Woods, Michael J.

Wednesday, 22 May 1996

Dáil Éireann Debate
Vol. 465 No. 7

First Page Previous Page Page of 121 Next Page Last Page

Order of Business.

This is a matter for the Order of Business. It was promised in the programme for Government in the first instance.More Button

The Chair is not giving equal treatment to the Opposition.More Button

In the programme for Government the Government said that all important and sensitive cases, including every extradition case should be brought to the immediate attention of the Attorney General.More Button

A five minute perusal would have told the Attorney General that the papers were in error.More Button

That is part of the programme for Government. The Taoiseach is just trying to dodge the issue.More Button

It would have taken five minutes with the Attorney General.More Button

The Attorney General.More Button

The Taoiseach has now confirmed to us that the original documents were not passed to the Attorney General but that was the whole point in the last issue and that was the point in the six months and 12...More Button

The Tánaiste told us on 16 November 1994 this was the key issue throughout this entire episode. (Interruptions.)More Button

Consumer Information (Consumer Credit) (Revocation) Order, 1996: Motion.

Given what has transpired will you, a Cheann Comhairle, consider letting Deputy O'Dea back into the House? It is clear that he was put out of the House in error. (Interruptions.)More Button

Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

On a point of order——More Button

Why were statements made suggesting the matter had been thoroughly investigated? The Taoiseach must give adequate explanations.More Button

Private Notice Questions. - Extradition Application.

Is the Taoiseach aware that a definitive statement was made in court as reported in The Irish Times on Monday, 15 April? The report stated: “When the court resumed at 1.45 p.m. Ms Loftus apologised fo...More Button

This is very relevant.More Button

The report also stated: “Ms Loftus said: I am instructed that it is now clear there is a fundamental flaw in the proceedings”.More Button

It is relevant in this case.More Button

The fundamental flaw must have been known at that time.More Button

Will the Taoiseach accept that the Attorney General is responsible for the administration of his office as well as giving legal advice to the Government? This issue was teased out here on an earlier ...More Button

The Taoiseach told us the Attorney General did not examine the original papers. If he did not, how could he say they were in order?More Button

Does the Taoiseach consider the extradition of an Irish citizen a serious matter? Does he also consider that the request must be right in terms of the name and address of the person and the documenta...More Button

The flaw was known from the beginning.More Button

He is responsible.More Button

The Attorney General knew when the case was withdrawn from court. (Interruptions.)More Button

Did the Taoiseach speak to the Attorney General?More Button

Adjournment Debate Matters.

Are the Taoiseach and his Attorney General assuming responsibility for this matter?More Button

Suspension of Member.

Will the Taoiseach and the Attorney General take responsibility for this debacle?More Button

Adjournment Debate Matters (Resumed).

Will the Taoiseach explain whether the Attorney General instructed the legal counsel representing the State——More Button

Last Updated: 21/05/2011 11:52:00 First Page Previous Page Page of 121 Next Page Last Page