asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has made any representations to the British Government about the travesty of justice in the Six Counties to which the so-called "supergrass" trials refer.

The number of convictions obtained in Northern Ireland courts involving evidence supplied by informers has increased in recent years. This matter has been discussed with the British authorities. The contents of such discussions are confidential.

Will the Minister state when this matter was discussed with the British authorities?

I do not have that information here and I cannot tell the Deputy when it was discussed. The practice of taking advantage of informers has been going on in the recent past and I presume the discussions were in the recent past.

Does the Minister accept that there is a considerable degree of concern in this part of the country arising out of this method of trial?

I accept there is concern regarding the use of informers. The danger of uncorroborated evidence is a well-known feature and obviously trials that are based on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices have to be looked at with great care and caution. I am aware that there are many people in the other jurisdiction equally concerned about this method of criminal proceedings. On the other hand, governments traditionally have paid for information as long as governments have been in power. Successive Governments here have used information in criminal trials — not in the same way, I might add. The procuring of information through payment is not new in police investigative proceedings. Nevertheless, because of the circumstances surrounding the use of that information in Northern Ireland, the procedures give rise to some apprehension regarding the whole aspect of criminal jurispruduce involved.

Because there is a doubt regarding the validity that should be given to evidence of this kind, does not the Minister agree that such evidence should be entirely disregarded?

That would be a matter for the trial court. It is not something to which I could give an omnibus answer. One of the things that would assist the trial court in deciding whether to disregard such evidence totally would be whether the people against whom it was given were prepared to give evidence to controvert it. From my recollection of newspaper reports of these trials, I am not aware that the defendants were prepared to controvert the evidence. I offer this only as a hypothesis, but that may have been a factor that weighed with the courts in deciding to accept the evidence. There have also been instances where the courts have refused to accept the evidence on the grounds that they regarded it as unsafe. As a general rule, it is evidence that has to be approached with great caution.

Will the Minister tell the House his own view and that of the Cabinet regarding the use of this evidence?

The Cabinet have made their views known to the British authorities in discussions. Traditionally these discussions are confidential and it would be inappropriate for me to indicate here the views of the Government.

There is a high level of public concern about this matter. The people want to know the Government's opinion regarding the use of such evidence.

The Deputy may take it that if the Government did not have concern about the matter they would not have entered into discussions.

Does the Minister not accept that "supergrass" trials are a violation of the basic human rights of the individuals concerned? Further, does he not agree that the whole system of informers, which has been the traditional method of convicting Irish people for hundreds of years——

The Deputy may not make a speech at Question Time.

——is discrediting the entire judicial system? Britain is the only Government in Europe using this form of trial and obtaining convictions as a result. In view of this, will the Government not encourage the taking of a case to the European Court of Human Rights?

I have made clear the Government's attitude to the "super-grass" procedure.

I am calling the next question. I have allowed a considerable latitude on this matter.

I am endeavouring to follow up the question before me. Are you suggesting that I cannot ask a supplementary now?

I did not notice Deputy David Andrews offering.

I am relatively tall and I find it very difficult to understand that you did not notice me. Would you be gracious enough to allow me to ask a supplementary?

It is not a question of being gracious or ungracious. It is a question of conducting Question Time in an orderly manner and in a manner that will give a fair deal to everybody. I know that the next two questions are of concern to a great number of people and I am anxious to get on with them. I have been fair as far as these questions are concerned.

Will the Minister unreservedly give us the Government's attitude on the "supergrass" system? I find that the Minister is qualifying the Government's attitude. This is the place to state the Government's view on the "supergrass" system.

The Deputy may ask a question but he may not make a speech.

Will the Minister unreservedly, on behalf of the Government, condemn without equivocation, the "supergrass" system?

The question asked if the Government had made any representations to the British Government concerning the use of this system. I have indicated that the matter has been discussed with the British authorities but I have also indicated that such discussions, in accordance with long-standing precedent, are confidential. Obviously, if I were to answer the Deputy's question in specific terms I would, by implication, be breaching the confidentiality of those discussions. I am afraid that I cannot, for the very good reason of diplomatic protocol, answer the question the Deputy has posed.

Question No. 22.

Are you declining to allow me to ask a specific question?

I gave Deputy Liam Fitzgerald quite a number of supplementaries and I gave him the last supplementary but I gave Deputy David Andrews a supplementary supplementary. I am now calling Question No. 22.

Will the Minister please answer Question No. 22?

On a point of order, this House has been inhibited in the manner in which we discuss a very specific case of human rights. Could I ask the Minister to be more forthcoming in regard to the nature of the representations and of the reply?

Deputy Fitzgerald speaks about discussing human rights. You cannot have that at Question Time.

I was not asking to have it discussed.