I call on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, to make his statement. The Minister has ten minutes and the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party will have five minutes in each case.
Court Case Inquiry: Statements.
I am grateful to have the opportunity of making a statement to the House today concerning a recent court case, the general handling of which has been the subject of the most serious allegations in this House and elsewhere.
I preface my remarks by reminding the House that the events we are discussing today arise from a most awful tragedy for the family of the lady who was killed in 1996. I am sensitive, as I am sure are Members of the House, to the pain and distress these recent events have caused.
I make it clear that this is a preliminary statement and I will not be in a position to make a definitive statement until such time as inquiries now under way have been completed.
I also make it clear that, although I am aware suggestions have been made concerning the alleged involvement of named individuals outside of this House in connection with the handling of the case in question, I do not consider myself at liberty to use the privilege of the House to discuss or detail those suggestions pending the completion of the investigation now under way. It would represent an outrageous invasion of basic personal rights if this House, and particularly a Minister in this House, thought it acceptable, in effect, to act as judge and jury in the case of named individuals who have not had the opportunity of putting their point of view in the course of the investigations still under way which are, in part, intended to afford them such an opportunity. There is another compelling reason for not getting into minute detail at this stage. I will return to this point later.
I will inform the House of the circumstances in which this case came to my notice and that of my Department and outline the action I took in the matter.
The prisoner in question was produced in court on 12 November 1998 and released by the court on the same date. The first query received by my Department about this matter was on Thursday, 4 February 1999 when a letter addressed to the Minister for Justice, 72 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2 arrived in my Department. It read as follows:
Re John Ryan, Tymon Crescent, Old Bawn, Tallaght, Dublin 24.
Date of accident 15/3/'96. J. Ryan – v – P. Sheedy.
Dear Sir,
I enclose herewith copy letter sent to the Governor of Shanganagh Prison, Shankill, Co. Dublin.
Yours faithfully,
Edward T. O'Connor & Co.
The enclosure was a letter addressed to the Governor protesting that the Ryan family had not been notified of the release of an offender who had been involved in a car accident in which their client's wife had died. They noted that "we are still a number of months short of the review date". This correspondence, which did not refer to any allegation of irregularity or court hearing, was acknowledged by the private secretary in my office on Friday, 5 February and transmitted to the prisons section in the Department for whatever action was deemed appropriate. An examination of the prisoner's file indicated no irregularities in that, as I have already said, the prisoner was released by court. Former Ministers for Justice in this House will know that solicitors' offices frequently copy letters to the Department in this way and they are normally associated with the relevant offender file in the prisons section. This correspondence was not brought to my notice at the time.
On the following Wednesday night, 10 February, I received a telephone call from the Attorney General in Berlin where I was attending an EU meeting. The Attorney General informed me that he had been approached by the Director of Public Prosecutions over the fact that the State had not received any advance notice of the application of the Circuit Court which resulted in the early release of Mr. Sheedy from prison. Of particular concern was that there were rumours to the effect that the listing of the case and/or the fact that the State had not received advance notification may have been brought about by improper practice, as distinct from error or omission, in the courts. During that conversation, I decided that an inquiry should be established and the Attorney General said he would inform the Chief Justice, which I understand he did the following day, and I decided to inform the Commissioner of the Garda. The following morning I telephoned the Secretary General of my Department and asked that the Garda Commissioner should investigate the matter.
On the same morning, the Secretary General telephoned the Deputy Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, in the absence of the Commissioner, and asked him what information he had on the matter. He also obtained some outline factual information on the case in the Department. The Secretary General spoke that morning to the Attorney General who gave him an account of what the DPP had said to him. He later spoke to the DPP.
On the basis of the various contacts which took place between the Secretary General, the Garda authorities and separately with the DPP, it became clear to him that it would not be appropriate to initiate a criminal investigation at that time, particularly against the background where the Director of Public Prosecutions was about to initiate judicial review proceedings, which have since taken place. The DPP was of the view that a criminal investigation would, in all the circumstances, be premature, and that view was shared by the Garda authorities.
