asked the Taoiseach if he has seen press reports, in regard to allegations that a name on two medical certificates submitted by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to the Housing Department of Dublin Corporation had been changed by him, the Minister; if, in these circumstances, he will ask the Minister to resign; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Question. - Medical Certificate Allegation.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has already explained publicly, and in detail, the circumstances of this case, and how the error occurred in one — not two — medical certificates, submitted by him at a time when he was not, as suggested by the Deputy, Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He has also indicated that his explanation of the error was immediately accepted at the time by Dublin Corporation. It may be noted incidentally that the error in relation to one of three applications from the same house was immediately evident on the face of the document. The disclosure and publication of details in respect of the personal health affairs of applicants for housing is to be deplored and I presume that an investigation of the circumstances in which photostats of these documents appeared in the papers will be undertaken by Dublin Corporation.
I should add that I regret that the Deputy has sought to impugn the character of the Minister by raising this matter in this way.
As long as we are here we will be the watchdogs of the public interest.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Taoiseach aware that in the facsimile of the letter issued by the officer in charge of housing allocations in Dublin Corporation to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, which appeared in last Sunday's Sunday Press, the officer in charge of housing allocations, Dublin Corporation, specifically states that the name Dillon has been altered to that of Higgins in the certificate and that the alternations appeared to be in the Minister's handwriting? That is a letter signed by the officer in charge of housing allocations in Dublin Corporation.
I suggest it is now incumbent on the Taoiseach to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate this matter fully, to secure statements from the allocations officer in Dublin Corporation, statements from the two doctors who were concerned in the certificate and whose names also appear on the facsimile copy in last Sunday's Sunday Press— Dr. J. McMahon and Dr. D. O'Sullivan — and that it is now incumbent on the Taoiseach to have statements taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the medical personnel whose certificate was altered and from the housing officer in charge of allocations in Dublin Corporation who issued this letter to his Minister, that that is the minimum duty incumbent on the Taoiseach if he is to preserve a sense of decency and regard for the members of the Government that surround him?
The Deputy is a good ham actor but even he is overdoing it on this occasion.
Less of that.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister has explained fully the circumstances in which this error occurred and, as is characteristic of him, has immediately come forward to give a full explanation of exactly what happened. It is on the record, the Deputy is aware of it and, in pursuing the matter in this way, the Deputy is not doing himself or his party any good.
I want to ask one specific question: both at common law and statute law it is a criminal offence to falsify a document in order to gain a benefit from the public purse. There is certainly a prima facie case here to justify the case and I would suggest to the Taoiseach that he consider an elementary investigation through his Director of Public Prosecutions to consider the prima facie case that has been made. I would ask the Taoiseach if he now intends, in view of what I have said here in the House and what has been disclosed, to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate the falsification of a document, that is, a medical certificate furnished in order to gain a definite benefit from the public purse, that is a house from Dublin Corporation? Is the Taoiseach aware of the seriousness of the falsification and the alterations relating to medical certificates, not just in this sphere but in relation to the falsification of medical certificates in any sphere. Is the Taoiseach aware of the serious import of what I am now stating to be at least prima facie the case?
Is the Taoiseach willing, on foot of a serious consideration of this matter, to ask, as I have advocated, the Director of Public Prosecutions to examine the matter, so clearing the air and establishing what decency and regard there should be with the Irish public for members of his Government?
After that waffle I can only reply that the letter, on the face of it, shows clearly that there is no question of falsification. The letter, on the face of it, refers to the person by name to whom the certificate relates. The change in name at the top of the letter obviously was not intended to falsify anything, as the Deputy can see if he looks at it.
The Minister has explained the circumstances of the error occurring where, in the one family a sister, brother and aunt applied for housing at the same time, that the state of health of the mother was a relevant factor, how he submitted each of these applications separately, and how the error was made in relation to the name in this case. He has given the fullest explanation. The Deputy should have the guts to accept it and have sufficient standards not to pursue the matter the way he is doing now.
I want to make one point to the Minister and to the Taoiseach in the form of a question. I want to ask the Taoiseach: does he not propose to pursue the investigation further along the lines I have suggested on the basis that a senior officer of Dublin Corporation, in a sensitive post relating to housing allocations, has said that a medical certificate was altered by a Minister of his Government and that the alteration would appear to be in his — the Minister's — handwriting? That is the specific allegation. Does the Taoiseach not agree that, on the face of it, that does merit at least the questioning of the officer concerned in Dublin Corporation?
The matter has been clarified by the Minister in respect of action he took when he was not a Minister, but before he was Minister, and has been fully clarified by him in a full statement. What does require explanation is how documents relating to the private and personal health affairs of applicants for housing appeared in the Sunday Press——
That is running away from it.
Blame somebody else.
——and the failure of somebody concerned to maintain confidentiality in relation to the identity of the people concerned, whatever allegation they wish to make, which certainly reflects no credit on them.