Office of the Attorney General: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I had three basic purposes in dealing with the implications, for the Attorney General's office, of the delays in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case. My first purpose was to ensure that individual responsibility for the errors was clearly established so that the whole office would not suffer any loss of morale. My second purpose was to hold the person responsible accountable in a fair and measured way, without involving the taxpayer in endless law cases, with the costs in money and lost time that go along with that. My third purpose was to put this whole matter behind us as quickly and amicably as possible so that we could get on without distractions with the major reorganisation of the office, which is now under way. I am happy to tell this House that these three basic purposes have now been achieved.

I stated in this House on Tuesday last that arising, in particular, out of the seven months' delay in dealing with the extradition warrants in the Fr. Smyth case, I had, shortly after the conclusion of evidence in the Dáil select committee, initiated inquiries, including inter alia, seeking formal and independent legal advice, as to what action if any, might appropriately be taken arising from the delay with which the original extradition request was dealt with in the office of the Attorney General during the seven months in question.

I was in the process, on foot of a study of the legal and Civil Service advice I had received, of finalising my deliberations on the matter, when I learned that subsequent correspondence from the solicitors for the victims had not been replied to. This new information, which I regarded as serious, required that I make additional inquiries.

Arising from the process which I had initiated, and again acting on the independent legal advice I had received, I decided to take three steps: revoke the powers delegated in 1957 to the Attorney General under the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1965, so that I could take the next appropriate step in my inquiries; tell Mr. Matthew Russell, the senior legal assistant in the Attorney General's office, that I was proposing in the near future to give consideration to the exercise by me of the powers under section 8 of the 1956 Act which provide for the compulsory retirement of civil servants aged over 60; and, in this context, ask Mr. Russell to respond in relation to three issues; the delay in the handling of the Smyth extradition case; the failure to issue a reply to correspondence from the victims solicitor in that case; and the management at Civil Service level of the Attorney General's office.

I also resolved in the light of Mr. Russell's response that I would then decide if I should give consideration to the exercise of the powers I have in regard to compulsory retirement.

The position that has now emerged in response to my taking the three steps last week is that Mr. Russell has sent me a letter saying that he is voluntarily retiring from the Civil Service on Thursday, 1 June.

As Deputies will be aware, compensation for early retirement is now a well established feature of employer-employee relationships.

Mr. R. Burke

The Taoiseach should tell that to the workers in Irish Press Newspapers.

The Taoiseach

In the letter conveying his retirement — which I have circulated with this statement — Mr. Russell makes, in my judgment, three important points in relation to the non reply to the two letters: that he never acted in bad faith; that he now recognises he acted in error and regrets that, and that throughout his career he has endeavoured to discharge his duties and responsibilities with honesty and to the best of his ability. My considered view is that Mr. Russell does indeed understand that he acted in error and does regret that. I believe that Mr. Russell did provide good service to the State in a large number of cases during his career.

It might be noted that, in his evidence before the sub-committee last December he said he was dealing with a very large volume of work. Apart from 17 UK extradition cases then current, he said that his office was dealing with 3,800 actions of all kinds against the State, with a total exposure of the State to damages of £1 billion. I refer Members to column 487 of the select committee report of 21 December for further details.

For these two reasons I believed it correct, and asked the Minister for Finance to agree — which he has done — that the benefits of sections 6 and 7 of the 1963 Act should apply in Mr. Russell's case.

Some may claim that these relatively generous severance terms should not have been afforded to Mr. Russell. Let me put on record why I believe it was right to agree to these terms. Without them there would have been no agreement. Compulsion under section 8 of the 1956 Act would have to have been used. That section has never been used before. In that case I was advised that court challenges were very likely — about matters like the minutiae of the procedures adopted, the value of Mr. Russell's good work on other cases, and whether he could have got a fair hearing in the highly charged political atmosphere of the time. Such legal actions and charges could have absorbed a great deal of valuable time and money for the State, and their result would be unknowable. I might add that the cost to the State of a recent botched resignation which ended up in court, was £60,000 in damages, and £76,000 in costs. I will refer later to that case in another context.

By pursuing the method of an agreed voluntary retirement, we have avoided all these possible court challenges. We have got a prompt retirement. We have got a clear admission of error on Mr. Russell's part. We have closed the book on the whole question and we can now get on with reorganising the Attorney General's office——

Mr. N. Treacy

Constructive dismissal.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Taoiseach without interruption.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Is that what they call transparency?

Mr. R. Burke

It is what is known as whistling past the graveyard.

The Taoiseach

Sir, I ask that Members opposite allow me read my statement. They have been looking for it and they should hear it.

We can now get on with reorganising the Attorney General's office with a new official head of office who can be selected as someone suited to the requirements of running a modern law office in the information technology era.

Let me now outline what actually happened to the correspondence from Belfast solicitors seeking financial compensation, and threatening legal action, for the seven months delay in the Smyth extradition.

The first letter of 14 November, 1994 was brought to the attention of the then Attorney General, Mr. Fitzsimons, who noted it. I understand that Mr. Fitzsimons believed that it was going to be replied to, but it was not. The faxed copy was placed on the file, no more; the posted copy was kept on Mr. Russell's desk until 8 May last.

A copy was seen by the current Attorney General in December but only as part of an exercise of selecting documents for the sub-committee. This particular letter had to be excluded from the parts of the file passed to the sub-committee because it disclosed the names of members of the family who had been victims. Mr. Gleeson presumed that the letter which had been publicised by the solicitors themselves on 15 November, and which had been received in the Office of the Attorney General a full month before he came to office, had been replied to in the normal way. Normally such a letter would be replied to by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. There was nothing in anything Mr. Gleeson saw to suggest that this normal courtesy of replying to the letter had not been complied with.

As far as the letter of 10 January 1995 is concerned, it appears that Mr. Russell received the letter, did not acknowledge it, did not show it to anyone and, as I understand it, left it on his desk. There is no one else in the Attorney General's office to whom blame attaches in this matter.

The existence of the letter of 10 January 1995, and the fact that it and the November letter were never replied to, was not brought to the attention of the Attorney General until 8 May when a parliamentary question was asked by Deputy Michael McDowell. I would like at this point to recognise the work of Deputies McDowell and O'Donnell in bringing this matter to light.

Mr. J. Walsh

Promote them.

Mr. D. Ahern

Thanks for the compliment.

Ms McManus

They should take a bow.

The Taoiseach

I have stated on a number of occasions that the delay in replying to this correspondence was not justifiable.

Mr. Russell in his letter to me of 29 May 1995 states:

I am of course aware of the recent controversy which arises from the fact that no response was sent to two letters sent by a Northern Ireland solicitor seeking payments for victims of sexual abuse by Fr. Brendan Smyth. You have asked me to address the question of the letter dated the 10 January, 1995. That letter as you know repeated the demand in the first letter and also stated that the solicitor was acting on behalf of two individuals omitted from the first letter. I took the view that this letter should be treated in the same way as the earlier letter and should not be answered until after the Dáil had completed its consideration of the delay and controversy surrounding the extradition of Fr. Brendan Smyth.

There were a number of reasons for this approach. The first was that, irrespective of the sympathy one must feel for victims of these crimes, there was no legal basis for a claim for compensation from this State, and indeed in all the recent publicity surrounding this matter I have not seen it suggested that such is the case. Nevertheless until the Dáil had dealt with the question of the extradition which was the basis of the solicitor's claims it would have been difficult and, I believed, unwise for the State to take a definitive position on the claim. Furthermore as you may know many more actions are threatened by solicitors' letters than are commenced, and in view of the tenuous nature of the claim I thought that this might well occur in this case.

