We will now deal with Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on blockades mounted by taxi drivers. I will call the Deputies who tabled questions in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.
Private Notice Questions. - Taxi Blockades.
(Mayo): asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps being taken by the Garda to dismantle the blockades at Dublin Airport, Kildare Street and other Dublin locations, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if, having regard to the serious disruption to traffic in Dublin and the fact that there is virtually no access to Dublin Port arising from blockades mounted by taxi drivers, he will state the steps he will take to ensure free movement of traffic in Dublin.
I am extremely concerned at the effects of the action taken by a number of taxi drivers at various locations during the course of today. I am sure this is a concern shared by all Members of the House and I express my sympathy to the many individuals who have been subject to disruption as a result of the action taken by the taxi drivers.
The House will be aware that there are other opportunities available to it to discuss the substantive issues relating to the issue of taxi licences generally. The private notice questions are confined to one specific matter: the steps being taken by gardaí in relation to blockades. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case made by taxi drivers, the disruption which they are causing to their fellow citizens cannot be justified.
The House will also appreciate that what we are talking about is a difficult and volatile situation which is subject to change by the minute. I will endeavour, however, to give the House the most recent information which has been made available to me.
I will concentrate primarily on the situation at the airport as at present that appears to be the situation giving rise to most concern. A substantial number of taxi drivers have converged on the airport with the intention of causing substantial disruption to people trying to enter or leave the airport. Their action has caused severe difficulties.
Gardaí are currently at the scene in substantial numbers. It is the case that the response by the gardaí at the scene is an operational matter and one for professional police judgment. It is not something with which I would interfere or seek to direct and I know the Deputies would be appalled at the prospect that I would do so. I have been in contact with the Garda Commissioner during the day and I know his force is trying to deal with a very difficult situation as sensitively and effectively as possible.
I am sure the Deputies in their questions were not seeking to denigrate the efforts of the Garda or to suggest that there is some simple law and order response to a complex situation. There are certain legislative provisions available to the Garda to deal with public order difficulties – for example, obstructing a public highway – but a difficult decision has to be taken by the people on the ground as to whether any actions would solve or, in reality, exacerbate a given situation. It would not be right for anyone in the House to second guess those decisions and I am sure neither Deputy Higgins nor Deputy Quinn would disagree with that view.
The commissioner has assured me that the situation is being kept under constant review. It would be entirely counter-productive, however, to give the House details about the further measures the Garda may consider it necessary to take. In this context, I understand Aer Rianta had proposed to seek an injunction in the High Court this afternoon and I understand that in the past few minutes, as I was coming into the House, an interlocutory junction was granted, but I do not know the terms of that interlocutory junction. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the operational implications to which that would give rise.
In summary, the gardaí are taking, and will continue to take, whatever sensible and practical steps they can to deal with what is a particularly difficult situation and I am sure that in doing so, they will have the full support of the House. No one, however, should underestimate the practical constraints which arise in this regard.
(Mayo): Notwithstanding that this is a difficult and volatile situation which the Minister seems to think is changing by the hour, does he not agree it involves naked anarchy and a complete disregard for law and public order? Why is such special consideration being given to taxi drivers? This is not an orderly protest but an illegal blockade. Would the Minister agree that if any other vested interest group mounted similar action it would be dealt with very swiftly, cars would be moved on and people would be arrested and, perhaps, have their property impounded? What action will be taken to ensure this matter is dealt with before 7 p.m. or 8 p.m.?
The Deputy understands how difficult this situation is for the Garda. It is a question of managing the situation from hour to hour. The Garda has to be pragmatic and does not wish to exacerbate the situation. It must be clear to the Deputy that it would be a mistake to do so. It is not a case of the Garda giving special consideration to any one group but of gardaí on the scene being pragmatic. It is for them to direct operational matters and I have the fullest confidence in them to do so.
The Minister has given the House a classic Pontius Pilate response and it is deeply politically poignant it should come from someone who trumpeted zero tolerance as a political slogan when in Opposition. Would the Minister agree that to describe the Garda's approach to manifest law breaking on a scale of anarchy which is bringing this city to a standstill in many respects as a "pragmatic approach" is manifest nonsense? The Minister has professional skills as an officer of the court in his capacity as a solicitor, a practice in which he is not currently engaged. However, would he agree that his knowledge would inform him that this is not a pragmatic response from the Garda?