I also decided that official level inquiries should proceed, conducted in such a way as not to jeopardise the upcoming court proceedings.
On 16 February my Department contacted the county registrar and requested him to provide a written report on the matter. There has also been subsequent contact and correspondence with the county registrar arising from the replies he provided. This included a telephone call from the county registrar as late as this morning which included information relevant to my Department's inquiries. As the earlier correspondence with the county registrar suggested it would be necessary to contact the Chief State Solicitor, my Department also wrote to him on 24 February and again on 3 March seeking more information. I received a reply to these letters on 31 March. I will refer again to this response later in my statement. It is important. As these contacts are so recent and are ongoing it has not been possible to finalise Department inquiries just yet.
Separate inquiries have also been instituted by the Chief Justice into this matter. It seems to me this is the appropriate course to follow because it may be necessary to address queries to a member or members of the Judiciary in this regard.
While I do not intend to go into the details of the information so far to hand, for the reason I gave earlier, it is right that I should specifically refer to the reply I received yesterday evening from the Chief State Solicitor's office. That reply included a detailed file note in which an official outlined various contacts he had with people in the courts who, according to him, had a part in the listing of the case for 12 November 1998.
Upon receipt of this material – which, incidentally, I received by fax in Belfast, where I have been attending the Northern talks – I immediately requested the Attorney General to refer the matter to the President of the Circuit Court and to inform the Chief Justice that he had done so. I did this as it seemed right, on the basis of the contents of this note, that a member or members of the Judiciary should be invited to comment on certain matters.
I should mention in connection with the document I received from the Chief State Solicitor's office yesterday that I sought further advice from the Attorney General on the whole question of the initiation of a Garda investigation. On my way out of the Department this evening I received a further letter from the county registrar about this matter, following on a telephone conversation with the Secretary General of my Department this morning.
I will now deal with some totally outrageous innuendos which were made behind the shield of Dáil privilege yesterday morning concerning my part in this matter. I had no hand, act or part in any aspect of the listing or the handling of this case. I neither received nor made requests to anybody in this regard and I had no knowledge about it until I was telephoned by the Attorney General on 10 February last.
As I said outside this House yesterday, any Minister for Justice who would engage in the kind of criminal, underhand behaviour which some Members opposite are trying to imply, would not only be unfit to be a Minister but would be unfit to be a Member of this House.
I do not understand the mindset of a person who, despite the fact that she held the office of Minister for Justice, somehow thinks it is fair game, without a shred of substance or evidence, to accuse another Member of this House of what would, in effect, be serious criminal conduct. I sincerely hope she will now avail of this opportunity to withdraw that imputation. I regard it as particularly sad and outrageous that this allegation should have been made in this House against me, particularly when I was not and could not be present to defend myself, because every individual has the right to his good name.
(Mayo): This is an extremely serious matter. Its gravity is underlined by what the Minister said here today. It is further underlined by the omissions in the Minister's text, and we will look for the gaps to be filled in.
What is at issue here is the credibility of an essential instrument of our democracy and criminal justice system, the courts. What is at issue here is whether the bizarre set of circumstances surrounding the release of Philip Sheedy three years earlier than he should have been freed were accidental or were deliberately contrived. Whether the manifestly wrongful handling of this case was deliberate or accidental, one thing is certain. The handling of this case was a major cock-up. I cannot accept that the affair was the result an administrative oversight or error, or ignorance on the part of the judge that he was not empowered to hear the case. One might be tempted to accept as an oversight one administrative blun der. However, the litany of irregularities in this case is simply too long to be credible.
It was wrong to list this case for hearing on 12 November 1998. When the application for listing arrived on the desk of the registrar, it would have been examined, and it would have been patently obvious that the case could not be listed for hearing because the defendant, Mr. Sheedy, had already forfeited his right of review of sentence in November 1997. The application and the file should have been rejected and sent back, and the applicants should have been told they were in the wrong court and had two options, to make application to the Court of Criminal Appeal or to the High Court. This did not happen. The case was listed and was duly heard.
