asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to make a statement on the circumstances in which five persons charged with offences involving drugs worth more than £3 million were released from custody, apparently as a result of a procedural error; what investigation has been carried out into the circumstances of the release; if he is satisfied that all procedures used by the Garda were correct; what steps are being taken to ensure such errors do not occur in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Release of Suspects.
Dr. Upton
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he intends to take appropriate measures to ensure there is not a repetition of the sequence of errors which led to the release of five prisoners who were before the courts in connection with the seizure of £3 million worth of illegal drugs; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
(Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will outline the circumstances in which five persons charged with possession of £3 million worth of cannabis were brought before Dublin District Court this week, released, subsequently rearrested and again released; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the measures, if any, he will introduce to avoid a recurrence of the District Court's ruling on 19 November 1997 which enabled five men charged with serious drug offences to walk free and which has demoralised the Garda and undermined public confidence in the justice system.
Earlier today I made a statement to the House on this issue. For the benefit of those Deputies who were not present, it is important that I should repeat the facts on the arrest and subsequent release of the five suspects in last weekend's cannabis seizure. The five suspects were arrested under the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996, and detained for an initial 48 hours. In accordance with the Act the Garda then obtained a warrant from the District Court extending the detention for a further 72 hours. It later became apparent to the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions that the District Court judge concerned had not been nominated for the purposes of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996. The nomination of District Court judges in this respect is a matter for the President of the District Court.
Deputies are trying to imply that I as Minister have some responsibility in this area. If the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996, had provided for the Minister to nominate judges and if there had been a failure on my part, I would accept responsibility. However, the Act does not make any such provision or demand on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
By the time it became apparent that there were difficulties with the continued detention of the suspects, the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions had sufficient evidence to make an arrest for the purpose of bringing charges. The suspects were, therefore, released and the Garda attempted to rearrest them for the purpose of charging in accordance with section 4(5) of the Act, which specifically provides for such circumstances. However, the District Court judge refused to allow the rearrest of the suspects and ordered their release. I am informed also that the District Court judge later refused to issue warrants for the arrest of the suspects.
As will be evident from the facts I have outlined, this case revolves around a series of judicial decisions and it is well established — I humbly submit there are good reasons for this — that it is not appropriate for me as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to comment on those decisions. Responsibility for the assignment of judges in the District Courts is a matter for exercise of his function by the President of the District Court and the District Court judges. The separation of the courts and the Administration is central to our criminal justice system. As will be evident from the facts I have outlined, this case revolves around a series of judicial decisions and it is well established that I, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, may not comment on those decisions.
I understand three of the suspects were rearrested overnight, two have been remanded in custody and one was released again. Clearly, there is a legal issue to be resolved urgently. In this context, I understand the Director of Public Prosecutions has already taken steps to instruct counsel to seek an urgent High Court order of mandamus in this case. I understand also that it is open to the two suspects in custody to make a High Court application for release forthwith. Should this happen the matter will be challenged by the State.
Comments by Opposition Deputies on this issue seem to show a lack of understanding of the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary. The Government as the Executive arm of State brings forward legislation, the Oireachtas enacts it and the courts interpret it. It is not for the Minister to answer for the actions of an independent Judiciary in implementing its constitutional functions.
While I am always willing to answer for actions in respect of which I have responsibility, I wish to make it clear for the umpteenth time that I am not prepared to interfere with the independent functioning of the courts.
Everybody will be astonished to hear the Minister persisting with this line when clearly, as outlined in the SMI, he has a responsibility in this regard. A series of disasters occurred. The debacle goes back to the initial application to the court for an extension of the detention order. Will the Minister confirm there was no legal representative for the State present when the Garda made that application? If such a person were present, it is not likely he or she would have known the judge did not have jurisdiction in this regard? Is it the case that the failure to have a State solicitor present led to the most serious occurrence under a Minister for Justice in recent times, where five people charged with a serious crime involving £3 million pounds worth of drugs were released? The Minister is trying to make out that he does not have responsibility. He has fundamental responsibility as outlined in the SMI statement.
This issue started the ball rolling, so to speak, in this debacle. Was the Chief State Solicitor represented in court? The Minister is responsible for that failure. Had the legal representative been present the subsequent events would not have occurred. Will the Minister clarify that point. It has been reported that the representative was not there.
