Bertie Ahern
Question:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to hand back the powers over personnel matters that he has revoked from the Attorney General. [10366/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Compensation for Victims of Sex Abuse.
Bertie Ahern
Question:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the authority under which official A dealt with the Fr. Smyth or Duggan case. [10368/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach from whom official A drew authority to deal with correspondence in the Smyth case. [10369/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:4 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the procedures now in place to check and double-check the passage of mail from the time it enters the Office of the Attorney General. [10373/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:5 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will consider making an ex gratia payment of compensation to those people directly affected by the handling by the State of the Fr. Brendan Smyth file in view of his public apology on behalf of the Government to the families of the victims in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10375/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:6 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the officials in the Office of the Attorney General other than official A who have handled or dealt with the file of Fr. Brendan Smyth since December 1994; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10376/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:7 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if the Government will consider making an ex gratia payment to the victims of Fr. Brendan Smyth in view of the trauma experienced by the victims and their families due to the delay by the State in handling the case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10377/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:8 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the number of cases dealing with child sexual abuse currently before the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10378/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:9 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the number of cases dealing with child sexual abuse currently before the Office of the Chief State Solicitor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10379/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:10 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if the statement of facts on the Fr. Brendan Smyth file contains indications of admission of guilt by Fr. Smyth; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10380/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:11 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the reason Dáil Éireann was not informed of the existence of a third letter of claim from the solicitors of the victims in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10479/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:12 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if court proceedings have been issued against the State on behalf of the victims in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case; if so, if he will give details of the claim; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10480/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:13 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if the State has responded to any proceedings issued on behalf of the victims in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10481/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:14 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the third letter which was received in the Office of the Attorney General in relation to the Fr. Brendan Smyth case; the persons responsible for the oversight; and the grounds for not announcing Government agreement to ex gratia payments to the victims and families involved in the Smyth case. [10490/95]
John O'Donoghue
Question:15 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach whether it is standard procedure in the Office of the Attorney General to put a copy covering letter on file to indicate that correspondence has been replied to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10590/95]
John O'Donoghue
Question:16 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the asked the the Taoiseach whether it is standard procedure that the Office of the Chief State Solicitor communicates that it has responded to correspondence received from the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10591/95]
John O'Donoghue
Question:17 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach whether there was any indication on the Fr. Brendan Smyth file in the Office of the Attorney General to show that the letter of November 1994, from the legal representatives of the victims had been replied to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10592/95]
John O'Donoghue
Question:18 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach whether the Government has undertaken and intends to discharge any of the legal or other costs arising from the retirement of a civil servant (details supplied) from the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10594/95]
John O'Donoghue
Question:19 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach the cost to the State of the independent legal advice regarding the retirement of a civil servant (details supplied) in the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10596/95]
John O'Donoghue
Question:20 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, which have been taken to ensure that there are no further letters of claim in the Office of the Attorney General awaiting reply for a period in excess of five months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10601/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:21 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the cost since the formation of this Government, either actual or estimated, of the independent legal and ancillary advice obtained by the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of Government Departments as a result of the number of cases in which the present Attorney General has not been in a position to advise in view of a conflict of interest; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10738/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:22 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the cost, either actual or estimated, of the independent legal and ancillary advice obtained by him in connection with the Fr. Brendan Smyth case since the formation of the present Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10740/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 22 together.
At the outset I would remind the Deputies that I have dealt at length in my replies to parliamentary questions on 23 and 31 May and the statements and questions and answers sessions on 24 and 30 May with matters relating to the Attorney General's office and the problems which arose in that office over the past two years. I do not propose, therefore, in my reply to questions today, to refer in any detail to aspects on which I have nothing further to add.
