I am sure the House will appreciate that, as the time was short, copies of my statement are not yet available.
Office of the Attorney General: Statements.
We know the feeling. We are more understanding than you were in the past.
Déjá vu.
I welcome this opportunity to make a statement to the House not least because serious and untrue allegations were made by a Deputy this morning to the effect that I deliberately withheld certain information when replying yesterday to a question from Deputy O'Donnell about correspondence between a Belfast solicitor and the Office of the Attorney General. As Deputies are aware, this question related to the delay in the Attorney General's office in dealing with correspondence seeking compensation for victims in the Father Brendan Smyth case.
Two main issues arise. First, since last February, I have been conducting inquiries into the seven-month delay in the handling of extradition warrants relating to Father Brendan Smyth and, more recently, these inquiries have been extended to include the subsequent and separate delay relating to the correspondence between the Belfast solicitors and the Attorney General. Second, a separate issue has arisen as to why the current holder of the post of Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson S.C., is unable to advise me and the Government on certain limited aspects of this case.
Before I go further, let me emphasise to the House the range of matters with which the Attorney General is free to deal. He is free to deal with the Father Smyth file should that arise; any claim for compensation arising out of that case and any correspondence relating to such claims. The fact that such correspondence was not dealt with is the subject of my inquiries but the failure to do so is unconnected with any conflict of interest on the part of the Attorney General. His advice to the individual in the Attorney General's office did not relate to this correspondence. The conflict of interest is confined solely to Mr. Gleeson not being free to be involved in any review of a particular official's performance in relation to the earlier delay in dealing with the Smyth file.
I cannot sufficiently emphasise the importance of fair proceedings being scrupulously adhered to in carrying out the inquiries I am conducting. They are not yet complete and while most of the relevant information has been collected it would be wrong of me to draw any conclusions, make any inferences or pass any judgment on these facts until the relevant persons have had a full opportunity to review them. When the inquiries are completed I will, as already promised, fully inform the Oireachtas of all relevant details of the entire matter.
I have been proceeding and will continue to do so in the measured way that I believe the right of individuals to fair procedures necessitates. That measured way involves a series of steps which were specifically recommended in the independent legal advice I sought and received. The first of those steps was revoking the delegation of powers under the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956 from the Taoiseach to the Attorney General. I signed the relevant order last night as indicated in my statement which was released about 9.30 p.m. I am now proceeding, in the measured way I remain convinced is essential, to take the further steps legally recommended to me.
The second issue that arises relates to the position of the Attorney General. I have had an opportunity now to read the report of our proceedings yesterday and I am satisfied that I was not asked, either directly or indirectly, about the role of the present Attorney General in offering advice in any action that might be taken on foot of delay in his office on the Father Smyth case prior to this appointment or why it was necessary for me, as I told the House, to retain independent legal advisers. It is my clear understanding that under the normal procedures of the House I am obliged to give facts in reply to questions asked — no more and no less.
Where is transparency now?
It is important that it should be stated clearly what the obligations are in relation to the answering of questions in this House. The obligation is to answer the factual questions which are asked, where that is possible. It is decidedly not the obligation of any Minister to engage in a general exploration of issues which are not the subject of the questions or of the supplementary questions or to anticipate questions in advance.
That is a change of tune.
This is a matter of principle and it is a clear one.
Principle went out the window.
If such an obligation were to be imposed it would be impossible to say when it had ever been properly discharged.
What happened to that last November?
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
No one would ever know if they had dealt with a sufficient number of associated issues which had not been raised. That is a principle which has been established in the House for decades and without that principle no Question Time could be rationally conducted or concluded in the time available. A principle that all associated issues required to be anticipated and fully explored, even if not the subject of either the original question or a supplementary, would ensure that the first question on every Order Paper would be the last on any one day because it would be open to those answering to engage in all sorts of excursions into related matters which were not the subject of the question or of any supplementary. The Government must be allowed to go about is business in an orderly way.
I became aware yesterday evening at about 7.30 p.m. that the media were in possession of some information about the Attorney General's informal consultation with an official in connection with the Father Smyth affair. Presented first in isolation from the steps I had already decided to take to deal with this matter, it could give rise to the misconception that the public revelation of this information led me to take steps I took last night. These were steps I was in the process of taking anyway.
Incomprehensible.
Tell us another one.
(Interruptions.)
It was quite clear in the House yesterday that I was pursuing a definite course of action in regard to this matter.
That is why the Taoiseach was economical with the truth.
Pull the other one.
The documentary evidence available in my Department will verify that. Accordingly, when I returned from Áras an Uachtaráin last night, I formally revoked the powers delegated in 1957 to the Attorney General under the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956, so that I could take personal charge of completing inquiries into the handling of the Fr. Brendan Smyth case, and the delays in dealing with the correspondence arising from it, in the Attorney General's office. This was a step I had decided to take some days previously——
A Deputy
Why did the Taoiseach not take it?
——and it had been under consideration for some months, as the independent legal advice available to me will show. It would be incorrect, therefore, to allow the impression to be created that the Government or any Government properly conducting its business is driven by media revelations.
There have been two instances in three days.
Let us hear the Taoiseach.
The facts are as follows. When I invited Mr. Dermot Gleeson, SC, to take the post of Attorney General, he indicated that, while he was still in private practice, one official of the office of the Attorney General had consulted him informally on his position in regard to matters which arose out of the handling of the Fr. Brendan Smyth case. Mr. Gleeson indicated to me that if the question of reviewing the performance of the relevant official in respect of these specified matters arose he would not be able to take part in any such review. I accepted that and resolved that, if necessary, the matter would be dealt with independently.
I selected Mr. Gleeson for appointment to the post of Attorney General because I believe, and continue to believe, that he was the best qualified person for the position. The fact that he might be conflicted in a number of matters, including that involving an official of his office, was fully taken into account by me at the time. I informed both the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Social Welfare about the matter at that time.
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy
Where is the Tánaiste now?
As Deputies know, he is on his way to America where he will attend the Washington conference.
The Taoiseach is lucky.
He is not jumping up and down in Government Buildings.
Deputy Cullen jumped ship.
The time available for dealing with these statements——
Is the Tánaiste not taking the high moral ground on this occasion?
He is 30,000 feet in the air.
If the Deputy persist in interrupting and ignoring me I will ask him to leave the House. The time available for dealing with these statements is very limited, some ten minutes, and it should not be eroded by constant interruptions.
As I was saying, the fact that he might be conflicted in a number of matters, including that involving an official of his office, was fully taken into account by me at the time and I so informed the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Social Welfare at the time of the formation of the Government. It is inevitable that some conflict will arise in respect of any barrister appointed Attorney General who has had an active private practice.
It is of the first importance to understand that the Attorney General's conflict of interest related not to the Brendan Smyth file per se but merely to one associated aspect; namely, any review of the performance during a specified period of a particular official who had dealt with it. He is not, for example, conflicted from advising on matters arising after his appointment as Attorney General. Neither is he compromised or disabled in any way on that account from dealing with the claim on behalf of the victims. The circumstances which prevented him from doing so are part of my inquiry. Those circumstances do not include any conflict of interest.
This is not a large country. There is only a small range of barristers from whom it would be appropriate to select the Attorney General. Everyone within that range will have potential conflicts in relation to matters which will arise when he or she becomes the State's legal adviser. Some may question whether in these circumstances I should have asked Mr. Gleeson to act as Attorney General. I believe that I should. He is one of the leading people at the Irish Bar, if not the most distinguished and, while important, the matter in which he had provided advice to an officer of the Attorney General's office was far from being a major issue in terms of the overall day to day running of the office.
(Interruptions)
I felt — I stand over my judgment — that if action had to be taken on that matter it could quite easily be dealt with separately, as it will be. Statutory provision already exists for the matter to be dealt with by the Taoiseach of the day. This is done by making the revocation order that was made last night.
It might be contended that it is unusual for a politician to have to deal with a personnel matter of this nature. That is not the case. All major decisions about personnel in the public service are made by Ministers ultimately. Ministers or officials acting on their behalf conduct inquiries and are responsible for making decisions either in conjunction with their Government colleagues or, in certain circumstances, acting alone. Under the Ministers and Secretaries Acts and other associated legislation, Ministers are ultimately responsible for this type of issue and I am the Minister responsible in this case. In dealing with this matter, I will be following well established precedence and procedures. I will be taking legal advice from eminent independent counsel, and indeed I had already begun the process of taking such advice as far back as last February. On the substance of the matter raised by Deputy O'Donnell's question yesterday, I am unable at this point to give the House any further information relating to the matter of substance involved in the inquiries I have instituted about delays in the office of the Attorney General in dealing with aspects of the Fr. Smyth case as to do so would risk infringing the entitlement to fair procedure of the person or persons concerned. It might also compromise my ability to take the action, if any, considered appropriate when the inquiries have been concluded.
On the separate matter relating to the position of the Attorney General, I did not make information on that issue available in the House yesterday for the simple reason that I was not asked for it.
How convenient.
I placed it in the public arena in response to a press query. However, since it was not possible to address the matter in the House, before doing so last night at around 9.30 p.m. I personally informed Deputy Ahern of the course of action I was taking.
I already knew.
I also informed Deputy Des O'Malley who was the only member of the Progressive Democrats whom I could contact at that time.
He was waiting for the whistle to be blown.
I wish to quote from the evidence given by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to the subcommittee on 17 January last on his recollection of the events of Tuesday, 15 November 1994. He said:
I believe that the Taoiseach's report to the Dáil was far from adequate. For example, it ignored the fact that the Attorney General in his report to Government endorsed the view that the handling of the case was reasonable. It excused the Attorney General for not knowing personally about the file while saying that in his own office all sensitive and important matters are brought to his immediate attention.