The course of events has shown that judgment to have been erroneous and it is one that I very much regret.

I agree that Mr. Russell's judgment was indeed erroneous. Having considered the matter I do not consider Mr. Russell's explanation satisfactory. In a public office, such as that of the Attorney General, all correspondence should be replied to. No one individual should take it on himself or herself not to reply to correspondence.

The present position is that the matter of the claim for compensation by the victims is being dealt with by the Attorney General with the help of two legal assistants in his office, highlighting the fact that the Attorney General has no conflict in the Smyth case generally. Since Fr. Smyth had gone to Northern Ireland and had been before the courts there before I came to office, I as Taoiseach did not request a progress report on his extradition. I was unaware that any correspondence remained unanswered and, therefore, did not have a reason to seek copies of such correspondence.

Mr. D. Ahern

It suited the Taoiseach at the time.

Mr. Cowen

How does the Taoiseach believe he got into office in the first place?

The Taoiseach

I will now deal with the possible criticism that I did not deal sufficiently quickly with the consequences for Mr. Russell of his delay in the original extradition matter. The facts are as follows. The sub-committee of the select committee concluded its deliberations on 26 January last and shortly afterwards I sought formal and independent legal advice. Dr. Mary Redmond, solicitor, Mr. Peter Kelly, Senior Counsel and Dr. Patrick Ussher, Barrister at Law were engaged. The first consultation with Dr. Redmond took place on 15 February. Consultation with counsel took place on 22 February and senior counsel's opinion was sent to me on 3 March. This opinion required detailed examination of many complex issues and required further consultations with senior officials of my Department and the Department of Finance. This process was undertaken in the period of March-April.

As I emphasised on numerous occasions in the past week, the consideration of the legal and official advices had to be accompanied by scrupulous adherence to the principle of fair procedures. In this context, it was also necessary to consider carefully all the relevant evidence that came before the sub-committee. I have already quoted some of that evidence by Mr. Russell in regard to his heavy workload, evidence of which might even have been corroborated by other officials in any contested action. The legal arguments Mr. Russell advanced for this delay being justified by the alleged novelty of the Smyth extradition case had also to be considered. I make no apology for dealing with this very important matter in a carefully considered and measured way.

I held a formal consultation on the whole matter with all the relevant officials on 4 May at which I decided I would ask Mr. Russell to come to see me to explain his role in the delay in processing the Fr. Smyth extradition warrants. Before this was arranged I became aware of the failure to reply to the letters of 14 November 1994 and 10 January 1995. This new information clearly necessitated a new set of inquiries. I also raised some queries in regard to the legal aspects of the advice I had received earlier.

I note the criticism expressed by Deputy Michael McDowell in a fair-minded article in a Sunday newspaper. He stated that I seemed to confuse the requirements of natural justice in dealing with higher senior civil servants with the role of a High Court Judge. The article continued:

John Bruton is the Taoiseach of the country. [I am glad Deputy McDowell considers me eligible to be a High Court Judge]. He is responsible to the Dáil for the running of the Attorney General's Office. It is quite possible for him to say that, while he has not completed his investigations, the information available to him thus far suggests that X or Y is the case.

Provided he retains an open mind and stresses that he had come to no final conclusions and that he will listen to all sides of the story, there is no conflict between having to exercise executive functions in accordance with the principles of natural justice and being publicly accountable for the way in which you are handling those matters.

My legal advice was clear and contrary to the advice offered by Deputy McDowell in a Sunday newspaper. My advice was that I should not disclose as facts matters which might be contested by Mr. Russell in his response——

Mr. D. Ahern

The Taoiseach had no problem in this regard in November last.

The Taoiseach

——since to do so could be construed as a prejudgment on my part. This would leave open to legal challenge the process which I was carefully following. I was determined to exclude such risk as far as possible. I therefore followed a measured course, particularly in regard to answering questions here. In following my legal advice I was aware of the result in the case of O'Reilly v. the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Attorney General where over-hasty procedures were adopted in regard to the resignation of an official of less senior rank than Mr. Russell in the Department of Industry and Commerce. Deputy O'Malley was Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time. The High Court judgment in that case made it clear that I, in exercising my powers under section 8, had to act fairly and follow a procedure analogous to that outlined in the Commissioner Garvey case. A failure to do so could result in the taxpayer having to pay damages and costs, as indeed happened in the O'Reilly case. This is the case where the State had to pay £60,000 in damages and £76,000 in costs to Mr. O'Reilly in addition to bearing its own significant costs, and all in addition to Mr. O'Reilly's normal retirement entitlements. I was determined that that unhappy precedent would not be followed by me.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

In taking this measured course I was also influenced by the fact that when the previous Government attempted to reassign Mr. Russell it was notably unsuccessful and I am aware that Mr. Russell had told a sub-committee of the Dáil that, "he was aware of no reason whatsoever" why he should leave his position in the Attorney General's office and added that he "wasn't prepared to go, quietly or otherwise".

Mr. D. Ahern

The Taoiseach told him to say that.

Mr. Cowen

Who advised him in that regard? It was the Taoiseach's Attorney General, the man who is now advising the Taoiseach to get rid of him.

Mr. D. Ahern

Who is codding whom?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Cowen

Did the Taoiseach find the letter?

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask Deputies to restrain themselves, let us hear the Taoiseach without interruption.

The Taoiseach

Whereas Mr. Russell was not prepared to go quietly or otherwise under the previous Administration, my actions have resulted in his immediate retirement from the Civil Service. That speaks for itself.

An Ceann Comhairle

Ciúnas.

Mr. Andrews

It is disgraceful that the Taoiseach is making a virtue out of a man's misfortune.

The Taoiseach

Concerns have been expressed about the withholding of information from the Dáil.

Mrs. Owen

They should leave.

Mr. R. Burke

There was an exit for the Minister for Defence and the Minister of State.

An Ceann Comhairle

Every Member participating in this debate should get a good, fair hearing.

Mr. Cowen

The hypocrites are being exposed.

Mr. Rabbitte

Deputy Cowen should continue taking the tablets.

Mr. Cowen

Did Deputy Rabbitte find the letter that would rock the foundations of the State?

Mr. Rabbitte

It rocked Deputy Cowen's foundations.

Mr. Cowen

To hell with the truth.

The Taoiseach

Thus, for the State to have unilaterally revealed the fact of this consultation, at the time of the sub-committee hearings, could have been deemed to have been unfair and prejudiced to Mr. Russell in both the short and the longer term.

Mr. S. Brennan

That is nonsense.

The Taoiseach

Mr. Lenihan

What about the Goodman file?

The Taoiseach

These include matters arising from the litigation involving Goodman International Ltd. and the Government's attempts to recoup EU fines from certain firms in the beef processing industry.

Mr. Connor

There are no interruptions about Goodman.

The Taoiseach

The remaining cases relate to private citizens and companies and I am not at liberty to make them public because of client confidentiality.

Let me sum up the fundamental points——

Mr. Lenihan

We need a conflicts book, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. Cowen

He went, the Taoiseach's man saw the files and stayed.

The Taoiseach

This is in contrast to the approach of some speakers to the debate last week, where accusations of misleading the Dáil have been made quite freely. May I make it clear that, just as I accepted at all times the bona fides of Mr. Whelehan in his handling of this matter, I also regard the former Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, as a person of great integrity and I believe that he too acted with propriety during this controversy.

