John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of the Attorney General v. the Chairman of the Beef Tribunal.
Ceisteanna-Questions. Oral Answers. - Supreme Court Judgment on Cabinet Confidentiality.
Dick Spring
Question:10 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the implications of the Supreme Court judgment on Cabinet confidentiality; if he will outline whether he considers any legislative or constitutional changes are necessary as a result; if he will further outline the steps he has taken to ensure that no information about the proceedings of Cabinet meetings has been given to civil servants, Government or political spokespersons, advisors, or any other persons since the judgment was issued; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:11 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Cabinet confidentiality; if he intends to initiate any legislative or constitutional action to ensure that discussions at Cabinet meetings may be disclosed when deemed essential by the courts or judicial inquiries; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, together.
As Deputies will be aware, the Supreme Court, on 21 August last, decided that: (a) the respondent, who is the sole member of the inquiry into the beef processing industry, is not legally entitled to inquire into or consider the discussions, if any, occurring during the course of a meeting of the Government; and (b) the respondent is not legally entitled to inquire into or go beyond the terms of a formal or informal decision so expressed of a meeting of the Government.
The case was taken independently by the Attorney General in fulfilment of his constitutional duty, as the court recognised, and was argued by him on legal and constitutional grounds.
Under the Supreme Court's judgment, no member of the Government or other person attending a meeting of the Government may divulge information about Government discussions. Information on decisions is communicated to those concerned, in accordance with well established practices, which so far as I am concerned, fully comply with the terms of the judgment.
Deputies will note that the Chief Justice, in his judgment, said that the implication of confidentiality from the provisions of the Constitution was justified by the practical impossibility of carrying on the fundamental functions of Government in its absence. Mr. Justice Hederman, in his judgment, said that if it were permissible to compel in any circumstances the disclosure of the content of discussions which take place at Government meetings, the Executive role of the Government as envisaged in the Constitution would be undermined, perhaps even destabilised. Mr. Justice O'Flaherty, in giving judgment, said that Dáil Éireann cannot possibly be concerned with the process of dialogue by which the Government evolve policies or reach their decisions. That would, he says, involve the Legislature invading the sphere of the Executive which is not permissible under the doctrine of the separation of powers.
I fully accept and endorse these views. I do not, therefore, intend any legislative or constitutional action along the lines suggested in the questions tabled by Deputies De Rossa and Spring. At the same time, I can confirm to the House that the Government will continue to co-operate with the beef tribunal in every way open to them.
Finally, I am satisfied that adequate precautions are in place regarding the confidentiality of Government proceedings, in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment.
In view of the fact that on 20 July 1992 the Attorney General made a submission in writing to the Supreme Court to the effect that absolute confidentiality attaches to Government discussions, why, three days later, did the Taoiseach categorically say in a briefing to the media that the Iraqi position had been discussed at a meeting of the Cabinet on 8 June 1988?
The Deputy must not be listening carefully to what I am saying. The case in the Supreme Court was taken by the Attorney General in fulfilment of his constitutional duty, as the court recognised, and was argued by him on legal and constitutional grounds. Of course the position has changed since 23 July last and I am now constrained by the terms of the Supreme Court decision to which I have referred. While I would like to be more helpful in relation to this aspect of the question tabled by Deputy Bruton, I am sure he appreciates, as does everyone else, that I cannot be more helpful.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he was aware that the Attorney General claimed that absolute confidentiality attached to meetings at the time the Taoiseach breached that principle on 23 July of this year by purporting to disclose what had happened at a Cabinet meeting on 8 June 1988? Was the Taoiseach aware that the Attorney General, only three days earlier, claimed absolute confidentiality?
The interpretation had not been established by the Supreme Court by 23 July; it was subsequently established and we all have to abide by that decision. The question of a case to the High Court was a matter for the Attorney General.
I regret that the Taoiseach does not feel that legal or constitutional change is necessary in the area of Cabinet discussions. In relation to the assurances of the Taoiseach regarding the Government's co-operation with the beef tribunal, may I have an undertaking from the Taoiseach that he is still fully prepared to co-operate with the beef tribunal? Will he assure the House that his legal team are not trying to delay or postpone his appearance at the beef tribunal?
Certainly not. The Deputy and everybody else can rest assured that I will be available at the earliest possible opportunity to appear before the beef tribunal, when I am requested to do so. I hope the request will not coincide with my appearance at a Summit but, even if it does, there will only be a delay of a matter of days. I will co-operate fully with the beef tribunal in their deliberations; I will be as helpful as I can having taken into consideration the obligation placed on me — and everybody else — in relation to Cabinet confidentiality.
