I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy. I do so for a very good reason and I would be grateful if he would give way. The Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, has given me notice in writing that he wishes to make a personal explanation. I have decided to permit such a statement by the Minister.
Financial Resolutions 1994. - Personal Explanation by Minister.
On the Order of Business in Dáil Éireann today, Deputy Eamon Gilmore accused me of touting for business in the course of my career as a solicitor and of abusing my position as a public representative in so doing. I am grateful to you, a Cheann Comhairle, for giving me the opportunity to reply to this most serious charge.
In the legal profession touting for business is a serious ethical breach of discipline. It is all the more important, therefore, that I assure this House and the public that the allegation made by Deputy Gilmore is completely and totally false. Deputy Gilmore's accusation was based on an article in today's edition of The Irish Times which itself carried very serious implications, including the suggestion that I availed of a conflict of interests to generate very substantial fees in a case that can be referred to as the Concerva heaters case. Those implications are also totally false.
I intend to deal in some detail with the issues arising from the Concerva heaters case in order to facilitate the fullest understanding of the situation. My purpose is to ensure that there is no shadow of doubt surrounding the handling of the case arising from this morning's or any other publicity. I believe that I owe it to the clients involved and to many other professional people who worked on the case. I am also aware that a number of people with a vested interest in the matter have been trying for some time to spread false and malicious rumours about the case. I emphasise that in saying this I am not implying that The Irish Times or Ms Geraldine Kennedy were doing anything other than following up on a story they were given.
However, I must begin by pointing out some serious errors of fact in The Irish Times story. First, the story refers to a number of letters written by me. None of those letters refers to the Concerva heaters case which is the main subject of the story itself; they all refer to a different case and a different part of my constituency in which I made vigorous representations on behalf of corporation tenants but in which I had no personal involvement in the conduct of the legal cases. Those cases were dealt with and, for all I know, continue to be dealt with by another partner in my former firm. Second, the article referred to an amount of money paid to my former firm in legal fees over a two-year period. It failed to point out, however, that I severed my connection with the firm in the middle of that two-year period.
The Concerva heaters case involved a large number of families and individuals in a particular housing estate in my constituency who suffered serious health problems as a result of the installation by Dublin Corporation in their homes of a heater known as the Concerva heater. Initially I and many other public representatives took up the matter with Dublin Corporation on a political level. As The Irish Times correctly reports, I circulated a questionnaire to the families affected and I understand that similar inquiries were made by other public representatives, including those of The Workers' Party, as it then was. Following many fruitless months of political representation on behalf of these families by me and by other public representatives, Dublin Corporation refused point-blank to make any concessions to these families or to recognise any liability for the damage and personal injuries they were suffering or, most important of all, to remove the dangerous heaters from the homes of the people involved and to replace them with normal fire places.
After we had exhausted all political avenues of representation many of the families involved requested that I initiate legal proceedings in the matter. At the request of the families — and I emphasise that it was at their request — I agreed to act for them and arranged for the commencement of legal proceedings at a later date by my former firm. Test cases in the matter were contested by the corporation all the way to the Supreme Court and families were awarded substantial amounts of compensation. The High Court and the Supreme Court both found that the health damage was very severe and the fault lay with Dublin Corporation. In addition to awarding compensation, the High Court ordered the removal of the offending heaters from affected homes.
It is worth noting that, to this day, not one of the families involved has ever received an apology from Dublin Corporation for that hurt and damage. It is also worth nothing that Dublin Corporation has never admitted that it was Dublin Corporation's own actions that led to the financial damages involved. The corporation was given ample opportunity over the years in both the political process and the legal process to minimise financial costs very considerably by taking steps to put the damage they had caused to rights or by settling those actions at a much earlier stage.
The case made new law and was fought entirely in the public interest, as the facts make clear. I am appalled that any one who was not involved in the case should be seeking to make points about the way it was handled as if to imply there was anything remotely underhanded about it. This would be the first time in 40 years practice as a member of the legal profession that anyone has ever made such a suggestion and I refute it utterly. Despite the fact that a very large number of clients were involved in the case, running into several hundred individuals and families, since my involvement in the case was concluded I have never once received a complaint in any form from anyone of those clients about the question of cost or about the issue of alleged conflict of interests. The allegation of touting was also never made to me by any client, quite the contrary. Over the years I have received many expressions of thanks from people who were the victims of Dublin Corporation and whose entire legitimate grievances were vindicated by the Supreme Court.
Some salient facts must be emphasised for the record and are as follows. First, litigation on the Concerva heaters case was only contemplated after many months of political representation by me and by other public representatives failed to persuade Dublin Corporation to take any interest in the legitimate grievances of the people concerned. That political representation included surveys and questionnaires to reveal and ascertain the extent of the problem, and countless letters and discussion with Dublin Corporation. I repeat no legal action was every contemplated in the matter until Dublin Corporation had flatly refused to deal with the political representations made.
Second, I never at any stage touted for the business involved in that litigation. On the contrary, I was inundated by people who wished to see the matter pursued. All clients gave me the appropriate authorisation to pursue the case on their behalf. There was never any question of confict of interest in the matter; I have never been a member of Dublin Corporation, the defendants in the case. The litigation, in its early stages, involved the preparation and issuing of about 100 plenary summonses and the commissioning of a great many engineer's reports and medical examinations and reports. All costs involved, running to many thousands of pounds, were borne by my former firm without any guarantee that they would be recovered. The High Court action on the test case lasted for some nine days and the clients involved were represented in court by two senior counsel, Mr. John Rogers SC and Mrs. Mary Robinson SC — both would, I imagine, be horrified to be told of the allegation that they were involved in a case based on touting. A subsequent appeal by the corporation to the Supreme Court lasted three days. Had my clients lost either case the substantial expense involved would not have fallen on them but on my former firm, and the clients were aware of that. At all stages of the proceedings the corporation was given ample opportunity to settle the cases. Even after the test case was won in the courts there was extensive work and hundreds of hours of negotiation with the corporation. Each case was individually negotiated and many of the negotiations involved senior counsel. Each case was the subject of a very substantial file.
These are some of the basic facts of the case. As an consequence of the many hundreds of hours put into the case by a team of lawyers of my former office and support staff over a five year period it represents a case in which people who had been hurt and damaged by official activities were fairly and honourably vindicated. As I said, a Cheann Comhairle, I am appalled that anyone would seek to represent the Concerva heaters case in any way other than as a genuine, committed and ultimately successful effort to vindicate the hurt caused to citizens of Dublin through the due processes of the law.