if the appropriate Minister is prepared to accept the motion on the Adjournment by Deputy Casey.

Deputy Casey would be only too pleased to go ahead.

It may not be the same Minister—I do not know.

I think the Chair owes it to the House, and certainly owes it to me, to say why this amazing decision was made, an hour after the Chair conveyed the original decision to me.

Any explanation the Chair gives will be given to the House.

To the House, yes. That is what I am asking.

Notice was given of three separate matters to be raised on the Adjournment tonight. Each of these matters was reviewed by me and adjudged to be in order to be raised. My duty was, therefore, to select which should be given priority. Originally I selected in favour of Deputy Casey. Later it was drawn to my attention that the Minister who would reply to Deputy Casey would be unlikely to be present since he expected to be in the Seanad to a late hour. In such circumstances, there would have been no point in allowing Deputy Casey to pursue the matter with which he was concerned, when another member could be allowed on the Adjournment and receive a reply from the appropriate Minister. It has been customary in the past that where a Minister is unable to be present for an Adjournment debate and makes that known, the member postpones raising the matter until the Minister can be present. It is not, of course, obligatory on him to do so. In the present case, however, when other members are also anxious to be heard on the Adjournment, the Chair must see that the half-hour is used to the best advantage and make a selection between members accordingly.

There would be little point in allowing Deputy Casey to raise a matter if there were not a Minister here to deal with it and prevent another member from raising another matter when there was a Minister ready to deal with that.

If you will allow me, Sir, I am indebted to you for that explanation but you will, of course, recognise that Questions Nos. 4 and 5, standing in my name, are addressed to the Minister for Health, who is in America, I understand, and the replies were delivered here today on his behalf by the Minister for Local Government.

The Acting Minister for Health.

I do not think it is very important whether or not the Minister for Local Government is available in this House at 10.30 p.m. He is only a stop-gap for the Minister for Health at any rate, and any other Minister——

The Deputy is not raising a point of order now.

I am submitting to you that the Minister for Local Government replied on behalf of the Minister for Health and that any other Minister of the Cabinet is entitled to deal with my Question on the Adjournment——

The Deputy will resume his seat.

——and the Chair knows as well as I know that the Minister for Local Government has been out of the Seanad since 10 o'clock and is available now, and even if the Minister for Local Government were not available, any other Minister would be entitled to take my Question on the Adjournment.

The Minister for Local Government is deputising for the Minister for Health.

Any other Minister could do it. He is only a stop-gap.

Such remarks are only offensive and have no——

The Deputy means to be offensive, of course.

I do not. I mean to get fair play.

I understood that when a matter is raised on the Adjournment in this House, there is no obligation on the Minister to be present, that he need not be present if he decides not to be present, but that the Chair rules on the question itself without having regard to the convenience of the Minister concerned. I understood that it was always the practice of the House and that the Chair——

The Chair does not rule according to the convenience of Ministers. If there are a number of matters equally in order for the Adjournment, a matter for which the Minister can be present to reply must take precedence over one for which the Minister cannot be present.

The appropriate Minister is in America, and the Chair knew that when he ruled that I could raise the matter.

The appropriate Minister is present to deal with Deputy Palmer's case. Incidentally, there was another Minister, the Minister for Lands, who said he could not be present to deal with Deputy Barry's case.

The Chair knew of this when he ruled that I could raise this matter on the Adjournment and when he gave me precedence.

I did not know, until it was conveyed to me, that the Minister who would reply expected to be held up in the Seanad.

The Questions are addressed to the Minister for Health who is in America, but it does not matter to me who replies in his absence.

It matters to the Chair that the Minister who deputises for him should be present.

But any Minister in the Cabinet can deputise for a Minister in his absence.

On a point of order——

It has nothing to do with me.

On a point of order, when a Deputy indicates to the Chair that he proposes to raise a matter on the Adjournment and the Chair indicates that he may raise such matter, I understood he was entitled to 20 minutes in which to make his point, and that the Minister was entitled to 10 minutes to reply. It is now 22 minutes to 11 o'clock and Deputy Palmer will be embarrassed if he has to fit the argument he wishes to make —and which I know he wants to make——

If Deputy Palmer does not wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight, the Chair is not going to force him to do so.

In order to facilitate the Chair and the House, I have no desire to raise it tonight, if I may do so next week.

The Deputy can give notice to the Chair next week if he wishes to do so——

What about Deputy Casey? Where does he come in, in all this?

The Chair should be notified if the matter is to be raised again.

Deputy Casey got notice from the Chair that he would be on the Adjournment, having given notice here that he wished to raise the subject matter of questions on the Order Paper today on the Adjournment tonight and, for reasons best known to the Chair, it was decided that he would be out of order. What I want to know is why the Chair changed its mind.

The Deputy was not told he was out of order. He was told that the Minister dealing with the matter would not be available.

Yes, because the Minister for Health is in America.

On a point of order——

On a point of order, Deputy Blaney is Acting Minister for Health.

I know that.

Where is he?

He was appointed by the Taoiseach.

The Seanad has adjourned since 10 o'clock and the Minister for Local Government should be here now.

On a point of order, I gave notice at Question Time today that I was anxious to raise a question on the Adjournment tonight and I am prepared to raise that question now.

The intention in raising a Parliamentary Question on the Adjournment is that the Minister will expand any reply given at Question Time. If the Minister is absent the intention cannot be fulfilled and there is little point in raising it.

The Minister for Local Government did not wish to hear me and the Chair co-operated with him in his not hearing me.

Is it not quite plain that all this talk was started in order to get Deputy Palmer out of hole?

That is a most unfair remark.

Where is the Minister for Local Government?

He has not been able to come.

Is Deputy Casey making a charge against the Chair?

Yes, I am. I said that the Minister for Local Government did not wish to hear me tonight and that the Chair co-operated with him in his not hearing me.

That is not true. Sin éitheach.

I propose to hear no more from the Deputy and to adjourn the House.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.40 p.m., until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19th May, 1960.