It is a regrettable aspect of our society and administration, Government and local, that there is a virtual obsession with secrecy. The judgment of the Supreme Court seems to copperfasten this secrecy. The Taoiseach indicated that he supports the Supreme Court judgment and agrees with it. However, he also said that he would like to be more helpful in regard to the questions raised by Deputy Bruton. Will he agree that there is a contradiction in what he said as he claims he is obliged not to be helpful to Deputy John Bruton while claiming at the same time to support the Supreme Court judgment? Does he not wish to see that this judgment restricts the manner in which people — in particular the Dáil — can inquire into matters and be informed in relation to the activities of Government? Will he accept that it should be changed? While confidentiality is important it should not be absolute and if it requires——
The question is too long.
——a referendum, the Taoiseach will have such an opportunity in December when he could hold a fourth referendum.
I do not propose to hold a fourth referendum. The difference, apparently, which Deputy De Rossa is not prepared to recognise, is that the Supreme Court is the arbiter and interpreter of constitutional matters and it has made the decision——
Also on abortion?
If Deputy De Rossa does not accept the decisions of the Supreme Court, it is a matter for him. In relation to the question that the Dáil and everybody else are entitled to know what discussions take place leading to taking a decision at the Cabinet Table, I do not accept that it would be practically possible to run a Government on the basis and the system which we use if confidentiality did not apply to discussions. It does not take much imagination to consider the impracticalities if it were otherwise.
Will the Taoiseach agree that it was improper for him to use a media briefing on 23 July to put on public record his version of what happened at a Cabinet meeting after his own counsel at the tribunal had sought to prevent other Ministers from putting their version on the public record?
Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am sorry to have to disagree with Deputy Bruton. I am not represented by a senior counsel at the tribunal, he is there to represent all State employees, including Deputy John Bruton, in his former capacity as a Minister. That is the position. They do their business and I do mine. I do not think Deputy Bruton listened to my answer. The Supreme Court interpreted "confidentiality" and consequently the matter rests there. I fully accept the decision of the Supreme Court even if it operates against my views.
I want to bring this matter to finality. I will hear a brief question from Deputy John Bruton and Deputy De Rossa.
When the Taoiseach revealed at a press briefing on 23 July 1992 his version of what happened at this Cabinet meeting, was he aware that the Attorney General, on behalf of the Government, had sought an absolute declaration that such disclosures were wrong when he made them?
For the second or third time I repeat that the constitutional position of the Attorney General in his role as constitutional officer was to take that decision. As I also said, he does his business and I do mine. All the efforts of Deputy Bruton to try to get me to break confidentiality will not succeed.
The Taoiseach is highlighting precisely the problem in relation to the decision of the Supreme Court.
One law for the Taoiseach and another for everyone else.
The Taoiseach does not agree that the Supreme Court decision has fundamentally changed Government practice since the establishment of the Constitution and the kind of porous confidentiality which has existed since then. However, the Taoiseach is now saying that his hands are tied in relation to informing this House about what he should do or what has been done at Government level. Clearly, there is a need for action.
Brevity, please.
Does the Taoiseach not see a contradiction between his refusal to accept the Supreme Court decision on abortion — which he is now putting to a referendum — and the question of confidentiality?
That is a matter for the people.
The Deputy is introducing extraneous matter.
I do not accept that it is a practicable proposition to try to run a Government if everyone is entitled to ask what discussions led to reaching any decision. I do not think the Deputy appreciates that if all Government Ministers sitting round the Cabinet table could air their views on any aspect in relation to a decision, the Government would disintegrate and destabilise.
It has not happened up to now.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the overriding principle here should be discovering the truth regarding what happened to taxpayers' money and how it was spent? Will he also agree that an assurance was given by his predecessor — who is in the House — that the Government would co-operate in every respect with demands made by the beef tribunal for furnishing documents? Did the Taoiseach have any discussions with the Attorney General, who was appointed by him, prior to bringing this action?
Let us be careful not to impinge on the affairs of the tribunal.
The Deputy can be assured that all help and co-operation is being afforded to the beef tribunal in their inquiry. However, I should like to remind the Deputy that not one single penny of taxpayers' money in relation to the question raised by Deputy Bruton and the decision announced regarding an IDA grant proposal was expended on foot of either of those two decisions.
So far.