On the question as to the authority under which Mr. Russell dealt with work in the office of the Attorney General. Mr. Russell, as senior legal assistant in the office was the official head of the office of the Attorney General. He was, therefore, responsible for the distribution of legal work among the professional staff. He was one of three officials in the office who dealt with extradition matters. The Duggan case had been allocated to one of the other two officials, and the Fr. Smyth case had been retained to be dealt with by Mr. Russell. In November 1994, on the instruction of the then Attorney General. Mr. Fitzsimons, Mr. Russell was informed that he was no longer to deal with the Smyth extradition file and he relinquished custody of that file at that time. I have already informed the House that the file was locked away in the room of the deputy senior legal assistant. Other than the Attorney General and the two senior officials in his office who perused the file at the time of the selection of documents for the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, no official handled the Smyth file. There was, as I informed the House on 30 May, no indication on the file that the letter of November had not been replied to. Two officials have now been assigned the file under the supervision of the Attorney General in relation to the compensation claims made by the victims of Fr. Smyth. One of these officials now has custody of the file.
The difficulties encountered in the Smyth extradition case did not relate to the issue of correspondence not being dealt with but rather to the delay in coming to a decision on a legal problem and the prioritisation of legal work within the Attorney General's office. As I have already informed the House instructions had issued by the former Attorney General, Mr. Fitzsimons, that all extradition cases and cases involving minors were to be brought to the attention of the Attorney General. This instruction was further reiterated by the present Attorney General, Mr. Gleeson.
As to the procedures now in place to check the passage of mail in the Attorney General's office, I stated in reply to a question from Deputy O'Dea on 23 May that a case and correspondence tracking system was determined to be a priority in the major information technology programme for the office as part of an integrated package covering a two year implementation plan. This approach has received the approval of the independent legal technology consultants who have quality assured the plan. With the recent arrival in the office of top of the range PCs it has been possible to establish a computerised correspondence tracking system. This new system also enables acknowledgments to be generated for issue on receipt of such correspondence, and is part of the elaboration of a fully inclusive case tracking system which is being developed at present by the central information technology service division of the Department of Finance.
On the question relating to the statement of facts on the Fr. Smyth file, the file, including the statement of facts, was made available to the legal assessor of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. The Attorney General also wrote to the chairman of the sub-committee on the matter of the statement of facts on 11 January 1995.
On the question of procedures in the office of the Attorney General and Chief State Solicitor's office in relation to correspondence, a new procedure has now been put in place in the office of the Attorney General whereby letters of claim received by the Attorney General will be acknowledged by the office of the Attorney General and the claimant informed that the papers have been passed to the Chief State Solicitor's office for attention. A copy of that acknowledgment will be kept in the office of the Attorney General with a copy of the correspondence.
The practice has been that where a matter is being sent to the Chief State Solicitor for attention — for example, letters of claim against the State — a note is put on the correspondence being transmitted to the Chief State Solicitor that it is being referred to him for attention and a copy of that correspondence with such note thereon is retained in the Attorney General's office. In the case of a letter of claim received initially by fax the note of referral to the Chief State Solicitor's office would be put on the hard or posted letter when received rather than on the FAX. It is that letter that would be forwarded to the Chief State Solicitor — not the faxed letter — in accordance with the procedure I have already detailed. Of course, in the case of general correspondence being dealt within the Attorney General's office a copy of whatever reply is issued would be retained on the appropriate file in the normal course.
Correspondence received in the Chief State Solicitor's office from the Attorney General's office seeking information receives a response from the Chief State Solicitor's office. Letters of claim received by the Chief State Solicitor from the Attorney General's office until recently have been acknowledged in the Chief State Solicitor's office on behalf of the Attorney General and passed to the relevant Government Department for instructions. Receipt of such letters from the Attorney General is not separately acknowledged to him. If a claim develops and proceedings are served the Attorney General is then informed. On average, four to five such letters per day are received. These letters are received directly by the Chief State Solicitor or are passed to him for attention by the Attorney General.
On the question as to whether there are other letters of claim in the office of the Attorney General, as I have stated previously, it is not possible for me or for any other member of Government to give an absolute assurance that there is no outstanding correspondence, of whatever duration, in our offices. What can be done, and is being done in the Attorney General's office, is to plan, devise and then put in place systems to prevent such delays. With huge volumes of correspondence this must mean computerised systems whereby all such correspondence can be tracked from the time it enters an office until it is finally dealt with.
On the question in relation to powers over personnel matters, on 1 June I again delegated to the Attorney General the powers under section 2 (2) (c) of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956. I arranged to have copies of the instrument placed in the Oireachtas Library at the time.