The Garda has an obligation to enforce the law and part of that law is to maintain public order. That is not to remove the legitimate right of people who feel their contract of trust with Fianna Fáil and the Government has been unilaterally broken. Such people can protest in many ways but not necessarily at the total, utter and continued inconvenience of citizens. Will the Minister tell the House whether he will request the Garda Commissioner to ensure that the rule of law prevails, that the public highway is kept open and allow the operational implementation of that enforcement of law to be a matter of judgment for the commissioner and his senior officers in the Dublin metropolitan area?
Would the Minister further agree that his response is totally inadequate? If he was in the position he occupied for four and a half years and Deputy Owen was Minister he would be roaring from the rooftops for action on this issue. He is applying two standards to political responsibility, one in Opposition and one in Government.
Over the past three years I have become used to being second-guessed by Deputy Quinn and other Deputies but comparisons are odious. It must be clear to the Deputy that this is not a Pontius Pilate exercise. The issue is an operational matter for the Garda. Is any Deputy seriously arguing that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should direct the Garda to arrest a person or group of persons? I did not do so in Opposition.
Deputy Quinn rightly stated that people cannot disobey the law and those involved in demonstrations of this type are also subject to the law governing activities in public places. There is a general obligation on persons engaged in such demonstrations or protests not to wilfully obstruct traffic or to engage in any disruptive behaviour in breach of the law. Legislation governing this area includes the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1995, and the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994. No amount of argument can hide the fact that there are practical problems in this situation.
Like what?
Like exacerbating what is a very sensitive and difficult situation on the ground.
Fianna Fáil is afraid of taxi drivers.
It is afraid of Deputy Callely.
There is no point in trying to make comparisons between demonstrations of this kind and other forms of criminal behaviour. The public knows there are particular difficulties in demonstrations of this kind and in trying to resolve them without, in so far as is possible, resorting to measures one might later regret. A considerable number of gardaí are on the scene and they are monitoring and managing the situation from hour to hour. It would be wrong of me to substitute my judgment, which would be a political judgment, for the professional judgment of the Garda. It would be ultra vires and outrageous for me to do so.
I have discussed the matter with the Garda Commissioner on a number of occasions during the day.
I should hope so.
The blockades are causing a great deal of concern to many members of the public and to Members of this House, not least myself. The blockade of an international airport or other areas is completely untenable. I assure the House that the Garda is managing the matter professionally.
The Minister stated that Aer Rianta has been granted an injunction against the taxi drivers. What is the situation regarding the other blockades around the city and what action is being taken? Would the Minister agree that taxi drivers are holding the city to ransom? Does he further agree this is not a protest against the public but against Fianna Fáil and its U-turn on this matter?
If a car was parked on a double yellow line on Kildare Street it would be clamped or towed away. However, we are prepared to allow a blockade of Kildare Street and many other streets in Dublin, including Dublin Airport and Dublin Port. This situation would not be tolerated in other circumstances yet the Minister for zero tolerance is willing to turn a blind eye to this behaviour.
I am surprised Deputy Naughten should seek to impute the actions of the High Court to Fianna Fáil. I find that difficult to understand. The Deputy knows that this situation arose following the High Court's decision.
Nonsense.
It arose from Deputy Molloy's version of the High Court's decision.
Is Deputy Naughten seriously suggesting that the Government should seek to disobey the High Court's judgment?
This is another smokescreen.
There is no precedent for that in this House or, to the best of my knowledge, in any other democracy.
The Minister should tell us what he will do to resolve the situation so people can get on with their business.
It is inappropriate for Deputy Naughten to suggest what he suggested. In the past hour or so an interlocutory injunction has been granted to Aer Rianta by the High Court which restrains each defendant, his servants or agents, all persons acting in consort with them, and any other person having notice of the order, from blocking the entrance to and exits from Dublin Airport whether by vehicles or otherwise.
Will the Garda enforce it?
The order is quite explicit in this respect. The implementation of that order will be an operational matter for the Garda. They must now look at the matter and with cool, calm judgment and assess precisely how they should progress. However, there is no point in pretending there is a simple solution to this demonstration. It is not that simple.
