It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 6, 7 (resumed) and 4. It is proposed to interrupt business at 3.30 p.m. to take Nos. 7 and 4 if they have not already been reached at that time.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, I should like to ask the Taoiseach if he will reconsider his decision to transfer Question No. 191 to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry. The question is one which relates to an allegation made by the Chairman of the IFO on an RTE programme that members of the Government when in Opposition had offered financial and legal aid for the taking of proceedings against the previous Government. As this is something which is not the responsibility of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry as he was not involved in that allegation, as he had no responsibility for what his colleagues did in opposition, and as it relates to an allegation against a member of the Government when in opposition, does the Taoiseach not accept that this is something he should handle himself? Perhaps he will reconsider or reflect further on his decision to transfer the question?
I will reflect. If the Deputy wants information it does not matter who gives the information. I do not accept that the question contains an allegation in the context the Deputy has put it.
Is it because the Minister involved is Deputy Haughey that the Taoiseach is very reluctant to answer the question?
I do not think it is in order to use this device for raising a matter that would not be reached in the ordinary way.
The Deputy asks the question and then asserts that it is a fact. That is the kind of logic he follows.
As the person who tabled the question I wish to state that I had no wish to bring personalities into it but I consider it is the responsibility of the Taoiseach to answer the question. I put the question down to the Taoiseach. As Deputy FitzGerald has stated, the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, had no knowledge of the incident and could not possibly have had such knowledge as he was in the Seanad at the time.
We cannot have a discussion on this question which has been raised in a surreptitious manner.
The question relates to the responsibility of the Taoiseach as head of the Government for the behaviour and performance of his colleagues. I would press him to consider taking his responsibility in the matter. The Minister for Fisheries and Forestry has no right to seek this information and he is at a disadvantage in seeking it. Only the Taoiseach can be responsible.
He has adhered to the system of collective responsibility of the Government.
The Taoiseach is in charge.
The Taoiseach should take responsibility in the matter.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach to state what steps the Government intend to take in regard to the breathalyser legislation having regard to the recent court decision in what is referred to as the "big toe" case which seems to show a defect in the legislation.
My information is that there is no defect.
Does the Taoiseach accept that there is a court decision which seems to indicate that there is such a defect?
A District Court decision, yes.
Will the Taoiseach state if it is intended to have a case stated or is it intended to tidy up the legislation in any way?
The legislation is all right. I am not going to run to the Supreme Court because of a District Court decision.
Does the Taoiseach accept that there is some confusion as a result of the court decision?
On the contrary. The Deputy is trying to create the confusion. A very firm statement was issued after the District Court decision that the law was all right as it stood.
Does the Taoiseach not accept that the decision still stands unless it has been referred to the High Court by way of a case stated.
It is not in order for Deputies to carry on an interrogation across the floor of the House.
Deputies should conform to ordinary practice and put down questions instead of trying to raise them in this manner.
I am calling item No. 6.