The previous Government fell on the issue of a delay of seven months in the Attorney General's office in processing the Brendan Smyth file. This issue deals with a six months delay, a six months crisis. The Government and the Taoiseach failed to act on a letter directly relating to the Fr. Brendan Smyth case over a period of five months in office. The previous Government was brought down on the basis of not giving full information to this House. The Taoiseach came into this House yesterday and said he had information but he would not give it to Members. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Leader of Democratic Left recited like a mantra that the beef tribunal would not have been necessary if questions were fully and explicitly answered in this House. Yesterday the Taoiseach refused to answer questions about facts which were relevant to this case. He answered them when confronted by a journalist last night. His defence was, as it seems to be always, that he is accountable when journalists catch him. His quote last night was: "I was not asked that question directly" shows how much of a u-turn the Taoiseach has made in the past five months and how much this Government thinks of transparency, accountability and openness.
Far from operating as if behind a pane of glass he has pulled down not only the curtains but the steel shutters. The events of last November were among the most traumatic we have witnessed in this House. Having been involved at the heart of these controversial events I have little relish to see a replay of them here again today. What is at issue is whether the Taoiseach misled the Dáil in not giving a full and open account of the situation in the Attorney General's office when questions were asked of him by Members of the Opposition. The point at issue yesterday was the failure of the Attorney General's office to reply to a letter it had received. I asked yesterday when the Attorney General first saw the letter of 14 November. By relating the two points we quite satisfactorily intertwined them and it was open to the Taoiseach to answer them. There are two points: the failure to answer the letter and when the Attorney General saw the letter. Both questions were fair and related. For the Taoiseach to say now that they were not linked will not hold up.
The Attorney General was appointed by the Taoiseach as a constitutional law officer of the State. His function is to be the legal adviser to the Taoiseach and to the Cabinet. At the time of his appointment the Attorney General's position was compromised in all these matters because he could not advise the Taoiseach on them: in plain language he could not perform the duties to which he had been appointed. That was totally unfair to him. This is not the only issue on which he could not advise the Government as we know. From the first day this placed the Attorney General in a totally invidious position. He could not fully exercise his constitutional function. It was negated by the compromising position he revealed to the Taoiseach. In addition, the Taoiseach had to revoke some of the constitutional powers further decreasing his constitutional authority and take those authorities on to himself. As well as being Taoiseach and in charge of multiple inquiries into a whole basket of leaks and failures he will now head an investigation into the Attorney General's office.
It was totally unsatisfactory for the Taoiseach to say on the national airwaves this morning that the reason he did not give us a full account in the House yesterday was that he was not asked the right question. The implication of this is horrendous for any Taoiseach. He is implying that if we do not ask the right question he will feel free to conceal any information he deems proper from this House. How on earth are we on the Opposition benches to know on a daily basis what the right question is to elicit information in the public interest?
Yesterday we had the spectacle of a new type of punishment being meted out to an errant Minister. It was called serious demotion. I described it as a half-way-house approach, a new category of decision-making by the Taoiseach. Now we have a totally new category of questions created by the Taoiseach: these are "the right questions" which we must ask if he is to tell us the unvarnished truth about that matter. That is a disgraceful way for the Taoiseach to treat the House particularly coming from someone who always said that accountability to this House is foremost to the political interest. It is particularly disgraceful from one who has always prided himself in the positive attitude to the affairs of the House and it certainly reverses everything he ever said inside and outside the House.
I would like to know how the Taoiseach thought the Attorney General would deal with the resolution of the problems within the Attorney General's office if he was hamstrung from the start. Will the Taoiseach tell the House why the Attorney General did not consider it right and proper during the deliberations of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security to tell the members of that committee that he already had a legal relationship with one of the people involved in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case? Is it that the Taoiseach did not think it relevant? Is it that the Taoiseach did not think it important? Is it that the Taoiseach, in spite of all the turmoil before Christmas, did not understand it was absolutely vital to be totally upfront about every aspect of the affairs? How did the Attorney General answer questions and give explanations to the sub-committee when he was dealing with the file on the one hand and on the other hand he could not deal with the file? If he had difficulty in answering the questions or giving more information would he not at least say he had a legal difficulty with the file?
The Taoiseach admitted this morning on "Morning Ireland" more than he did in the House yesterday and said that since February he was dealing with the letter himself.
No, I did not say that. That is not so.
It appeared to us that he did. Perhaps the Taoiseach will answer that question later.
Question time has yet to come in respect of this matter.
I want to ask some of the questions which I think are vitally important. I want to know how the Taoiseach shared all the information on this matter with his Cabinet colleagues before the Attorney General was appointed? I want to know if they voiced any objections, if they raised any queries, if they laid down any timescale for the resolution of the difficulties in the Office of the Attorney General and if they were given any assurance by the Taoiseach in regard to them? Did the Taoiseach share all this information with his Cabinet colleagues? Did he obtain their approval before or after the appointment of the new Attorney General? Did the Taoiseach obtain approval from the Cabinet to consult an external firm of solicitors; a most unusual and questionable step, but it may be covered by the 1956 Act? Has the Taoiseach taken any practical steps to resolve these issues over recent months? So far as this side of the House is concerned the Taoiseach has been less than fair and less than honest.
The Taoiseach appointed the constitutional law officer of the State, his function being to give legal advice to the Government. Now he has to revoke some of those powers. The legal advice of the Attorney General is not available to the Government on the very issue that brought this Government to office. It is incredible that the Taoiseach could make such an arrangement and not say at any time that that was important to the committee of inquiry, to the public and to this House. Yesterday he was waiting for Deputy O'Donnell or some other Deputy to ask the question when he would have been able to give us the answer. He gave every kind of answer. He side-tracked, weaved this way and that and looked more uncomfortable than he had for a long time. The reason he was uncomfortable was that he knew he was misleading the House.
A Deputy
That is unfair.
He was guilty, and knowingly guilty, of misleading this House.
That is a serious allegation.
Order, the Deputy ought not to say that a Member was deliberately or implied deliberately misleading this House. That is not in order and must be withdrawn.
It is the truth.
If I have to withdraw that remark I will say it this way——
I assert Deputy Molloy is making things difficult for the Chair. The imputation must be withdrawn, Deputy Ahern.
If you want me to withdraw the word "deliberate" I wish to ask — the Taoiseach will need to take some time to explain it today — why did he fail to reply to the question concerning the victim's response and the correspondence and when did the Attorney General see the letter of 14 November? The two issues were related and intertwined. All examinations this morning, both legal and otherwise, found they were intertwined. On that basis I say, whether it was deliberate or not — if he said it was not, it certainly has the same effect — the Taoiseach——
That is a political charge, not a personal charge.
It is a charge that we on this side of the House have suffered and it was the very file that put this Taoiseach in office. Only seven months ago this issue arose. In the six months the Taoiseach did not bother to keep in touch with the case and did not know whether the Attorney General was dealing with it. The Taoiseach knew the Attorney General could not deal with the file. At the same time he did not keep up with the facts and he let that letter lie with no reply. The Taoiseach is guilty and must give a proper answer to this House or do the honourable thing.
Before I call Deputy O'Malley, the time factors laid down for dealing with these statements has gone awry. We have overspent our time by some minutes which means that the Members who are designated to speak for five minutes may not realise that time if I am to adhere to the list before me, particularly where it calls for the Taoiseach to be questioned at 12.50 p.m.
Can we put that back until 1 o'clock?
That must be looked at.
Any question about that matter should be considered by the Whips.
(Interruptions.)
It is the precedent of the House.
On a point of order, we are agreeing——
The Whips have agreed that there will be five minutes for another spokesperson from Fianna Fáil and one from the Progressive Democrats. If that can be facilitated we will change the order of business now.
On a point of order, to facilitate the process and keep it within the timeframe agreed, we will not take up our five minutes.
It strikes me that this high-spending Government is economical with only one thing — the truth. The Taoiseach's efforts this morning to defend his concealment from the House yesterday of relevant information puts me in mind of the line which refers to the well measured truth that tells the blacker lie. He said that he was not asked "the right question". I need only refer to Question No. 2 on yesterday's Order Paper in the course of which Deputy O'Donnell asked if the contents of the letter of 14 November last were passed on to the new Attorney General. I have looked at the reply, and at the replies to a large number of supplementaries, but that information was never given. Had the Taoiseach attempted to reply to that he would have had to give the information that was forced out of him last night. His excuse this morning, on the radio and here in the House, that he was not asked the right question and, therefore, did not give the information but would have given it otherwise, was a pathetic attempt to cover up yesterday's disgraceful episode. It is reminiscent of what went on in the past, about which the present Taoiseach was extremely critical.
In May 1995, we are having a rerun of some of the things that happened in this House in November 1994. It is not true that the appropriate question was not asked, nor is it true that the statement that was finally made last night at about 10 o'clock would have been made anyway. The reason that statement was made last night was that at 6 o'clock the Irish Independent wrote a letter to the Taoiseach informing him that they knew certain facts and proposed to print them this morning if the Taoiseach denied them. The Taoiseach then felt he had to make a virtue out of necessity and issued a statement confirming what the newspaper in question already knew. How can it be said that that is openness? Let us remember the phrase the Taoiseach used in December on his election, that his Government would operate with such transparency that it would be as if it did everything behind a clear pane of glass.
