I have notice from Senator Hussey that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House today, she proposes to raise the following matter:

The serious situation that has arisen at the Wood Quay national monument site as a result of building operations, where Viking artefacts were uncovered by building machinery last Monday.

I rule this matter is not admissible for discussion on the Adjournment on the ground that there is no ministerial responsibility involved.

I also have notice from Senator Connaughton of the following matter:

The fact that section 40 notices are no longer being served for the purpose of land acquisition.

I regard this matter as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment and it will be taken from 8 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., or earlier, if the business ordered is concluded.

I accept fully your ruling on the Adjournment Matter I had put down, but perhaps I could have some clarification because I am very puzzled, when I look at the National Monuments Act of 1930——

May I please interrupt the Senator? I gave careful consideration to the matter before coming to this decision, which I have answered in the House.

So the Minister for Education has no responsibility for the National Monuments Act?

That is the ruling of the Chair.

So no Minister has any responsibility for the destruction of Wood Quay?

I should like the Senator to accept the ruling of the Chair. There will be no discussion on this.

I want to be clear that no Minister has any responsibility for this matter.

The Minister had responsibility for it in 1974.

There can be no discussion on this. This ruling has been given by the Chair and should not be challenged.

I accept the ruling, and with all respect, but a Minister did have responsibility in 1974.

That is the ruling of the Chair.

Nobody is disputing the ruling of the Chair but I think that Senator Hussey is puzzled. I must say I am puzzled in view of the terms of section 25 of the National Monuments Act.

The Chair has given a ruling. I should like Senator Robinson and other Senators to obey the ruling of the Chair on this matter.

Will the Cathaoirleach communicate privately with us as to the reasons for the ruling, as to why there is found to be no ministerial responsibility for archaeological objects?

The Cathaoirleach has already given the ruling. I think that ruling should be accepted.

Might we have an explanation of the grounds on which the Cathaoirleach so finds? Is that possible?

I have already given a ruling and Senators should remain quiet.

It is not a question of being quiet; it is a question of getting an explanation of why the Cathaoirleach so found. We accept the ruling. But, in view of the provisions of the National Monuments Act——

The Chair is not required to give any explanation.

No, not required; I was just requesting.

The Chair has already given a ruling that there can be no further discussion on it and I am now proceeding to the next business.

The point made by Senator Martin was that ministerial responsibility was accepted in April 1974.

There will be no further discussion on it. If Senators do not accept the ruling of the Chair there will be another remedy.

Every Senator who has spoken has accepted your ruling; nobody is querying your ruling. We are asking for the courtesy of some explanation of your ruling which is not a discussion on the ruling. I think that is a courtesy that the Cathaoirleach ought to extend to the House.

Yes, the Cathaoirleach certainly will extend courtesy to the House. But the Cathaoirleach has already given the ruling and said that there shall be no discussion on it.

It is too simple to utter a simple statement and then say: if you do not accept it totally you may not even ask for an expansion of the reasons why. That is not a question of your ruling. It is an extension of unilateral power which is being misused.

The Chair has already said there shall be no discussion on it.

In an effort to assist in this matter might I recall that the Minister of State, Deputy Wyse, spoke on behalf of the Government on a debate on this subject in this House?

I think, Sir, you owe us an explanation of your ruling. Nobody is questioning it.

There is no practice in the Seanad, so far as I am aware, of the Cathaoirleach giving an explanation. The ruling of the Chair has been given under a certain Standing Order and there shall be no further discussion on it.