On the question of ex gratia payments to the families of the victims of Fr. Smyth, legal proceedings have commenced against the State. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that aspect. I dealt with this matter in response to questions on 7 June.
On the question of the existence of a third letter from the solicitors for the victims of Fr. Smyth, as I informed the House on 7 June, a letter from Dublin solicitors marked "Strictly Private and Confidential" was received by the Chief State Solicitor's office at 5.25 p.m. on 25 May. This letter, which sought clarification as to whom proceedings might be issued against, gave a seven day notice for reply. In addition, the confidentiality of the letter precluded the Attorney General from passing it to me for the purposes of disclosure to the Dáil without the consent of the persons on whose behalf it had been issued. The existence of the letter was not of relevance to the matters being debated in the House on 30 and 31 May as it was confidential correspondence that was in fact being dealt with expeditiously. A copy of the letter was passed to my Department on 1 June, by which time its existence had been publicised by the victims' solicitors, for the purpose of seeking any views my Department might have on the proposed reply. The reply issued from the Chief State Solicitor's office on 2 June — within the seven day time limit set by the victim's solicitors.
On the question of the cost to the State of independent legal advice sought by my Department regarding the retirement of Mr. Russell, details of the costs involved have not yet been received. Deputies can, however, be assured that the cost will be within the established criteria for such fees as adopted by the Chief State Solicitor's office.
On the question of the cost of independent legal and ancillary advice obtained by the office of the Attorney General on behalf of Government Departments since December, no such advice, over and above the standard practice adopted by that office in cases of litigation, has been sought. Therefore the question of cost does not arise.
On the question of the instigation of proceedings against the State on behalf of the victims of Fr. Smyth, prodeedings were served on the Chief State Solicitor's office at 5.30 p.m. on 1 June 1995. The plaintiffs' claim is for loss and damage incurred by them by reason of the failure of the Attorney General's office to endorse extradition warrants in respect of Fr. Smyth for execution within the State and ensuing consequential delay in bringing him to trial. The proceedings do not make any claim for damages incurred as a result of the Attorney General's office's failure to reply to the correspondence of November 1994 and January 1995 from the solicitors on behalf of the plaintiffs.
On the question of the number of child sex abuse cases, the Attorney General does not deal with these cases, as such. Child sex abuse allegations, following investigation by the Garda, are referred by them to the Director of Public Prosecutions and are dealt with by him independently of the Attorney General. The Director of Public Prosecutions is independent in deciding issues of this nature. He, rather than the Attorney General has the responsibility for prosecuting in such cases. This independence is enshrined in section 2 (5) of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974 which states that "... the Director shall be independent in the performance of his functions" and which received wide support in this House at the time. Issues relating to child abuse can arise indirectly in the Attorney General's office in other matters which are dealt with by that office such as extradition cases, legal advice being sought by the Government and claims of one kind or another against the State in relation to children generally.
There are cases currently being looked at in the Attorney General's office where proceedings have been taken against the State on behalf of emotionally disturbed children for failure to provide proper educational or detention facilities. Although child abuse is not an issue on which the office has been asked to advise, nor is it a substantive issue in the proceedings themselves, child abuse may have been a factor in some of the children in question becoming emotionally disturbed in the first place.
There are no extradition cases involving alleged child sexual abuse before the Attorney General's office at present. There is one case of advice being sought by another Government Department.
An examination, in so far as it has been possible in the time available, of criminal files in the Chief State Solicitor's office reveals that there are 130 cases involving sexual offences on persons under 18 currently before that office in respect of which a final court sentence has not yet been imposed. In addition, there are civil cases with that office arising out of the claim for compensation for the delay in dealing with the Fr. Smyth extradition case.
Assuming that the Taoiseach accepts ultimate responsibility to this House for the office of the Attorney General, he stated in his reply that Mr. Fitzsimons had informed the staff in that office that official A was to cease dealing with the file when he locked it in the safe in December last. Did it not occur to the Taoiseach or the present Attorney General, at some time between mid-December last and May, 1995, to inquire what was happening to this file which had brought the Taoiseach unexpectedly into office? Did it never occur to him or the Attorney General to check what progress was being made on that file? Does the Taoiseach consider it sufficient to say that official A held letters on his desk? Did the Taoiseach or the present Attorney General never consider it appropriate at any stage to ascertain what progress was being made on that file?