The deception and the concealment that went on here yesterday is appalling, but it is not the only instance of deception or concealment. There are other instances that are equally serious, and my feeling is that there are further factors we do not yet know about that will soon come to light. One factor of deception and concealment that greatly concerns me is that I, in common with 12 other Members of this House, was a member of the Sub-committee on Security and Legislation that sought to hold an inquiry into the circumstances in which the former Government fell in November 1994. On 21 and 22 December last, Mr. Mathew Russell from the Attorney General's office appeared before the committee. We were given advice from the Attorney General and subjected to a decision by him in regard to the evidence Mr. Russell might or might not give.
We were refused files from the Attorney General's office that had been in the possession of Mr. Russell on which Mr. Russell had written various things from time to time, and Mr. Russell proclaimed, in the course of his evidence to that committee, that he had been advised by the Attorney General not to answer certain questions, particularly questions relating to the evidence grounding the application for the extradition of Fr. Smyth. That committee did not know that Mr. Russell was the Attorney General's own client and that there was a lawyer-client relationship between the Attorney General and Mr. Russell who was giving evidence. To have concealed that from the committee, and to have concealed it with the knowledge of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare, is disgraceful. All three knew on 21 and 22 December that this deception of the committee was going on.
It was highly improper for that man to give evidence in those circumstances, availing of and hiding behind the advice of the Attorney General when he was the Attorney General's own personal client relating to that specific matter. It was not that he had gone to Mr. Gleeson for advice about a claim for damages because he was knocked down by a bus. He went for advice on the topic of how he handled the Fr. Berndan Smyth affair, the very matter about which he was giving evidence to a committee of this House. The Attorney General should have disqualified himself from seeking to give any advice in relation to that, but he did not. On 24 January last, the Leader of my party, Deputy Harney, asked a question about the conflict of interest in the present Attorney General's position because of his previous involvement with a wide range of clients who were in conflict with the State in one way or another. She claimed there was a conflict of interest but was repeatediy assured by the Taoiseach that there was none and that other people would be employed to advise Ministers if the necessity arose.
How is this Government to operate in such circumstances? If there were to be advice from somebody else in the event of a conflict of interest, why was that not forthcoming in respect of the advice to Mr. Russell regarding his evidence to the committee? How will the present Attorney General deal with a claim against the State for £200 million by clients of his for whom he has acted in that matter? How will he deal with the question of the fines of £120 million being imposed by the European Commission on this State when most of those fines were run up by former clients of his and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry claims that he wants to be reimbursed by those who were responsible for them? How will he deal with the civil proceedings which have to be taken to disqualify from holding directorships in the State those who were involved in the enormous tax fraud referred to in the report of the beef tribunal when those people are his own clients? How will he advise the Taoiseach, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of their duties relating to that matter? This is entirely unacceptable.
Will the Taoiseach who made a grave error of judgment in appointing Mr. Gleeson in the first place even though he is a very competent man — this has nothing to do with his competence, it is purely about his involvement in the concealment of all these matters — compound his original error of judgment by making a further error in retaining Mr. Gleeson as Attorney General in these circumstances?
The Taoiseach has fallen back on what Deputy Ahern rightly described as his mantra of openness, accountability and so on but if he is so intent on answering questions and being open why did he on Monday last, as he admitted this morning, instruct officials to transfer Deputy O'Donnell's question to the Minister for Justice?
I did not.
(Interruptions.)
The General Office wrote a letter to say that the question had been transferred by the Taoiseach to the Minister for Justice.
I must ask the Deputy to withdraw that false statement.
The Taoiseach said that officials——
I did not instruct officials to do so. I insist that the Deputy withdraw that statement.
A letter was written to Deputy O'Donnell on Monday stating that the question had been transferred by the Taoiseach, not by the General Office, to the Minister for Justice. Is that openness, transparency, accountability and a willingness to answer questions?
The Deputy said that I gave instructions with regard to the transfer of a question. I explained in the House this morning that I was aware that an inquiry was made at an official level but when I considered the matter I came to the conclusion that it was a matter I should answer myself. I gave no instructions in seeking to transfer that question. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the false statement he has made to that effect.
The Taoiseach will have a further opportunity to elaborate on that matter.
Is this letter a lie, Sir?
There is no need to spell it out: this is about openness, transparency, accountability and trust. What we have witnessed today without any question are double standards and political hypocrisy on a breathtaking scale. The Taoiseach said the reason he did not answer a supplementary question was it was not put to him. When in Opposition he dragged the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, through the mire both inside and outside the House for precisely the same reason. The Taoiseach has a duty to tell the people whether he told them the truth. It would appear that political pragmatism of the worst kind has replaced principle, that concealment has replaced openness and secrecy has replaced transparency. This matter would not have come into the public domain were it not that the Taoiseach realised the matter was going to come out.
As Deputy O'Malley said, the Attorney General was requested to appear before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security inquiring into the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the last Government but did not do so. That committee was not advised that there was a privileged relationship between the Attorney General and Mr. Matt Russell who was handling the Fr. Brendan Smyth file. There can be no doubt but that, at best, the Taoiseach has concealed and, at worst, misled not just the House but also the people.
We have had enough silence from the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa. The trumpeteers of transparency, openness and accountability have a bounden duty to say whether they are satisfied with the activities of the Taoiseach and to tell the people whether they believe the Taoiseach to be open, accountable, transparent and trustworthy. If the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare fail to do this it will be a damning political indictment of both of them in the light of what they said while in Opposition.
If the Taoiseach wanted to be open, transparent and accountable he could have told this House precisely what he told it today and the people last night. There was no reason for him not to other than that he deliberately did not want to do so for certain political reasons which are all too apparent to everybody both inside and outside the House.
What are they? I was prepared to answer the questions I was asked.
The Tánaiste said——
What are the obvious reasons?
——that Mr. Harry Whelehan should not have been appointed as President of the High Court because of the delay in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case even though it transpired that he did not know of the existence of the case. In those circumstances everybody both inside and outside the House is entitled to ask where the Tánaiste stands on this issue. Does he believe, for example, that if the present Attorney General was responsible for the six months delay in the office in replying to important correspondence he is still fit to be Attorney General? The people are entitled to an answer to that crucial question and if the Taoiseach and the Minister for Social Welfare will not give it, the Tánaiste should.
Does the Taoiseach, for example, consider that the six months delay in dealing with the letters from solicitors acting on behalf of the victims of child sex abuse is acceptable and, if the Attorney General is responsible for advising the Government on the matter, is he satisfied with the manner in which the Attorney General advised him?
There are very serious questions which have to be answered. If the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare do not answer the people directly there is only one honourable course open to them.
My primary motivation in tabling the questions to both the Minister for Justice and the Taoiseach subsequently yesterday was to help the victims. That may seem to be a modest motivation given all that has followed but I have become increasingly aware, from correspondence and contacts with the victims — they contacted Deputy Harney and me — that after all they have been through there was a deafening silence from the Government in relation to their legitimate correspondence.
I tabled a question to the Minister for Justice, really just to activate some speed or courtesy in relation to this claim. Whatever about the legalities of that claim, I was concerned that correspondence had not been replied to, not only in relation to this claim — anything could have been contained in that letter which was sent on 14 November 1994. For example, it could have contained further evidence from the victims on the matters being investigated, further evidence in relation to other allegations against the priest concerned. I received a minimalist reply to my question from the Minister for Justice, now on the record. She referred me to the fact that her Department had had no active involvement in this matter, that the Attorney General's office had advised her that the Chief State Solicitor had replied to such correspondence, thus implying a denial of responsibility.
I became suspicious when I learned that that reply was sent on 9 May, having been prompted by my parliamentary question originally tabled for oral reply but, as it transpired, tabled for written reply on 11 May 1995. The House will readily appreciate that I wondered if it could possibly be that the malaise of delay, the rock on which the previous Government had perished, was alive and well in the Attorney General's office. This led me to table the appropriate question seeking factual information from the Taoiseach.
Having been delighted that my question to the Taoiseach had made its way to the Order Paper, the House will readily appreciate my surprise at receiving an indication from the General Office that there had been an intention to redirect that question to the Minister for Justice at midday the previous day. What had changed? I will tell the House what had changed — I think the Taoiseach had got wind of the fact that the Irish Independent knew a lot more than I knew about this matter.
The Taoiseach said this morning I had not asked the appropriate question yesterday. I would have had to be Mr. Brian Dowling to have put that question because I did not know about the conflict. I wonder who did know about this chronic conflict of interest which in effect disabled or prohibited the Attorney General from dealing, in the public interest, with anything relating to a review of that person's activity in the Attorney General's office. There were two persons involved, one superior to the other, in effect in a lawyer/client relationship. When I heard last evening that the Taoiseach had revoked the powers of the Attorney General I wondered why he had not revoked them immediately on learning of a conflict of interest in the Attorney General's capacity to deal with a review of that official's duties because, when the Attorney General was appointed, a committee of this House was engaged in inquiring into how the relevant warrants were dealt with. In the course of the examination of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security into the events surrounding the delay in dealing with the relevant warrants and related matters, who was acting in the public interest? Since the Attorney General has a dual role, who was looking after the public interest during all that time? We have now heard there was a conflict of interest at that stage.
The fact that the Executive fails to answer questions posed in this House will be the undoing of democracy. Have we not learned from the experiences of the beef tribunal, the Masri scandal, the Fr. Brendan Smyth marks I and II scandals? We are now back to where we began. Will we ever learn that the only vehicle available to Members of this House to hold the Executive to account is by way of questions here? If questions are evaded, ducked or dived, as they were yesterday, we might as well abolish this House, because it will be the undoing of democracy. I will keep my remaining questions until later.
Before proceeding to questions to be put to the Taoiseach, the Order of the House allows the Taoiseach to make a reply of five minutes.
