The Leader of the Opposition has applied for and been given permission to put a Question on Private Notice to the Taoiseach. Would Deputy Haughey please read the question.
Private Notice Question. - Listening Device in Dublin House.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach if, in view of the serious and far-reaching implications of the placing of concealed listening equipment in a house in which the Deputy Leader of the SDLP stays in Dublin and the statements emanating from the Taoiseach and other Government sources about the affair, he will immediately establish a full judicial inquiry into all aspects of the matter.
The issues that have been raised about this matter can be grouped under two headings. The first is the event itself — that is, who put in the listening device and with what motives. The second is the response at various levels to the complaint.
A judicial inquiry could not be expected to establish who put in the listening device or with what motives and I do not see how anybody could seriously suggest that it might do so.
As for the response to the complaint, the central facts are already known, are at least in large measure independently verifiable, and are not, I believe, in dispute. This latter point is important because it may have been obscured as a result of the rapidity with which report has followed report in the news media.
I propose to re-state the main facts. On 16 November last Mr. Mallon gave to an official in a Government Department two documents for transmission to me. One of them related to an apparent attempt to instal a listening device in a house where Mr. Mallon stays. I got the documents two days later and sent them to the Minister for Justice. The second document was dealt with by the Minister for Justice and I need not refer to it further at this point. The first document, relating to the apparent bugging attempt, was sent to the Garda Síochána for inquiry.
An official statement, issued jointly by the Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána yesterday, explains in detail what happened next. Briefly, the Garda quite reasonably decided to begin their inquiries by getting in touch with Posts and Telegraphs officials who were referred to in the document. They discovered that Posts and Telegraphs officials had already carried out an investigation as a result of an approach made to the Post Office by one of the occupants of the house arising from suspicions about wiring in the house. Posts and Telegraphs officials had been to the house twice and had been shown certain wiring done by men who had held themselves out to be employees of the Post Office working on a new telephone installation. They did not purport to be coming to correct a fault although a fault on the line had been reported shortly beforehand. No microphone or transmitter had been found by those investigating officials and no reference had been made to them about anything other than wiring, nor to the fact that Séamus Mallon stayed in the house. The impression the Posts and Telegraphs officials got — an impression they understood to be shared by at least one of the occupants — was that it was an attempt to "case" the house with a view to a subsequent burglary and in fact a report reflecting that view was made to the local Garda station at Howth.
Information to this effect was given to me on 11 January by the Minister for Justice. Shortly afterwards, I met Séamus Mallon, spoke to him on other matters and, because time for discussion was limited, gave him copies of statements by two Posts and Telegraphs officials so that he could read them for himself. I had in mind particularly the fact that those statements appeared to show a discrepancy between what was now being said and what had been said earlier. A week later he handed back the statements without comment on the contents. As he made no comment on them other than to express his regret that he had not given them back to me sooner, I took it that he accepted that the situation was as it had been reported by the Post Office official and that he was not pursuing the allegations about a microphone and transmitter made in the original statement.
It was only after this information had been supplied, through the Minister for Justice, to me that the Garda Síochána decided to pursue the matter further and to interview the occupants of the house. Again the reason was explained in yesterday's official statement and is, briefly, that they were very doubtful about doing so since the occupants had, apparently deliberately, decided to raise the matter with the Post Office and not with them. It must be said that events showed that this was by no means an unreasonable attitude as the initial response the Garda inspector got when he approached the occupants was one of surprise that the Garda should be carrying out any investigation. I think the point needs to be made at some stage, and this is as good as any other, that while Mr. Mallon's status is well recognised he is not the occupier of the house and it was the occupants' view or attitude that the Garda had to regard as the primary one.
Since the official statement was issued yesterday, two questions have been raised that I think it right to answer now. The first concerns the alleged tardiness of the initial Garda response. I have already explained why the Garda did not interview the occupants earlier. They had, of course, long since made contact with the Posts and Telegraphs officials. It is not to be overlooked that the installation of the device appears to have been on 1 November but it was not until over a fortnight later that Mr. Mallon handed over a statement about it.