I can predict the response to my reply. I will not become involved in this House or anywhere else in my capacity as Minister—
Is the Minister not responsible for the Chief State Solicitor's office?
—in responding to anybody as to how or why such a decision was reached.
How dare the Minister abuse his position. He must answer the question.
I have explained the situation in so far as I am in position to do so. With regard to my responsibility, the position is set out in the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996—
Answer the question.
—passed under the last Administration in which the Deputy was a Minister of State.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): She accepted her responsibilities.
The Deputy cannot take it now although he could give it out when in Opposition.
Deputy Owen will remember the documents shredded when she was in office.
Section 1(1) of the Act provides that a judge of the District Court means the President of the District Court and any other judge of the District Court standing nominated for the time being for the purposes of the Act by the President of the District Court.
That is not the question.
Is the Minister responsible for the Chief State Solicitor's office?
In these circumstances it will be clear to the House that the question of the assignment of a judge within the meaning of the Act—
We are not talking about the assignment of the judge. Answer the question.
Deputy Rabbitte should allow the Minister to respond.
He is not responding.
Allow him to complete his reply.
The question of the assignment of a judge for the purposes of the Act is clearly a reserved function of the President of the District Court.
The Minister was not asked about that.
I am not in a position nor would I attempt to allocate blame. Deputy McManus has asked a question about who was or was not in court. I have not had notice of that question—
At what time does the House rise?
—in the private notice question from the Deputy. I will have to ask the Deputy to allow me the opportunity to investigate the question she has asked—
The Minister does not know.
Has the Minister sought a report on the matter?
It has been published in the newspapers. Why did he not bring his advisers with him if he does not know the answer?
He will blame Deputy Owen.
—and I will reply in detail to the Deputy when those details are available to me.
Does the Deputy believe evidence from the newspapers?
However, I will not give information which may not be correct to the House. I will not be pushed into doing so by Deputy McManus or any other Deputy.
Deputy McManus rose.
I call Deputy Upton. There are four Members who have tabled questions.
I would have thought if Deputy McManus was concerned about this specific matter she would have put a question to me and done me the courtesy of giving me notice of it.
Did the Minister not ask for a report on the matter?
The purpose of questions is to elicit information. I call Deputy Upton and I will call Deputy McManus again.
If we accept what the Minister has said he will not answer any questions.
I will call the four Members who have tabled questions in order. I will call Deputy McManus again.
Dr. Upton
What lessons does the Minister propose to draw from this series of events? Will he refer the matter to the Law Reform Commission for a review of the technical aspects of the law which seem to present hazards to the administration of the law? Will he consider asking the Law Reform Commission to treat the question of serious crime and drug dealing as a matter of urgency and to report on the measures needed to eliminate the possibility of events occurring such as those we have seen yesterday and today?
Will the Law Reform Commission recommend a different Minister?
The courts made a decision pursuant to the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996. I did not make that decision, the Executive did not make it and it cannot be imputed to the Executive. The 1996 Act is good legislation and I supported it strongly at the time of debate. I introduced legislation similar to it prior to its introduction. I do not know whether the Deputies opposite consider the legislation to be defective.
No.
That is not the point.
I do not consider it defective. With regard to the improvement of legislation, Deputy Upton will be aware I published yesterday the Criminal Justice Bill, 1997, which will substantially improve the legislation in so far as the fight against drug dealing and trafficking is concerned. I cannot, must not and will not comment upon decisions made by the Judiciary and it would be improper of me to do so.
The mantra.
There were people who led Opposition parties in the House who had tremendous respect for the institutions of the State and some of their successors are sadly lacking in that respect.
Under the last Government documents were leaked from the Garda Síochána.
If I were Deputy Lenihan I would move out of camera shot. He should hide away on the back benches.
(Mayo): Nobody suggests the Minister should interfere with the judicial functions or tamper with the courts. Let us reject that red herring once and for all. When the matter was heard in court by Judge Windle nobody was present from the DPP's office or the Chief State Solicitor's office and thus there was nobody to advise the Garda Síochána. Notwithstanding that, even in the absence of legal advice is it not the responsibility of the Garda, representing the State and its citizens, to be fully briefed on the consequences of the legislation and the status of the court in which they are presenting a case? When did the Garda become aware that there was a doubt about the validity of the warrants? When did the Garda or officials in his Department notify him and when did they decide to take action?