How can the Minister square the contradictory assertions he made? On the first count, when we asked him to ensure the rule of law was properly applied, he said that would be an operational matter on which he could not possibly comment. Yet he made operational managerial judgments of his own when he said such actions, if taken, could exacerbate the situation. Is this his own view or the informed view of the commissioner? What precise discussions has he had to date with the commissioner? Does he agree this is not an industrial dispute? It is a political protest within a democracy. All other groups that protested in the past, whether farmers, students or others, have done so within the rule of law, in co-ordination with the gardaí on occasions, but not always. However, the gardaí have always ensured, outside this House and elsewhere, that traffic was able to move despite temporary and short disruptions. We have never tolerated a blockade of the kind we are now discussing. Does the Minister agree this has arisen because of the complete breakdown in trust between the Fianna Fáil party and the taxi men who thought they had some kind of understanding that has now been unilaterally betrayed? What action will the Minister, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, take in conjunction with the Garda Síochána to ensure the rule of law applies and that protests such as they are, are carried out within the framework of orderliness?
With all due respect, Deputy Quinn's remarks are contradictory. He stated that the protest was a political protest in a democracy and at the same time he has clearly requested in other submissions that the demonstration be broken up because it is unlawful.
No I did not.
The Minister is putting words in people's mouths.
That is an absolute lie.
No, it is the truth.
I ask Deputy Quinn to withdraw the term "lie".
He must withdraw what he said.
That is what the Deputy is calling for.
He said that I said I wanted the blockade broken up.
A total fabrication.
However, he did not use the term "lie" or "untruth". He did not use an unparliamentary word. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the term "lie".
It is a distortion of the truth.
A deliberate distortion.
The Minister knows exactly what he said. He quoted me as saying something that I manifestly did not say. If he interprets—
The Deputy is entitled to make a protest that he did not say it, but I ask him to withdraw the term "lie".
I cannot because the Minister asserted that I said something which clearly I did not. You, Sir, heard it.
It was an accurate interpretation of what the Deputy said.
The clear interpretation—
In parliamentary language—
If the Minister is of such limited capability that he misunderstood what I did and said, I will withdraw it.
Fair play now.
Go raibh maith agat.
The clear interpretation of what I stated in relation to Deputy Quinn stands. With regard to the issue being exacerbated and whether that is my view or that of the commissioner, I preface my remarks in that respect by stating that if it is my view that it would exacerbate the situation, in no way am I taking an operational decision or directing the Garda Síochána, I am expressing an opinion. As it turns out – if we can turn down the volume of the laughter in the wings at this very serious matter—
We are laughing at the Minister not at the matter.
—it is the view of the Garda Commissioner, following conversations I had with him, that it is important, in so far as it can be managed, that the matter is not exacerbated.
The Minister is inviting others to protest in the same manner.
That does not mean, must not be taken to mean and will not mean the present situation is tenable. I made it clear that the present situation is not tenable.
(Mayo): Does the Minister accept there should have been no need for Aer Rianta to get an injunction? The law of the land should have been enforced and implemented from this morning. It is illegal to block a public road, which is what is happening. Now that the injunction is in place, I ask the Minister if it will be enforced. My understanding is that a court injunction must be enforced.
Will that not exacerbate the situation further?
(Mayo): I ask the Minister further, in enforcing the injunction, will he do so immediately? Can he guarantee that by this evening the roads to Dublin Port and to Dublin Airport will be open and the way will be clear for people to conduct their business in an orderly fashion? Does the Minister accept this kid glove treatment that has been meted out to the taxi drivers as distinct from other bodies is nothing other than a craven capitulation to intimidation and bully-boy tactics and the illegal manner in which they are conducting their protest? Is he further aware that they said only an hour ago, in categoric language, that this is not about to end, this is only the beginning and they will continue as long as possible – in other words until such time as they get their way?
I explained already to Deputy Higgins and to the House that there are very serious difficulties involved in this and that the gardaí will continue to deal with the situation as effectively as possible. I also outlined on a number of occasions that the direction of the operation is one for the Garda Síochána because it is an operational matter. Members are well aware of that. I do not have to repeat it.
Deputy Higgins is suggesting that I should seek, in my position as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to direct the day to day and, in this instance, the hour to hour operations of the Garda Síochána. It would be unprecedented for me to do so. It would be wrong for me to do so and it would create a terrible precedent for successors. It would amount to nothing more or less than political interference for which I would be correctly criticised.
Is it not a fact that on the last occasion the taxi people engaged in a similar protest, they were greeted by the Taoiseach in Government buildings as if they were visiting dignitaries? Is the present action not provoked by their sense that they were misled by this Government in that Members on the Fianna Fáil backbenches act as lobbyists for—
Deputy Rabbitte, we are moving well outside the substance of the questions.
We are getting to the real substance.
This is the substance of it.
The questions relate specifically to the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the matter.
And his party.
They do not relate to any other Minister's responsibility.