It is perfectly true that there was an interval of some weeks between the Garda contacts with the Post Office and my response to Séamus Mallon. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation. At that point the incident appeared to have been explained and almost the entire senior level of the Garda Síochána at headquarters and indeed in other divisions, was taken up with one aspect or another of the Tidey kidnapping and the murders of Garda Gary Sheehan and Private Patrick Kelly. As a result, the report was not cleared by a senior officer for transmission.
The second question that has been raised since yesterday is why, if the Garda refrained from interviewing the occupants before early January, they then changed their minds. The answer is that when their report was received in the Department of Justice it was immediately sent to me because I was about to meet Séamus Mallon but after that, as a result of an evaluation by the Minister for Justice, it was suggested to the Garda that there could be no real objection to their seeking an interview with the occupants and that it would be better to do so. The subsequent Garda inquiries which began only in about the second week in January are not, in fact, completed. They are concerned with the question of who put in the device and with what motive.
I note that spokesmen for the Opposition have challenged the statement that the whole installation was crude and inefficient. I can deal with that matter very simply. I am asking the Minister for Justice to make an arrangement, the details of which will be communicated to the Opposition Whip, under which the equipment in question and enlarged photographs of the manner of wiring will be available for inspection by any member of the House at a place to be specified. The same facility will be offered to journalists nominated for that purpose by the national or provincial newspapers.
This brings me to the only question that appears to remain, which is the allegation that Government sources have been alleging, without proof, that the device was installed by representatives of the Provisional IRA. The Government Information Service have been constantly pressed to say what is the official view as to the likely explanation of this unusual event. The only official view that matters in this context is the view of the Garda Síochána. If the question had been asked even a few days ago, the answer would have been that the Garda had no theory that they themselves would offer as probable. However, I am advised that the Garda have now reason to have a much firmer view on this point.
There can be no doubt that it was a project that was meant to be discovered, as in fact it was. The Garda believe that it was intended to generate confusion. It does not necessarily follow that it was intended to be publicised. One theory is that it was not necessarily intended to do more than cause worry to Mr. Mallon, who could be expected to hear about it immediately. One way or the other, the Garda believe that those responsible are members of a subversive organisation, though not necessarily acting with the knowledge of the most senior leaders of the organisation. They are not at the moment in a position to prove this, however.
I believe that this answers the questions that have been raised, but there is one thing more that I must add. Mr. Mallon has stated that there was no connection between the two documents he initially sent to me and there was at least an implication that I should not have referred to the other document. I accept without question Mr. Mallon's good faith but I am afraid that, to me, there is a connection and for two reasons. The first is that I responded, even though negatively, to his representations on this second document, something that shows that I did not ignore him, or either of the two documents. The second is that the person on whose behalf those representations were made is a relative of one of the occupants of the house and was a person who was consulted by the occupants about the device in the house.
Furthermore, that person is one who at present stands charged with an offence involving the alleged possession or control of explosive substances or devices. Despite what I understand to have been said on radio by the Opposition spokesman on Justice, the fact that a particular person has appeared before a court and is awaiting trial is a matter of public record and it is quite appropriate that it should be referred to where there is a good and sufficient reason for doing so, as I believe there is now.
When the Taoiseach received from Séamus Mallon the statement prepared by the owner of the house, did he read it?
Of course, I did.
Does he admit that in that statement the words "microphone" and "transmitter" appear prominently?
Yes, indeed, and I made——
(Interruptions.)
May I answer the question?
Order, please.
I was answering the question, a Cheann Comhairle.
(Interruptions.)
I think it would be better if Deputy Haughey were to put a question and then allow it to be answered. I do not want a sort of court cross-examination. That would not be appropriate.
The Taoiseach has just given us——
Excuse me, may I complete my answer?
But I have not completed my question.
I am sorry; I did not appreciate that.
The Taoiseach will get every opportunity of replying. I shall see to that.
I am very sorry.