My understanding is that when a judge on the Bench hearing an appeal is furnished with a detailed file setting out the facts of the original hearing, who the presiding judge was in the first case, the comments of the judge in passing sentence, and the details of the sentence itself, the file has to be complete. The moment Judge Kelly saw that his colleague in the same court, Judge Matthews, was the presiding judge who passed sentence in the original case, he should immediately have rejected the application, pointing out that he was not empowered to hear the case, and advising the applicants to go to the Court of Criminal Appeal or to a superior court.
The Chair has ruled on many occasions that any charge against the Judiciary can be made only by substantive motion. Members of the Judiciary are independent by virtue of the Constitution and may neither be criticised nor have their rulings referred to in the House except by way of substantive motion.
The Deputy has made no charge.
(Mayo): What happened was seriously wrong. That is why, on 23 February, Mr. Justice Barr gave the Director of Public Prosecutions leave for a judicial review to set aside Judge Kelly's ruling. That is why last Thursday Mr. McEntee, on behalf of Mr. Sheedy, withdrew any objection to the DPP's application. That is why Ms Justice Lafoy quashed Judge Kelly's order and the defendant is back in prison today.
There are other imponderables. For example, what or who prompted Mr. Sheedy, a mere month after being given the right by Judge Mathews for a review of sentence after two years, to return to court to ask that this right be set aside? Who advised him to do so. Why was he so advised, and what scenario was held out to him? We are no wiser as to why Mr. Sheedy, having signed a very strongly worded affidavit objecting to the DPP's application, suddenly abandoned his affidavit and the arguments contained therein on the day of the hearing and returned voluntarily to Mountjoy jail to serve out the remainder of his sentence. Who was he trying to shield? Why, for example, did Mr. Sheedy change his legal team? Why did Michael J. Staines and Company, now acting on behalf of Mr. Sheedy, having signed an affidavit attempting to underpin the right of Judge Kelly to hear the review of sentence case, suddenly abandon his affidavit and arguments on the steps of the court last Thursday?
Both sides must be heard in any argument. This goes to the core of the judicial system. To try to imply that the State was represented because a junior clerk brought the file to court and because there were representatives of the key State solicitors who were dealing with other files chatting at the back of the court is ludicrous. The State should have been properly notified and properly represented. This did not happen. The Garda Síochána should have been notified, should have been in court, and should have been afforded an opportunity to present their views. This did not happen.
Apart from all the special treatment and consideration afforded by the judicial process to Mr. Sheedy, another intriguing issue is his early transfer to Shelton Abbey. Only when one becomes a trustee prisoner does one get a transfer to an open prison. It generally happens towards the end of one's sentence as one prepares for release. In the Elio Malocco case, for example, I understand that he spent two years in Mountjoy Jail before being transferred to an open prison. However, a mere six months into a four-year sentence, Mr. Sheedy was transferred to Shelton Abbey. Why was this? Who sought it? Who arranged it?
Then there is the happy coincidence that 12 days later, and after this monumental blunder by Judge Kelly, Judge Kelly is promoted to be a judge of the High Court on the recommendation of the Minister. Did the Minister make any attempt to check out his suitability or past performance? Was he aware of the circumstances surrounding this controversial case? The Minister is responsible for the courts. He is not responsible for judicial decisions, and nobody is asking him to trespass into the domain of judicial independence. He is, however, responsible for the administration and smooth functioning of the courts, and the buck stops at his feet for the maladministration which led to the listing and hearing of this case. He is the person who set down this standard by his insistence on such when in Opposition in the Judge Dominic Lynch affair. Once again, under the Minister's jurisdiction, there has been a major systems failure.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Considerable damage has been done to the credibility of the judicial system by the happenings in this affair. The judicial system must at all times be seen to be fair, independent and above reproach. Cases like these shatter people's confidence in the system. It feeds cynicism and the belief that there is one law for certain people and another for the rest. That is extremely serious.
