asked the Minister for Local Government in relation to the complaint of forcible and unlawful detention on Tuesday, 7th June, 1960, made by a member of the South Tipperary County Council and his assurance, given in the Dáil on the 14th June, that the full facts would be made known to him before he made a decision on resolutions passed at a meeting of the County Council held on that date, whether he will state what reports or other information he received prior to the 16th November, 1960, other than the Garda report forwarded to him on the 29th June, 1960, and the dates and sources of such reports and information.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Detention of Tipperary Councillor.
26.
Apart from the Garda report received from the Department of Justice on the 29th June, 1960, the following reports and information were received in my Department in relation to the complaint of forcible and unlawful detention made by a member of the Tipperary (S.R.) County Council.
On 31st August, 1960, a Garda report was received from the Department of Justice indicating that the accused persons had appeared before a special sitting of the Clonmel District Court on the 22nd and 23rd August, 1960, and had been returned for trial at Clonmel Circuit Court on the 18th October, 1960.
On the 8th September, 1960, my Department ascertained from the Department of Justice that neither the depositions taken at the District Court nor the investigations of the Gardai implicated in any way the three persons who had been appointed as Rate Collectors on the 7th June, 1960.
On the 25th October, 1960, a further Garda report was received from the Department of Justice indicating that the hearing of the charges had been transferred to the Central Criminal Court in Dublin.
On the 28th October and 8th November the Department of Justice in reply to telephone enquiries by my Department stated that no date had been fixed for the hearing of the charges in the Central Criminal Court.
Would the Minister say in relation to the approving of the appointments made on 7th June whether in regard to the delay there was any reasonable doubt in his mind, after he had received the Report on the 8th September, with regard to the character or qualifications of the persons who were appointed?
Is the Deputy asking a question?
This Question and the other Question are related in this way: from the Minister's replies already given the implication is that there was some reasonable doubt in his mind either with regard to the statutory powers in dealing with the matter or reasonable doubt in regard to the character or the qualifications of the three persons who were appointed and that it was on that basis that he delayed giving assent.
Do I understand now in relation to the character and qualifications of the three men appointed that there was no reasonable doubt in the Minister's mind about their character and qualifications apart from the report on the 8th September? Will he say, in relation to the basic events at the back of all this, what was the cause of the delay in sanctioning the appointments in September or October or the first half of November?
I should say that after that report of the 8th September, if I had any doubts as to the suitability of the candidates in so far as this alleged kidnapping was concerned, I had none after the 8th September.
Will the Minister say what the delay was in making the appointments?
At that date, subsequent to receiving that report and as a result of being clear in my mind that it was not a question of suggesting that they were connected with this case, I would then in the normal circumstances have gone ahead and confirmed the appointments which I later did. The real reason I did not was out of courtesy to the Deputy in respect to a reply I had given to him earlier in June. The Deputy may ask why I did not then—as I should have done at a later date without awaiting the conclusion of the court case—sanction these appointments. The reasons are these: In September, and up to the end of the first half year from the point of view of rate collection—the six months from the beginning of April to the end of September—there was nothing those people who had been proposed could have done, had their appointments been confirmed, in so far as the collection of the half year's rates was concerned. The second consideration—a far more pressing one— was when the local Council disregarded the fact that the Council for the Tipperary South Riding had already made three appointments for the three permanent vacancies. They proceeded at a later meeting, on November 2nd, to send out three temporary rate collectors to do the job.
There were no vacancies at that time for three temporary rate collectors or for anybody else and it was because of that, together with the fact that matters could not only have been very complicated by this proposal to appoint temporary collectors where no vacancies existed, but that it could have complicated an undertaking by the South Riding Co. Council who had already proposed three people for the permanent vacancies. The three men appointed to the permanent jobs by the South Riding Co. Council could have taken legal action to ascertain why the jobs given to them were given to somebody else. That was going on in the second half year of the rate collection period and it was getting on into the total collection period. That fact, together with other factors, forced my hand and I was left no choice. I did not willingly do it at the time and I certainly did not intend any discourtesy to the Deputy or to the House. There was nothing to preclude sanction to three appointments already made by the South Riding Co. Council.
In the matter of the Minister's inquiries, were they in order to satisfy him to hold up the appointments in relation to matters which might disclose themselves later as a reflection on the characters of the people who were appointed?
The question of character was the only matter that arose after certification by the Co. Manager where the new rate collectors were concerned. The Manager's report certified them as being suitable and eligible for the posts. The only question then that could have arisen was their suitability as to character, and I had no doubt after September 8th about that and any delay afterwards was out of courtesy to the Deputy.
Does the Minister intend to change the method of appointment of rate collectors?
That is a different question.
Is the Minister aware that this was a Fine Gael ramp started by the State Solicitor to bolster an appointment of a very doubtful nature made the night before the coalition Government left office?
The Deputy is making charges.
It is an old Tipperary custom to kidnap people on the night before appointments are made.
Order.
I remember the Bally-bricken stone-throwing all right.