If the Taoiseach is aware that the words "microphone" and "transmitter" appear very prominently in the statement which he received from Séamus Mallon and which he now acknowledges that he read, how could he attempt to convey last Sunday in a personally written statement which appeared in the Sunday Independent that nothing more was found than a harmless piece of telephone wire?
The statement which I issued — just allow me to get the text of it, I am just looking for the exact words — made it clear that the original complaint related to an allegation of a bugging device. The other was an unsigned statement alleging that a bugging device had been installed in the house of the author of the statement. I made that clear in my statement on Sunday. That was the allegation as originally made.
Despite the fact that the Taoiseach knew that central to this whole matter was a microphone and a transmitter, he attempted to convey the impression last Sunday to the Irish public that only a relatively harmless piece of telephone wire was found. In view of the fact that the Taoiseach has, on a number of occasions adverted to what a very fair-minded person would regard as an extraneous matter — namely, the situation of the nephews of the householder and, in particular, in view of the fact that he put a reference to one of those nephews at the head of his statement last Sunday — would he regard as an unfair interpretation by me of his behaviour in this matter, that he attempted to deter Séamus Mallon from pursuing it any further?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I would certainly regard that as an unfair conclusion to draw. I would point out that the statement which I issued was prepared by me immediately after I heard the allegation in the Sunday Tribune, that I thought it right to put on record the situation as it had been known to me up to that time and to add that an approach from the Sunday Tribune was the first intimation that I have had of any further development as a result of Garda inquiries and that I was seeking a full report on these matters. It was only on that night in the course of my inquiries that I became aware of the fact that there had been further Garda inquiries and that a report of these inquiries existed. My concern was to clarify the position as it was known to me at that point, to make it clear that I would be reporting further when I had information on these Garda inquiries of which I had just learned in the course of the night as I investigated the Sunday Tribune allegation.
In view of the fact that the Taoiseach has consistently over the last twelve months spoken about his alleged fears about a police state and similar-type allegations, does he think it now credible for him to suggest that in a matter as serious as this he had only a perfunctory interest in it and that he was prepared to leave it to one or two officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to pursue the inquiries and not to insist that the Garda, who were the people directly and immediately involved, carry out a full investigation? How can he ask this House to believe that from 16 November, as he says — although we believe that it was 9 November — he did not insist that the Minister for Justice and the Garda Síochána carry out an immediate and urgent investigation into the matter?
When I received the original communication, I passed it to the Minister for Justice and asked him to investigate it. I did not receive a report for some time. When it came to January, and there had been the whole question of the Tidey kidnapping and Ballinamore in between, I was concerned to be able to inform Séamus Mallon of the position. Therefore, I made inquiries and I received the report which I handed to him. On the face of it, that report showed that the Post Office investigators had not found and had not been shown any microphone or transmitter and that no microphone or transmitter had been mentioned to them. I handed that report to Séamus Mallon so that he could see for himself, rather than by simply a verbal communication from me, that the original suggestion made in the unsigned statement he had handed to me was not borne out by the Post Office investigation. I awaited a response from him. He came back to me and handed it back to me without comment, from which I drew the conclusion that he accepted what was in the report and that the earlier suggestion must have been without foundation. I presumed if he felt the earlier suggestion was valid, despite what was said in the report, he would take up the matter further with me.
The Taoiseach gave the report in the first instance to the Minister for Justice, not to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Presumably the Taoiseach wanted a Garda investigation but two months later he receives a rather inconsequential flimsy report from two Post Office officials and passes that on to Séamus Mallon as if that were a satisfactory reply. Is the Taoiseach aware that subsequent to 11 January or 12 January, when that rubbish report from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had been passed on to Séamus Mallon, he, Séamus Mallon, raised the matter with the official whom he had approached in the first place asking if he was going to get any further information or reports about it? Does not the Taoiseach admit that this House can hardly accept that a flimsy report by two Post Office officials is any substitute for a Garda report, particularly when he had asked the Minister for Justice to get him such a Garda report?