Will Deputy Higgins identify—
(Mayo): Will the Minister answer the question?
The Minister, without interruptions, please.
Deputy Upton is right to say this is the Kerry response. It should be the other way around because he is the Minister and we are also finding it difficult to believe.
Deputy Rabbitte will rock the foundations of the State.
Put up the slides.
Will Deputy Higgins identify a situation in any court where the judge would not be expected to administer justice irrespective of who was present when there is an accused before him or her? No such circumstance exists.
(Mayo): Answer the question.
I am trying to be as honest and forthright as I can.
This is serious.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): We are trying to be as patient as we can.
Unfortunately, I was not present in the court when this matter occurred.
(Mayo): Will the Minister answer the question?
(Interruptions.)
We want to proceed with Question Time in an orderly manner and respect the dignity of the House. The Minister is entitled to an opportunity to answer the question and Deputies will be called in order to put their supplementaries.
Then he should answer the question.
I ask Deputies to wait until they are called and give the Minister a chance. There is no point in proceeding in this manner to have such an important question answered.
When did the Garda know there had been a mistake?
He will not answer the question.
Allow the Minister to continue. You will get the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, Deputy Barrett.
It is unfortunate that, from the context of their questions, some people are under the impression that I was in the court.
Answer the question.
I am not in a position to answer these questions at this point—
(Mayo): When did the Minister know?
I will make it clear to the House when I have the information.
(Mayo): Was it Sunday or Monday or Tuesday? The Minister surely knows.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): He is suffering from loss of memory.
No interruptions, please.
(Mayo): When did the Minister find out?
My first knowledge of this was yesterday. I am being as forthright as I can but if there are matters which were dealt with inadequately in any way by the authorities in so far as these matters were concerned then this will be thoroughly investigated.
(Mayo): They are not telling the Minister.
I would be greatly distressed to hear that the State was not represented in respect of a hearing in court by a lawyer. Unfortunately I do not have that information available to me.
Why not?
The Minister had six hours' notice.
Is Deputy O'Donoghue the Minister?
Please allow the Minister to continue.
Deputies are trying to impute to me and the Executive decisions made by the courts.
This is a pathetic performance.
Everybody should understand I am not responsible for the decisions of the courts.
(Mayo): The Minister is responsible for the Garda.
The Minister has a short memory.
Uncorroborated statements have been made of reports to the effect that X, Y and Z was the position in the court on the day in question.
The Minister does not know.
There is no shame in not knowing.
The Minister should be ashamed of himself.
Two letters from the Department of Justice were lost and the previous Minister did not even know they were in her office.
Deputy Fox will keep an eye on Deputy Roche.
If people do not want to hear the answers—
We are waiting for the answers.
Please allow the Minister to continue.
If Deputy McManus were as interested in the Department of Justice Estimate as she is in this matter, she would not have established yesterday that invisibility was the best form of transparency.
The Minister should do his job.
Will he answer the question?
If there are issues to be addressed and matters to be answered in so far as the conduct of the case by the authorities is concerned, that will be done and a full statement will be made to the House.
The Minister has a responsibility to the House.
Nothing will be covered up.
There will be no smokescreens, such as are being thrown across the floor and Deputies will be fully advised and informed of the position.
(Mayo): This is pathetic.
I cannot be any clearer than that. It does not matter what I say; it will be seen as pathetic.
I hope I get an answer because the Minister has not answered previous questions. I do not expect the Minister to interfere or answer for the Judiciary. He seems to be implying that the previous Administration's legislation is defective.
It is not.
Will he accept that having two judges to deal with these serious matters is not adequate and will he give consideration to amending the legislation?
If I were to say the legislation was defective it would interfere with the course of cases before the courts and I am not prepared to do so.
The Minister is not prepared to say anything.
Zero tolerance.
If there is something wrong with the legislation, and I have no cogent evidence to that effect, I have not been found wanting in the past in bringing forward emergency legislation and will do so.
The Minister is grasping at straws.
From information available to me the problem with the judges originally arose as a result of a judge making orders who was not nominated by the President of the District Court to do so. I am not laying the blame at the feet of the President of the District Court or the District Justice in question. I will not attribute blame—
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister is accepting it himself.