I will not dwell on the details of this case in the five minutes available to me now. Those facts have been well rehearsed in this House and in the media in recent days. However, the catapulting of this case into such public prominence has brought additional trauma and grief upon the Ryan family who were the victims of the initial crime. It is the responsibility of all of us to expose the full truth of this matter as quickly as possible so as not to prolong that family's anguish.
While more information has come into the public domain in the past 24 hours, thanks to the helpful intervention of the Tánaiste and the Attorney General in accepting my proposal yesterday that the judicial review file should be laid before this House, a number of very disturbing questions remain to be answered.
The speed of the response from the Tánaiste when it was raised in the House yesterday and the day before was in marked contrast to that of the Minster for Justice and his Department. My colleague Deputy Rabbitte wrote to the Minister about this case on 15 February last. An acknowledgement issued on 17 February. No further correspondence has been received to date by him. A number of parliamentary questions were tabled on this matter since February, including one by me. In short, the Minister has had a considerable length of time to discover the truth of this matter and to put it into the public domain. In the circumstances that I have outlined, the response presented by the Minister of State to the Adjournment debate tabled by Deputy Jim Higgins and me on Tuesday were, at best, woefully inadequate and disrespectful of this House.
(Mayo): Hear, hear.
We have learned from the Minister's contribution that he received a phone call on 10 February from the Attorney General, while he was in Berlin. I imagine that it is a rather unusual occurrence for the Attorney General to ring the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform abroad, concerning a court case. So, the alarm bells must surely have rung at that stage. When, as we have now learned, the contents of that phone call were that the Attorney General was alerting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform – the man charged with ensuring the impartial administration of justice – that rumours were rife that improper practice, to use the Minister's words, might be involved, alarm bells should certainly have rung.
In his response, the Minister tells us a member or members of the Judiciary will be required to comment on certain matters. He also tells us the result of his initial request to the Garda Commissioner was that there was nothing criminal to investigate at that stage. Presumably, the new information has required a further review of the need for a criminal investigation.
It is quite clear that we are dealing with matters of a most serious kind. It is incumbent on the Minister to bring full information to the House. It is wholly unacceptable that he would come to the House, having investigated this matter since 10 February, with what he describes as a preliminary statement, and that he is not in a position to make a definitive statement. How many weeks are required to conduct these investigations and inquiries?
In recent days, spokespersons for the Minister have sought to suggest that the matter was not one for him to address, but rather a matter for the courts. In my contribution on Tuesday, I clearly stated that the Minister is responsible for the administration of court officers and is accountable to the House for the conduct of his departmental staff.
The key questions to be addressed are how this case came to be relisted before Mr. Justice Cyril Kelly without notice to the DPP and why prosecuting counsel was not present when the sentence was reviewed. That is not a difficult matter for the Minister to find out in the time he has had. We deserve, and ought to have, answers to those questions.
It is unprecedented for an investigation of this kind to be conducted by the President of the High Court and the President of the Circuit Court. That shows that it is fundamentally important. The comments of the Minister, guarded as they are, in this debate underscore the seriousness of the matter. The prime responsibility of any Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is to ensure full and complete confidence in the impartial administration of justice. His handling of this affair to date has clearly failed this critical test. He cannot side-step or off-load this critical responsibility.
We now move on to questions until 4.45 p.m.
(Mayo): What are the normal procedures for listing a case for the Circuit Criminal Court, or for an appeal? The Minister has been au fait with this matter since 10 February. To date, has he established who gave the instruction to the county registrar to list this case to come before Judge Kelly on 12 November 1998?
The listing of cases is the business of the court. I am informed that in the Circuit Criminal Court the Chief State Solicitor would list all new trials. I am also informed that in relation to particular cases these are listed by the Circuit Criminal Court office on the understanding that the party making the application will notify the other parties involved. I am further informed that the Circuit Criminal Court office does not notify any of the parties.