As I have explained to the House on a number of occasions, the Father Smyth file basically was an extradition one. At the point at which this Government came into office Father Smyth had already departed this jurisdiction. Therefore, the issue of extradition — the basic purpose of the creation of that file — no longer obtained. As I have also explained repeatedly, there was correspondence seeking compensation for the victims because of the delay in dealing with the extradition of Father Smyth. The Attorney General was not aware that that correspondence had not been replied to. The reason he was not aware it had not been replied to was that the correspondence was retained on the desk of a particular official, Mr. Matthew Russell, and was not drawn to the attention of the Attorney General by Mr. Russell with a view to the issuance of a reply, nor was it, as would be normal in the case of correspondence making a claim on the State, referred to the Chief State Solicitor's office. The normal procedure in the case of a letter making a claim against the State would be for it not to be acknowledged by the office of the Attorney General but rather passed for acknowledgment or processing to the Chief State Solicitors' office. This correspondence was not passed to the Chief State Solicitor's office. It was retained by Mr. Russell. The faxed copy of the correspondence was placed on the Smyth file but there was nothing on that faxed copy to indicate that it had not been replied to. Normally, the question of whether it had been replied to or where it would have been referred would not appear on the faxed copy, it would appear on the original or hard copy — the letter copy.
That is not the question we asked.
The letter copy was, as I have indicated, on the desk of Mr. Russell.
With respect to this very important file, was it not political negligence that, for a period of five months, neither the Taoiseach, the Attorney General nor anybody else checked whether the matter of extradition had been dealt with or any other matter? This was still a live case; it was something that was being discussed a great deal. Was it the position that the Attorney General felt compromised and that is why he did not ask anything about the file?
Deputy Ahern should be careful in imputing motives to people as he is seeking to do on this occasion. The position is that the file was an extradition file. The Attorney General had no knowledge that there was any outstanding matter on that file, that it was not being processed in the normal way. The person in question was no longer in the jurisdiction, therefore the matter of his extradition did not arise. As far as its primary purpose was concerned, therefore, that was not an active file. The only matter that remained to be dealt with which we have gone into exhaustively in this House was a claim for compensation from the victims in respect of the delay that occurred in dealing with that extradition matter previous to Mr. Gleeson's becoming Attorney General. As far as that claim is concerned, Mr. Gleeson did not become aware until 9 May that that correspondence had not been answered. It was only on 9 May that he became aware that that claim, which threatened legal proceedings within seven days of 14 November, had not been responded to by the Attorney General's office or by the Chief State Solicitor's office at the time. He was also not aware of the subsequent letter of January or of the fact that that subsequent letter had not been replied to until 9 May.
The Attorney General examined the file. He knew of the 14 November letter and he knew at that stage there was an issue of compensation. He knew when the file was put away following the adjournment of the committee that that remained a live issue. It is wrong to say he did not know it was a live issue. He knew it was and why did he not pursue it at any time?
In regard to the Attorney General's perusal of the Smyth file and his seeing the letter of November — he never saw the letter of January until——
I accept that but he saw the November letter which was about compensation.
I know Deputy Ahern is intending to be most helpful to me, as usual, but perhaps he would allow me to answer the question.
I am trying to be less emotive than on other occasions but I am still not getting answers.
The Deputy may not get the answers he wants but we will leave that to one side. The position is that the Attorney General only saw the letter of November when he was perusing the Smyth file and saw the faxed copy of it on the file. That faxed copy did not contain any indication that it had not been replied to. Mr. Gleeson was not going through the file with a view to checking whether individual items on it had been replied to. He was doing that with one purpose in mind — sorting out those documents that could properly be given to the committee with a view to their being published. Other documents on the file could not be given to the committee for publication because they contained sensitive information in the three categories I referred to in replies during a previous Question Time on this subject.
No concern for the victims.
One of the concerns was for the victims because it was not proper for any document to be published which contained the names of the victims, who were entitled to confidentiality.
He never followed it.
