This is an opportune time to put a point of order and privilege. On Tuesday, 12th June, 1956, there were questions on the Order Paper—Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20—to which a reply was given by the Minister who purported to answer the questions and thereby undertook responsibility to answer. A Deputy of this House subsequently wished to raise this matter on the Adjournment, and permission was refused to him, on the ground, I understand, that the Minister had no function in the matter. I would respectfully point out to the Chair that the Minister had purported to reply and accepted responsibility. Will the Chair in these circumstances allow the Deputy to raise these questions on the Adjournment?
Business of the Dáil—Ministers' Responsibility.
Major de Valera
The matter to which the Deputy refers was fully considered by me, and after an examination of all the precedents and all the information that could be available to me at the time I decided that the Minister was not directly responsible in the matter that the Deputy proposed to raise, and consequently I declined to allow the Deputy to raise it.
Major de Valera
With respect to the Chair, the Minister made a reply. Is a Deputy not entitled to raise the subject matter on the Adjournment when the Minister has made a reply? There is a serious point of principle involved for the House here, and, in fact, if any Deputy made a statement in the House that cannot be dissociated from his responsibility; and in view of the fact that the Minister made a reply in this House on a certain matter, I respectfully submit to the Chair that a Deputy is entitled to raise the matter.
The Deputy is taking me at a disadvantage. I have not got the replies or the questions before me. The Deputy gave me no notice that he was raising this. If he had done so I would have assembled my information. I would have the precedents on which I relied in making the ruling.
Major de Valera
I do not wish to take the Chair at a disadvantage. There was a question associated with it on to-day's Order Paper and, by request, those references to these questions were again deleted. I was not aware of that till now. I am raising it and I will certainly take an opportunity later of drawing the Chair's attention to the whole matter. The point I want to make is one of principle, the rights of Deputies to raise matters in this House.
The rights of Deputies are not in any way curtailed by the Chair. They have never been curtailed by the Chair. The Chair is just as jealous of the rights of Deputies as any Deputy in this House, and while on all occasions the Chair will endeavour to facilitate Deputies to raise matters which they are entitled to raise, the Chair must be guided by the precedents already recorded, and must also be guided by the information conveyed to him by the Departments concerned. The Chair based the decision on the precedents before me and on information conveyed to me by the Department concerned. Of course the fact is that the Deputy is challenging a decision of the Chair on a ruling. That is, in fact what the Deputy is doing—challenging a decision of the Chair on a ruling given by the Chair. There is a method by which that can be raised and I invite him to have recourse to that method.
Major de Valera
The Deputy is merely challenging, or drawing the Chair's attention to, an anomalous situation that appears to have arisen on the facts that I have stated.
The Deputy has challenged the ruling of the Chair —that is unquestionable—on a matter of very great importance to Deputies. There is no question about that. The matter of very great importance to Deputies is that Deputies should be entitled to raise matters that they are entitled to raise, but nothing else. The Deputy is challenging my ruling on that matter. He ought to proceed to its conclusion with it.
Major de Valera
I take it that what is meant is that it should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
No. Procedure and Privileges may consider the effects of a ruling of the Chair, but this House is the only authority.