Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jun 1995

Vol. 454 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Families of Child Abuse Victims.

Mary Harney

Question:

7 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the contact, if any, he has had with the family of the victims of Brendan Smyth; and the proposals, if any, he has to meet with them. [10230/95]

While I was on my feet here replying to parliamentary questions on the matter on 31 May 1995, my private secretary contacted the Belfast solicitors for the victims of Fr. Smyth extending an invitation to the families concerned to meet me so that I could convey an apology to them for the discourtesy caused by the failure to reply to their solicitors' letters of November and January and for the earlier delay in processing the Smyth extradition. There were two further contacts between my private secretary and the solicitors on that date clarifying the terms of the invitation.

The solicitor informed my private secretary on 2 June that as of that time, the families were not prepared to accept the invitation on the terms which I had indicated to the House on 31 May. I would stress, however, that it was made clear the invitation remained open then, and I would still be happy to meet the families.

I tabled this question before the Taoiseach said he would meet them. I know his invitation is appreciated, but the family consider that a meeting with the Taoiseach could prejudice any legal action they may take. Has the Taoiseach reviewed the possibility of the payment of compensation to spare the victims from going through the trauma and the cumbersome process of legal proceedings? The family find it difficult to understand why the official involved was compensated and not forced to go to court while they are forced to take legal action to secure compensation for the trauma inflicted on them as a result of delays this State forced upon them.

The official in question retired under certain statutory rules established here and he got no more or no less than that due to him under a statutory regulation approved by the House. He did not get special or extra treatment. Regarding the position of the families concerned, I understand that legal proceedings have issued against the State and I would not feel free therefore to comment in any detail on the points made by the Deputy.

While the official retired or resigned, the Taoiseach told the House that the reason the Government took the view it did and paid almost an extra £50,000 and £3,000 extra by way of pension and added ten extra years in lieu of service outside the public sector was to avoid litigation. Does the Taoiseach understand why the victims find it difficult to believe that they are forced to take litigation to secure any type of compensation from the State while that official received generous compensation because the Taoiseach did not want to be involved in litigation? The Taoiseach said last week he did not want the long process of litigation, he wanted the matter dealt with speedily.

Any compensation for loss of office given to Mr. Matthew Russell was in accordance with law passed in this House, it was not an arbitrary or ex gratia decision, but one taken in accordance with certain procedures of which it was agreed Mr. Russell could avail.

The Taoiseach had other options.

That was agreed by the Government. I outlined to the House at some length why I believed that course was the right one to adopt. Now that the Deputy has the clarity of hindsight she has the luxury of being able to say I should have adopted a different course. I believe, and will continue to believe, that in the public interest and that of fair play the course I adopted was correct in this case.

In his statement last week the Taoiseach referred to two letters from the solicitors representing the victims. A report in a weekend newspaper referred to a third letter. Will the Taoiseach confirm if a third letter was issued by the family about which we were not told in the Dáil last Wednesday? I accept what the Taoiseach said about the proceedings now issued but does he accept that the family might be entitled to some ex gratia payment for the delay involved on behalf of and acknowledged by the State through the Taoiseach.

I was not aware of any other letter when I spoke in the House. If I have been aware of any other material information I would have supplied it to the House. I have inquired and discovered since then that a letter marked strictly private and confidential was sent to the Chief State Solicitor's office by solicitors representing the victims seeking certain information about the appropriate method of serving proceedings and asking that it be supplied to them within seven days. That information was supplied and the letter replied to within seven days. I was not aware of that correspondence at the time I spoke in the House. That, unlike the previous correspondence, was dealt with promptly, fully and properly within the seven day period. That correspondence was not greatly relevant to the matters about which the House was concerned, but I did not become aware of it until after I had spoken in the House.

The Taoiseach did not reply to the question of an ex gratia payment.

I answered the question of ex gratia payments in replying to Deputy Harney's question. As legal proceedings have commenced——

It does not relate to the issue of the proceedings.

——it would not be appropriate for me to become involved in those matters.

It relates to the issue of delay.

Based on the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Ahern, and the existence of yet another letter of which he was not aware when he came to the House on the second occasion despite it being a matter of great public controversy, will he accept there is a great need for co-ordination between the Attorney General's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office given that the Chief State Solicitor's office knew nothing about the first letter which was in the Attorney General's office and that office was not aware of a third letter which was in the Chief State Solicitor's office?

The Deputy is going way beyond the bounds of the question which refers only to the plans for meeting with the family in question.

Does the Taoiseach accept, even at this late stage, the need to co-ordinate procedures between those two offices, particularly as he is now in a position to talk about another letter about which he was not given notice? While I am not being critical of him in that regard, after eight months of controversy incomplete information is still being given to the House on a matter which led to the fall of a Government.

The letter of 25 May was marked strictly private and confidential.

That is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. The clients made communications to the Chief State Solicitor's office which they want to be kept strictly private and confidential.

What about the existence of the letter?

The person disclosing the contents of that letter or breaching the confidence of the clients would be required to have consent for so doing. Even though the letter was marked strictly private and confidential it would appear the solicitors in question informed the media that they has sent the letter and as a result I am in a position to answer questions about the matter. I am not sure if the State has a right to decide unilaterally it will breach the confidence of a client regarding a letter sent to it in confidence.

The Taoiseach should inform the House.

Obviously there are lessons to be learned regarding co-ordination between offices and I have no doubt they are being learned. It is important that extreme care is taken in dealing with correspondence, regardless of its nature, in the Attorney General's office, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor's office. The Deputy's point in that regard is valid.

Will the Taoiseach apologise to the family of the victims about the fact that the Brendan Smyth file was looked in a deputy legal assistant's safe for a long period of time? As the Taoiseach referred to official accountability, what action, if any, does he propose taking in regard to that official?

None, because that official is not culpable. The correspondence that was not replied to was not drawn to the attention of that official.

Is the Taoiseach satisfied that a controversial file such as the one in question should be locked away in the office of the deputy legal assistant for a long period of time?

The file was put away because the person putting it away was unaware of any active correspondence on the file that ought to be dealt with. The person was not aware of that because the correspondence was not associated with the file and was not brought to notice. As I stated in the House on many occasions, it remained on a particular official's desk unacknowledged, not replied to or referred to the Chief State Solicitor's office as is the norm for a letter that threatens legal proceedings.

It is a pity the Taoiseach did not telephone the office and ask what was going on.

Does the Taoiseach agree that because of the political and legal implications and the circumstances of this case, it is unique and exceptional? Is there a precedent for the State making an ex gratia payment to a victim who has suffered as a result of State incompetence?

I have already stated that because legal proceedings have issued against the State on behalf of the victims in this case it would not be appropriate for me to be drawn into the type of speculation the Deputy wishes to draw me into.

Top
Share