I am trying to establish why the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not directing that the rule of law should apply. I am trying to establish from the Minister if this is the same reason he is leaving the Minister of State from the Progressive Democrats Party swinging in the wind. If the Minister can contain the rate of speed of notes to assist him, I ask him to concentrate on one question. He told us what the Garda Commissioner said to him. What did he say to the Garda Commissioner? Did he tell him it was the wish of a united Government that the rule of law should apply?
It must be apparent to Deputy Rabbitte that when I speak to the Garda Commissioner I would not under any circumstances, from all that I have previously said and from my record, seek to direct him on an operational matter. I am entitled, and the House would expect me as the person who is politically accountable, to discuss the matter with the Garda Commissioner to see how best it might be resolved. Clearly, I did precisely that. I cannot gather from Deputy Rabbitte's contribution—
What did the Minister say to him?
—whether he is being politically mischievous or wishes to be helpful. Knowing Deputy Rabbitte, I suspect it is the former.
Zero tolerance.
Zero action.
The only person swinging in the wind appears to be Deputy Rabbitte. I do not know whether he supports the protest or whether he is against it.
I ask the Minister to consider the issue of precedent. There is considerable industrial unrest and if the Government turns a blind eye, and is apparently willing to do so to the level of illegality in regard to this picket, does he accept that others who have grievances with public policy will be invited to take up a similarly aggressive and illegal position to seek the implementation of their objectives? Will the Minister use this opportunity to make a direct appeal to the taxi drivers to end this dispute and to accept that the decisions that have been made were made by the democratic institutions of this State?
As Deputy Creed will be well aware, I do not condone any illegal action by taxi men or by anybody else. This is a difficult situation as I outlined and I do not mean to labour the point. Of course I wish the taxi men would call off this demonstration immediately. It is causing untold inconvenience and disruption. As already stated, the situation is not tenable. I ask that taxi drivers desist from the action they are currently taking and I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail.
I reiterate that the High Court judgment in relation to this matter is quite clear. The Minister of State and the Government had no alternative but to take the action they took on foot of that judgment. In any democracy, the Executive must respect the judgment of its High Court.
I wish to draw the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's attention to the fact that a precedent has been set today by having a civil servant actively engaged in Question Time. That is most unusual and, as far as I am aware, unprecedented.
Is the Minister aware of the statements made today on national radio by Deputy Callely who filleted, both personally and politically, the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and—
As I already indicated to Deputy Rabbitte, we are moving outside the scope of the original questions.
We are not.
The Minister must answer. It is a matter of collective responsibility.
I am asking if the Minister is aware of the statement made by Deputy Callely who purported to be giving the sense of the meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party which he had just left. Given the support he expressed in the House for the actions of the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, will the Minister condemn the statement made by Deputy Callely?
I must rule the Deputy out of order because he is moving away from the—
The questions are becoming difficult now.
I would be anxious to—
These questions specifically relate to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his sphere of responsibility. The Minister does not have responsibility for the issue raised by the Deputy. I call Deputy Quinn.
Deputy Callely, by virtue of his inflammatory statements, is certainly responsible for the exacerbation of—
I call Deputy Quinn.
—the situation described.
The Minister does not have responsibility.
Will the Minister call on Deputy Callely to withdraw his statement or will he condemn that statement?
The Minister is only responsible to this House in respect of his Department.
We are not merely concerned with easing the situation, we are concerned about ensuring that actions which will exacerbate the situation are not taken.
I call Deputy Quinn.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle's ruling is extraordinary.
My ruling is in accordance with precedence in the House since the foundation of the State.
It is an extraordinarily politically biased ruling.
The Minister is only accountable to this House—
It is extraordinarily politically biased.
I would not advise the Deputy to go down that road.
The Chair has made an extraordinarily politically biased ruling.
I ask Deputy Stagg to withdraw that remark about the impartiality of the Chair.
In another capacity, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has responsibility for—
Deputy Rabbitte should resume his seat.
We must ask that the Ceann Comhairle come into the House to chair the debate.
Deputy Stagg should withdraw his remark that the Chair is partial.
What we are witnessing now is outrageous.
The Ceann Comhairle should be present.
This is the logical consequence of—
I am asking Deputy Stagg to withdraw his remark.
He is like the Duke of York marching up the hill with the Taoiseach's arm around him.
Deputy Stagg should withdraw his remark.
It is patently and obviously true.
The Ceann Comhairle should be called to the House.
