In regard to the notice given by Deputy Mullins to raise a matter on the Adjournment tonight, I would like to know what is the position?
Question on the Adjournment.
I am in a difficulty in regard to that matter. Deputy Mullins, I believe, does not represent any Party, but represents only himself and I am not aware of the fact that other Deputies wish to join him in this matter. Normally, I think, a half-hour's discussion will suffice to dispose of the matter. If the Deputy concerned would inform me whether other Deputies are interested I would be prepared to consider his request.
I do not think that half an hour would be sufficient. We have had experience previously in regard to half-hour debates with the result that we got no reply from the Minister concerned. I suggest that, in view of the unprecedented nature of the action of the Minister, the President should, in order to allay public uneasiness, give more time for the discussion of the question than the time normally allowed.
The Minister informed me that he would be able to answer in a quarter of an hour any case put up in a quarter of an hour on the subject.
In regard to the matters of which notice has been given for this evening, I think I must take Deputy Mullins's notice in preference to the matters raised in questions 14 and 15. Perhaps the Deputies concerned with Nos. 14 and 15 would make further inquiries before raising the matter to-morrow.
Could they not be raised to-morrow and Friday?
In regard to No. 14 there is complete difference as to the statement of the facts. Perhaps if the Deputy would investigate the matter with the Minister in the interval, the subject might be raised in another form to-morrow. In regard to No. 15, if it is a fact that the Minister for Local Government did not sanction the appointment and has no function in regard to it, it is not a matter that could be raised. That is why I suggest that the Deputies concerned should make further inquiries and raise the matter again to-morrow.