There is little doubt this is a matter of the greatest concern and utmost importance but I will not come into the House under the cloak of privilege and lay blame all over the place.
That makes a change.
What colour is the cloak?
Will Deputies desist from making unfounded allegations?
This is not fair.
If there is a political charge that can be laid against me for which Deputies believe I am answerable, then lay it and if it stands up, unlike some of my immediate predecessors—
The Minister will resign.
—I will not be afraid to stand up, hold up my hands and say I was wrong.
The Minister should hold them up today.
I will not attempt to hide behind civil servants, the Judiciary or any individual or seek to attribute the blame to any individual other than myself.
Why will the Minister not tell us the Garda's role in this?
Lay the political charge of which I am guilty. Make it stand up and let me know what I could have done in political terms that was not done. If the Deputy has that information I invite him to put it before me and I will answer it.
All we want to know is what happened.
Please do not try to insult the people by trying to convey an impression which is entirely incorrect, totally unjustifiable and wholly inaccurate.
Has the Minister even the faintest appreciation that of all the appearances I have seen in this House, not just by a Minister for Justice but by any Minister, this is the most feeble minded and pathetic?
The Deputy must not have been here when Deputy Owen was Minister.
Allow Deputy Rabbitte to continue.
With some luck the Deputy will not be here next year.
At least I came in with information.
Is it not the case that the Minister has responsibility for the Office of the Chief State Solicitor? Is it not the case that the Minister has told the House he learned of this yesterday? He did not say why it was only yesterday or at what time. He came into the House today, having received notice on the Order of Business and been given time before Question Time to make a long, rambling, bombastic, irrelevant statement. He is now asking the House to accept he does not know whether the Chief State Solicitor's office was represented at the initial stages of this shambles. How can the Minister tell the House he does not know the answer to that most basic of questions?
A Deputy
He was looking for Albert.
That presumably means he knows nothing about the prosecution of or the preparation for this case. Is the Minister aware of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Act? Is it not the case that section 4 of the Act allows for the re-arrest of a person in these circumstances only where a warrant has been issued by the court or where there is a statement on oath from a garda of the rank not below superintendent?
That is correct.
Is the Minister not responsible for the Garda to the House? Did he make any effort when posing among the flower pots and plants for the television cameras last Sunday night — this is not funny Deputy Carey, nor is it funny in Finglas, there are children dying because of drug pushing in the city and five people charged of the most serious crime walk free.
A question please, Deputy Rabbitte.
There is no analogy with Judge
Dominic Lynch or anybody else because nobody walked free. The Deputy can stop smiling. Is it the case that the Minister is responsible for the Garda? Did he make any arrangements either before or after he posed among the flower pots to require the Garda to make sure a superintendent would be on hand to give such a statement? The Minister has to accept he was like the Bull McCabe when he was on this side and is like Chicken George in Government.
Insults of a personal nature from Deputy Rabbitte are not strange to me.
Answer the questions.
The Deputy is incorrect, as usual. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not involved in any way with the prosecution process or in deciding on representation. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is accountable to the House in respect of the Garda. Does Deputy Rabbitte seriously expect people to believe I am to travel around to every courthouse—
The Minister expected me to do it.
The Minister expected that standard from us.
The Minister to conclude.
—and arrange for representation in respect of every case brought by the State?
(Interruptions.)
Such a notion is as spurious as it is fanciful and unsuitable.
This is the cop-out. We want to find out what happened.
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
I am not involved with the prosecution process or in deciding on representation.
God help the security of the State if that is the case.
While not criticising anyone, Deputy Rabbitte must surely accept it is a matter for a court to decide whether it has jurisdiction to deal with a particular matter. In the administration of justice here, with or without representation, I would still expect a judge appointed under the Constitution to administer justice fairly and squarely to any accused person coming before him in a court.
The Minister is avoiding the issues.
He should answer the question.
I have explained the position in so far as I could and as honestly as I could. What is going on here is an entirely different agenda and has nothing to do with the release of the five people concerned. This has to do with the failure of the then rainbow coalition Government to delist Judge Dominic Lynch from the Special Criminal Court.
(Interruptions.)
It is a political game. It is gamesmanship of the worst kind.
We are trying to get information.
To show that Deputy Rabbitte is even more fallible than he might care to believe, the Chief State Solicitor is responsible to the Attorney General not to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I knew that.
