Vol. 448 No. 7
3 Ms O'Donnell asked the Taoiseach the specific changes, if any, which have been introduced since November 1994, in the Attorney General's Office in relation to the handling of extradition matters in the wake of the Brendan Smyth affair,; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2814/95]
The new extradition arrangements, which were put in place by the former Attorney General, Mr. Harold Whelehan, SC, following the Brendan Smyth case, continue in operation under the present Attorney General. These are that the Attorney General is notified, in writing, immediately every request for extradition is received in the office and that he is given details of the request. Thereafter, he is given, in writing, regular reports of the progress in the office on the request. These arrangements enable the Attorney General to be personally aware, at all times, of all extradition requests and to monitor their progress.
Are these changes a recognition that the role of the Attorney General in extradition matters is quasi-judicial? Will the Taoiseach give a guarantee that the handling of such extradition cases will not be delegated to officials in the future? Will the Attorney General, should the need arise, be permitted to address this House to account for the discharge of the functions of his office?
The latter is a separate question. In regard to the first two questions it is arguable that the role of the Attorney General in these matters is quasi-judicial. The difficulty is that it raises questions in regard to political accountability in regard to quasi-judicial activity. For example, judges are not made accountable to the Dáil. Obviously this raises a number of very fine judgments about the appropriate constitutional proprieties. So far as delegation of these files is concerned, it would not be practical to assume that any Attorney General could handle these files entirely on his or her own without the assistance of officials. The arrangements which were put in place by the previous Attorney General but one are that he must be notified on the arrival of each application and he must be notified regularly of the progress of the case. Those arrangements will preclude a recurrence of the Fr. Brendan Smyth type case. The main concern in that area was in regard to the delay which had occurred. By ensuring that the Attorney General has an appropriate tracking system in regard to any files, for which he must be responsible, delays of that kind are far less likely to occur than was ever the case previous to the introduction of those arrangements.
Will the Taoiseach accept that under the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, the Attorney General had an obligation to deal with those matters? Will he now accept that that Act was breached in the Brendan Smyth case? Will the Taoiseach agree that one of the most glaring issues highlighted by the Brendan Smyth affair was that in some cases the role of the Attorney General as political adviser to the Government can be in conflict with his separate role as protector of the public interest? This is a view on which the Fine Gael Party was vocal in Opposition. Will the Taoiseach accept the need to examine the role of the Attorney General in the long term?
The second part of the Deputy's supplementary is a separate question; it is an attempt by the Deputy to ask the third part of her last question in a different form. It would be better if she tabled a question on the broad issues of the role of the Attorney General if that is a matter she wishes to ventilate. It would not be proper for me to give an answer to the first part of the question because that matter is under examination by a committee of this House which has yet to report. If I were to attempt to answer the Deputy's question which suggests there was a breach of the 1987 Act in this case by a particular person, I would be encroaching on the proper functions of the committee and I do not think the Deputy would expect me to do that.
As a member of the sub-committee that examined the Fr. Brendan Smyth case, has any progress been made in the computerisation of the Attorney General's office in relation to extradition cases, an issue which was pertinent to the committee's deliberations? Is it intended in the Dáil reform package, as suggested, that the Government would call officeholders before committees? Is it intended that the Attorney General would also come before these committees in future? Has additional staff been delegated to extradition cases other than those who were before the committee?
Deputy Ahern is asking about the general role of the Attorney General's office, its long term reform, accountability for it and matters of that kind which have been referred to by Deputy O'Donnell. I cannot answer those questions. They are separate questions and I would be grateful if the Deputy would table questions about them. The question I have been asked by Deputy O'Donnell concerns the handling of extradition matters. So far as extradition matters are concerned I can assure the Deputy that the most effective systems of information technology will be used to speed up the processing of these cases, in addition to the safeguards I have already outlined where the Attorney General must be kept personally acquainted of the case on an ongoing basis. That is the position so far as the question is concerned.
In answering the question the Taoiseach mentioned the changes which have taken place since November 1994, one of which is that the Attorney General be notified in writing immediately every request for extradition is received in the office. In the event of no notification being given under the new arrangements who would be held responsible?
Obviously the person who failed to notify it would be responsible.
Why then would the Taoiseach attribute no blame to the present Attorney General for a delay whereas while on this side of the House he was quick to attribute blame to a man who had no prior knowledge of the facts in the Smyth case?
I have been careful not to attribute blame to anyone.
The question asked was who would the Taoiseach hold responsible in the event of the present Attorney General not being notified under the new arrangements. He said quite clearly the official would be responsible. An error was deemed to have been made in the Smyth case and the Attorney General was held responsible, not the official.
That is a very good question and I compliment the Deputy on the way he put it. Obviously he is applying his courtroom skills to good effect.
This is just another U-turn in office.
The official who fails to take certain steps laid down in the guidelines for handling cases would have to accept responsibility, but obviously the Attorney General would have to accept responsibility for the overall management of his office and for failure to make arrangements to ensure the official is aware of his duty. The judgment of any case would depend on the circumstances of that case. I will not be drawn into making judgments about the Attorney General.
I am not asking the Taoiseach to do so.
I will not be drawn into making judgments about Mr. Harry Whelehan. Deputy Cowen will probably remember that the person who made the relevant judgments in this House was Deputy Albert Reynolds.
I am not asking the Taoiseach to make judgments; I am simply showing up the consistency of his inconsistency.
Will the Taoiseach say whether the senior civil servant referred to who apologised for the delay in handling this file is still in the same position of responsibility in terms of similar files?
That matter will be dealt with in the light of the findings of the investigation. I will not be drawn into making judgments that prejudice or anticipate the findings of a committee of this House.
Since the committee of inquiry will not reach conclusions will the Taoiseach accept that the official referred to is one of our outstanding experts on extradition law?
Members of the House from either side should not attempt to draw me into making judgments about this case.
The Taoiseach made them when he was on this side of the House.
This is a matter the House has resolved will be dealt with in a particular way. Whatever relationship Fianna Fáil had with Mr. Harold Whelehan, is a matter for that party.
(Limerick East): Fianna Fáil made a scapegoat of him to save its own skin.
Fine Gael also contributed to it.
I want to bring these questions to finality. I will call Deputy Dermot Ahern and a final question from Deputy O'Donnell.
I asked the Taoiseach about additional staff in the Attorney General's office to deal with extradition cases but he did not answer that question.
I am sorry I did not reply to that question.
The question asked the Taoiseach the specific changes, if any, that have taken place since November 1994. Can I take it from what the Taoiseach said — perhaps he wishes to reply now — that no additional staff have been assigned to extradition cases?
To the best of my knowledge no additional staff have been assigned, but new procedures have been introduced.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the intellectual independence allowed to the official involved will no longer be permissible under the new arrangements and that all these matters will go directly to the Attorney General as is required under the law?
It is wrong for Deputies to anticipate the findings of the committee and the presentation of its evidence.
There are no findings.
This matter will come before the House in the normal way and the House will draw its own conclusions about it. It is wrong for Deputies on any side of the House to attempt to draw this matter to public attention at Question Time.
Does the Taoiseach not realise the witch-hunt did not work?
