John O'Donoghue
Question:10 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Justice the plans, if any, she has to publish the 1995 Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9866/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee Report.
Eric J. Byrne
Question:18 Mr. E. Byrne asked the Minister for Justice the steps, if any, she intends to take to rectify the shortcomings identified in the most recent Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee report; the plans, if any, she has to publish the report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9804/96]
Michael McDowell
Question:66 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Justice if she will publish the most recent report of the Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9780/96]
Ivor Callely
Question:150 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Justice if she will ensure that the recent Mountjoy Visiting Committee report will be made public; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9861/96]
Ivor Callely
Question:151 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Justice the issues of concern that have been brought to her attention regarding Mountjoy Prison; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9862/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 18, 66, 150 and 151 together.
The background to this matter is that the Mountjoy visiting committee submitted its 1995 report, by hand, to my Department on the afternoon of Monday, 29 April 1996. The report was examined by my officials the following morning and submitted to the Attorney General for advice on Wednesday, 1 May 1996, as it was considered that some of the comments in the report may have been libellous of clearly identifiable people who are on contract to the prison service. I have since received the Attorney's advice and written to the visiting committee chairman on foot of same. My letter issued on Monday, 13 May.
In my letter I made it clear to the visiting committee that I have been advised by the Attorney General that in making this report public I must assume that the visiting committee has behaved in an appropriately respectful way of the constitutional rights of the personnel it criticises. The advice also indicated that I, as Minister, have the power to seek to satisfy myself whether the statements made about the people in question are true. In the light of the above I have asked the visiting committee to review the report, particularly the relevant sections and to let me have their comments.
It is important to point out that only the visiting committee has power to alter or amend its report. I do not have any editorial role. However, it is I, as Minister, who is obliged to make the report public, not the visiting committee, and hence my responsibility to ensure that I do not publish anything which might be defamatory or libellous. I have also advised the visiting committee that I await its response and that, upon its receipt, it is my intention to make the report public immediately, assuming that the terms of the visiting committee's reply do not create any impediment in that regard.
I have already taken a number of initiatives to deal with many of the issues raised in the 1995 report and propose to continue tackling other issues which are ongoing problems in the prison.
It should be noted that in 1995, I published the 1994 report within four days of receipt of the final report from the visiting committee.
Will the Minister accept that the committee comprises a responsible group of people who would not set out to defame or libel anybody? Too many reports in the lifetime of this Government have been suppressed on the basis that somebody might be libelled or defamed. Will the Minister accept the bona fides of the members of the committee who arrived at certain conclusions and does she not regard it as unusual that she, as Minister for Justice, should go back to a committee which had published a report uncoerced and ask it to review it?
I accept that the members of the visiting committee are a responsible group. I also accept that I have responsibilities. I have to balance my dual responsibilities under the 1925 Act of making the report available on request to anybody who wishes to look at it. It does not call on me to publish it in the way most people understand the word "publishing". I also have a responsibility to ensure I do not publish anything that is libellous or defamatory. If I was on the Deputy's side of the House I would be slow to criticise the delay in publishing this report. Last year I published the report within four days and had intended to do the same this year but for the advice of the Attorney General. When the Deputy's party was in office the 1992 report took two years to publish and the 1993 report took one year. The 1992 report and the 1993 report were both published together on 29 April 1994. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. I showed by bona fides last year by publishing the report within four days — just about enough time for me to read it and have it photocopied. It was my intention to do the same this year but for the fact that some element of it might have been libellous. I understand the committee will meet on Thursday. This is an indication of its concern about the report and I await its response.
In this era of openness and transparency it was open to the Minister to publish the report and to delete anything she considered might be libellous or defamatory — that of itself is a criticism of the committee by the Minister. It was open to the Minister to publish the vast bulk of the report but she did not because she was hoping it would go away.
That is nonsense. Obviously Deputy O'Donoghue does not listen.
I do.
I have already said in my reply that the report is the property of the visiting committee. May be other Ministers before me tampered with the reports and their contents but I do not. The report is the property of the visiting committee. Until I had received the advice of the Attorney General it was not open to me to decide to take this or that bit out of the report. Nor is it open to me even now.
I have asked the visiting committee to satisfy itself it can stand over everything in the report without fear that any of it is libellous. I understand it will meet tomorrow morning and when I receive its response, I will take immediate action to publish the report provided the committee can stand over it.