With regard to who asked the county registrar to list the case concerned, I have seen documentation which states that it is a certain individual. That individual is clearly entitled to reply to those allegations. I want to make this much perfectly clear; while, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I would not conceal anything I believe should be in the public domain, and while I would not abuse my office, I will not ever operate a kangaroo court. There will be fair play and procedure in this matter. To have otherwise would be to infringe on individuals' personal rights. Suffice it to say that whatever action is required at the end of all this, following upon a full and fair investigation, it will be taken by the Government.
Immediately upon learning of this matter I recognised its seriousness. Why else would I and the Attorney General have discussed the issue of the Chief Justice being informed? Why else would I have asked the Secretary General of my Department to contact the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána? Why else would I have initiated inquiries at official level in my Department?
In regard to another red herring which has been thrown into this debate with a view to discrediting me, the issue of Shelton Abbey and this prisoner was not brought before me. It was an administrative decision.
Arising from that reply, is the Minister satisfied as a result of his long inquiries to date that the case was relisted in the usual way and that nothing irregular occurred in the listing procedure? If so, what explanation is there for the fact that the prosecution authorities claim in sworn affidavit that they were taken by surprise by its appearance in the list?
With regard to the suggestion that the inquiries are unduly long, I would point out that this case was the subject of judicial review proceedings which have not long been concluded. It must be clear to everybody that I would be obliged to proceed extremely carefully in light of the fact that judicial review proceedings had been initiated.
That is not the question.
With regard to the second question, and the possibility that the listing was wrongful, I indicated in my statement on this matter that this is something which, along with the other matters, is subject to a inquiry which is being conducted at present.
In the Minister's opinion, is he satisfied that no irregularity occurred?
He will not say.
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption, please.
For the benefit of the House, I repeat that from the information I received yesterday it is quite clear to me that certain matters have to be put to members of the Judiciary for their comment and response. Following upon the conversation I had with the Attorney General, this was my view. Pending the completion of that process, it would not be right for me to express an opinion in this other than to repeat that there will not be concealment on my part.
(Mayo): When does the Minister expect the identity of that individual to be verified? When does he expect the report on the allegations that the individual in question gave the instruction? In relation to the review of sentence option being set aside, we must accept the Minister's word that he had nothing to do with this. However, is he aware that when Judge Matthews asked Mr. Sheedy's senior counsel, Mr. Seán Moylan, if he was aware of the novelty of the application – that it was very rare for someone to come before the court and seek to set aside the right or option for a review in relation to the reduction of a sentence – Mr. Moylan said in court they would take their chances with executive clemency?
Who signed the body warrant to bring up Mr. Sheedy? A body warrant must be signed by someone in authority to bring a person from Shelton Abbey to the court. This individual is part of the process. Who was that individual?
Deputy Higgins will know from what I said and from what he knows himself that it is not possible for me to debate events which occurred in the Circuit Court in relation to this case. I have outlined why. I hope the inquiry will be completed at the earliest possible date. I want the inquiry which I initiated to be completed as soon as possible, and I hope the Chief Justice will have completed his inquiry at the earliest possible opportunity, whereupon whatever action is necessary will be taken.
Regarding the prisoner appearing before the court, in line with normal practice a Circuit Court official would have requested that the prisoner concerned be brought before the court.
I do not have the slightest intention of taking lectures from the Minister on how I conduct myself in the House.
The Deputy should not be disorderly.
I hope he accepts that. He said what he needed to say on this side of the House and I will say what I have to say. I am sorry I did not bring my handkerchiefs so I could share in the Minister's tears. I have no intention of doing so.
The Deputy should not take up time in this way.
Will the Minister comment on the fact that the respondent before the judicial hearing would have received the Director of Public Prosecution's statements for the judicial hearing? Will the Minister indicate whether he has any information as to why the respondent, namely the judge on 12 November, did not enter any defence or statement to the judicial hearing? Is this unusual as far as the Minister is concerned? Has the President of the Circuit Court, Judge Esmond Smyth, completed his report and has the Minister seen or been briefed on its contents?