The Deputy may not be clear on this, and perhaps I have not made it clear. The report I received from the Minister for Justice when I sought it in advance of the first Forum session in January of this year was a Garda report of inquiries they had made with Post Office officials. Attached to it were the two statements. I detached the two statements and gave them to Séamus Mallon because I thought he was entitled to that information——
The Taoiseach detached the Garda report?
I detached the two statements. The Garda report was a covering report stating what had been their investigations. What I got was a Garda report and attached to it were the two Post Office statements. I have become aware since this matter has become public knowledge that Séamus Mallon approached the official whom he had approached originally with inquiries as to whether there was any progress after he had handed back the report to me without comment. I did not become aware of that in the intervening period——
The Taoiseach was gloriously unaware of many things.
In the absence of any communication from Séamus Mallon, whom I was meeting weekly at the Forum, I had no reason to believe he was other than satisfied with the report I had given to him and which he had handed back to me without comment.
Is the Taoiseach now saying to us that he received from the Minister for Justice a Garda report to which was attached the P and T report, that he detached the Garda report and gave the P and T report to Séamus Mallon?
Yes.
Will the Taoiseach explain why he did that?
Because Séamus Mallon was directly involved I thought the appropriate action was that he should see precisely what had been discovered as a result of Garda inquiries. However, although the contents of the Garda report did not go significantly beyond that, I did not think it proper to hand over to a private citizen an actual Garda report. It is a matter of judgment.
This is becoming more and more incredulous as we go along. The Taoiseach is now trying to tell the House that Séamus Mallon asked for this matter to be investigated by the Garda and that the Taoiseach received a Garda report. He did not think it appropriate to give a Garda report to a private citizen but he thought it appropriate to give a P and T report to a private citizen. Is that correct?
Yes. The Deputy has it right.
Fianna Fáil are the experts; they should know.
We knew some one would try to divert attention——
(Interruptions.)
Order. We must have order for this.
Somebody may join the students in jail before this matter is out.
(Interruptions.)
I appeal to Deputies on all sides of the House for order.
The Taoiseach has mentioned on a number of occasions the matter of the assiduous campaign which has been engaged in by the GIS, of which he is head, to sell — and as far as I can see successfully sell — to the media a story that either some gang of subversives or some gang of ordinary burglars were responsible for this operation. In that connection, does the Taoiseach advert to the fact that within two hours after a telephone complaint had been made to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs these three individuals appeared at the house and carried out this operation? Does the Taoiseach attribute either to the subversive organisation in question or to some ordinary gang of burglars the foreknowledge of that complaint to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs? Does not the conjunction of those events not indicate to him, to me and to everyone else that there was some official involvement in the placing of this equipment in this house?
I adverted specifically to that in my statement. I mentioned that the visit of these men to the house followed immediately after a fault on the telephone had been reported. However, they did not come to the house purporting to repair the fault. Their reason was a quite different one, to instal new wiring in connection with a new development in the telephone system in the area. I do not know what significance to attach to the conjunction of the two events. I think it is open to two interpretations: one, that the two events were coincidental and, two, that the people concerned had managed to cause a fault in the system immediately before calling. However, as they did not use the fault as the excuse for calling or refer to it, I do not think it is necessary to assume the latter, more sinister explanation; but obviously I am not in a position to make a judgment between the two possible explanations.
The Taoiseach began his reply to me by saying that the judicial inquiry would not be able to establish who installed the equipment. We have judges sitting regularly who establish who carried out murders; we have judges sitting regularly who establish all kinds of rather obscure matters, who find out the facts and come to a decision. Is the Taoiseach seriously suggesting that a judicial inquiry could not establish the full facts of this matter with the full co-operation of the Garda Síochána?