In the recent debate on this matter, Fianna Fáil speakers tended to present the fall of the last Government as due entirely to the problems in the Attorney General's office and to the disclosure or otherwise of information about these. That is an inaccurate version of history. The last Government fell because of a breakdown of trust between two parties, which had developed over several months, on a wide range of issues, and in particular on making a judicial appointment after Labour Ministers had left the Cabinet room. The problems in the office of the Attorney General were just the last straw.

An Ceann Comhairle

The time available to the Taoiseach is now exhausted. Will the House indicate if it wishes to hear the remainder of his speech?

Mr. Cowen

We need an anaesthetic: it is too painful.

Contrast that with the way the beef tribunal was hushed up by Fianna Fáil last August.

And, pray tell, what has that to do with this issue?

Arrangements are in train for the involvement of the Top Level Appointments Committee in the filling of relevant senior legal vacancies.

Mr. O'Dea

What about Judicial vacancies?

The Taoiseach

The assistant secretary who is on loan from the Department of Justice and acts as administrator to the office of the Attorney General continues to provide a very effective service in that position, pending the appointment of a head of administration within the next six months. In addition, the office has moved to fill additional posts at the legal assistant and senior draftsman grades and to open eligibility to the latter to solicitors as well as barristers. Advertisements for senior draftsman were placed last week in the national press by the Civil Service Commission.

The lack of up-to-date indexes to the statutes is something which all of us as legislators find unsatisfactory. It has also drawn adverse comment from the legal and business professions generally, in that the absence of adequate indexes makes it difficult to know what is the current up-to-date position of statute law. The Attorney General has put in hand steps to rectify this situation as quickly as possible. The potential use of information technology in assisting in the compilation of up-to-date indexes of the Acts and Statutory Instruments is the subject of active investigation and a steering group has been established to progress it.

The office needed reorganisation for several reasons, but no matter what procedures are put in place, if a person in an office chooses for whatever reason to defer an acknowledgement or reply to a letter, information technology is of limited help. However, the measures will reduce that possibility and should identify any such cases arising.

In all of this affair we must of course keep to the forefront of our minds the trauma caused to the victims of the sexual abuses concerned. The publicity surrounding the matter has imposed intolerable pressure on the victims. The delay in replying to their solicitors' letters is not justifiable in any way and I apologise unreservedly for this error.

The delay has not prejudiced the potential legal proceedings by the victims in the Smyth case. The possible claim for compensation by the victims is now being dealt with by the Attorney General in the normal way with the assistance of two legal assistants, both of them experienced and qualified barristers within the office of the Attorney General. My understanding is that actual legal proceedings have not been issued by the solicitors involved at any stage since 10 November when they issued a seven day notice in regard to such proceedings.

The Fr. Brendan Smyth case caused understandable public outrage about the sexual abuse of children, and widespread sympathy for the victims of such heinous criminal behaviour. The prolonged debate about the delay in dealing with the extradition warrants raised public awareness of the extent of such abuse and its concealment in our society. We learned from first hand accounts, on television and in our newspapers, of the prolonged trauma sexual abuse can cause for the victims.

Let there be no doubt about the resolve of the Government to take whatever measures are necessary to protect children, in so far as is humanly possible, from abuse and neglect. This year an additional £10 million has been set aside for the development of further services to assist children and families in need. Coming on top of investments of the same scale in the previous two years, the availability of this funding will facilitate the commencement before the end of 1995 of further sections of the Child Care Act. In particular, those key provisions will greatly strengthen the powers of the health boards, the Garda and the courts to intervene on behalf of children who are in need of care and protection.

The Government will be pressing ahead with arrangements for the implementation of the Child Care Act in its entirety during 1996. We are determined that this objective will be achieved and that before the end of next year a comprehensive framework will be in place for the care and protection of vulnerable children. We will actively monitor progress in building up our child welfare services and, if further initiatives are called for, we will not hesitate to take the necessary action.

I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to the Tánaiste, the Minister for Social Welfare——

Mr. D. Ahern

I would say you do.

The Taoiseach

——my ministerial colleagues and the members of our three parties for the——

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

As I was saying, I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to the Tánaiste, the Minister for Social Welfare and all the members of our three parties for the support they have given me in what has been a demanding week.

Let us hear the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

When under a Progressive Democrat Minister the early resignation of an assistant secretary in the then Department of Industry and Commerce, Mr. Ted O'Reilly, was obtained it was done in such a botched way that the official concerned was able to get substantial damages and costs from the State.

Mr. Molloy

Rubbish.

Historians, journalists and Opposition politicians can pick over every item of what was said and done in the past week. They can look for something to criticise and I am sure they will find something. This was a human exercise undertaken by fallible human beings but it was an exercise which resulted in a successful and united outcome. That, as far as I am concerned, is what counts.

Mr. B. Ahern

The Taoiseach in this House on 15 November 1994 as Leader of the Opposition replied to the then Taoiseach who had outlined how he proposed to deal with issues in the Attorney General's office in the immediate future by announcing that he had set up the committee of three wise men who would report back. He had set out how we would deal with sex abuse cases in the future. The Taoiseach's reply which appears at column 39 of the Official Report of 15 November 1994 was:

The Taoiseach announced a major reorganisation of the office of the Attorney General. As we all know, in business parlance an announcement of a reorganisation of a company usually means that some people will lose their jobs or will be moved to other positions. This is another example of the Government apparently trying to hide behind officials.... This is another case of evasion of responsibility, by shoving the matter into the hands of officials....

The Taoiseach

That is a misquotation. On a point of order, Sir, that is not a sequential quotation. The Deputy should quote in full.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Ahern is not quoting me accurately. I have the exact quotation here. I ask Deputy Ahern if he will quote me in context, not to pretend the remarks go directly with——

Mr. B. Ahern

I would quote the Taoiseach's entire speech if I had the time. The quotation continues:

... who will now probably be moved and it will be implied that they are truly responsible. That is not acceptable.

The Taoiseach

That is a misquotation, I did not say that. I have the quotation here, column 39.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us hear the Deputy in possession, please.

Mr. B. Ahern

I do not have the time to quote every line from the Taoiseach's speech. I would like to quote every line.

The Taoiseach

Quote it in full if you are going to quote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order please, let us hear the Deputy in possession without further interruptions from all sides of the House.

Mr. Carey

These are selective quotations by Deputy Ahern.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bertie Ahern without further interruption, please.

Mr. B. Ahern

I am glad the Taoiseach gets excited about that. What he said throughout that speech was that moving an official was no use to him, that the removal of Mr. Russell was no use to him, that he wanted to get the people responsible. The Taoiseach succeeded: he got the Attorney General and the entire Government. The Taoiseach, whether he likes it or not, will have to live with that quotation for the rest of his life.

The Taoiseach

I did not say those things. Check the record.

Mr. B. Ahern

I am glad to see the Taoiseach and the Government have at last taken action with regard to matters in the Attorney General's Office and put in place the procedures recommended by the review committee and approved by us last November. It is not before its time.

Let me make it abundantly clear that personnel arrangements are secondary to the issues of this affair. What has been uncovered recently betrays an inept and bungling Administration headed by a trio of furtive leaders who have been hiding important facts from the public gaze for the last week. Worse still, we have an Administration which did not address the needs and concerns of the victims' families as a priority. The great changes proposed by the review group and the various procedures mentioned by the Taoiseach are cold comfort to the family of the victims.

Last November and December we had the crocodile tears of persons who are now in Government. The entire manual of criticism was then flung at the last Administration and the finger of accusation was pointed angrily at the former Taoiseach because he was in charge of the Attorney General's Office, because he did not disclose the proper information to the Dáil, correspondence was not passed up the line and he did not answer a question he was not asked. No matter how Deputy John Bruton squirms, or how he protests that all this is entirely different, the public know that he is condemned by his own words and that his Government colleagues are pinned by the daggers of their own previous allegations.