My understanding is that the report carried out by Judge Esmond Smyth for the Chief Justice is with him. I have not seen the report—
Has the Minister been briefed?
—nor have I been briefed.
The Minster knows nothing about what is in the report?
If I have not seen it or received a briefing on it, how does Deputy Owen expect me to know what is in it? Regarding the judge being represented in court, we all know it is not uncommon for the decisions of judges in lower courts to be reviewed in higher courts. I am informed, however, that it would be considered unusual for a judge whose decision is the subject of a judicial review to attend a High Court hearing or to be requested to be at that hearing. That is the position as I understand it.
The Minister should answer the question.
The Minister, without interruption.
He made it an art form.
I trust if Deputy Owen has further questions she will put them in a temperate rather than an intemperate manner.
The Minister did not answer my question, so I am free to draw any conclusion I want.
The Deputy will do that anyway.
I thank Deputy Roche for what little he knows of the system.
Time is very short in this very serious debate. It is clear the report the Minister received yesterday from the Chief State Solicitor's office contains very serious matters. The Minister has informed the House that subsequent to receiving the report, he revisited the question of a Garda investigation. Has he decided to refer the contents of the Chief State Solicitor's report to the gardaí for criminal investigation? What was the outcome of the advice he sought, according to his speech?
In relation to his responsibilities to this House, I am mindful of the Minister's comments on natural justice for individuals, but I am also aware of his attitude when in Opposition. He is accountable to this House and must give full information as quickly as is proper. When will he be ready to give the result of the inquiries and the information he has? His actions to date have been lethargic, to put it at its kindest, in a matter of such great importance.
I do not accept that, all the evidence is to the contrary. When the Attorney General put the position to me by telephone in Berlin at 11.45 p.m., I decided we should agree he contact the Chief Justice on the matter the following morning.
On the 10th?
I contacted the Secretary General of my Department, and I told him to contact the Garda Commissioner to seek an investigation. Within days I initiated an inquiry through the county registrar—
Basic information was not available to the House last Tuesday. Why were we not told then?
It was suggested by Deputy Owen—
Why did the Minister not tell us last Tuesday? We got a flippant answer from the Minister of State.
—that I take the simple route and use the telephone. I do not do business like that. This is a very important matter, and I sent a letter to the county registrar following my Secretary General contacting him. I believed it was necessary to have everything in writing. That is my objective.
Apart from any documents I received from the Chief State Solicitor's office, it was clear from what the Attorney General said that the matter was quite serious. That is why I acted as I did when I received documentary evidence of that information. I received that from the Chief State Solicitor's office yesterday in Belfast and I felt it appropriate to forward that to the relevant authorities. I do not know what more I could have done.
The Minister is ignoring the questions.
Is a Garda investigation in progress?
I want to make this clear in relation to the Garda investigation. The Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief State Solicitor and the Attorney General had knowledge of the position. The view of the Secretary General of my Department following consultations with at least some of those people, as I outlined in my statement, was that there were not sufficient grounds for a Garda investigation. Why should someone say in this House that I should pursue the matter when—
The Minister sought advice yesterday. What advice did he receive?
He sought advice because we raised the matter here.
—having asked the Secretary General to contact the Garda Commissioner with a view to instigating such an investigation, it was determined by the Secretary General that there were not grounds for it. If it should transpire – information having been received by me in the form of a report when the inquiries have been completed – that there should be a criminal inquiry then, quite clearly, I will do my duty.
This is a fillibuster. What advice was the Minister given yesterday?
Before the Minister replies I wish to make it clear to the House that I am not in a position to take questions from all the Members offering. Deputy Howlin has abused the opportunity for his colleagues by asking questions without being called.
That is an outrageous suggestion.
In fairness to other Members, all speakers should be called by the Chair.
The Minister is a windbag.