He saw the letter only in that context. There was no indication on the file he saw that it had not been replied to. The normal place that any indication would be given as to whether it had or had not been replied to would be on the original hard copy of the letter rather than on the faxed copy. The hard copy of the letter was not available to Mr. Gleeson——
"Hard" is the right word. There was no compassion.
——because it was retained on the desk of the senior legal assistant, Mr. Russell, and not brought to the attention, as would be normal for reply, of the Chief State Solicitor in respect of any legal claim.
He should have asked questions. There was no compassion.
The Taoiseach said that this file was not active for a number of months. I put it to him that it was an active file for those of us who were on the sub-committee dealing with this issue. Why were the members of the sub-committee not informed that the Taoiseach was consulted about what we would or would not see on the Brendan Smyth file? In relation to the ex gratia payments, is it not the case that the State could make a payment in regard to the delay issue, quite apart from what is at issue in the proceedings as to culpability? May I ask the Taoiseach also whether there are admissions of guilt on the statement of facts on the Brendan Smyth file in view of the fact that he and others were party to deciding whether the committee saw portions of that file?
I was not a party to the decision as to what parts of the file would be made available to the committee for publication.
The Taoiseach admitted it in answer to a question.
The Deputy has asked some questions. He must be good enough to listen now to the reply.
I was not consulted at the time the file was being prepared for the committee as to what documents would be included.
Check the record.
As I have said on several occasions in this House, that process was gone through by the Attorney General. He had to exclude certain documents for a number of reasons, one of which was the confidentiality of the victims. Another reason concerned the integrity of the extradition proceedings and the confidentiality of information exchanged between various jurisdictions in regard to extradition. The Attorney General made those decisions himself but in order that there would be no question raised as to whether he was excluding documents in a way that was unhelpful to the committee, the independent legal advisers to the committee saw all the documents, including the documents that the Attorney General believed the committee should not see, and they too were satisfied that the exclusions from the documents passed to the committee were valid exclusions in light of the criteria to which I have referred.
I will ask the question again. Does the Taoiseach not accept——
We must avoid repetition.
——that the reason the sub-committee was formed was to find out why there was a seven month delay in dealing with this case? The existence of admissions in the statement of facts by Brendan Smyth was central to the delay; if there were admissions on the file there was no need for a seven month delay. That is the reason the committee wanted to see the statement of facts. I put it to the Taoiseach that in answer to Deputy Eoin Ryan at an earlier Question Time, he admitted that he was consulted by the Attorney General as to which documents went to the committee and to the independent legal advisers.
The decisions in regard to what was sent to the legal advisers and what was sent directly to the committee were made by the Attorney General, not by me. I was not consulted about whether the documents should be included. That is not a matter on which I would have any competence; it was a matter that was dealt with by the Attorney General. In so far as the statement of facts is concerned, the Deputy may have omitted to remember that a letter was sent on 11 January to the chairman of the committee by the Attorney General dealing with the question of the statement of facts. It stated that the statement of facts indicated that police officers reported that during the course of an interview Fr. Smyth made verbal admissions to them about indecent assault charges. Details of these admissions were set out in the statement of facts. In it the police officers are also reported as stating that Fr. Smyth signed the interview notes in respect of the interview in question but declined to make a written statement after being cautioned about the matter saying that he preferred not to go over it all again. I understand that information was made available by letter to the committee chairman on 11 January.
Will the Taoiseach remind the House when exactly he learned of the existence of the letters of claim and the fact they were not replied to?
I answered that question in the House and I have no reason to alter what I said.
Will the Taoiseach remind the House?
No, it is on the record.
Is the Taoiseach refusing to remind the House?
I have answered the question.
I asked the Taoiseach to remind the House.
Why should I remind the House?
It is a valid question.
Let us not engage in argument, we should proceed by way of question.
If the Deputy wishes to know he may check the record.
The Taoiseach does not know.
What is it?
What date?
A Deputy
The date you bought the shares.
The Taoiseach is refusing to answer the question. Will the Taoiseach remind the House as to when he learned of this?
A Cheann Comhairle, if I may say so, I should not be asked to answer questions that I have answered. As I said on a previous occasion, the first time I became aware there was unanswered correspondence in regard to claims for compensation was when it appeared in a newspaper article in the Irish Independent. I said that in the House and I do not know why Deputy O'Donoghue needs to be reminded of it because it is available in the document he has in his hand.