I am suggesting that under our system of justice the investigation of crime, or possible crime, is a matter for the Garda Síochána in pursuit of their inquiries. When they have sufficient evidence they submit it to the DPP, a case is taken in court and the Judiciary play their part in helping to determine whether an offence has been committed, with the assistance of a jury in some cases but without a jury in others. The idea that a judicial inquiry could itself carry out the investigation into who was responsible — that is normal Garda detective work — would suggest an unusual concept of a judicial inquiry, one unfamiliar to us in this State. There may be such systems of justice in other countries where they have examining magistrates, but in our system a judicial inquiry could not fulfil that function.
It is precisely the function of a judicial inquiry in matters of this sort to establish exactly who was responsible or guilty. That is the procedure that has been resorted to on many an occasion. Does the Taoiseach recall that he gave a solemn commitment some time ago to establish a judicial inquiry into allegations of political interference in the Garda Síochána? Surely this is a much more specific matter that a judicial inquiry could investigate. In view of his own personal involvement in this either through negligence or failure to prosecute something of fundamental far-reaching importance, the suspicions that have been cast in regard to the behaviour of the Garda Síochána and the Post Office and the whole atmosphere of confusion that surrounds it, will the Taoiseach now give the House an assurance that he will have the matter dealt with in the only feasible and satisfactory way in which it can be dealt with, namely, the establishment of a full scale public judicial inquiry to ascertain and to publish the facts?
For the reasons stated in my reply I do not propose to take that course of action. I propose that the Garda Síochána should continue their inquiries, which have not been completed. It is a matter for them to seek to establish who was responsible for this action and to initiate proceedings against any people against whom they can find evidence.
The Taoiseach now tells us that the Garda have not completed their inquiries. This is three months after the matter was first brought to his personal attention. The Taoiseach, who has talked much about the dangers of a police state and security matters, now tells us three months afterwards that the Garda have not completed their inquiries, despite the fact that on 11 January he tried to pass off a flimsy P and T report on Séamus Mallon in satisfaction of a query about this matter. Is he serious about this? Is the Taoiseach covering up something?
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy
Better make Seán Doherty chairman of it.
I did not pass off anything on Séamus Mallon. I gave to Séamus Mallon the report of the Post Office engineer who had visited the House, with his supervisor. These reports did not verify the statements originally made. They were at variance with them, and suggested the absence of any indication that there was a microphone or transmitter, but only wiring; and, as one of the occupants of the house indicated, this was likely to be a case of somebody seeking to prepare for a burglary of the house. The only evidence was a wire with nothing connected to its end, and no reference had been made by the householder to any microphone or transmitter. That is what I passed to Séamus Mallon and at no stage did Séamus Mallon suggest to me that the original allegation made was substantial or that he was dissatisfied with that report which, on the face of it, showed no evidence of any microphone or transmitter.
Will the Taoiseach make available to the House the Garda report which he carefully detached from the P and T report when he was giving it to Séamus Mallon? Will he make that report available to the House? Is he prepared to have this equipment shown publicly to journalists and others — the real equipment, of which we have photographs — and will he give us details of how this inspection can be carried out?
Yes, I can confirm that. With regard to the Garda report, I would have to examine it. I am more than happy to show it to the Leader of the Opposition immediately, but there is a reference in it to people which, from my recollection, I do not think it would be appropriate to publish to the House. I can show it to the Leader of the Opposition and we can decide whether it should be published or not.
Can the Taoiseach explain why — perhaps this is the nub of the whole matter — despite the whole surroundings of this affair, despite its very far-reaching political and security implications, despite the fact that he purportedly asked the Minister for Justice to have the Garda investigate it, the Garda have not really investigated the matter? As far as we can see, all they were concerned to do was to take the equipment away and hope the matter would go away.
The Garda have investigated the matter but they have not yet succeeded in identifying the perpetrators. In any criminal investigation it takes time to identify those involved. To that extent, the Garda inquiries have not been completed. They are continuing. As I said, they have reason to believe that the authors of this are members of a subversive organisation. They have not yet been able to complete their inquiries to the point of bringing charges against any group of people. It is a matter for them to pursue their inquiries to a conclusion. I hope it will be a successful conclusion that will clarify the matter once and for all. I am most anxious that that should happen.
