It is proposed to take No. 2, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, 1999 [Seanad] – Second Stage; No. 6, Patents (Amendment) Bill, 1999 – Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 16, motion re report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs on EU institutional reform in the context of enlargement, to be taken not later than immediately following the announcement of matters on the adjournment under Standing Order 21 and the order shall not resume thereafter. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings on No. 16, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply: the opening speech of the chairperson of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs and of the main spokespersons for the Government and the Labour Party, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; the speech of each Member called upon shall not exceed five minutes and Members may share time.
Order of Business.
There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 16 agreed? Agreed.
There are legitimate concerns and questions to be asked about the revelations in an article in Magill magazine. When will the House be given a full explanation of the circumstances surrounding the transfer of this liquor licence? There appears to be some question as to whether there is a method of transferring a licence from one person to another. It also appears that the law was breached with regard to the requirement for 48 hours notice to be given before hearing a licensing case in the courts.
There are legitimate questions about the Judiciary and the role of the Garda in this matter. When will the Minister come to the House to explain the circumstances surrounding this case? It must be done today. As it is Thursday the House will not sit again until Tuesday and that is too long to let this serious matter fester and, perhaps, compromise the justice system.
Before calling Deputy Quinn, it must be pointed out that members of the Judiciary, by virtue of the Constitution, may not be criticised or have their rulings referred to in the House except by way of substantive motion. Members should bear that in mind.
On a point of order, I recognise there are certain restrictions on comment we may make regarding the actions of judges in cases, but we are concerned with a contradiction between what the gardaí and others have said. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for the Garda Síochána and we need him to attend the House to answer questions about this case, as he demanded virtually every day when he was on this side of the House.
This matter cannot be dealt with on the Order of Business. I repeat, under the Constitution, Members should be very careful in what they say.
I respect and endorse your ruling, Sir. I do not question any judgment, but I question whether the proper procedures, set out in law by this House, were adhered to. The procedures involve the role and responsibility of the gardaí, for which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible. There is an issue of public disquiet here in the light of other recent events. On the Order of Business it is appropriate for the Taoiseach to indicate when the Government will make time available for a statement of accountability to be made to the House by the Minister.
I note your ruling, Sir. As I understand them, the allegations concern the exercise by a judge of the District Court of his judicial functions and decisions made by him in that capacity. I understand the judge concerned has issued a statement, so I do not want to jump to conclusions or say anything that might make others jump to conclusions on the basis of what are hotly contested allegations.
I understand that my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has requested the President of the District Court to investigate the matter and furnish a full report with all possible speed. He has also asked the Garda Commissioner for a report on the matter and he has asked the chief executive of the Courts Service to investigate the matter. On receipt of these reports the matter will be considered further. When the Minister has the reports, perhaps he will make a statement. I will not say any more on this matter, but as soon as these reports are available, which will not be today, I am sure the Minister will say something further.
I am very concerned that this matter will be allowed to fester until next week. From what the Taoiseach has said, it appears the reports may take three or four days, or longer, to compile. Will the Taoiseach ask the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to attend the House today and indicate if the terms of the Liquor Licensing Laws were obeyed? That would at least clarify whether the gardaí were given the 48 hours notice, which is required under the law when any hearing is to be held. We want information today.
The Deputy should refrain from criticising a decision of the court.
I want to know if the mechanics of bringing the case to the court were in compliance with the law. I am not talking about the judgment, that will be the subject matter of the report from the President of the District Court. Did the gardaí get sufficient notice to be present in the court? That is the way in which cases are brought to court. If we had a statement on that it would at least prevent the good name of the gardaí from being questioned.
We cannot pursue that matter now.
The Taoiseach has missed the point if he believes this matter can be left in abeyance until next week. There is a sense of urgency with regard to the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána. We need to know this afternoon whether, among the many allegations, the gardaí did not appeal this judgment to a higher court on the basis that the person to whom the licence had been transferred was at that time charged with murder. The person responsible to this House is the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The questions raised can, in essence, be answered before 3 o'clock this afternoon. If a subsequent statement is necessary next week, so be it, but to suggest, as the Taoiseach has, that reports will be prepared in due time and may be subject to a statement in the House by the Minister is unacceptable. Will the Taoiseach give an undertaking that a progress report will be made to the House by the Minister this afternoon?
Early this morning the Minister asked for three separate reports. He cannot say or do any more until he receives them.
He could telephone the Garda Commissioner.
Like Mr. Justice Lynch.
The Deputy should be quiet. These issues are too serious for him to understand. He represents the Wicklow constituency and he should be worried.
I am not worried.
Allow the Taoiseach to conclude.
Based on what you have said, Sir, regarding the separation of powers, which is always an important matter, and on the fact that the allegations concern the exercise by a judge of the District Court of his judicial functions and decisions made by him in that capacity, procedures must be followed fully. There is little point in the Minister attending the House on the basis of a telephone call. He must get the reports he has requested, at which time he will have no difficulty making a statement, the format of which can be agreed.
We must move on. There can be no further discussion. I have ruled on the matter.
I cannot accept what the Taoiseach has said. He does not realise the seriousness of the matter from the point of view of the Garda Síochána and the Judiciary. He should not let the matter fester.
The Deputy should resume her seat. I have given ample latitude and have made a ruling. Private Notice Questions have been submitted. If they are appropriate as regards questions on administration they will be—
They will be disallowed in the same way as the matters raised here.
The Deputy should not anticipate the decisions of the Ceann Comhairle.
Are you giving guarantees?
I am not giving any guarantee. We should move on. I call Deputy Quinn on a separate matter.
Last week I raised with the Chief Whip in the House an outrageous statement made by the Taxing Master – Deputy Rabbitte raised a similar question some weeks previously.
There is a parliamentary question on this matter today.
I wish to inform the Taoiseach of the undertaking he gave me yesterday to have the text of the correspondence, or a note to that effect, placed in the Oireachtas Library. According to the Order Paper that has not yet been done. Is he aware of that and when will the relevant documentation be placed in the Oireachtas Library?
Yesterday I said they were in the Oireachtas Library and I said I would check that to make sure. On checking I was informed that they were in the Library and that they were being placed in the Deputy's pigeonhole yesterday.
I did not get them.
I will check for the third time. I have no argument with the Deputy.
I did not see them.
That concludes the Order of Business. Deputy Rabbitte has a quick question on the Order of Business.
No, Sir, it is not quick, it is at my normal pace. Will the Taoiseach indicate when the trade union recognition Bill will be introduced to the House?
It will be introduced in June.
With regard to the adventure activities safety Bill, which was expected in the middle of this year, will the Taoiseach give an assurance that it will be ready for the summer recess? It is very important safety legislation.
The heads of the Bill are not yet available, but I understand it will be ready later this year. It will not be ready by the summer.
Despite a commitment in March 1999 when we introduced our Private Members' Bill, it will not be ready by the summer.