I should say that there were matters yesterday, and there are matters today, upon which I cannot answer questions. There are other matters, about which I answered questions yesterday, and there are yet other matters which concern questions I was not asked yesterday to which I can give answers and could have given answers to yesterday had I been asked.
First, let me say what are the matters about which I cannot answer questions today. They are any questions touching on the culpability of individuals in regard to not dealing with the correspondence referred to in Deputy O'Donnell's question. Were I to give any information as to who dealt with that correspondence I would be prejuding decisions I have to take in regard to culpability for the fact that that correspondence was not dealt with. Let me reiterate what I said yesterday: I regard the fact that that correspondence was not dealt with as most serious. If a person addresses correspondence of that kind, particularly if they have been victims of a serious crime, I believe they are entitled to a prompt reply. That right to a prompt reply applies whether or not they have a legal case. Out of consideration for the trauma to which they have been subjected, at the very least they are entitled to a prompt reply. They did not receive that prompt reply. That was wrong and is a matter that is being investigated. Decisions as to culpability or otherwise, and decisions flowing from those decisions as to what is to happen to individuals or otherwise, are ones that I will have to take in due course.
I cannot be drawn in any detail into the matters concerning culpability, nor can I be drawn into replying to questions. For example, the questions were put to me repeatedly yesterday — did the present Attorney General see that correspondence? When did he see it? Did he know it had not been replied to? I cannot answer those questions because——
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach is culpable.
(Interruptions.)
I cannot answer those questions.
Of course the Taoiseach can.
Of course he can, but he is afraid to.
Let us hear the Taoiseach, please.
I am not afraid to, but I cannot answer——
(Interruptions.)
May I ask the House to allow me to deal with these matters properly? I cannot answer those questions because——
Of course he can.
How could the former Taoiseach answer them? What did the present Taoiseach ask him to do, to answer them?
Please, Deputies, let us have a dignified, civilised debate. The Taoiseach has but a couple of minutes to respond and has a right of reply. Please allow him to do so without further interruption.
I cannot answer those questions because the answers thereto will touch on the question of culpability or otherwise of individuals and in regard to those matters fair procedures must be followed. However, when those fair procedures have been completed, I will give the House all the relevant information. There is no wish on my part to hide any relevant information whatsoever from this House.
The Taoiseach is culpable.
On the other hand, I have an obligation to go through and adhere to fair procedures in regard to this matter.
A question has been raised about a separate issue, the disclosure of the fact that the Attorney General, while in private practice, had advised an individual, currently in the Attorney General's office, about his position in regard to the way in which he dealt with the Fr. Brendan Smyth file. As I have said, that matter was drawn to my attention by Mr. Dermot Gleeson, SC, prior to his appointment as Attorney General. At that time I resolved that separate arrangements would have to be made to deal with any disciplinary issues affecting that individual in regard to the specific matter of how he had handled the Fr. Brendan Smyth case.
Did the Taoiseach tell the Tánaiste?
I told the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Welfare of that at that time.
(Interruptions.)
Furthermore, I had resolved that. if I was asked specifically, on foot of what I said yesterday, why I had sought independent legal advice on this matter — and I was quite open in stating that I had sought independent legal advice — rather than rely on the advice of the Attorney General, I had ready a full and detailed answer to that question.
(Interruptions.)
That full and detailed answer was the basis of the Press statement made last evening.
Did the Taoiseach have that information with him in the House?
I did indeed have that information with me in the House but I was not asked the question.
That sounds very familiar.
I made the information available as soon as the question was posed, as I believe it is proper for me to have done.
When the Taoiseach was caught out.
I am forced to raise my voice because of the noise, mostly abusive, made by other Members. This is a matter of such seriousness that it should not be dealt with in this way. I should be allowed to answer the questions in an unhurried and quiet way.
I have asked for a civilised and dignified debate. If Deputies do not co-operate I have an option and I will use it if I have to. Please Deputies, let us have a civilised debate.
What about the Order of the House?
The Taoiseach, without interruption. He has only a moment or two before we proceed to questions.
The question was raised about the role of the Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson, in regard to the committee of the House that considered the matter. The Attorney General was involved in processing the information that was in his office, information with which he had not dealt as Attorney General. He simply processed the information and passed it on to the committee. It was necessary on grounds which were disclosed to the committee for him to exclude certain documents from those presented to the committee. Those documents which were not presented to the committee were, however, separately disclosed to the legal advisers to the committee. The legal advisers were, I understand, Mr. Niall Fennelly SC and Mr. Gerard Durcan, and they saw all the documents so that they could be assured that no information was excluded from that made available to the committee other than for the following three valid reasons.
First — Deputy O'Donnell will probably agree with this reason for exclusion — the necessity to preserve the anonymity of the names of the victims. It would not have been proper for the names which were on the file to have been made available to the committee and become a matter of public debate. The Attorney General excluded that information but he provided the names to the independent counsel for the committee who verified that these exclusions were correct on that ground. Second, there was a requirement to preserve the confidentiality of certain communications between the Irish and British Attorney General's offices on the grounds that such exclusion is important to the extradition process as a whole. Certain information was excluded on that basis, but in order that this would not be seen to be done for any purpose of concealment, that information from correspondence between the Attorney General's offices in question was also made avilable to the independent counsel for the committee who verified that the exclusion was justified.
On a point of order, the Taoiseach was asked why the Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson. did not inform the committee that he was acting for the official in the Attorney General's office, not the reason documents were not disclosed to the committee.
The Deputy can put that question in a moment.
The Taoiseach is filibustering.
Let the Taoiseach conclude.
I will answer that question also.
It can be answered when we come to questions.
Why is the Taoiseach concealing information?
There is a problem in that Members keep interrupting me and then complain that I do not complete my sentence. Third, there was the question of the entitlement of Fr. Smyth to a fair trial in respect of any further proceedings that might occur. It was not possible for that sort of information, which would be prejudicial to such a trial, to have been disclosed. That exclusion was also verified by the independent counsel for the committee.
Deputies asked about the disclosure to the committee by the Attorney General of the fact that he had advised the official in question. The only role of the present Attorney General in servicing the committee within its terms of reference related to what happened in the Attorney General's office prior to his taking office. The Committee's terms of reference did not extend to anything that happened subsequent to his appointment.
That is farcical.
He complied with all requests made to him for information. The only requests made to the Attorney General for information related to documents that needed to be supplied. All documents sought were supplied. The committee asked him to attend to debate his decision on one matter, namely, the exclusion of certain documents. He indicated to the Committee that he had made a decision on that matter — I already indicated in response to questions by Deputy O'Donnell that those decisions were verified by the independent counsel for the committee — and on that basis he did not see any ground for appearing before it.
The question of the Attorney General having advised the official involved was not relevant to the terms of reference of the committee. It was not a matter which he was obliged to disclose and it was not relevant to the report of the committee. It was relevant only to the issue I am now considering, that is the question of disciplinary action in regard to the official in question. That is a matter that must be dealt with by due process with fair procedure, and that is being done.
It has been suggested by Opposition Deputies that there was a delay in dealing with the matter. There is no delay in dealing with this matter.
There is a six months' delay.
This matter required the taking of most careful legal advice. Anybody who studied recent case law will know that any decision in regard to individuals must be taken carefully.
I beg the Taoiseach's pardon, but we should now proceed to questions to the Taoiseach.
When did the Taoiseach first see the letter of 14 November?
I never saw it.
Am I correct in saying that after the problems of last year agreement was reached that all letters relating to this file would be shown to the Attorney General? Is the Taoiseach saying that the Attorney General, when he received that letter, did not make him aware of it?
There have been public statements about whether the Attorney General saw this letter.
Did he see it?
I took the view yesterday, and I take it today, that any disclosure as to who saw that letter before a decision is taken on the culpability of individuals in regard to not replying to the correspondence——
Did the Taoiseach see the letter?
——would risk pre-judicing fair procedure. I do not believe that Members would wish me to do that.
The Taoiseach saw the letter.
I did not personally see the letter. I was not aware of the letter having been written until the matter was brought to my attention as a result of Deputy O'Donnell's questions.
This is incredible.
The letter was the subject matter of the question by Deputy O'Donnell on the delay. If the Taoiseach did not see that letter — and he has confirmed that the procedures relating to that file were followed in that all letters were shown to the Attorney General — can I presume the answer to the question is that the letter was received in the Attorney General's office, the Attorney General was consulted by Mr. Russell about it and there is some dispute as to whether the conversation which took place between Mr. Russell and Mr. Gleeson was a private one before the formation of this Government or was subsequent to its formation? Is that the difficulty? The Taoiseach cannot have it both ways. The Attorney General was invited to come before the committee of inquiry, but did not do that. The committee sought information from him, but he did not give all the information. In response to parliamentary questions tabled requesting information from the Attorney General about compromising cases the Taoiseach mentioned the beef tribunal, but not this case. There was an agreement that all important matters relating to this issue would be passed to the Attorney General. If the Taoiseach was not made aware of that letter, is it the case that the Attorney General had the file and because he was ham-fisted in dealing with it he could not make the information available?
I know whether the Attorney General saw that correspondence.
Tell us if he did.
Let us hear the reply.
Does the Tánaiste know if he saw it?
I obtained that information in the last few days. I decided in my judgment as Taoiseach with responsibility for fair procedure in regard to dealing with the culpability of individuals whose careers could be put at risk, that I should not disclose——
We know all about that.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
——the facts in regard to that until all procedures have been gone through, everybody has been heard and decisions have been taken.
Nobody asked you to disclose it.
That is only fair. I detect among members of Fianna Fáil that they feel they were unjustly deprived of office and do not mind what way any other individual is treated in this matter. I am not prepared to put up with that no matter how I will be misrepresented here in this House today.
