asked the Minister for Justice the total amount paid to barristers and to solicitors under the legal aid scheme in the current financial year; whether any barrister, or solicitor was paid over £5,000; and if so, if he will give details.

The total amount paid to barristers in the 10-month period January to October was £174,547 and the total to solicitors £242,133, making a grand total of £416,680.

The following are particulars of fees in excess of £5,000 paid to (a) barristers and (b) solicitors in the same period:

Deputy Kelly rose.

It is my question.

Is it? The Deputy will want to ask the House if it is his question.

This question is a collector's item. Such a list was never given in anything but tabular form before.

Order, please.

Is the Deputy objecting to the amount of information given?

We have been looking for that in reply to other questions.

At least they are not on the Legion of the Rearguard as they once were, minstrel boys one and all.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable public concern at what would appear to be a vested interest in crime by certain members of the legal profession? There is a certain amount of concern among the ordinary people. I have met it.

A question, Deputy.

Could the Minister repeat the figure for Mr. McCartan? Did he say £26,000?

I said £26,611.

That is very unfair.

I want to ask the Minister.

Shame.

Am I to be permitted to ask my question?

I do not want to obstruct the giving of information even about individuals where State money is concerned.

Is this a point of order?

Is it not a rule of this House that individuals' names are not mentioned inside the House in connection with their private affairs?

No.

If it is not a rule it certainly is a practice or convention and I believe this is the first time it has ever been breached.

That is nonsense.

While I have great respect for Deputy Briscoe, I would prefer the Minister to answer Deputy Kelly's question rather than Deputy Briscoe's.

On a point of order, is it in order to cast reflections on individuals by describing them as having a vested interest in crime? Is it an attempt to emulate Mr. Roy Mason in accordance with the rules of this House?

My interpretation of Deputy Briscoe's question is attributing the vested interest of members of the legal profession in the Fine Gael Party——

May I ask my supplementary question?

Is it in order to cast such reflections on people in this House by describing them as having a vested interest in crime?

I did not describe anyone as having a vested interest in crime. I asked the Minister if he was aware of the public concern over what members of the public feel is a vested interest in crime in certain members of the legal profession.

Is it in order for the Deputy to do that?

If the leader of the Fine Gael party will allow——

Is it in order?

We are not going to allow individual names to be discussed. Collectively there is a precedent.

I ask the Minister whether the Mr. McCartan referred to is a member of the Prisoners' Rights Organisation and also a member of Sinn Féin, The Workers Party.

This is absolutely disgraceful.

I will not allow Deputies to make charges against identified individuals.

It is about time.

I have not got a chance even to rule on the question with three Deputies protesting at the same time. Next question, please. This is creating disorder.

I tell the Minister that I do not know three-quarters of the names he mentions and I have no vested interest in crime.

That is not a question.

This performance is without precedent. It is an attempt by Deputy Briscoe and the Minister in collusion to achieve some cheap political point. I have no interest in any of these gentlemen. There are questions with answers one-quarter the length which do not deserve a reply——

Order, please. The questions have been directed to the Minister. The Deputy is on his feet giving information.

——which receive a tabular reply. It is disgraceful.

In future when the Minister plants a question for a Fianna Fáil back-bench Deputy he will brief him on the conduct by which he should control himself.

Question No. 7. The Deputy will please resume his seat.

The Opposition have been asking supplementaries.

Order, please.

They are soft on the IRA on answering questions. We will take no——

Order, please. Deputy Kelly is being grossly disorderly and the Chair's patience is running out.

I am shouted down by certain people on the other side.

Deputy Briscoe has been led to the slaughter by the Minister for Justice. He has been led astray. The Minister walked him into it.

I have called the next question.

The Minister has not denied or confirmed that he walked Deputy Briscoe into that.

I said to the people opposite at the last election——

Will the Minister confirm or deny that he walked Deputy Briscoe into it?