It was fine to preach about principles when they were on the Opposition Benches but now we all see, and the public see, that Fine Gael's principles are moveable feasts, Labour's principles are essentially self-preservation and the Democratic Left principles are as serious as their concern for old age pensioners. The white robes of the former Opposition angels are tattered, torn and tarnished.

A Deputy

What about the Deputy's principles?

Mr. B. Ahern

The report of the socalled three wise men stated that there was no internal system of follow-up on cases in the Attorney General's office and proposed that a new head of administration would allocate work and that all important and sensitive cases, including extradition cases and cases involving minors, would be brought to the immediate attention of the Attorney General. It also recommended the implementation of an electronic mail system to improve communications within the office with the State Solicitor's office and with other Government Departments. What happened to those recommendations?

The Taoiseach

They were implemented.

Mr. B. Ahern

Where were they implemented and, if not, why wait so long? Who is finally responsible? Those are questions the Taoiseach must answer not just for the future but about what happened for the past six months. It was clear last December that the Attorney General's office was under great pressure. The office workload had doubled from 1984, yet the staff had remained virtually static from 1986. It is hardly right and proper for anyone to lay the blame on civil servants. There was a real build up of pressure on everybody working there and great credit is due to those who still work there. I agree with the Taoiseach on that.

When the new Government took office it was abundantly clear that immediate action should be taken to ensure that the Smyth file was dealt with carefully and expeditiously. This is what the public wanted and what the victims and families wanted. This is what the former Opposition demanded daily. People were justifiably annoyed that there had been a seven month delay with the extradition case. Disbelief was expressed that a process as sensitive and potentially complicated as extradition could ever be delayed so long. Responsibility was laid firmly at Deputy Reynolds's door. It was said that he was responsible and it was alleged that he was guilty. Now that we have had a six month delay from this Government who is responsible? Where are the responsible ones?

The state of disorganisation in the Attorney General's office brought down the last Government. This Government took office on the solemn understanding that it would carry through a reorganisation already planned by their predecessors in the wake of the Fr. Brendan Smyth case. The programme for A Government of Renewal states:

It will be a priority of the Government to re-establish confidence in the office of the Attorney General to ensure that there is no breakdown in future.

Within six months there is another serious breakdown, also related to the Brendan Smyth case. The Government took full responsibility in its programme for re-establishing confidence and ensuring that there would be no breakdown, but six months later it has denied all responsibility for the further breakdown and the failure to re-establish confidence. No Minister is responsible. No Taoiseach is responsible. It is all the fault of one poor civil servant.

After what happened last autumn one would have expected that all unfinished business, every letter relating to the affair, would have received priority and follow-through to ensure that further mistakes were not made. What happened defies belief. The letter of January shows that the system was not working as it should have. The letter from the family of victims was apparently brought — in some form — to the attention of the Attorney General. He simply assumed thereafter, without checking further, that it was being dealt with. The Tánaiste told us solemnly in this House on 16 November last that the key issue throughout this episode has been accountability, the right of the public to secure adequate explanation, and the responsibility of the holders of high office to take responsibility for their actions. Where stands accountability and collective responsibility today? Are we to understand that one Attorney General was or should have been fully accountable for the delay in handling a child abuse case which was never drawn to his attention and in regard to which any explanations offered by the Taoiseach of the day were not good enough, and that another Attorney General who was aware at an early stage of a letter seeking compensation from the State for that delay is not and should not be accountable for the failure to deal with the letter until prompted by a parliamentary question by Deputy O'Donnell? I agree with the Taoiseach that we owe our thanks to Deputy O'Donnell for her tenacity in pursuing the case. Are we to accept that the Government and the Taoiseach have no responsibility for the resurrection of the whole sorry saga?

The Taoiseach stated on 15 November that the seven months' delay in a case like this represented a personal failure on the part of the former Attorney General, even though he had not seen the file. During the same speech he commented further that it was another case of evasion of responsibility by shoving the matter into the hands of officials. Today the Taoiseach is going against what he said on that occasion — he is shafting a civil servant to save himself. What was not acceptable then is acceptable now, and the Taoiseach is engaged in the kind of evasion of responsibility he condemned during the crisis that brought him to office. The Taoiseach's explanations in this instance are unsatisfactory, and the public know it. The media forced the Taoiseach to reveal late what he should have revealed early. This is what he described last autumn as truth by instalments. It would be fitting if the Taoiseach spent more time answering our questions fully in this House than ringing RTE to try to influence what emerges on the other side.

Any barrister who becomes Attorney General will have dealt with many legal cases previously. However, this Government came to office on the basis of one legal case, and it would be reasonable to expect, on that matter at least, it would be possible for the State's primary law officer to be free to act. This was not the case. The Attorney General's capacity to act was heavily compromised and he could not deal with the most important and sensitive file in his office or, indeed, with other issues of major public importance, nor could he deal with the position of the most senior official in his Department. There is no provision in the Constitution which allows the Attorney General to abdicate a substantial portion of his duties. That conflict of interest has been a certainty since this Government came to office and could have been disclosed before it was forced out of the Taoiseach by the media. This cover up has led to the present crisis.

It must be remembered that this controversy centres on the failure of the Attorney General to deal effectively with the most sensitive file in his office and to ensure that at the very least an acknowledgement would be issued to a letter sent six months ago. It must be realised that the failure to deal with this file was a failure to acknowledge the hurt of the people whose lives were destroyed by a child-molesting cleric.

I now turn to a relevant and related point. It is difficult to understand why the Attorney General did not inform the Select Committee on Security and Legislation of this ambivalent position. I listened to the Taoiseach today and I am still less than convinced. A person of his experience coming into the eye of a political storm would surely have thought it proper, right and fitting that a committee which considered official A as a key witness should know that Mr. Dermot Gleeeson was his legal adviser or that someone — the Taoiseach who is in charge of the Attorney General's office, the Tánaiste, or the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa — should have informed it of that fact. Today's bout of activity is an attempted smokescreen, to cover the failure of the Attorney General to act for six months, and the Taoiseach's mishandling of the situation for all that period. The Taoiseach had many opportunities to disclose the Attorney General's conflict of interest. It could have been disclosed in reply to Deputy Harney's question of 25 January in the House on the Attorney General's appointment, at the time of the recent controversy over the European Union fine, in February when independent legal advice was sought on the matter, or three weeks ago when Deputy O'Donnell raised the first question on the issue. Those who knew remained silent — and complicit.

The Taoiseach's judgment must be called into question because he appointed an Attorney General whose hands were tied with regard to the most sensitive file in his office. Nobody doubts the Attorney General's abilities, but since he has to absent himself from adjudicating on the Smyth file, which effectively brought this Government to office, his election was unwise. If the Taoiseach believed that the Attorney General could deal effectively with the Smyth file without involving official A, that was very foolish. The Tánaiste has the effrontery to tell the people that the Government was correct not to make public the Attorney General's potential conflict of interest when it was first made known to him. He said that there was no requirement whatsoever to inform the public. What has happened to the famous virtues of openness, transparency and accountability? They have been replaced by deceit, secrecy and passing the buck. The air is indeed thin on the high moral ground. The public certainly had a right to know that the new Attorney General would be prevented from dealing with the Brendan Smyth file or from exercising full authority over his office because he had been advising the senior official, Mr. Matt Russell, in a private capacity, and it does not matter whether that involved one consultation or 50. The fact that he had a lawyer-client relationship with the senior legal adviser who heads his office has led to the present bizarre situation where the Taoiseach has had to take over certain aspects of running the Attorney General's office.