Deputy Howlin should resume his seat.
I am defending the action taken of the Minister of State last night. The Minister purported to support him but he will not condemn his party's backbenchers.
I am asking Deputy Stagg to withdraw the remark.
Why should I withdraw the remark, given the ruling the Chair has made?
I must ask the Deputy to leave the House.
I will withdraw the remark under protest.
I do not mind what way the Deputy withdraws it.
On a point of information—
There is no such thing.
—the character of a public servant was referred to by Deputy Rabbitte. The Deputy called into question the character of an impartial public servant in this Chamber.
That is not a point of order. I call Deputy Quinn.
This is not a meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party.
Deputy Rabbitte should withdraw his remarks.
Deputy Lenihan is a disgrace.
Is Deputy Lenihan a consultant acting on behalf of the taxi drivers?
Deputy Rabbitte called into question the character of a civil servant.
I did not refer to a civil servant.
Is Deputy Lenihan a consultant for the taxi drivers?
He probably is.
He should answer the question posed by Deputy Ring.
Is the Deputy acting as a consultant for the taxi drivers?
It is not my fault Deputy Ring is—
Deputy Lenihan should answer the question, he invited it.
Answer the question.
Deputy Quinn should be allowed to pose his question.
How many Members on the Government side of the House own taxi plates?
I hope I have not misinterpreted the Minister's remarks and if I have I will stand happily corrected. Unfortunately, he seemed to indicate that he is not prepared to request or direct the Garda Commissioner to take action to ensure that the rule of law prevails and that this illegal protest will be allowed to continue to disrupt the lives of ordinary citizens. In the event of my interpretation of the Minister's remarks being correct and having regard to the fact that the taxi drivers, misled or misinformed by some Fianna Fáil backbenchers, had an understanding of how this complex matter would be resolved after three years and, perhaps, four Christmases without extra taxis, is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, on the Government's behalf, in a position to ensure that the Minister of State with responsibility—
The Deputy is aware that he is moving away from the substance of the original questions.
I am not, Sir, I am referring to the serious disruption that has been caused. It is clear that the taxi drivers feel totally betrayed and are angry about the manner in which this decision was made and the lack of adequate compensation and consultation.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not have responsibility for that matter.
I know that. Is the Minister aware of proposals or plans at Cabinet level or that his colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, who has come before the House to shoulder some of the political responsibility for this matter—
That is not an appropriate question. We have moved outside the substance of the two questions before the House.
—has plans to enter discussions with the taxi drivers as soon as possible? This question goes to the very heart of the matter.
It may well do but it is not relevant to the two original questions.
It relates to the serious disruption being caused. If the law relating to this matter will not be enforced, will dialogue commence with the people who some of us believe are being ruined financially because of this dispute? When will the details of this compensation package be communicated to those directly involved in order that the conflict can be resolved? Surely that is a reasonable question.
That matter can be debated during Private Members' time this evening. The Minister does not have responsibility for it.
Is the Minister not allowed to decide for himself whether he wishes to reply to my question?
I will take a question from Deputy Rabbitte and the Minister can then reply.
The rule of law will not be enforced and there will be no consultation in relation to solving this matter in some other way. That is happening at a time when every Minister lauds and praises our system of social partnership and dialogue.
As has been pointed out, the Minister replying to these questions was respon sible for sponsoring a policy of zero tolerance. With regard to the contact with the Garda Commissioner to which he referred, did the Minister advise the commissioner of his disposition and that of the Government? Is the nature of that disposition to ensure that the rule of law should apply?
If I wished to be cynical, I could state that the only zero which applies is the zero number of additional taxis put on the roads during the term of office of the rainbow Government—
Answer the question.
—but of course—
(Interruptions.)
—the Labour Party has always been notoriously good at politicising matters of public importance while being somewhat accusatory when similar allegations are levelled at its members.
On a point of order, is it in order for the Minister to deliberately tell lies to the House?
I ask Deputy Stagg to withdraw the word "lies".
Is it in order for him to tell a deliberate mistruth when he knows what he said is wrong?
I ask Deputy Stagg to withdraw the word "lies".
I have done that. Is it in order for the Minister to tell a deliberate mistruth—
That is not a point of order. The Minister should continue because I intend to proceed to the next item of business soon.
I understand the blood-thirstiness of the Deputies opposite where I am concerned but I deplore their methods.
The Minister should not flatter himself.
He is becoming a caricature, the Bull Island persona is becoming a reality.
Deputy Howlin has been a caricature for a long time.
