Will the Taoiseach reveal if it is the Government's intention to amend the terms of reference of the Morris tribunal and to make some financial provision in line with the precedent in the haemophiliacs case for legal representation for the McBrearty family and others?

I do not wish to comment in any way on the sensational and grave allegations regarding it that have confounded most law abiding citizens. Does the Taoiseach not agree that there is a compelling case to have expressly included in the terms of reference the former Minister for Justice, the Garda Commissioner, the State Solicitor in Donegal and arguably the former Attorney General?

Is it not the case that Government spokespersons and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, last night on a television programme, have been seeking to give the impression that the terms of reference may only be amended if the sole member so requests? In fact, is it not the case that we passed a second item of legislation last year which again expressly provided for consultation between the Attorney General and the tribunal and that where the tribunal consents, amendments can be made to the terms of reference? Is it the intention of the Taoiseach to use that facility specifically designed for this kind of circumstance to make those other key personages amenable to the tribunal?

Is it not correct that the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was put in possession of information going back more than three years by my colleague, Deputy Howlin and former Deputy, Jim Higgins? Is it not the case that no effective action was taken by the Minister and that may be why he was so anxious to flee the Department?

Deputy Rabbitte has raised two issues, the first of which relates to the matter of costs. As I understand it, costs are at the discretion of the tribunal. The norm in tribunals is that this position is made at the end, but it is open to any party, as has been pointed out to the McBreartys, to make the case to the tribunal. If it is deemed necessary to change the terms of reference in that regard they can ask us to do so.

It is correct to say that the terms of reference were decided by the House based on the recommendations of a senior counsel who advised us on it. The tribunal said that it would consider arguments or submissions for the extension of the terms of reference. There is provision in the Tribunal of Inquiries Acts for an extension of the terms of reference upon request by a tribunal. In this case the terms of reference have been raised by Mr. McBrearty with the tribunal, which has indicated it is open to considering it. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate for Government to pre-empt the tribunal at the request of one individual, so I do not have any proposal at this stage to change it.

Anyone whom the tribunal wishes to bring forward, as in all the tribunals governed by legislation, can be asked to appear. Just because one is not listed in the terms of reference does not mean one is precluded from it. If Mr. Justice Morris believes he does not have that power it is open to him to ask us to do it. My advice is that there is not a difficulty with either issue at this stage. If a difficulty arises, Mr. Justice Morris will ask for his terms of reference to be amended and the House will do so.

Is it the case in regard to the Lindsay tribunal that when interested parties sought expansion of terms of reference, they were told it was too early and to wait and see and that when they raised the issue again during the tribunal, they were told it was too late? Does the Taoiseach understand the issues involved? I do not want to repeat the gravity or scope of the allegations, but if the McBrearty family does not have the financial wherewithal to be legally represented, why can the same arrangement not be made that was made in the case of haemophiliacs?

How can the Taoiseach say he has no intention to amend the terms of reference having regard to what has come into the public domain and given that it is anticipated more information and allegations will come into the public domain? How can he exclude the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who voted down in this House a joint motion tabled by the Labour Party, Fine Gael and the Green Party on 21 November last year, thus preventing a tribunal of inquiry?

The Deputy's minute has concluded.

What is the point in embarking on a two year tribunal of inquiry at considerable public expense if it is not seen to be effective and excludes the main parties involved, against whom the most serious wrongs appear to have been perpetrated?

I ask the Deputy to stay within the terms of the Standing Order.

I also do not want to comment about the seriousness or gravity of the issues before the Morris tribunal. I reiterate our position, about which Deputy Rabbitte asked. Under the Acts the awarding of costs is a matter for the tribunal, not for the Minister. The Acts provide that persons can be awarded or denied their costs or, in certain circumstances, be required to pay the costs of the tribunals. These legal provisions are regarded as of major significance to the tribunal's capacity to function effectively and secure full co-operation from the relevant parties.

This was put in a different formulation in an Act passed in 1998. It would be almost impossible to distinguish between different witnesses and interested parties in making a decision to pay their costs in advance. In these circumstances it is not possible to select one potential witness or interested party for special treatment in regard to the costs issue. However, I have no doubt that McBrearty family members want to fully co-operate with the tribunal and that, therefore, they should seek that their costs be paid. I checked this issue earlier and it is only in extraordinary cases of non-co-operation that tribunals do not pay costs.

The real issue is the terms of reference.

The Deputy is out of order.

What went on in County Donegal was also out of order.

The Deputy is aware we have had leaders' questions for a number of years and leaders have always stayed within the terms of the Standing Order.