A number of other questions arise from the lawyer-client relationship. Mr. Gleeson was appointed by the Taoiseach in October as a member of the Fine Gael deputation to the Forum, thus establishing a formal link with the party. By early December he was an adviser to Deputy Bruton and Mr. Russell. His closeness to the Taoiseach is also shown by the fact that political discussions were held in his house by Deputies Spring and Bruton. Did a private conversation with Deputy Bruton influence his outburst on radio on Sunday 3 December 1994 in which he lacerated the then Attorney General.

In his contribution here on 6 December Deputy Bruton took up the defence of official A — things are a little different today — and pointed out that he was not the only person who was aware of the warrants, that the Department of Justice and the Chief State Solicitor's office must also have been aware of the existence of that warrant. How did Deputy Bruton know that the Chief State Solicitor's office was involved, something he did not know when he spoke in the House on 16 November? In his RTE interview on 4 December Deputy Bruton said that on the previous Friday he had written to Deputy Spring "putting before him all the information that I have". Did that include information Deputy Bruton had from inside the Attorney General's office? If true, is it not ironic coming from a Taoiseach who now spends his time trying to hunt down the source of Government leaks? We are entitled to ask on what date did the current Attorney General, as a lawyer in private practice, start acting for Mr. Russell. When did he have his first discussion with Mr. Russell about that matter? Will the Taoiseach outline to the House all the discussions he had with Mr. Gleeson about the Brendan Smyth case up to 15 December 1994, a period not covered by any constitutional requirement or convention of secrecy? It is to us, and the public, of the utmost importance that these matters be clarified by the Taoiseach. We also need to know what part Mr. Gleeson played in this affair so that we can determine how far he was incapacitated.

It will be recalled that he, as Attorney General, refused to supply certain information to the Dáil committee. If the Attorney General was precluded from acting in the Brendan Smyth case by reason of conflict of interest and was unable to deal with correspondence, how was he able to take a decision on whether that documentation should or should not be supplied to the Dáil committee? What caused this whole controversy to erupt again was the sickening realisation that we have a Government practising double standards.

The burning, passionate concern with the rights of victims of a paedophile priest, which was so evident last November, would appeal today to have been so much play-acting, the cynicism of so many. How often did Deputy Bruton berate us from the Opposition benches for allegedly blaming civil servants? Yet that is precisely what he is attempting to do, to shift the blame. In effect, among all the shouting, the Taoiseach is asking credit for doing that. Has he not been guilty of the same concealment of information, the same economy with the truth, of which he accused his predecessor, though his predecessor was cleared by the committee of that because he had not got the information? Failing to volunteer information to this House, which the Taoiseach had in his possession, because he was not asked the question was surely a little odd.

Deputy Bruton said on 6 December last: "We stand to be judged by the people for the way we conduct ourselves under pressure". The rainbow coalition has miserably failed its own test of political correctness. Its members believe in their hearts that moral principles are only for use as weapons against Fianna Fáil, not as a guide in their own conduct. They are not open with the people and they do not wish to be accountable to the people. The clear pane of glass has been shattered.

There is little point in the Government trying to make a big deal of the Attorney General's office being questioned and made amenable under various Bills. I noticed in some of the press cuttings that the compellability of witnesses Bill is being thrown out. The Bill was already on the stocks, the work on it had been completed. What we need in this House is a compellability of Ministers and Taoisigh Bill to force them to speak the truth in this House, something the Taoiseach has failed to do.

Why was no action taken for six months? The Taoiseach was responsible and he accepted responsibility. It is his fault. He won the crown by asking for Albert Reynolds's head and now he must look to his own. By looking for a senior civil servant's head instead, he and his Government are in effect admitting——

Mr. B. Ahern

I would like the Taoiseach to listen to this point because I would like his answer to it later. By looking for a civil servant's head the Taoiseach and his Government are effectively admitting that the Attorney General of the day is not responsible for administrative inefficiency or other oversights in his office and that, therefore, the whole basis on which the last Government was brought down is null and void. The Government has contradicted its own case for the past six months.

What is needed is a total overhaul of the entire fabric of the law and the institutions connected with Government. What we have heard of so far is just tinkering at the edges of the institutions we have inherited, the Attorney General's office, the office of the Chief State Solicitor and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Why are they separate? They should be considered as one in the context of greatly changed times and needs. Perhaps the time has come for an elected representative to hold the position of Attorney General, as happened in the past. Being a Member of the House the Attorney General would be, at all times, answerable directly to us and, being a politician, he or she would have to declare any conflicts of interest. This is the sort of fundamental appraisal and reform that should have been undertaken.

This Government has lost any legitimacy it might initially have been thought to possess. There are grave doubts about the quality of the Taoiseach's leadership. In one sense what happened is more serious because the Government has no excuse this time for failing to realise the sensitivity of the matter. Yet it did not do anything about it. If the same standards were applied today as were applied last November and December this Government and this Taoiseach would not survive one day longer. What was principle in Opposition has become expediency in office. What we have in this Government are three leaders practising expediency. This is a Government of double standards founded on hypocrisy. The sneers of January have been replaced by the fears of May and the electorate is already waiting for the Taoiseach. In due course the people will have their say on his handling of this shabby affair and in our view he bungled. He bungled the matter again today and the only credit the Taoiseach can claim is that he has got his third head and he will be looking for more.

I am afraid the Taoiseach failed miserably. He failed in every aspect of this case. It is a sad day for this House when the Taoiseach is applauded by his backbenchers for saying that he is the first Taoiseach who has got rid of a senior civil servant and he expects the people to respect that. The Taoiseach, the Government and those who support them should be ashamed of themselves.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate, in particular to express my support for the careful and considered way in which the Taoiseach has approached this whole matter. In all the controversy that has surrounded the issue we are discussing today, it is too easy to forget that there is a family at the centre of the matter. That family has suffered a great deal and they deserve our respect for the courage they have shown. It is, or ought to be, a matter of shame that they have been treated with insensitivity and discourtesy at the hands of the Irish State. It is not for me or anyone else here to prejudge any legal issues that would be involved in a claim by any individual against the State but I join the Taoiseach in expressing regret at the insensitivity shown to that brave family.

This House is entitled to the answers that the Taoiseach supplied today and is entitled to the reassurance that the Taoiseach and the Government are prepared to take firm action on matters of this kind. I know it is a source of frustration of Members, as indeed it is to members of the Government, that the matter has required careful handling in a discreet and confidential way to bring it to a conclusion. I hope and believe, however, that Members who are prepared to examine the whole controversy objectively will come to accept that there were very good reasons for proceeding with care even if that meant that information we were anxious to put before the House was inevitably delayed. Some commentators and several Opposition Members have sought to compare the events of the past few days with the events that resulted in Labour's resignation from the Government towards the end of last year. I believe those comparisons are superficial, they are facile and are essentially untrue.

Mr. Spring

In that case, information was withheld because it was politically expedient to do so and there is no evidence that those who withheld ever had any intention of releasing it. In this case information was withheld because it was essential for the operation of the principle of natural justice and the promise to keep the Dáil as fully informed as possible has been honoured in full at the earliest possible moment. In the previous case withholding of information for reasons of political expediency was part of a pattern of events which placed trust at a very low discount. In this case the Taoiseach has endeavoured, within the constraints imposed on him, to recognise that trust must attract a high premium. Anyone who lived through the period of the fall of the last Government, as I did, knows only too well that the comparisons that some are attempting to draw are indeed spurious. The present controversy derives from the fact that members of the Government have tried to approach the issues involved in an honourable, practical and reasoned way. If honour and reason had characterised some of the events of late last year that Government might never, in fact, have fallen as it did.

