asked the Minister for Posts and Teelgraphs if he is aware that a copy of a letter dated 19 August 1983 which was confidential to the Board and Chief Executive of Údarás na Gaeltachta came into the possession of his Department; and how the copy came into the possession of his Department.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Údarás na Gaeltachta.
22.
My Department have been notified that legal proceedings may be instituted in regard to certain aspects of this matter. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment at this stage.
Would the Minister agree that this letter did come into the possession of his Department?
Yes. A letter was received by the Department on 7 November from a firm of solicitors, indicating that the intention was to institute proceedings against the Department within five days unless a reply was received and certain action taken by the Department in regard to an aspect of the matter which is the subject of the parliamentary question. The Department have been legally advised that in the circumstances it would be inappropriate to make any further comment on the case.
Is the Minister saying that the copy of the letter referred to in the question was given to his Department by a solicitor?
I told the Deputy already——
Is that what the Minister is saying?
In the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the case.
I only wanted to confirm what the Minister had said——
Does the Deputy want me to repeat it?
——in a supplementary reply. Did the Minister say that the copy of the letter was made available to his Department by a third party — a solicitor?
I shall give again the information that I read out.
Does the Minister not remember what was in it?
I will read it out for the Deputy's benefit.
The Minister read it several times before he came into the House.
I did, but I do not want to make any slip.
It is a very delicate matter.
Does the Deputy want me to continue? A letter was received by the Department on 7 November from a firm of solicitors indicating that the intention was to institute proceedings against the Department within five days unless a reply was received and certain action taken by the Department in regard to an aspect of the matter which is the subject of the parliamentary question. The Department have been legally advised that in the circumstances it would be inappropriate to make any comment on the case.
A final supplementary, Deputy Molloy, please.
Would the Minister confirm that it would be improper for any member of his staff to knowingly take a copy of any letter which was passing through his service?
I have no intention of commenting on the matter.
Surely the Minister could reply?
Could the Minister not reply? He is the person with responsibility to answer this type of question, to ensure that the public retain confidence in the service.
I have no intention of replying to the Deputy in relation to the question he has raised.
I appeal to the Minister to make a statement in relation to the matter. No doubt he has to uphold the integrity of his own service.
A question, please, Deputy Leyden.
I am asking the Minister to reply to Deputy Molloy's question, that the integrity of the post is sacred.
I hope so.
The Minister hopes so. I hope he makes sure so.
Is the Minister saying——
A final supplementary, please.
Is the Minister, through his refusal to answer the question, saying that he is not prepared to give a public assurance that letters going through the service of his Department——
Of course, I am prepared to give a public assurance to that effect.
——will retain their confidentiality? Is the Minister not concerned that a copy may have been made of a letter passing through his service — improperly made I mean? Is the Minister not concerned about that?
Of course, the Deputy can make any charge he likes.
I am not making a charge. I am asking for an assurance that no such thing will happen or has happened.
Of course, I give an assurance. Do not complicate the issue.
Does he give an assurance that improper copying of confidential letters will not be done by any servant of his Department?
Certainly.
The Minister could have done that at the beginning.
23.
asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he is aware that two senior investigating officers of his Department, in the course of an interview with the Chief Executive of Udarás na Gaeltachta, represented in the presence of witnesses that their inquiry would be confidential to his Department, that the outcome of their inquiries was made available to the Minister for the Gaeltacht and that it was subsequently represented by the Secretary of Roinn na Gaeltachta that the inquiries were initiated at the request of his Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Unauthorised interception of telephone calls is obviously a most serious matter and my Department undertake investigations into reports and complaints made about such interception where the public service telephone network appears to be involved. All such investigations are carried out on a confidential basis by officers of the Investigation Branch of my Department, and they may not disclose the results of their investigations other than to an authorised officer. Where a breach of the law is suspected in the course of such investigations, a warning is given that anything said will be recorded and may be used in evidence before a statement is sought. The complainant, if any, is normally advised of the result of such investigations and other appropriate action, including the question of legal proceedings, and the need to advise the Government or other members of the Government who may be concerned is considered, depending on the circumstances in each case.
In the case referred to by the Deputy, a complaint of unauthorised interception of a telephone call was received from the Minister for the Gaeltacht. My information is that treatment of the case subsequently was in conformity with normal practice.
I ask the Minister to answer the question which I have put to him here by way of this Parliamentary Question, which is if he will confirm that officers of his Department represented, in the presence of witnesses, that their inquiry would be confidential to his Department? Would the Minister state whether that is so?
I have already explained in my reply that all investigations of this kind are carried out on a confidential basis. This one was no exception. However, to interpret this as meaning that nobody outside the Department would be advised of the result of such investigations would be quite wrong. If, for example, an investigation reveals evidence that a breach of the law may have been involved, the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to be consulted. When an inquiry is initiated as a result of a complaint, obviously the complainant would be entitled to know the action taken. The Deputy must be aware, too, that my Department form part of an executive arm of Government and the Government have corporate responsibility, that the Minister for the Gaeltacht and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs are both members of the Government and that no Minister operates in isolation from Government as a whole or from other Ministers who may be concerned with particular matters arising from time to time.
The question which I would like again to repeat to the Minister is whether officers of his Department, in carrying out this questioning had represented to the person who was being questioned that the answers which would be given would be confidential to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Is the Minister accepting that that was done by the officers of his Department on this occasion and if so he must agree that they have broken the trust and the statement which they made to the person whom they were interviewing? What action does he propose to take?
There was no abnormality in this case.
There was.
The same thing applies to any individual of the public who can show the Department in any way that a telephone call that he or she made was intercepted. That person has the same right as any other individual of the public, be it Minister, chief executive officer or any one else.
Does the Minister accept that officers of his Department can properly represent to people who are being interviewed that the answers which they may give to questions are to remain confidential to his Department and his Department only? Does he agree that this was done on this occasion — that these officers of his Department stated that the information would be kept confidential within the Department itself? Is the Minister accepting that his officers did this?
There was no departure from the normal procedure in this case.
Now, Deputy Molloy——
I am sorry, but I am asking a very straight question which I have written down here. I have repeated it twice orally by way of supplementary.
The Minister may repeat it five or six times more, for that matter.
The Minister is not answering the question.
The Deputy will appreciate that the Chair has no control over the answering of questions.
I accept that. I am not asking the Chair to answer the questions. I am merely pointing out to the Chair my reason for having to repeat the question which I have on the Order Paper, to establish the correct answer from the Minister. Does the Minister accept that the officers of his Department who carried out this investigation represented that the answers would be confidential to his Department?
The investigation of this case was carried out in the same way as similar investigations have been in the Department.
Does the Minister understand plain English? Does he understand the question?
The Deputy has a bee in his bonnet about matters concerning the Gaeltacht.
We are having repetition now. Order, please.
I am trying to get to the bottom of a very vindictive campaign which has been carried on but has now been flushed over-ground. The Minister, and his fellow Ministers, will have to substantiate any actions they take with facts before the Irish public. I wish to give notice that due to the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I am seeking permission to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.