Answer the question you were asked.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
Any individual whether in the Attorney General's office or elsewhere is entitled to fair procedure and an assurance that the individual who will make the decision, and in this case it is me, will not prejudice his rights by giving partial information before he has been fully heard.
Answer the question you were asked.
It is wrong that the Fianna Fáil Party out of peevishness over the way in which it lost office is seeking to damage the rights——
That is rubbish.
Answer the question.
——to a fair hearing of an individual in this matter before the person who must take the decision.
(Interruptions.)
The behaviour of members of the Fianna Fáil Party who knowingly exploited the fact that I cannot give certain answers is a disgrace to this House.
You are a disgrace.
Taoiseach, if you will permit me to interrupt. I will call Deputy Ahern in a moment. I want to ask something of my colleagues. I do not intend to proceed in this Chair in the course of a verbal bar room brawl. I have an option which I will take. I can suspend the proceedings and I will do so if necessary. I do not want to be forced to do that. That decision will be made if Deputies continue to be disorderly. I ask yet again that we continue in an orderly fashion and have a civilised debate. I call Deputy Ahern.
The Fianna Fáil Party is interested in the victims, the subject of the question tabled by Deputy O'Donnell. If Fianna Fáil got into trouble over a seven month delay in dealing with the file relating to the victims, the Taoiseach is guilty of a six month delay in that regard. He is now using the excuse of finding a technical way to deal with an industrial relations problem which should probably be sorted out in the Labour Relations Commission, not to give an answer. That is not good enough.
The victims should not have to wait.
Taoiseach, I am afraid I have to press this matter. When did the Taoiseach see the file and the letter? He said he did not see it. Is it the case that after all that happened last year regarding the long delay which resulted in us being thrown out of Government, this Government has delayed six months in dealing with the same file?
(Interruptions.)
Let us hear the Deputy in possession.
In the course of official A's appearance before the committee he refused to answer certain questions put to him and stated that this refusal was on the advice of the Attorney General. Maybe the Taoiseach would explain what that was about?
We will now hear the Taoiseach without interruption.
The advice of the Attorney General in regard to not giving certain information related to the three matters to which I adverted earlier in response to Deputy O'Donnell. Three categories of information were excluded from the information provided to the committee. They related to the anonymity of victims, the confidentiality of communications between the two Attorneys General offices and the entitlement to a fair trial for Fr. Smyth in any future proceedings.
It is important to draw a distinction between the two delays. Although I would not regard this as a major issue, I would like to deal with it as it has been raised by Deputy Ahern. The first delay related to a delay in the processing of an extradition warrant during which time a particular individual was at large. The second delay related to a failure to acknowledge or reply to an item of correspondence making a claim against the State for money and compensation. The individual who had committed the offences was at that stage not at large but in custody. The view of the Attorney General's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office is that although the claim was validly made there is no legal basis for it. I do not defend failure to reply to this correspondence, and I have made it clear already that I regard it as most serious, so serious that I have taken the step of revoking the delegation order regarding personnel matters I have made to the Attorney General's office so that I can deal with it. I will deal with it and will report fully to the House when I have dealt with it. I will not at that stage conceal any information from the House.
Like yesterday.
I will answer any questions I am asked, although I will not be able to anticipate questions that are not asked. I will answer every question I am asked and I will not take on the role of the Opposition as well as the Government of dreaming up questions for the Opposition.
That is rubbish. The Taoiseach is filibustering.
It is important to recognise that the Opposition has a job in the House as well as the Government and if the Opposition fails to ask relevant questions they should ask themselves why they did not do so.
What about the beef tribunal report?
Particularly as in this case I specifically drew attention to the fact that I had sought independent legal advice. That is something that a Taoiseach would not normally do given that his adviser is the Attorney General. It was open for anybody who wanted to ask questions about that to do so. They did not do so, a journalist did and as soon as that journalist asked questions, they were answered.
(Interruptions.)
I call Deputy O'Donnell and let us hear the Deputy without interruption.
Perhaps the Taoiseach might acknowledge that we might have noticed the reference to independent legal advice yesterday had he spoken up. He deliberately and slowly talked into his boots, and refused to answer questions. Does he accept that there is a world of difference between prejudging a matter and failing to deal adequately here with factual information subject to the right of anyone to contradict or explain it? We are not asking the Taoiseach to prejudge the matter. Does he accept that the caveat he introduced to answering questions today substantially prevents him from doing so? Does that not drive a coach and four through parliamentary democracy? Does he agree he could answer the questions posed on this matter without interfering with due process? Will he not accept that due process has been interpreted by the courts as requiring a balance between the rights of alleged wrongdoers and the rights of the public and victims to receive the benefit of fair procedures? Who acted as guardian of the public interest during the investigation into these matters carried out by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security? If the Attorney General at the time was chronically compromised because of a declared conflict, who acted in the public interest? Should he not have revoked powers at that stage?
I thank Deputy O'Donnell for her responsible and reasonable questions with which I will deal as fully as I can. If I fail to deal with a matter, I trust she will come back to me on it. There is a marked difference between the nature of Deputy O'Donnell's questions and those posed by the members of the other Opposition party.
The Taoiseach is helping himself now.
He is being patronising.
A Deputy
He does not like difficult questions.
Deputy O'Donnell is correct in that there is a conflict between me preserving my right to deal fairly and in a fashion of due process with this matter and my obligation to give the House all relevant information in response to questions. There is no doubt that by deciding at this point not to give certain information I am diminishing the right to information of Members. A balance must be struck in this regard and I believe I have struck the correct one because in this instance it is more important to protect the right of individuals to due process than to provide information to this House given that that information, as I have already stated, will be provided by me in full to the House in due course. The House will not get the information today but it will in due course. If the rights of the individual in question were prejudiced today, that could never be put right. That is why I have struck the correct balance in this case.
We will have to read the Irish Independent.
What about the victims?
I fully appreciate the position of the victims.
I wonder if the Taoiseach does.
I do. The fact that the correspondence was not replied to is a very serious matter, not from the point of view of the disputable legal action in question, but from the point of view that victims of crime are entitled to know that those in authority will deal promptly, fairly and compassionately with their queries or claims. It is because, among other things, I am concerned with the rights of the victim that I have ensured I am in a position to make decisions of a disciplinary nature if they are warranted——
Six months later.
——having heard the views of both sides. I am not prepared to comment on any of the facts at issue in this case until I have heard the views of both sides of the case. I will then make a decision, give the House the facts and it can reach a conclusion as to whether I made a correct judgment on the facts. If it is not satisfied with my judgment, it can have its own recourse.
Deputy O'Donnell asked who acted in the public interest since last February. In regard to the generality of matters affecting the Fr. Smyth file and a response to compensation claims from the victims——
I asked who acted in the public interest during the time of the inquiry.
I had merely began a sentence, the sense of which the Deputy will not understand until she hears the end of it. If I do not answer the Deputy's question, she can come back to me on it.
Who acted in the public interest while the select committee was investigating the matter? The Taoiseach told me I did not ask him that question yesterday.
The Deputy will have plenty of time today to ask all the questions she wishes and I will answer them all in so far as I can, subject to the requirements I laid down.
(Interruptions.)
Fianna Fáil still objects to the concept of fair procedure for individuals. It appears the only victims with which members of Fianna Fáil are concerned are themselves and the fact that they lost office.
(Interruptions.)
Their sense of victimisation at losing office is the sole motivation for their disorderly interventions.
The Taoiseach is belittling himself.
I am deservedly belittling the Deputy's party because of the cavalier way in which it is dealing with this matter, with no regard for the rights of individuals to fair procedure.
The Taoiseach should answer the questions put to him.
He should get the tapes from last November.
He should have some decency.
If members of Fianna Fáil restrain their sense of peevishness I will answer to the best of my ability the legitimate questions put to me by Deputy O'Donnell.
The Taoiseach should stop fighting the civil war and get on with answering the questions.
Which side is Deputy Molloy on now?
From here neither side looks good.
Is charm offensive?
In matters relating to the general disposal of the Fr. Smyth file, compensation claims and other matters relating to child abuse victims and the general efficiency of the Attorney General's office, the person responsible for protecting the public interest was — and remains — Mr. Dermot Gleeson SC, Attorney General. The Taoiseach is the guardian of the public interest in the matter of disciplinary action that might be taken against the individual who, prior to Mr. Gleeson becoming Attorney General, dealt with the Fr. Smyth file during the time his extradition was sought.
In the public interest, as soon as the evidence of the select committee given responsibility to investigate the matter was made available in February, I immediately took steps to get independent legal advice on how I should assess the evidence presented to the committee relating to the individuals in question. I received such legal advice formally some time later — I do not have the dates with me but they can all be provided if the House needs them — through an independent solicitor in private practice, not the Chief State Solicitor's Office because it is subordinate to the Attorney General's Office, who in turn went to a senior and distinguished member of the Bar who never had any dealings with any of the parties in this case. I obtained from that Senior Counsel a detailed assessment of the evidence disclosed in regard to the delay in the extradition case, not in regard to the correspondence, which is a separate issue. Consultations were held with the barrister in question and the opinion was assessed.
About two weeks ago — I am not sure of the date although I believe it was subsequent to Deputy O'Donnell's question — I raised three specific queries of a legal kind in regard to the opinion I had received from this independent counsel with a view to satisfying myself as to the action I should take. At all stages I had certain action in consideration, although I had not made any decision as to what precise action I would take. Then the further development occurred, namely, the disclosure, as a result of Deputy O'Donnell's question, of the fact that certain related correspondence, which was received in the Attorney General's office subsequent to the change of Government in one case, had not been dealt with.