Mr. Dempsey

The Tánaiste can say that again.

Mr. Spring

I take this opportunity also to place on record my appreciation of the honourable way in which the Attorney General has behaved. Ireland is well served to have a person of such character and ability in its service. The ethical considerations which motivate him make him more valuable to Ireland and not less. We can draw strength and confidence from the fact that one of the most sensitive posts in the land is occupied by a person of unimpeachable integrity and whose management skills are admirably suited to any difficult task. No senior lawyer in this land could approach public office without weighing up the ethical constraints which arise from his or her previous experience. To describe a previously successful professional life as a source of dangerous compromise is to miss the point. I am satisfied the Attorney General has served this State well and I hope he goes on doing so for many years.

It is time to look to the future. The outcome announced today by the Taoiseach is evidence that we can learn from the mistakes of the past and also that when firm and honourable action is necessary this Government will not be found wanting. If this controversy has highlighted anything it is that in matters which require sensitivity we may have to find new ways of ensuring the House gets all the information to which it is entitled.

It is a matter of regret that, for instance, Members who had legitimate questions to ask did not in the first instance seek private briefings or reassurance. They might reflect on whether they would have better served the interests of the family involved in this issue had they sought to make progress on their behalf by a direct approach to the Taoiseach. Such a direct approach in the first instance would not have precluded the opportunities for a transparent approach to the problems involved and would not have changed the approach taken by the Taoiseach which has culminated in his statement here today.

Mr. Martin

Everything behind closed doors.

Mr. Spring

It might, however, have minimised the pain of the family involved who have seen their torment debated several times in this House. There are always people willing to make capital out of situations like this.

Mr. Spring

The great majority of Deputies, however, wanted no more than to be reassured that information would not be withheld for a moment longer than necessary.

In general terms, I am satisfied that any fair-minded person who follows this debate will readily conclude that the Government and, in particular, the Taoiseach has handled a difficult situation firmly and fairly. That is what the House has a right to expect and that is what has happened. The events of recent months ought to have taught us many lessons. Those who have a genuine commitment to transparency and who regard it as essential to the functioning of our democracy ought to be assured that transparency is at the top of the Government's agenda.

For our part in Government, we repeat the commitment which underpins the Programme for a Government of Renewal to try to ensure always that no matter how difficult the issue we will seek to approach it in as open a way as possible. As the Taoiseach said, no one can claim that every aspect of this case has been handled as everyone would wish but it has been approached in good faith and with the intention of securing a result that serves the interests of justice and transparency. I hope this House will accept that there was no breach of faith and no intention to do so in that commitment. We should move on and apply the lessons we have learned.

Miss Harney

The Taoiseach's attitude to this affair, particularly today, reminds me of the political equivalent of Albert Pierpoint — with one touch of the lever the Taoiseach wants to remove his political responsibility into oblivion with the corpse of Matthew Russell. I was not going to mention the family concerned but following the Tánaiste's intervention I have to say I met them last night and they said they believed that "John Bruton, Dick Spring and Proinsias De Rossa have used them to get to where they are now". Those are their words, not mine. I did not intend to mention that and I do so reluctantly——

Mr. Taylor

Does the Deputy have their permission?

Mr. Currie

That is a disgraceful thing to say.

Miss Harney

——but after what the Tánaiste said it would be irresponsible of me not to highlight this fact. In accusing the Opposition of causing the problem the Tánaiste said we should have sought a private briefing; that is not acceptable, this is a democracy and in a democracy the Executive is accountable to the Dáil and, through it, to the public. We do not want justice behind closed doors.

The Taoiseach took credit for getting rid of a public servant whom he bought off with a golden handshake of approximately £120,000. He calls this accountability.

Miss Harney

I say to Deputy Byrne that this marks a big change since 6 December when his party leader said that criminal proceedings should be brought against the person responsible. Why has there been a change? The answer is that Deputies De Rossa and Bruton are in Government.

Mr. Spring

The Deputy tried hard.

Miss Harney

I have tried to be fair in this matter. When the family concerned had contacted me on 2 May I asked my colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, to table a question to the Minister for Justice. In the answer we were told nothing about the events which have now come to light because of the efforts of a hardworking journalist and because of expediency.

Last Tuesday afternoon the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, was able to resort to due process but by Tuesday evening this had gone out the door. On Wednesday morning he was able to tell us that the reason the question was not answered was it was not asked. There is no point in the Taoiseach saying that the position is not the same as it was when he had this to say about Deputy Reynolds on 16 November at columns 338 and 344 of the Official Report:

"He knew, when he rose in this House, that what he was giving here yesterday was not a full explanation. Yet he went ahead .... We need reform to ensure that when the answers to questions asked in the House are not adequate the Cheann Comhairle can demand that a further answer be given. Only by that change will it be possible for us to ensure that the Government of the day is truly accountable".

On 17 November, at column 477 of the Official Report, he said:

The lesson is that truth should not come out in instalments: the truth, the whole truth should be given on the first day and let the cards fall as they will after that. That is a good lesson for all of us who aspire to high office. It does not matter at the end of day so long as at the earliest opportunity one has told the truth. Let others manage the news once the truth is already on the table.

I am afraid it was management of the news that dictated the way the Taoiseach behaved during the past week.

I have huge personal regard for the Taoiseach. People can laugh but that is a fact. I was away last week and when I heard about what had happened I was genuinely surprised.

Mr. Durkan

We were surprised by what we saw as well.

Miss Harney

Having regard to the speech I heard today, the justification put forward last week and all that has flowed from it, I find it hard to believe I am listening to the Taoiseach. I had expected him to tell us that he did not behave correctly last Tuesday, that he should have answered the questions; instead, he put forward a justification and a defence, attacked everyone else and dragged in matters which were irrelevant. I will not go down that road; I will approach this matter from the point of view of the victims and public accountability. I set no higher standards for the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare than the standards they set for themselves.

Mr. Currie

The Deputy has breached her own.

Miss Harney

The Minister for Social Welfare, Proinsias De Rossa, said at column 53 of the Official Report of 15 November 1994:

What message does this convey to the unfortunate victims of Fr. Smyth, many of whom are still attempting to cope with the trauma of their ordeal? What message does this cavalier attitude convey about the degree of seriousness with which the constitutional office of Attorney General regards the crime of sexual abuse of children?

What are the victims to think when the official at the centre of the controversy was still handling correspondence relating to this matter on 8 May? We were told that the Attorney General would deal with every file involving child sexual abuse. Yet, a letter received on 10 January was still on Official A's desk on 8 May. What message does this convey?

At column 59 the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa said: "Any new Government must learn the lessons of the past two years and avoid repeating the mistakes". Surely the first lesson would be that the official at the centre of the controversy, who did not seem to understand the nature of paedophilia, should not have been still dealing with this case on 8 May. I find that incredible, as, I think, will most people. The public is bewildered that what is called the Smyth affair is back on the agenda of the Dáil, at the forefront of political debate. Many people wish it had gone away. As the Tánaiste said, the key issue throughout this episode is one of accountability, the right of the public to secure adequate explanations and responsibility of the holders of high office for their actions — I could not say it better.

