Question No. 2, to the Taoiseach.

Before I go on answering questions, because of Deputy L'Estrange's foul allegations against a member of the staff of the Chief State Solicitor's Office, I took the opportunity during the adjournment to go further into this file and I should like now to make a general statement about this matter. The incident in question happened in July, 1969. A prosecution followed in January, 1970.

On a point of order. I do not want to interfere, but is this strictly in order?

If I am ruled out of order I cannot speak but, if I do not speak today, I will speak another day. In view of the fact that these allegations were made in public it is, I think, my right and my duty to defend a man who cannot defend himself in this House.

On a point of order. The only point is whether or not the Taoiseach has your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to make this statement.

One law for one and another law for another.

Deputy L'Estrange made statements in this House and I am entitled to refute them.

Sir, I suggest the next question be called because the person who made the allegation is not here. This is a matter that can be settled in a different way and the Taoiseach knows how to settle it in a different way. An inquiry can be held. In the interests of order I suggest that the next question be called.

Unfortunately that would be on a different day.

The Deputy having left the House, it is very wrong of the Taoiseach to raise this matter now.

What about the man?

What about the man? I am quite certain no action will be taken against Deputy L'Estrange —he can defend himself—in public.

In view of Deputy L'Estrange's statement the Taoiseach is entitled to reply.

Deputy L'Estrange is not here.

Sir, in the event of the Taoiseach being given permission by you to make a statement, will the House have an opportunity of putting further supplementary questions to the Taoiseach?

On a point of order. At the time Deputy L'Estrange was suspended I did not have an opportunity of answering the supplementary questions he put. I claim I am entitled to answer these supplementary questions now.

On a point of order. Deputy L'Estrange was suspended on a motion by the Taoiseach.

The House has suspended Deputy L'Estrange.

Yes, and the Taoiseach should not go any further.

I will not go any further now, but the charge against the solicitor from the Chief State Solicitor's Office that he was drunk is totally unfounded and wholly malicious.

A blackguardly statement.

Make the statement outside and come back again to the House.

That would seem to imply I am making an allegation against somebody. I am making no allegation.

The Taoiseach is making the allegation that Deputy L'Estrange told lies.

I am not. I am refuting an allegation made against a man who cannot defend himself here, the allegation that he was drunk in the course of his duty.

I do not know anything about these allegations. All I am asking is that the Chair call Question No. 2.

The Taoiseach intervened to answer supplementary questions asked by Deputy L'Estrange.

On a point of order. Is there any precedent for taking supplementary questions, after an adjournment has taken place, to a question asked before that adjournment took place? You, Sir, know there is not and I suggest that Question No. 2 be proceeded with. Otherwise the only result will be to bring the House further into disrepute.

If the House does not want to hear the statement——

The Taoiseach can issue a public statement through the Government Information Bureau.

The Deputy knows that, Deputy L'Estrange having made these allegations, they have already probably gone into print and it is very hard to catch up with false statements or allegations after the event.

We know that better than the Taoiseach.

It was a foul allegation.

Why is the Labour Party so anxious to defend Fine Gael?

We are defending the good name of the House.

The Taoiseach is entitled to make a statement, if he so wishes.

The position is that the accident happened in July, 1969, and a prosecution took place in January, 1970. After the prosecution, a son of the deceased man wrote to me and was given the unusual facility of going through the entire list of statements in the Attorney General's Office in the presence of the Attorney General's assistant. He continued with his campaign of an injustice being done but not until September, 1970, did he raise for the first time this allegation that has now been taken up by Deputy L'Estrange that the solicitor involved was drunk. The fact was the solicitor was in court, but he had three other cases on that day, including two remand cases and, when the case was called, the district justice who presided insisted that the garda present prosecute the case. The garda did so. There were five witnesses called and a conviction was recorded. I think I need say no more at this stage. I do not want to be chasing all Deputy L'Estrange's other allegations about political influence. I did not know the man at the time he made this charge and I do not know who he is now, or who the defendant is.