On a point of order, a Deputy here who is familiar with the Order of the House, which today as on other days, ordered that Questions should terminate at 3.30 p.m., rose as was his right, to inquire why Questions were proceeding when it was five minutes past 3.30 p.m. I suggest that the Chair was disrespectful towards him and the House. In deference to whatever arrangement was made, the Chair might have advised the House at 3.30 p.m. of the new arrangement and not reprimand somebody who had the right to inquire why Questions had proceeded beyond the ordered time.

I did not see any need to inform the House at that stage as I had done so beforehand.

The Chair addressed a Deputy and said that if he had been present for some minor arrangement that had been made with regard to the Order of Business he would have known about the situation. It is not obligatory on every Member to be present while changes are made which differ from the Order of Business. It would have been more appropriate for the Chair and more courteous to the House if he had advised Members at 3.30 p.m. and this difficulty would not have arisen.

If Deputy Brady feels offended, I withdraw the remark.

I accept the Chair's apology.