What should have happened? The committee should have been told about the conflict of interest. I emphasise, as I did on 25 January, that Dermot Gleeson is a man for whom we have great regard. He is a man of enormous ability, a dedicated and hardworking individual but he has been badly compromised. The Taoiseach informed the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare of the conflict in the Smyth case, but why was Dermot Gleeson dealing with the file and with the committee? If, as the Taoiseach said, independent lawyers will deal with any matter in which the Attorney General could remotely have a conflict of interest, surely the committee that inquired into what went wrong should not have dealt with Dermot Gleeson, Attorney General. He should have had nothing to do with that matter.

In his speech the Taoiseach said: "All barristers, especially the Attorney General, who is the head of the profession, are required to follow the most strict rules requiring them not to disclose clients' business". He went on to say: "The obligation of a barrister to reveal such potential conflict of interest, only comes into play when the conflict actually arises or if he reasonably foresees that it will arise." I believe that the conflict arose during the time the committee was making its inquiry. The Taoiseach said that the public was told only when it was absolutely necessary. It was only when the public was going to be told through a journalist that the Taoiseach told it.

Why did the Taoiseach not assume the necessary powers before last Tuesday night? Why did he not take those powers last December or January? If he had done so, he would have had to tell the House. If the journalist had not found out about the conflict of interest, in view of the fact that the committee was not told and the Taoiseach did not take the powers until last Tuesday night, I believe that we would never have known. Why did the Taoiseach not take those powers when Deputy O'Donnell put down the question on 5 May, which was answered on 11 May? The Deputy was interviewed on "Morning Ireland" on 12 May. Why did the Taoiseach not take the powers then? Why did he take them only on 23 May when the journalist intended to expose the conflict of interest? Those questions must be answered.

The Attorney General did not appear before the committee. The Taoiseach said that he expressed the view that to appear before the sub-committee would be pointless. Perhaps the committee had valid questions to ask him, but obviously the Attorney General could not have appeared before it given his professional relationship with Mr. Russell. The committee was entitled to know about that and to decide whether his appearance would be pointless.

We have been told about a conflicts book in the Attorney General's office — there should be a conflicts book in many offices — but that is no assurance to the public. The conflicts book did not work in this case because the only people handling the Smyth file were Mr. Russell and the Attorney General. A conflicts book is useless in that kind of scenario.

In his speech the Taoiseach complimented Mr. Fitzsimons. He seems to adopt a different attitude now from that adopted a few months ago. I remember listening to the Sunday news on RTE on 3 December in which Mr. Fitzsimons was castigated. I was astonished and in a subsequent conversation with the Taoiseach told him I did not agree with what he said because Eoghan Fitzsimons is an honourable man. Today, however, the Taoiseach said that Mr. Fitzsimons acted with propriety during the whole controversy.

The Taoiseach said in his speech: "In the light of the limits on time for Dáil questions, I would have to advise this House that it would not be wise to start placing Ministers under a general obligation to anticipate every conceivable supplementary". That is not the attitude adopted by the Taoiseach last November and December. Let us be consistent. We cannot have one set of rules for Fianna Fáil Taoisigh and Attorneys General and a different set of rules for others. There must be accountability and it is through this House, in a parliamentary democracy, that we ensure accountability. The Taoiseach promised a review of Dáil questions and a review of the procedure.

The Programme for Government refers to a Government that must belong to the people. The Taoiseach said that the relationship between Government and the people it serves has been damaged by a lack of openness, that that relationship must be renewed and so on. He spoke about the need to reform institutions at national and local level to provide service, accountability, transparency and freedom of information. He said that one way he would do that was by making the Executive fully accountable to the Legislature. He said he would ensure that various organs of the State and the holders of high office are more answerable and accountable to the Legislature. What happened in that regard? We are promised the same thing today.

The Taoiseach said that anybody who is senior at the Bar and becomes Attorney General would have conflicts of interest. They would have dealt with hit and run cases, but no Attorney General was in a position where cases were evident the day they were appointed. I ask the Taoiseach to quote precedent. If precedents exist we would have been told. Is there a precedent for the kind of conflict that arises in ten major cases, serious fundamental cases against the State?

The Taoiseach said he had to involve himself in due process. I do not believe there is a conflict between due process and being fair to an individual and giving the facts to this House. The committee should have been told about the conflict between the Attorney General and official A, Mr. Russell. The Taoiseach should have assumed the powers he assumed on 23 May last December when he took office. The Attorney General should not have dealt with the matter when it was before a committee of inquiry of this House.

Last week the Taoiseach said he did not answer the question because Deputy O'Donnell and others had not asked it and that he could not do the Opposition's job for it. That is a very weak response from a Taoiseach who said that the truth must not come out in instalments. We must learn lessons from this case and throwing money at a problem does not solve it. An additional £800,000 was allocated to the Attorney General's office this year. Despite making available PCs, strategic management plans, consultants and the three wise men, despite the fact that a Government fell, a President of the High Court was forced to resign and the Government took office on the basis of what happened in the Smyth case, we have not learned the lessons which the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, said in this House on 15 November last we should learn. Let us hope we learn the lessons now.

If somebody is involved in a controversy and errs, as official A did, they should not be allowed to continue handling the case. There should have been procedures in place to ensure that did not happen. It is not acceptable that an official who erred, whose resignation the Taoiseach felt compelled to seek, is given a golden handshake — that happened in a few other instances recently. What signal does that give to the victims of crime in society? The victims of serious crime, including Fr. Smyth's victims receive nothing for their pain and suffering, but those whom we want to get rid of to save our own political bacon receive golden handshakes. The Taoiseach had to do a deal, he bought off the official and he thinks the chapter is closed — he said at the beginning of his speech that he set out with three motives and is now happy it is all behind us. I do not believe it is all behind us. We have not learned the fundamental lessons of last year.

I will put questions to the Taoiseach later but I want him to tell me in particular why he did not take on the powers in regard to personnel functions in the Attorney General's office until late last Tuesday evening. What was the reason for not fully answering Deputy O'Donnell's question? If that question had not been put down, if the family involved had not made contact with us, if it was not for the resilience of the family, a family whose trust in society, in the institutions of State and Church have been totally and utterly betrayed, we would never have known about the Fr. Smyth case. For more than 30 years that man was a perpetrator of the most awful crimes against children in Ireland and other countries, including America. If it had not been for Deputy O'Donnell's question we would not have the facts we now have and Mr. Russell would probably be still in situ in the Attorney General's office, handling letters and these types of cases. Obviously there was no intention to get rid of him. That is disappointing from a Taoiseach who promised so much.

When the Taoiseach took office he spoke of transparency comparable with a pane of glass, but the glass is very shattered now. The glaziers are probably on their way to fit a new pane because that is what is required. The Taoiseach promised so much in terms of accountability, and I believe he intended to deliver, but something went wrong along the way. The attitude of the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, earlier in the House when he tried to rubbish the Opposition and accuse me of playing games with the victims reminded me of the attitude he adopted to the famous Masri file he looked at, and saw nothing wrong with either. Then there was the silence of Deputy De Rossa. Sometimes there are those who are so blind that they never get a chance to see the obvious. It is not acceptable that a different attitude, a different set of standards is applying. That has left the public bewildered.

I hope we learn lessons from all of this and that from today the Fr. Smyth saga can be put behind us. Because of the serious wrong done to the family in question, the Taoiseach should meet them as a matter of courtesy in the first instance. That would be appreciated. I know he apologised to them in his contribution and that will be welcomed and understood but he should meet with them as they are genuinely bewlidered. They wonder if somebody in the Attorney General's office has something against them or if they are being used. I am not withdrawing what I said earlier, I did not mean to say it but I said it because of the attitude adopted by the Tánaiste.