I decided I would have to consider those two matters together and I have had arrangements made to have further consultations with the independent counsel concerned in this matter. I understand these consultations took place over recent days but there will not be a full formal consultations until tomorrow. I was advised all along that if I was contemplating taking action on the matter, the first step I would need to take, in view of the facts we know about the position of the present Attorney General, would be the revocation of the delegation in regard to personnel matters from the Taoiseach to him. That step, towards which I was already working for the reasons I just explained, was taken by me last night.
Will the Taoiseach not agree with me that to try to make a distinction, in a schizophrenic manner, between the role of the Attorney General in dealing with the substance of the Brendan Smyth matter and dealing with an official in a personnel matter is unjustifiable in the present circumstances? The distinction seeks to say that, on one level, the Attorney General could deal with some aspects of the Brendan Smyth matter — the file for which remains open — but that personnel issues were matters for the Taoiseach. Will the Taoiseach not accept that we are talking about two human beings, one a superior of the other, and that it would be impossible in practice — as it turns out, it has been impossible — for the two roles to be distinctly divided as suggested by the Taoiseach? I accept the Taoiseach is trying to balance, in terms of due process, the rights of various individuals but is it not true that in taking this action today, he has taken action which gives precedence to the rights of alleged wrongdoers and which does not give any parity of esteem to the rights of the victims? This is a problem which runs right through the criminal justice system but it should not happen in this House, even allowing for the rights of due process. Will the Taoiseach agree that due process must always be balanced between the rights of the victims of crime and those of wrongdoers?
Without due process in regard to the rights of alleged wrongdoers we would have mob law. As long as I hold this office, I am not willing to allow mob law or mob rule to affect the rights of any individual. I do not mind how much political embarrassment or difficulty this creates for me. I will not take a decision on this matter one moment sooner than I believe is right, regardless of the amount of pressure put on me in this House by parties opposite for whatever good, or not so good, reasons. I want to make that absolutely clear to everybody on the Government and Opposition benches. I do not mind how much pressure is put on me; I will not be hurried into making a decision without due process in this case. I hope that is understood.
Answer the questions.
I will deal now with Deputy O'Donnell's first question. She suggests it is impossible to make a distinction between two aspects, the first dealing with the general questions arising from the Fr. Smyth case and other associated matters in that area, the normal management functions in regard to the Attorney General's office, normal legal advice from the Attorney General's office on all the other myriad matters upon which the Attorney General is providing advice to the Government every day, and the specific and narrow question of possible disciplinary proceedings in regard to one individual and in regard to one particular set of circumstances.
They both relate to Brendan Smyth.
I believe it is possible and necessary for anybody in the legal profession or in public life to make these sorts of clear distinctions every day of the week. In every walk of life people will find themselves, almost on a daily basis, in situations where there is a conflict of interest or where they have to balance two conflicting rights. Nobody is better qualified to understand that distinction than the Attorney General. Most Members would also be very well qualified to make the distinction between advising in regard to the rights of an individual in a specific case and dealing with all the other generality of issues.
It is the same matter. It is the same file.
I believe there is such a distinction and that it can and will be made in this case.
It is the same file.
Indeed I have made it because I have taken the personnel matter unto myself so that the Attorney General will not have any dealings with that issue but can, therefore, proceed to deal in the normal way with all other issues that arise.
It is all on the same file.
Even if they are all on the same file, it is possible to distinguish between matters that may be on the same file which affect the conduct of individuals and others that affect the general processing of the issues in the case. That sort of decision is made in respect of every file virtually every day of the week because matters have to be taken out of the file to be dealt with separately.
The Taoiseach is taking responsibility.
It is not a personnel matter.
It is most important that due process be proceeded with in this case and that we do not have a situation where pressure is put on which would cause any problem in regard to due process and the rights of individuals. The rights of individuals in this situation are paramount.
Who does the Taoiseach believe to be politically responsible for what happens in the Attorney Generals's office? In this context, will he accept that this case, also involving a delay, cost Deputy Reynolds his position as Taoiseach and Mr. Harry Whelehan the Presidency of the High Court? Does the Taoiseach believe that a lower standard of accountability should apply to his Administration?
I am politically responsible for what happens in the Office of the Attorney General and I have no problem in accepting that responsibility.
Why transfer the question to the Department of Justice?
I did not transfer it to the Department of Justice.
The Taoiseach tried to.
Passing the buck.
I appreciate Deputy Molloy's enthusiasm in this matter but I would be grateful if he would allow me to answer the question from Deputy O'Donoghue without the help which I know is not particularly well intentioned.
The Taoiseach should not make a speech before answering every question.
Deputy O'Donoghue asks who is politically responsible for what happens in the Attorney General's office, I am. The Taoiseach, not the Government, in all cases appoints the Attorney General and I appointed the Attorney General. The Taoiseach alone is personally responsible in that matter. In regard to this issue of cases dealt with by the Attorney General previously, I drew these facts to the attention of my fellow party leaders in Government before the appointment was made but I am responsible for the appointment and I have no problem answering for it. I happen to believe it is probably the best appointment of an Attorney General in the history of this State.
Compromised as it may have been.
The late Mr. John Kelly.
Deputy O'Donoghue raised another question, he asked if I believe that a lesser standard would apply to political accountability for what happens in the Office of the Attorney General in this Government from that which applied to the previous Government. No, I do not. The same standard of political accountability should apply in this Government as in the last one.
The logic of that.
As to the reasons for the breakdown of the last Government, I have to claim to be no more than a bystander, I cannot provide an authoritative statement as to the reasons for the breakdown of trust between the two parties which led to the end of that Government, but it is my belief, at least from the outside, that the principal reason had nothing to do with internal matters concerning the processing of files in the Attorney General's office. I believe that the matters that led to the fall of the last Government were much wider, more political and had to do with a general inability to work together because of a breakdown of trust.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I do not believe, therefore, that the perception of unfairness on the part of Fianna Fáil, which is evident in this debate where it seems to think that the only reason for its difficulties is something that happened in the Attorney General's office, the reason it is now in Opposition is something that happened in the Attorney General's office and for this reason it has every right to exploit, irresponsibility, the present situation in the Attorney General's office——
Questions.
This shows that even yet it does not understand why it is in Opposition.
Does the Taoiseach realise that in his reply he has described in trenchant terms the Tánaiste as a political Machiavelli.
(Limerick East): That is a Kerry joke.
Does he not accept that if the same standards are to apply to him it appears the only honourable course open to him would be the one he asked Deputy Reynolds to take in November?
I think the logical argument in that case is so deft I am absolutely unable to follow it. It eludes me completely. As Deputy O'Donoghue raised the question of the Tánaiste, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, have at all times been extremely supportive to me in dealing with these difficult cases——
——and concealing the information.
——but, as I said in regard to the earlier question by Deputy O'Donoghue, I accept full responsibility for the Attorney General. He is the man in whom I have placed confidence in that office. I could not have higher confidence in any individual holding any office than I have in Mr. Dermot Gleeson as Attorney General.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I hope the Members will understand that. I have no problems whatever in dealing with any criticisms made of him in this House because I know very well that I have somebody to defend who deserves to be defended and can be defended better than any other appointee.
The Taoiseach must not mistake who is being asked the questions. We know the abilities of the Attorney General but it was the Taoiseach in a compromised position who appointed him to the post of Attorney General without telling anyone else what the conditions were.
Have all the procedures in the Attorney General's office which were put in place by the last Government in relation to sexual abuse cases been followed since 15 December last?
My understanding is that, except in the case we are dealing with, with which I am dealing separately, the procedures were put in place and dealt with. I very much appreciate that procedures were instituted for dealing with these files by the previous Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons under the last Government. After these matters had come to light but as promptly as possible, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons put in place procedures in the Attorney General's office for dealing with these cases. My understanding is that with the exception possibly — I have to be careful what I say — of this particular case, those procedures were applied and are being applied fully. Indeed I responded to questions yesterday from Deputy O'Dea about the general issue of improved information technology and correspondence tracking in the Attorney General's office which will show that substantial resources are being put into this area. I believe this is important from the point of view and perspective of victims of crime who may correspond with the Office of the Attorney General and they are entitled to a prompt reply whether they have a claim or not. It is clearly an indication of something wrong if that does not happen.
Five months long.
The most recent reply to the Taoiseach is very interesting. Will he confirm that it is only in relation to the Fr. Brendan Smyth case that there has been a delay, a lack of competence or a failure to adhere to procedures? Is it not true that if that original correspondence from the solicitors of the victims had contained, for example, evidence of other allegations and had gone into the wall of silence, as appears to have happened, we would be talking about the possible failure to prosecute Fr. Brendan Smyth in relation to further victims.
Hypothetical.
The irony is that if a letter containing further allegations had gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions we could not ask questions in this House because the DPP is unaccountable. We in this House can ask questions in relation to the Office of the Attorney General, because the Taoiseach is responsible directly for the performance of the Attorney General's office but not for the office of the DPP. The letter could well have been sent to the DPP with a view to prosecution if it had to do with other allegations. We could not ask questions and there would be no accountability. The Taoiseach refuses to allow any accountability in relation to the DPP. Does the Taoiseach not realise the letter could have contained vital evidence directly relevant to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security——
Which letter could have contained vital evidence?
The letter from the victims' solicitors.
"Could have." Is the Deputy saying it did?
We know it contained a request for compensation and that is a matter for the courts. It could have contained fundamentally important information. It could have changed completely the outcome of the Dáil committee.
Stick to the facts. This is all hypothetical.
