With regard to Deputy Corry's point about Question 12, does the Deputy want to raise the matter on the adjournment?
QUESTION ON ADJOURNMENT.
Yes.
The question appears to relate to the appointment of a particular individual as postman at Carrigtwohill. It opens up a new and very wide field if on the adjournment we are to have questions raised which have no general interest and no general application, but that simply concern one particular individual case. I am very loath to accept a notice like that.
It deals with the whole policy of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in giving preferential treatment to ex-National Army men and cutting out just applications for promotion by other persons.
On the question of notice, may I ask whether it is not the established custom that, if a Deputy does not receive what he considers to be a satisfactory reply to his question in the Dáil he is entitled to give notice that he will raise the question on the adjournment, with a view to having, perhaps, something in the nature of a more elaborate question and answer brought before the Dáil? Does the question at issue enter into the matter of order at all? Is the Deputy not entitled to raise the question whether it is a particular question or whether it relates to general policy?
I am not prepared to accept the Deputy's view as to what enters into a question of order. Deputy Corry asked a particular question to-day and he said he was going to raise the matter on the adjournment. The matter, as it appeared from the question and the reply, and the supplementary questions and answers, seems to concern one particular instance of a temporary postman at Carrigtwohill and it seems to me as a matter of order that to raise on the adjournment a particular case, in which no general principle would appear to be involved, and which would appear to have no general interest, is a bad procedure.
Is not the Deputy entitled to do it?
If Deputies will do me the honour of listen-to me while I am on my feet, there will not be any doubt about the order of that. When a completely new line is opened in the Dáil, it is part of the duty of the Chair to indicate to the Dáil that that is being done, and I think it would be done if Deputy Corry simply wanted to raise on the adjournment a question relating to the employment of a particular individual not raising any general principle at all. I understand from him now that what he desires to raise is a question of the preference given by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to ex-National Army men for promotion.
There is a general principle involved.
There is a general principle involved in that, and I am prepared to accept that.
As this question may be taken as a precedent, may I respectfully submit that, as far as I recollect, matters concerning individual cases have been raised on the adjournment before?
Yes, matters concerning individuals which have some general interest, which raised some question of more importance than the mere question of an individual. Deputy Corry's amended notice is quite satisfactory.
Is not the time on the adjournment, which is only a matter of half an hour, understood to be allotted to what might be described as a glorified question and answer—a speech by a Deputy elaborating his question, and a more elaborate reply from the Minister?
Yes, that is quite so. There has been a tendency to regard the time on the adjournment as being a time when Deputies make speeches, when the Minister gets very little time to answer, and when, during the little time that he gets, he is interrupted persistently. I hope it is not intended to pursue that policy on the adjournment in future. But I did not state in the beginning that I would not allow Deputy Corry to raise the question. I simply said there was a new question arising now, as to whether on the adjournment we would have questions raised which have no general interest whatever. As far as my recollection carries me, that has never occurred. I am taking Deputy Corry's amended notice.