I will tell the Taoiseach precisely. In this House on 11 May 1995 the Minister for Justice, in responding to Deputy Michael McDowell on the matter, said——
Quotations at Question Time are not in order.
Did the Taoiseach ever discuss this matter with the Minister for Justice who replied to a question from a Deputy on 11 May?
I have answered the question as to when I became aware that the correspondence was not answered, and that is when I read about it in the newspaper. I understand it had been discovered four days previously that the correspondence had not been replied to and the Attorney General was investigating the reasons that was the case with a view to reporting to me when his investigations were completed.
The Taoiseach is unable to give us information on the additional costs to the State because of the conflict of interest the Attorney General has in relation to a number of items. Does the Taoiseach accept that it should have been possible to get, as I asked for in the question, either actual or estimated costs of the additional cost to the State resulting from the situation?
I do not believe there are additional costs. Virtually every Attorney General will have cases with which he is unable to deal because he previously acted for the other side. Every Attorney General, as a matter of course, normally puts out cases that will appear in court to independent barristers even when there is no conflict of interest.
I do not believe additional costs will arise for the State from the fact that Mr. Gleeson, who had a very active practice, is Attorney General. On the contrary as I pointed out already, Mr. Gleeson in the past six months has appeared more often for the State in court than any previous Attorney General in the past ten years and in so doing has saved the State approximately the equivalent of his entire salary for the past six months in moneys that would otherwise have had to be paid to other counsel.
In view of what the Taoiseach has just told the House is it the case that when the Minister for Justice replied to my question on 11 May an investigation was already in train in the Attorney General's office as to why this letter had not been replied to? In those circumstances does he not regard the answer delivered by the Minister for Justice to the effect that the letter had been replied to without giving any date as highly and deliberately misleading? Has he an explanation for it?
The answer was not misleading. The questions, as put, were answered. The Deputy should be extremely careful of becoming someone who too readily throws around accusations of the kind he has just thrown against the Minister for Justice who is an honourable and honest politician.
The answer that was given was a bald statement that the letter had been replied to. We now hear that an investigation was in train as to why it had not been replied to. We now hear that the Attorney General had come across the fact that it had not been replied to on the night of 9 May. Would the Taoiseach agree in those circumstances that the actual answer given created a completely false impression that the letter had been replied to as a matter of course and there was no problem with the issue?
I am not in a position to go back over the entire passage of questions between the Minister for Justice and other Deputies on the date in question but I have every reason to believe that the Minister for Justice gave a truthful and accurate response to questions. In this matter this Government has been markedly different from its predecessor in its willingness to answer questions exhaustively on this subject. I recollect, if I may say, the beef tribunal debate when the Fianna Fáil Party refused to answer any questions about any matter of ministerial accountability.
The real question.
This is a filibuster.
I have been answering questions in this House on this matter to an extraordinarily lengthy extent. I have shown myself willing to extend Question Time by a further ten minutes to allow the parties opposite to ask any questions.
The Taoiseach was three minutes late and then he read a lengthy reply.
It is interesting to note that in respect of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry which cost the taxpayers £35 million, Fianna Fáil in Government was not willing to allow a single question to be asked of any Minister. The Fianna Fáil Party might choose, now that it is in the process of renewal, to examine its conscience on that matter.
Does the Taoiseach accept that it amounts to a public scandal that in respect of the file on which he came to power, his Attorney General failed to let him know of the existence of a letter of claim, his Minister for Justice failed to let him know that a letter of claim had been replied to and he, having derived his so-called moral authority to govern from the file, failed between the period December 1994 and May 1995 to see what was happening with that file?
I do not derive my authority to govern from the Fr. Smyth file or any other file but from the will of this House the Members of which have put me in a position to lead this Government.
Do not look back.
The previous Government collapsed because of a total breakdown of trust stretching over six months between the parties forming that Government. The attempts by Fianna Fáil to pretend the only reason the past Government fell was because of difficulties in dealing with one extradition case is a travesty of history and shows the extent to which like Louis XIV. Louis XV and Louis XVI, the Fianna Fáil Party can never learn from history.
