Vol. 533 No. 3
28 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she was advised of the procedures and circumstances surrounding the awarding of the second mobile phone licence to a company (details supplied); if her attention was drawn at any time to possible irregularities concerning the awarding of the licence; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8795/01]
I refer the Deputy to my reply to Priority Question No. 21, which I answered earlier.
With respect, is there not a different reply to this question?
I think the Deputy is mixing up this question with another one.
The Minister has referred me to her reply to Priority Question No. 21. However, priority questions are corralled and it is not possible for other Deputies to ask questions. The difference between other oral questions and priority questions—
Does the Deputy have a question?
I have a question.
Does the Deputy wish me to read the reply?
Yes.
There is the question as to whether the matter raised by the Deputy may be considered by the Moriarty Tribunal. The solicitor to the tribunal has informed my Department that the investigative phase of the tribunal's work is conducted on a confidential basis. As a result, and to ensure it is enabled to perform the tasks assigned to it by the Oireachtas, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any matter which may be subject to investigation by the tribunal.
That is the legal advice.
The solicitor to the tribunal informed my Department.
Will the Minister publish the legal advice?
I did not say it was written legal advice. I said the solicitor to the tribunal has informed my Department, but I do not know whether that was orally or in writing. The solicitor to the tribunal has informed my Department that the investigative phase of the tribunal's work is conducted on a confidential basis. As a result, and to ensure it is enabled to perform the tasks assigned to it by the Oireachtas, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any matter which may be subject to investigation by the tribunal.
I take it from the Minister's reply that there is not a dedicated facet of legal advice on file which prevents her from answering the simple question about whether she was advised of the procedures surrounding the wording of the licence. Is the Minister prepared to answer the question? Was she advised of the procedures, yes or no?
I have absolutely no intention of answering the Deputy. As I said, I thought this was remarkable. It happened in 1995 when I was in Opposition and Deputy Lowry was Minister. The idea that I should convey general absolution or amnesia to everybody in connection with events of that time is quite remarkable.
That is not the point at all—
Sorry, excuse me—
On a point of order, the Minister started her reply by saying that she was not going to answer the question at all.
That is not a point of order Deputy. The Minister to continue.
With respect it is. She was not going to answer. The question then has no conclusion. The Minister is filibustering—
Allow the Minister to continue.
I am not filibustering. In 19—
Answer the question, Minister.
Will the Deputy let me answer?
I am asking the Minister a question.
The Minister please, Deputy, without interruption.
I have given the Deputy an answer.
The Minister has refused to answer the question.
That was the further question. Do not tell untruths. The question I am answering is as to whether the matter raised by the Deputy may be considered by the Moriarty tribunal. The solicitor to the tribunal has informed my Department that the investigation phase of the tribunal's work is conducted on a confidential basis. As a result, and to ensure that it is enabled to perform the tasks assigned to it by the Oireachtas, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any matter which may be subject to investigation by the tribunal.
Where did Moriarty, or the legal advice that has now been watered down, or some telephone call to her Department of which she may not even be aware, say that this matter is being investigated? Her reply to the earlier priority question of my colleague Deputy Higgins gives the game away. I put it to the Minister to agree that she gave the game away when she said that it would be bizarre of her to give a general absolution. I put it to her that there is no legal advice, that there is no embargo, that there is no Moriarty examination but what we are seeing on the part of the Minister for Public Enterprise is an attempt to play policy—
Deputy, this question is concluded. No. 29. Deputy Flanagan it is total abuse of Question Time to come in and make statements of that nature. The Minister's time is concluded.
Let me be quite clear. It was Deputy Lowry and the rainbow coalition that awarded that licence. Deputy Flanagan said—
I am calling Question No. 29.
I do not know what Deputy Flanagan is afraid of, but it is something awful when he shouts and roars all the time about legal advice I got. The Deputy is doubting the solicitor to the tribunal and I have noted that.
The Minister is playing the political card. Publish the advice and we will look at it.
It is the most remarkable thing I have ever heard. Something happened in 1995 and I am to be blamed for it.
Minister, Question No. 29. Please obey the Chair.