I am grateful to the Ceann Comhairle for giving me an opportunity to explore this matter. I know the Taoiseach accepts that this is a matter of very serious and far-reaching implications. Would he not accept that the proper procedure in matters of this sort is for the Garda to carry out inquiries and place the result of these inquiries before a properly constituted judicial tribunal who would then decide on a verdict on the facts? Does the Taoiseach not agree that that is a time honoured, well established way to deal with this matter, particularly in view of the fact, rightly or wrongly, that there is a suspicion that the Garda themselves may or may not in some way have been involved in the matter, or that at least some official agency may or may not have been involved? Does he not think that in these circumstances he owes it to himself, to the Garda and to Séamus Mallon to have a full scale judicial inquiry without delay as the only satisfactory manner to satisfy the House and the general public about the matter?
The Deputy is correct in saying that the normal procedure after a Garda investigation is — he omitted this part — that if they find evidence against individuals the evidence is submitted to the DPP with a view to prosecution should the DPP find that the evidence is sufficient. The Garda have not identified anybody at this stage as being the perpetrator of this event. Therefore, their inquiries are incomplete, and reference to the DPP in the ordinary way is irrelevant. For the reasons I have already stated I do not propose there should be a judicial inquiry. I have endeavoured to clarify every aspect of the matter fully and frankly in response to the Deputy's question. We now hope that the Garda can carry their inquiries to a successful conclusion.
The Taoiseach has now admitted to the House that the Garda have not settled the identity of those responsible for this operation. Will he now, as the person responsible for the GIS, stop the people in that Department from trying to mislead the public by putting out all sorts of misleading statements about who was responsible? Finally, I ask the Taoiseach for time tomorrow for a dull debate on this matter. He himself will acknowledge that it cannot be adequately dealt with by way of question and answer across the House.
Neither I nor the GIS have made irresponsible allegations. The position is as I have stated. The Garda have reason to believe that the perpetrators of this are members of a subversive organisation. They are not in a position to identify particular persons and to proceed against them at present. I stated that to this House and in confirmation of what has been indicated in response to press inquiries. I think that is entirely appropriate. With regard to the matter of a debate, I am frankly astonished. As the Deputy is aware, a short while ago the Government proposed to the Deputy that there should be a debate on this matter, rather than this question and answer process, because the matter could be more fully developed in a debate. The Deputy chose to refuse a debate and to proceed by this method.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
The Taoiseach can never resist the temptation to indulge in these snide remarks.
We cannot have a debate now.
The facts should be known to the House and the people.
The Taoiseach's side suggested to us that we could have a one and a half hour debate on this matter if we withdrew our question. The Taoiseach just now introduced some new material. He stated that the Garda are of the opinion that a subversive organisation are involved but they have not yet identified anybody in particular. Is that what the Taoiseach is saying to us?
Yes.
Is the Taoiseach in a position to say that particular individuals are being questioned, or that a particular organisation and individuals in that organisation are suspect, and are helping the Garda with their inquiries, as the phrase says, or is it just a nice comfortable hazy opinion of the Garda that some subversive organisation are involved?
I am not in a position to go beyond what I have said in the matter. If the Deputy wishes I will talk to him privately — that is a matter for the Deputy to decide — and indicate to him the reasons the Garda have for this opinion. I cannot proceed further with the matter here.
As Deputy De Rossa is a member of a registered political party, I am giving him permission to ask one question, and that is the end of it.
My question relates to whether or not the alleged offence is, in fact, an offence in law as the law stands. Can the Taoiseach tell us if somebody is identified as having placed these devices in the house can they be charged with an offence? If they cannot, do the Government propose to introduce legislation to ensure that this kind of invasion of a private citizen's home and privacy can be prevented in the future?
That is a very fair question.
It is not an appropriate question because it is asking the Taoiseach to state the law. There is a long-standing precedent that Ministers of Government are not responsible for stating the law.
The Taoiseach referred a number of times to this matter being an offence. As I understand it, as the law stands it is not an offence, which is deplorable.
It all depends on who did it.