That is a long way back. A couple of those mentioned ended up in jail. It is a pity they were not in Ireland because the jails are not being built nowadays.
The walls are.
There is yet another report in today's Irish Independent about a delay in dealing with the Fr. Brendan Smyth case, but this time in the Director of Public Prosecution's office, which means that he could go free within a matter of days. Does the Taoiseach agree his party in Opposition pretended to be interested in this case but in reality he does not care and could not care less about it? Does he agree that he has abjectly failed to convey any sense of urgency on this matter to the Government since it took office?
The position in this matter is that further allegations were made in respect of possible offences by Fr. Smyth last October. These involved 11 parties who claimed to have been the victims of sexual abuse. The file on that case was passed by the Garda authorities, after exhaustive investigation, to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions as recently as 6 June, and they are dealing with it speedily. Fr. Smyth was sentenced in Northern Ireland to four years in prison in June 1994, and the earliest date he could come up for release sine die is June 1996.
What about parole?
In regard to parole, Fr. Smyth might become eligible for home leaves, but I understand the Northern Ireland Office has indicated to us that very careful consideration would have to be given to any application made on behalf of Fr. Smyth, that they would be taking careful note of any advice they might receive from social service agencies in Northern Ireland and, no doubt, they would also have regard to the process in regard to possible future prosecutions in this case before making any decision in respect of a release, however temporary.
The Taoiseach has confirmed that the Fr. Smyth extradition file was inactive by reason of Fr. Smyth's voluntary return to the Northern Ireland jurisdiction. Why is it that the Taoiseach and his colleagues who were partners in the previous Government, insisted on the resignation of an Attorney General in relation to an inactive file while, the file having been reactivated under their tenure of office, the Taoiseach defends everybody who has dealt with it except the one official whom he made a scapegoat?
It is my recollection that it was Deputy Reynolds who indicated he believed Mr. Whelehan was not fit to be President of the High Court or Attorney General.
The Taoiseach said at the time that a civil servant alone could not be held culpable in relation to the Smyth file. The point is that the Smyth file had been inactive from the time Fr. Smyth went back to the Northern Ireland jurisdiction. The Taoiseach, as Leader of the Opposition at the time, sought political accountability in this House, not alone for the Attorney General but for the Leader of the Government which included people who are now members of the present Government. Does it not fly in the face of logic that there should be political accountability in respect of an inactive file but no political accountability today, or since this controversy arose, in respect of an active file that the Taoiseach, as the person accountable to this House, oversaw from December to May, in respect of which he asks to be excused on the grounds that he knew nothing about it until 12 May?
Deputy Cowen should check carefully what I said on the occasion of the debates here in regard to Mr. Harry Whelehan. I made it clear that I was willing to accept Mr. Whelehan's word in regard to various matters.
That is not my point.
As to the request to Mr. Whelehan to resign, my recollection is that, having appointed him President of the High Court, Mr. Reynolds indicated that Mr. Whelehan was not suitable to be either Attorney General or President of the High Court. Any questions Deputy Cowen has about the way in which Mr. Whelehan was treated should be addressed to his erstwhile Leader.
The Taoiseach should talk to the man beside him.
Will the Taoiseach agree to allow the Attorney General to attend the Select Committee on Legislation and Security to answer questions?
That is a matter for the committee and the Attorney General. In view of the constitutional functions of the Attorney General in respect of which he is independent of the Executive, it is up to him to answer those questions if such a request is made.
In the Government document, A Programme of Renewal, the Taoiseach undertook to ensure that all appointees to high office in the State, including the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Comptroller and Auditor General would attend relevant Dáil committees. Does the Taoiseach stand over that?
The Deputy should read on.
It is clear that the Government will honour the provisions of its Programme for Government in regard to accountability to this House of all office holders in a manner consistent with the constitutional obligations of those officer holders. We have been quite careful of our approach here. In marked contrast to Fianna Fáil I have been willing to answer questions exhaustively in this House on this matter.
Will the Taoiseach agree to my request.
That disposes of questions to the Taoiseach for today. Let us proceed to Priority Questions to the Minister for Social Welfare.