Allow the Minister to conclude.
I knew that since I was in first law.
I will call Deputy Jim Mitchell, then for a brief supplementary each of the Members who had a question submitted and then we will conclude. We have devoted more than half an hour to this question, some of which was taken up with unnecessary interruptions.
I should be entitled to ask a question in view of what was said to me.
Will the Minister agree the public are sick of people who are accused or suspected of crime walking free not because they were found not guilty by the courts but because of technical lapses? Will he agree this is not acceptable? The Minister admitted he is responsible for the Garda. Were the Garda aware of the names of the two district justices nominated for this purpose by the President of the District Court? If the Garda were so aware why did it go to another justice?
The public is deeply concerned about cases of this nature and nobody empathises with the public more than I. The decision on the release of these people was a judicial function. I am not in a position to comment on the decision of the Judiciary in this or any other matter.
That is not the question.
Will the Minister answer the question he was asked?
To do so would be a grave wrong and would lead to our going down a very dangerous road.
Are the names of the judges a secret?
If I were to attempt to read the minds of the gardaí in the courts on the day in question it would do me no credit.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.
I believe that everybody involved in this matter on the State side and in the Judiciary acted in good faith.
Did the Garda Síochána know the names of the judges?
The Minister should answer the question.
If errors were made they were made in good faith.
The question I asked was—
Will the Deputy, please, resume his seat? I am calling Deputy Upton.
On a point of order—
It is a point of disorder. Will the Deputy resume his seat?
No, Sir.
The Deputy had his chance to ask a supplementary question. Other Members are offering.
On a point of order—
There is no point of order. This is Question Time.
Will the Minister answer the question?
That is not a point of order. The Chair has no control over the Minister's answers.
Did the Garda Síochána know the names of the judges? The Minister is responsible for them.
Dr. Upton
The Minister seemed to indicate that a review of the events of recent days would be carried out. Am I correct in drawing that conclusion? Will it be carried out by an independent body or the Department?
A tribunal.
Dr. Upton
When can we expect the findings to be made available?
I wish to ascertain the involvement of those under my authority and whether there are procedures which can be tightened.
Today is Thursday.
Unlike others, I have tremendous faith in the officials of the Department—
That was not the case 12 months ago. There has been a quick conversion.
The Deputy is wrong. I made it clear that I regarded the delisting of Judge Lynch as a political matter for then rainbow coalition Government.
(Interruptions.)
Unlike others, Deputy Upton's question was posed in good faith.
The Minister should answer it.
There are no circumstances in which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can, should, would or could—
What about the question?
Any question.
Will there be a review?
—review a decision of the Judiciary to decide whether it was correct or attribute blame to members of the Judiciary. I cannot do so. I have been here for a long time—
Too long.
The Minister has a teleprompter.
Will the Dudley Moore of Irish politics allow me to continue? Nobody has made a political charge over which they can stand, that there is something I could have done but did not. Until that happens Deputies opposite are on a hiding to nothing and on the road to nowhere.
On a point of order, is this the first occasion on which Christmas pantomime has been on the agenda of the House?
That is not a point of order. Will the Deputy, please, resume his seat?
What about the answer to Deputy Upton's question? Will there be a review?
I have no control over the Minister's replies.
Will the Minister answer any question?
He is investigating the matter.
Does the Minister recall that it was he who established, when on this side of the House just over five months ago, the firm principle that when a Minister finds himself or herself in a bind—
A question, please.
—he or she is politically responsible? What is most pathetic about his performance today is that he does not seem to realise the sheer scale of his own incompetence and that his colleague from Kerry South, Deputy Healy-Rae, would make a better job of answering questions.
Sour grapes.
Why did the Minister not seek a report on the matter so that he would be in a position to answer legitimate questions posed by Deputies Rabbitte, Mitchell, Upton, McManus and myself? He should have a comprehensive file containing all the answers. Are the Garda Síochána responsible for the conduct of a case in court on his behalf and that of the State? Is he politically responsible for their actions? Is he aware that this is not the first time this has happened, that other cases have been brought under this section of the Act to seek an extension of the period of detention? The Garda Síochána should be au fait with the procedure and practice. Who authorised the rearrest of the men concerned on Tuesday as they left court?
Who does the Deputy think was responsible? Santa Claus?