The Tánaiste

The Deputy was wrong.

Miss Harney

That family has been deeply hurt. They have suffered enormous pain over many years with four of its members being victims of Fr. Smyth. They suffered a great injustice. Two members of the family are as young as 12 and 14 years. That ordinary family from west Belfast feel wronged and this State has done them a great injustice.

The manner in which we dealt with this matter in the House last week and the type of defence put up by the Taoiseach today is not transparent or open and does not display public accountability. Getting rid of Matthew Russell at the eleventh hour, calling him back from his holiday or whatever to save the bacon of those responsible, the three party Leaders of this Government, is not acceptable. The birth of this Government was based on the Fr. Smyth matter. If it could throw that file aside, forget about all of this as soon as it came to power, the whole question of judgment, sincerity and the bona fides of its Leaders must be called into question. I am sure there are many others who are of the same opinion. When my party put down these questions initially and I was contacted I genuinely thought I would hear that the matter was delayed in the Chief State Solicitor's office. I did not know that this trail would have been the one uncovered, if I had been told so I would not have believed it. If somebody had told me that Matthew Russell was still handling this case——

The Taoiseach

He was not.

Miss Harney

——and that there was a conflict between the Attorney General and Matthew Russell on this matter I would not have believed it. He was still opening the post and taking the letters. Are there any other new child sexual abuse cases? Who handed Mr. Russell the letters? He was obviously still handling the matter. There were no checks or balances, no accountability. The Taoiseach when in Opposition said in this House on 16 November that ultimately the Taoiseach is responsible for the office of the Attorney General. I believe the Taoiseach has not exercised his responsibility in this matter. The very issue that gave birth to this Government is the one on which it has let down many people. The Taoiseach has not handled this matter well or shown good judgment. It is a total mess and today's episode, rather then detracting from it, merely compounds the issue.

Six months later.

Proinsias De Rossa

Some Opposition Deputies and a number of commentators have tried to suggest that what happened over the past few weeks constituted a repeat of the events of last November. These comparisons simply do not stand up to scrutiny. What was involved last year was the failure of the office of the Attorney General to act on legitimate warrants for the extradition of Fr. Brendan Smyth to Northern Ireland as a result of which this habitual child molester remained at large for almost six months, with all the potential risk to children that involved. I stand over ever word I said in Opposition regarding that issue. What is at issue here is the failure to respond to correspondence from solicitors seeking compensation on behalf of the victims of Fr. Smyth. This latest delay — as the Taoiseach made clear from the very beginning — was unacceptable and the serious view which this Government took of it was indicated by the inquiry initiated by the Taoiseach once we became aware of it. But a delay in replying to letters — serious and all as that may be — cannot be regarded on the same plane as failing to act on a warrant for the extradition of somebody wanted for such serious offences.

The political dynamics of the current situation are also quite different from those of late last year. It is clear from the evidence given to the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Security and Legislation that trust between the two parties then in Government had been irreparably damaged by a series of events which pre-dated the Smyth controversy, most notably the handling by the former Taoiseach — sacked by Fianna Fáil — of the publication of the report of the Beef Tribunal and his insistence in appointing Mr. Harry Whelehan to the Presidency of the High Court despite the absolute opposition of his partners in Government.

Mr. Cowen

He was not sacked.

Proinsias De Rossa

In many respects the Smyth affair was the final stage of a process of disintegration that had commenced some months before.

In contrast, the parties now in Government trust each other and work in a constructive spirit to implement our programme. Furthermore, we have the utmost confidence in the integrity and the judgment of the Taoiseach and the Attorney General. I am satisfied that the Taoiseach handled this affair in the most open way possible consistent with the obligations to natural justice which he had to meet once he assumed responsibility for certain matters in the office of the Attorney General. In many respects it was a frustrating experience to sit here last week and watch the Taoiseach having to deal with Opposition attacks, knowing that he was effectively fighting with one hand tied behind his back as he could not answer many of the questions thrown at him for fear of prejudicing the process which he had at that stage initiated.

I am also more convinced than ever that the decision to appoint Dermot Gleeson as Attorney General was a wise one. The legal expertise Mr. Gleeson has brought to the Cabinet table has proved to be invaluable to the Government. His assessment of the Abortion Information Act, which Deputy McDowell and others assured us was unconstitutional, was vindicated by a judgment of the Supreme Court.

Mr. M. McDowell

We will see what will happen in the European Court.

Mrs. Owen

I am glad the Deputy is not representing us.

Proinsias De Rossa

Mr. Lenihan

That is not in order.

Proinsias De Rossa

The statement made by the Taoiseach today was one of the most comprehensive and honest statements made to the House since I became a Member. One of the most significant pieces of information he provided — that was not previously known to the public — was that he had already formally asked Mr. Russel to account for his stewardship on the handling of the Smyth extradition warrants prior to becoming aware of the failure to reply to the letters from the Belfast solicitors.

The Taoiseach dealt with all of the issues involved and his statement is a testimony to this Government's commitment to openness and accountability.

Mr. D. Ahern

The noose is open now.

Mr. M. McDowell

The last will and testimony.

Proinsias De Rossa

For the second time in more than a week this Government has demonstrated clearly the differences between it and Fianna Fáil. Last week the Taoiseach acted decisively when it emerged that the then Minister, Deputy Coveney, had breached the guidelines laid down for members of the Government——

A number of important lessons were learned from the failure to deal with the warrants for the extradition of Fr. Smyth and the Taoiseach has already outlined in some detail the progress made by the Attorney General in implementing the recommendations of the review group which reported in February last. It is unsatisfactory that despite those changes a letter on a matter of such importance and sensitivity should have lain on an official's desk and not have been drawn to the attention of the Attorney General.

Mr. M. McDowell

Who is responsible for that?

Proinsias De Rossa

There are also lessons to be learned regarding the danger of allowing a civil servant, regardless of his or her ability or experience, to build what amounted to a personal fiefdom in areas of the public service, especially when civil servants are not held accountable to the wider public in the way in which political officeholders are.

The Taoiseach

——that such a conflict existed was a material fact they ought to have known to enable them to make that decision. I disclosed it to them because they were the only people whose agreement it was necessary for me to obtain and I therefore was complying with the requirements of only making a disclosure to the minimum number of people who had a material interest in the decision.

Any advice that he gave to Mr. Russell was given prior to his becoming Attorney General. I wish to make this point as Deputy Ahern misquoted the situation, I hope mistakenly.

Mr. B. Ahern

I asked a question.

The Taoiseach

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): The Opposition was in Government at that time.

The Taoiseach

Mr. Martin

The Taoiseach knew that.

The Taoiseach

The second question asked why I had not made a formal order revoking the delegated powers. My purpose in revoking the delegated powers related only to a particular possible disciplinary action against one official. It was only when I reached a point where I was pretty certain I would have to take formal action in the matter that it was appropriate for me to make a formal revocation. It would have been impossible for me to have revoked it earlier because I would then have been in a position where I would be responsible for holiday arrangements for clerical staff and every conceivable minor personnel issue in the office. I took the approach of taking the necessary legal advice to determine whether there was a sufficient case to answer. Only when I had established beyond all doubt, in light of my perusal of the legal advice, the evidence before the sub-committee and all the other relevant factors including the failure of Deputy O'Malley in a similar case regarding a resignation, that it was prudent for me to take this formal course of action was it then appropriate for me to make the revocation order.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 30 May 1995

Deputies

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 May 1995