I want to reply to Deputy Howlin and to every question that is asked. I am taking this opportunity to answer every question. I am not fillibustering. I spoke with the Attorney General yesterday regarding the matter raised by Deputy Howlin. The advice I received was that, in his opinion, there were not sufficient grounds for a Garda investigation on foot of the information available to me at that moment.
With regard to a comment made by Deputy Howlin—
This is disgraceful.
(Interruptions.)
This is not disgraceful. I am a Member of this House and I have a right to ask a question. I have been called. How dare Deputy Howlin say this is disgraceful.
The Deputy should go back to the forest.
I want to ask the Minister, and all Deputies—
This is outrageous. The Deputy may not ask all Deputies.
—whether, in the light of this incident, it is time the Dáil reconsidered the wisdom of taking court administration away from ministerial responsibility.
This is a disgrace.
It is not a disgrace. Whether the Minister is giving an adequate answer or not, in a few months' time we will not even have this opportunity.
For God's sake.
The Deputy is deliberately wasting time.
(Mayo): Does the Minister not believe his handling of this case has been pathetic? Does he not realise that there was a six day gap between the time he became aware of this case and the time he asked the county registrar to investigate it? Does the Minister not accept there was a gap of almost six weeks between the time he became aware of the case and the time the decision was made by him to seek a judicial review?
In relation to my earlier point about him washing his hands of responsibility for signing the body warrant, the Minister, in the midst of the most controversial judicial case in the State's history, came to the House without the answer to a basic question. Does he not realise a superintendent, an inspector of the Garda Síochána or a prison officer may sign the body warrant? Why did he not establish who that individual was before coming to the House?
I would like to ask a brief question.
Three Members are offering and we have already passed the time for the Adjournment. I call the Minister to reply.
I represent the constituency in which this tragedy occurred and I have direct knowledge of the matter. I would like to ask a question.
I know you would, Deputy, and so would Deputies Gormley and Conor Lenihan.
The Minister would have answered my question by now.
Of course he would, and he would have answered questions from Deputies Gormley and Conor Lenihan. Standing Order 21 rules that the House interrupts business at 4.45 p.m.
There have been many interruptions.
There have. If there had not been so many interruptions and if Members had taken their turn everyone would have been facilitated.
May I briefly put this point to the Minister? The Chair has allowed the House to be fillibustered.
And made no comment on it.
I did not allow a fillibuster. The Deputy is wrong and I resent his comment.
This is pathetic.
If Deputy Rabbitte does not resume his seat it is my intention to suspend the sitting until Tuesday 20 April.
I reject Deputy Higgins's allegation that my behaviour has been anything other than correct. I do not accept that my performance has been pathetic. I believe I have behaved with total decorum since I first learned of this matter and the record bears that out. I do not regard myself as having been involved in any undue delay.
Six days. There are different standards.
The moment I heard of this matter I was very concerned and I agreed with the Attorney General that he should inform the Chief Justice.
Why did the Minister hide the matter from the House?
I asked the Secretary General of my Department the following day to contact the Garda Commissioner.
Why did the Minister not say this in his reply to my parliamentary question?
There was, of course, an intervening weekend about which Deputies are conveniently forgetting, between 10 and 16 February.
The Minister received a detailed letter from me on 15 February.
He got a parliamentary question from me.
Having discussed the matter further with the Secretary General, we immediately contacted the county registrar. With regard to the query raised by Deputy Roche, my officials have confirmed that the Chief Justice has in his possession for consideration a copy of the report of the working group on the courts commission which recommends the establishment of a committee to consider the question of setting up a judicial body to deal with judicial ethics.
Deputy Roche will get ten out of ten for this.
The Minister has made a bags of this. He has no sense of the seriousness of the matter.
I am trying to act to the best of my ability within constitutional parameters. I am anxious that all the truth will come out and no disrespect is intended to this House. I want to ensure I act fairly, and I will do so. That is how I do business.
On a point of order, would the Minister allow a quick intervention.
The Minister has no say in the matter.