The Minister should answer the question.
Are Deputies seriously suggesting that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day should telephone the Garda Commissioner—
Look at the Minister, he thinks this is funny.
—to tell him that he must uphold the rule of law? They should not make a joke of this matter or of themselves.
This is farcical.
The Minister should be allowed to continue.
The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána is aware that the rule of law must be upheld. No one knows that better than him.
Will someone write a reply for the Minister?
I do not have to send the Garda Commissioner telegrams or letters or contact him by telephone to inform him that the rule of law should be upheld.
The Minister tried to blame Deputy Owen for the Brink's Allied robbery.
What did the Minister say to him?
It will be clear to every law abiding citizen that this demonstration is being handled by the Garda in the most effective manner possible.
Rubbish.
It is being handled sensitively and monitored and managed on a progressive basis and I have every confidence in the Garda—
So have we, but the Garda is being told what to do.
—-not only to resolve this impasse but to impose the rule of law as it always has done under successive Governments.
Does the Chair have a role in asking the Minister to answer the questions he was asked?
The Chair has no responsibility in this.
He is meandering and wandering.
I deeply regret Deputy Stagg's contribution. There is a public servant present to keep me to up to date in relation to the matter in the High Court.
Someone would want to keep the Minister up to date.
Never mind the public servant; what is the Minister's view?
The Minister should let the Deputy answer the questions, given that he will not.
Members of the House are entitled to the fullest possible information. The Deputies opposite are turning very serious matters into an absolute charade.
I call Deputy Jim Higgins for a final question.
The Minister did not answer the questions asked.
The Chair has no responsibility for the Minister's answers.
What did the Minister say to the Garda Commissioner and what was the purpose of his call? Did he direct him to implement the law in respect of the taxi protest?
I have called Deputy Jim Higgins.
What is the answer to—
The Chair has no responsibility for the Minister's answers.
What is the point of having a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who pilots the concept of zero tolerance but who cannot answer a straightforward question?
The Deputy is being disorderly.
It is clear that Fianna Fáil indicated to the Garda Commissioner that he should take it easy in terms of applying the law as it is the taxi drivers who were led up the hill by Fianna Fáil.
The Deputy is being disorderly. I have called Deputy Jim Higgins for a final question.
The Taoiseach put his arms around them—
If Deputy Rabbitte does not resume his seat I will move on to the Adjournment debate matters and I will not call Deputy Jim Higgins.
It is clear he told the Garda Commissioner the opposite. This is clear from his refusal to answer the questions
We have spent long enough on this question and the Deputy is out of order.
He told the Garda Commissioner not to apply the law as it would cause a bigger revolution on the backbenches—
The Deputy is making a statement, not asking a question.
—and involve more than the 20 Fianna Fáil backbenchers who met the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, during the week.
The Deputy is getting carried away.
The only place one will get carried away is in the House.
The Chair is on his feet and I ask Deputy Rabbitte to resume his seat.
(Mayo): Given that we have not had any guarantee or indication from the Minister that he will insist that the rule of law will be upheld and that law and order will be enforced and that he will not continue to bow in a craven manner to the thuggery and intimidation we have seen on the streets, is he prepared to give an ultimatum to the taxi men that if they do not withdraw their protest by a specified time this evening, then the deal is off and the compensation offer will be withdrawn?
The Deputy is well aware that this is an operational decision for the Garda Síochána and that I have stated continuously during this debate that I regard the actions of the taxi men as untenable. I have made it perfectly clear that I have, and always have had, the fullest confidence in the Garda Commissioner to enforce the rule of law. This is not a message he should require from me.
On the conversation I had with the Garda Commissioner, naturally I asked him to brief me on the situation. I did not, nor would I, interfere in the operational decisions of the Garda Commissioner. Unlike Deputy Rabbitte, who is used to making false allegations in the House, I could not tell the Garda Commissioner that he should not interfere in this matter. I could not do so and would not do so.
What did the Minister say to him?
The concept of zero tolerance has been raised like a mantra by Deputy Rabbitte on numerous occasions in the House.
The Minister has also raised it; it is his mantra.
Somewhere along the line he seems to have been hurt by this concept. I wonder when this happened.
This is called hypocrisy.
Crime has fallen by 21% since the Government came into office.
It is called buffoonery.
I would prefer if Deputy Rabbitte confined his ranting to the pages of Magill. The only person in this House leading people up the hill is Deputy Rabbitte. He led them up the hill before and down again.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.