The Minister is saying this is beyond the bounds of possibility. It is an extraordinary set of circumstances and he is saying it could not happen.
Did the Minister see the letter?
In the Brendan Smyth case anything could happen.
I cannot give an absolute guarantee there is no other item of correspondence in the office of the Attorney General that has not been replied to no more than any Deputy can give such a guarantee in regard to correspondence in their own offices.
We had to give guarantees last November.
We all know that type of omission will happen from time to time. It is my information the new procedures for dealing with files, the new correspondence tracking system and the priority with regard to allegations of child abuse, which were put in place by the previous Government and Attorney General, are being scrupulously adhered to at present with the exception of this case of correspondence, although this is a matter on which I have yet to come to a judgment. With regard to giving further details I am constrained by considerations of natural justice.
Deputy O'Donnell speculated on what this correspondence might have contained and the consequences it might have had.
We do not know: the Attorney General never got it.
Did he or did he not?
I have not said whether the Attorney General got it. That is one of the matters I will have to consider in the context of natural justice. I will not be drawn into answering that question because there is an obligation to fair procedure. The obligation to ensure that I am in a position to act in this matter in accordance with fair procedure is one which extends to all members of the House in putting questions.
Where does the buck stop?
The buck stops with me and I have no problem with that. Deputy O'Donnell also raised the question of the letter containing other information. The correspondence received in November and in January contained a statement that if it was not replied to, legal proceedings would be instituted within seven days. It was a threat of legal proceedings demanding compensation — that was all. The legal proceedings have not subsequently been taken, although it was stated they would be taken if there was no response within seven days. This is germane to this issue.
Many solicitors' offices would be aware that letters threatening legal proceedings are not dealt with until the seven days have expired and one has assessed whether there is any intention to proceed. If action is not taken at that stage there might be no further correspondence.
Is that an assumption of the content?
A lax procedure that might apply in a private legal office that received a threat of legal action to be taken within seven days and where the matter might not be dealt with until the action is taken, should not apply in the case of the office of the Attorney General. In the office of the Attorney General every correspondence should be replied to. It is serious that this was not replied to.
Deputy O'Donnell raised many hypothetical questions about matters that did not appear in the correspondence and asked what would have happened if they had. I do not know what would have happened. Neither the Deputy or anybody else can know.
That is unacceptable.
It is not possible to know what might have happened in respect of an item of correspondence which did not arrive. All correspondence, whatever it contains, should be replied to promptly by the office of the Attorney General.
Why was it not?
I will be able to answer the questions as to why this item of correspondence was not dealt with when I have concluded my investigations under process of fair procedure. I have told the House I will give it the information when those fair procedures have been gone through and not before.
How long will it take?
We will send the Deputy a note.
The Taoiseach has said he is politically responsible for the office of the Attorney General. Does he approve of the six months' delay in responding to the letter mentioned? He has told the House he will not say whether the Attorney General saw that letter. Is official A still dealing with that case? If so, is the Attorney General not compromised by his earlier private arrangement with official A?
We have been though all that.
May I further put it to the Taoiseach that it is quite impossible to compartmentalise——
(Limerick East): The Deputy must be the slow girl in the class.
(Interruptions.)
Does the Taoiseach agree it is professionally impossible for the Attorney General not to compromise himself between acting in a private representational capacity for official A if official A is now dealing with this case under the Attorney General for whom the Taoiseach is responsible?
I have answered all of the Deputy's questions several times. I am not sure if Deputy O'Rourke was in the House at the time but I will answer them again. First, I do not approve of the six month's delay. As to whether the Attorney General was compromised in dealing with proceedings in regard to an official whom he might have advised previously on questions about the way in which that official dealt with the Fr. Smyth file during the period of seven months when no extradition took place, the answer is yes, he is compromised.
It was because he is compromised that last February I took the step dealing with the matter separately by seeking independent legal advice. I believe, as did the Attorney General, that he is compromised and could not deal with that case. As I explained, there are a number of other cases and I am sorry Deputy O'Malley did not ask any questions as I want to come back to some of the points he raised in that regard. The Attorney General is compromised in this case.
The third question, which is a repeat of the second, was whether I believe it is impossible for him to deal professionally with the official whom he advised in this potential disciplinary matter concerning the extradition file. It is impossible for him to do so for the reasons I have already given. That is why I, under statute, have taken on the responsibility of dealing with that as the appropriate Minister.
I asked if it was not impossible for the Attorney General to deal with the generality of the Smyth file because of his previous private representational role as regards official A. I want a direct answer. If the Taoiseach must make such massive efforts to disentangle the Attorney General from dealing with various files, why did he appoint him in the first place?
I have answered this question several times. In my original contribution I listed the aspects of the case which the Attorney General has no problem dealing with. One of the matters which I said he has no problem dealing with is the generality of the Smyth file because he is not conflicted as regards the generality of the case.
He must be compromised.
He is only conflicted in regard to the possibility of disciplinary proceedings because of the actions or the lack of actions of an official. He drew that matter to my attention at the time of his appointment and I promptly made separate arrangements to deal with that.
It is only fair to the Attorney General that I refer to comments by Deputy O'Malley. He cited a question from Deputy Harney and said that I repeatedly assured her there was no conflict of interest in regard to the Attorney General. I recall a question put by Deputy McDowell rather than Deputy Harney — I am not absolutely sure of this — about cases in general where the Attorney General might have acted previously for others against the State while in private practice. I explained to whichever Deputy it was — I speak from memory, I do not have the record available to me, which I believe Deputy O'Malley has — that separate procedures were put in place immediately by the incoming Attorney General for dealing with those sorts of cases. In other words, the file at a routine level would be dealt with by officials in the Attorney General's office without reference to the Attorney General. If the advice of a barrister at the level of the Attorney General was required, it would be sought independently and without any reference to the Attorney General from independent counsel practising at the Bar. That procedure is being followed in five or six cases where this situation arises.
Deputy O'Malley asked how the Government would deal with the £200 million Goodman claim on the State, how the Attorney General would deal with the EU fines and with civil proceedings. In any matter where the position of somebody who was a previous client of the Attorney General in private practice comes in conflict with the position of the State, the Attorney General from the outset made a formal decision that he would exclude himself from acting for the State in those cases, as is normal at the Bar. It is not possible for a barrister, whether acting for the State or not, to act at different times in respect of the same matter for different sides in case. Therefore, separate arrangements are being made for representing the State in all these cases, including those to which Deputy O'Malley referred.
I focus on the device which the Taoiseach is using to deny information to the House, that is, fair procedure. I ask him what the term "fair procedure" or "due process" means in this context. It usually implies that there are proceedings in motion or in contemplation against an individual. If that is not the position, then the only transparent thing is the inadequacy of the Taoiseach's explanations for denying information to this House.
As regards the committee of inquiry of which I was a member, one of the terms of reference of that committee was to inquire into the reason for the seven months delay in the Attorney General's office. It has transpired that the Attorney General, Mr. Gleeson, who was involved with the committee, had a lawyer-client relationship with a witness whose evidence was vital to the findings and deliberations of that committee. Why did the Taoiseach or the Attorney General not tell us that in advance? That matter has not been answered.
As regards the independent legal person who, the Taoiseach said, has stepped into the position of the Attorney General in relation to inquiries into this matter, has the appointment of that person been agreed by his Cabinet colleagues? Does that independent legal adviser have access to Cabinet meetings in the same way as the Attorney General? Does he have access to State papers? Who is he?
A number of Deputies are offering and I am anxious to facilitate them. Having regard to the time factor, I suggest that from now on questions should be brief, relevant and succinct.
Answers should be the same.
Deputy O'Dea asked if proceedings are contemplated in this case. I do not know. In dealing with this case of delays——
He does not know.
It will be hard for Deputy O'Dea to hear what I am saying if his colleagues are speaking as well.
Questions have been asked and we should allow the Taoiseach the courtesy of replying.
Deputy O'Dea asked if proceedings are being taken as regards the delays in dealing with these two matters. At this stage, no. As I must make the decision, I must provide for the possibility that proceedings might be taken by ensuring that in everything I do at this stage, due process is followed. I draw the Deputy's attention to a case concerning an official in which Deputy O'Malley was involved as a Minister and which subsequently became the subject of a court proceeding. It was clear from the judgment that adherence to due process is important in such cases. I make no criticism of the actions taken by Deputy O'Malley. However, I must take account of the findings of the court in that case as regards anything I might find myself having to contemplate. I can give Deputy O'Dea more details of the case in question if he wishes, but I am sure he is familiar with the O'Reilly case. That is one of the reasons I must be careful as regards due process because a decision taken by Deputy O'Malley as Minister was contested.
Hold on a minute.
That is a red herring.
I have been advised that it is a relevant consideration and on foot of that advice, I am taking a careful — some would say overly careful — approach to this matter.
As regards the lawyer-client relationship not being disclosed to the committee, that did not arise under the terms of reference of the committee. The only function of the present Attorney General as regards that committee, whose terms of reference only related to specific events leading to the fall of the previous Government, was to provide documents. I have dealt exhaustively with the way he handled that. He was requested to appear before the committee to explain why he had not provided particular documents.
That is not true.
As I explained to the House, any documents he excluded were checked with the independent counsel to the committee who were allowed to see the documents so that they could satisfy themselves as to the validity of the decisions taken by the Attorney General.
The third question relates to the independent legal advice I sought. I made that decision because I did not see any need to engage in wide consultations on this matter as all I was doing was seeking independent legal advice. I will make decisions or, if consultations are required with the Cabinet, those will take place at the appropriate time when a decision is ready for the Cabinet to consider. There is no obligation on me or on any Minister who feels the need because of particular circumstances to obtain advice — I have fully explained the circumstances in this case — to go any further than making the decision I made.