Will the Minister indicate whether the statements taken while the detainees were in unlawful custody will be admissible in court? Did the Garda Síochána rearrest the men concerned — this is crucially important — to charge or question them?
Members on the Opposition benches are persisting with the absurd notion that it was the Garda Síochána who made the decisions; they were made by the Judiciary. That being the case, it appears that Deputy Higgins and others to a lesser extent are trying to say that the decisions were influenced by the negligence of the Garda Síochána. I regret those imputations. Such allegations should not be thrown around like snuff at a wake or confetti at a wedding.
It is cannabis we are throwing around, not confetti.
The Garda Síochána have a proud record. I am saddened that unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegations are being made about their role.
The Minister should give us an answer.
It appears that in one last desperate attempt, having failed to impugn the decisions of the Judiciary, Members on the Opposition benches, knowing that I am accountable to the House for the Garda Síochána, have decided to attack the members of the force involved in this case. I visited Dublin Castle recently and met members of the National Drugs Unit. I do not believe that any country has a group of men of greater integrity, more dedicated, more committed to the fight against drugs than this one.
(Interruptions.)
I deeply regret the allegations now being made in a mean-spirited way with a view to introducing a note which clearly did not exist earlier but does now because of the abject failure of Members of the Opposition to level one political charge capable of substantiation.
The Minister should consult Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae who might be able to help him.
Has the Minister met the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána since this débacle occurred to ensure that the Garda now know who are the designated judges?
With all due respect, Deputy Gormley is basing his question on the same kinds of presuppositions which have been continuing here all day in a veiled attack on the Garda Síochána.
Deputies Rabbitte and Gormley rose.
That concludes the Private Notice Question. I am now moving on to matters pertaining to the Adjournment Debate. I have made my position clear—
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you said you would take a last question.
Deputy Rabbitte had an opportunity to ask a question. His name is not on the list. The question was tabled in the name of Deputy McManus and I am moving on now to matters pertaining to the Adjournment Debate.
It is not the Chair's job to protect the Minister.
I will not accept an allegation from Deputy Owen that I am protecting the Minister. I want to make that clear. I did not protect any Minister. I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark. Members have had three-quarters of an hour devoted to this Private Notice Question, which is more than should have been allowed.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order—
I am asking Deputy Owen to please resume her seat.
I want to raise a point of order.
The Chair is on its feet. I am now asking the Deputy to resume her seat and am moving on to matters pertaining to the Adjournment Debate.
The point of order is that there is a precedent in this House that Members other than those who tabled a question are sometimes allowed by the Chair to ask a supplementary. I asked in the quietest possible manner if I could ask a supplementary given that there were many references by the Minister to me. The Chair refused me permission and will not now even allow a Member whose name was on one of the questions tabled to put a final supplementary despite having said he would allow such. We must seek fairness—
For the benefit of the House, the Members in whose names the Private Notice Questions were submitted — on the list before me — are Deputies McManus, Upton, Higgins (Mayo), Gormley or Sargent.
I can assure the Chair that my name was tabled to the motion.
I take Deputy Rabbitte's word for it. I am reading what is in front of me and am now moving on to matters pertaining to the Adjournment Debate.
Even natural justice requires the Chair to permit a former Minister for Justice — at whom several ridiculous, bombastic statements were directed — to ask a final supplementary. Therefore, we can only come to the conclusion that the Chair is seeking to protect the Minister.
Deputy Rabbitte will please resume his seat when I am speaking.
The Chair is making a farce of this House. I merely wanted information.
I took Members whose names were not tabled to the question when they offered. It is incumbent on the Chair—
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle—
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to please resume his seat when I am speaking. I want to put the House on notice that it is not my intention that a Private Notice Question will take 50 minutes in this House.
I beg to differ, Sir, that is a matter for the House.
It is not a matter for the House. If Members want Standing Orders changed—
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I beg to differ—
Will Deputy Rabbitte please resume his seat? I am not allowing a debate on this. I am making clear what the position will be.
I dispute that, Sir, it is a matter for the House to decide.
There has to be order in this House. I am asking Deputy Rabbitte to please resume his seat. While the House can change its Standing Orders, it is a matter for the Chair to determine how long a question will be allowed to continue. It is a matter for the Chair and there are any number of precedents on this.
I am now moving on to matters pertaining to the Adjournment Debate.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.