You are not anybody; you are the Taoiseach.
I ask the Taoiseach two questions on this matter. While I appreciate the Taoiseach's concern for the rights of individuals, I ask him to consider——
Who is the Taoiseach's legal adviser?
Deputy O'Dea is not in possession now and not entitled to intervene. I called Deputy Sargent.
You called me to intervene and I asked a question.
I ask Deputy O'Dea to resume his seat. I ask Deputy Sargent to be brief because a number of Deputies want to ask questions.
I will ensure it is brief. While I appreciate the Taoiseach's concern for the rights of individuals, I ask him to bear in mind the suffering which delays cause victims. The Taoiseach said he was committed to bringing forward a report in due course. When? Will he indicate how long this festering atmosphere of uncertainty will last?
The Taoiseach said he was fully responsible for the Attorney General's office. I asked a parliamentary question on the Attorney General's decision in relation to British Nuclear Fuels Limited and it was transferred to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry. Will the Taoiseach accept that in practice he may not be as responsible for the Attorney General's office as he claims to be in theory?
As regards decisions taken by individual Ministers on foot of the Attorney General's advice, the Minister responsible will answer as to how that advice is interpreted and acted upon. As regards the general operations of the Attorney General's office as distinct from advice relating to matters appropriate to particular Departments, I am frequently answerable to the House as I am on this occasion.
The decision of the Attorney General.
The Deputy asked if I appreciated the position of victims. As I said in response to Deputy O'Donnell who has persistently pursued this question from that point of view, I appreciate their position and that is one of the reasons I take the delay in this case seriously. The Deputy also asked — this is in the minds of other Deputies and in mine — how long it will take me to make this decision. I do not know the answer to that question.
The victims would like to know.
I cannot give an answer because——
Set a deadline.
I will not set a deadline. It is irresponsible to suggest that I should set a deadline because I must satisfy myself that due process is completed. It would not be proper, for example, for a judge to say he will decide a case——
The Taoiseach is not a judge.
——within two days regardless of whether all the evidence has been heard. It has been suggested that I am not a judge. However, I am acting in a quasi-judicial way in this matter.
The Taoiseach's function is not judicial.
I must be willing and able to show that I am dealing with the matter in a proper process which has due regard to the rights of individuals. Every Attorney General who was previously in private practice — in other words, someone who did not come from the public sector — was in the same situation as the present Attorney General in the sense that he had cases on his books which were against the State and in respect of which he could not act. There is nothing new or abnormal about the situation in which the present Attorney General found himself as regards cases upon which he had acted previously.
Like the Smyth case.
Every previous Attorney General found himself in that situation.
What about official A?
I have no doubt that every previous Attorney General acted in exactly the same proper way as Mr. Dermot Gleeson acted on this occasion.
The Taoiseach said he wanted to reply to some matters I raised in the speech I made at the beginning of this debate because he took issue with some of them. He claimed he did not tell Deputy Harney on 25 January that there was no conflict of interest. Column 69 of the Official Report of that date states:
Miss Harney: Did the Taoiseach discuss the conflict of interest that arises with the Attorney General before his appointment?
The Taoiseach: No conflict of interest arises.
He misled the House.
Later in the same column, the Taoiseach continued: "There is no question of any conflict of interest arising." Deputy Harney disagreed with that and said: "... I believe a clear conflict of interest arises in this case." How right she was.
That is absurd.
(Interruptions.)
During my speech the Taoiseach endeavoured to interrupt me and shouted that I was wrong when I said that some of his officials, with his knowledge or at his request, had tried to transfer this question to the Minister for Justice. This morning the Taoiseach said he believed that officials of his Department inquired, with his knowledge, about the appropriateness of possibly transferring this question to the Department of Justice.
The Taoiseach said he knew nothing about it.
Read the rest into the record.
He denied having said that. Having now corrected two of his mistakes will the Taoiseach say how the Government will deal with matters where there is an obvious conflict of interest now on the part of the Attorney General relating to matters that had not come to light at the time the Attorney General was appointed? One of them relates to EU Commission fines of over £100 million pounds being imposed on Ireland, which the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry says he will legally recover from those involved. How will the Taoiseach deal with a situation where, apparently, an application has now been made to Ministers to have certain people disqualified as directors under the Companies Acts where they are fired?
We are now entitled to hear a reply.
I have only now put the questions. May I reply to another matter, where the Taoiseach says I made an error——
This is Question Time.
——in dismissing a public servant. I did not dismiss the public servant concerned in the Department of Industry and Commerce. The public servant resigned after a conversation with the Secretary. Proceedings were taken when, apparently, there were some procedural errors in whatever way the Secretary went about the matter. This has been drawn in by the Taoiseach as a red herring in this matter.
We are having arguments now.
It is another example of hiding behind skirts in the way that he hid behind Mr. Russell's skirts this morning.
In response to a question from Deputy O'Dea, the independent legal advice I am seeking is from Dr. Mary Redmond's solicitor, Mr. Peter Kelly, SC and Mr. Patrick Usher. In the advice they gave to me, they specifically drew attention to the problems with regard to due process and the court's decision in the matter of the O'Reilly case, which Deputy O'Malley has now referred to. It would appear that in the case of this resignation, there were questions as to whether due process had been followed. In the case that I am now dealing with, I must take account of the finding of the court in that matter. I have no criticism either of the Secretary of the Department at the time or of Deputy O'Malley with regard to what they did. That is not the point. The point is that I must take account of what happened in the court case subsequently, and the judicial decision in that matter, and what was said about due process. This is one of the reasons why, with legal advice from the people I have mentioned, I have adopted the approach I am taking.
I will not blame or seek to blame my legal advisers or any legal advice I take for any decisions I make. Any decisions I have made in the House as to questions I have answered and questions I have declined to answer are my decisions as Taoiseach, and I stand over them. I am qualified, by virtue of my office to make those decisions, and I am also lucky enough to have a legal qualification. However, even if I did not have such a qualification, anybody who is fit enough to be elected to this office is well fitted to make the type of judgments which I am making.
Deputy O'Malley appears to specialise in trying to find ways of accusing people of misleading the House. It seems to be one of the long standing interests in his political career. He tries to pretend I misled the House in speaking to Deputy Harney. That is not the case. A conflict of interest did not arise in this case or in the other cases referred to, precisely because, as I have explained, Dermot Gleeson, as Attorney General, had made alternative arrangements, with my agreement, to deal with any of these cases. The attempt by Deputy O'Malley to imply that I was misleading the House——
The disclosure was only made last night.
——shows how desperate he is to make an impact at this stage. Furthermore, he again attempted to accuse me of having misled the House this morning in regard to an allegation he made that I had directed that a question be taken by another Minister. He then quoted what I said this morning from the record of the House as if this, somehow or other, proved his case. If he reads the quotation again he will find that it does not. If I correctly recollect his quotation of my words, I said that officials of my Department, with my knowledge, inquired as to the appropriateness of transferring the question. It was an inquiry as to the appropriateness of a specific course of action before a decision was taken.
(Interruptions.)
I did not transfer that question. The only inquiry I made——
(Interruptions.)
I am not responsible for what is put on paper in the office of the Ceann Comhairle in correspondence with Deputies. I made no decision to transfer that question. I did no more than what I told Deputy O'Malley I did, which was to make inquiries as to the appropriateness of transferring the question. I have no problem, had no problem and will have no problem in answering questions in respect of this matter so long as my obligations with regard to fair procedure are abided by. Deputy O'Malley's attempt to besmirch my reputation in this matter is highly unworthy and personally offensive.
The Taoiseach should mind his words.
With regard to the EU Commission fines, Deputy O'Malley asked who is advising the Government on the matter. An interdepartmental committee from all of the Departments involved has been established. It is currently considering the issue of legal advice. It will seek independent legal advice in so far as there is any question of the Attorney General not being able to deal with the matter concerned. I understand that the advice will not be sought from the office of the Attorney General but from an independent council.
This is a charade.
(Interruptions.)
Does the Taoiseach not think it disgraceful that after five months in office, given that he is politically responsible for the office of the Attorney General, he did not inquire, specifically and formally, as to the progress of the Smyth case, in view of its explosive nature? Given that he is politically responsible for the office of the Attorney General will the Taoiseach now arrange for the Attorney General to appear before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security to pursue this matter?
My understanding is that there were no active items of correspondence in the Smyth case, other than the issue referred to by Deputy O'Donnell. The only matters arising with regard to the Smyth case upon which action required to be taken——
The Taoiseach made no inquiry over a period of five months. On a point of order, the question is did the Taoiseach make any inquiries to the office of the Attorney General in the five months since he became the Taoiseach.
On a weekly or monthly basis?
Yes or no?
The Taoiseach must be allowed to reply in his own way and without dictation.
I made inquiries in respect of this matter in so far as I believed that I had an obligation with regard to examining the appropriateness of the activity, or lack of it, of personnel in the office of the Attorney General with regard to the delay in the extradition case. As early as February this year, not more than two months after assuming office, I sought independent legal advice on the matter.
No one told the Taoiseach about the letter?
Memories on the Fianna Fáil benches are quite short as they do not remember what happened.
The Taoiseach took it to the wire.
Come on, Taoiseach.
I did not see the letter.
Did the Taoiseach not inquire about progress?
It is time to proceed to other business.
The score is ten nil.
The Taoiseach has had two crises in one week.
The Taoiseach will give another laugh.
(Interruptions.)
We are now proceeding to Question Time.
Normal transmission will now resume.