Vol. 470 No. 4
1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on whether it is appropriate that a former public servant (details supplied) should continue to represent Ireland on the European Commission for Democracy through Law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18473/96]
The person concerned was nominated as an independent expert to the European Commission for Democracy through Law on its establishment in May 1990 by the then Taoiseach on the recommendation of the then Attorney General. He was renominated by my immediate predecessor in March 1994 for a further four year period. His term of office is due to end in May 1998. He serves in a personal, not a representative, capacity.
The Commission meets four or five times a year, usually for two days on each occasion. The person concerned receives no payment from the Exchequer or otherwise for his work at or in preparation for the meetings, but is refunded normal travel and subsistence expenses by the Exchequer.
The Council of Europe has made it clear that it does not favour member governments replacing their independent experts in mid-term. None of the almost 50 member governments now involved has ever done so.
It should be noted that this Commission is purely a body of independent legal experts. The President of the Commission, in July 1995, in requesting that the person concerned continue his functions as a member, stated that he has been most active and valuable. In all the circumstances, it is not considered appropriate or proper that he should be removed from the position to which he was appointed as an independent expert.
Is the Taoiseach happy that this person, given the circumstances surrounding his resignation from the public service, should continue to represent this country, albeit in an independent capacity, as the Government's nominee on this body?
He does not represent the Government on the body and he does not represent the Irish people either. He is an independent expert serving a European cause and, while each member government is invited to nominate individuals to serve, once they are appointed they no longer serve at the behest of the government of the country in question in the same way, for example, Commissioners of the European Commission cease to serve the interests of any one country once they have been appointed. The same principle applies here; once they are appointed they serve the interests of Europe as a whole. In the immediate aftermath of the retirement in question, we were specifically asked by the Council of Europe not to interrupt this person's service during his term. I have in my possession a letter addressed to the Government by the relevant people in the Council of Europe specifically requesting that this service be not interrupted. I have already made the point that there has not been an interruption of the service of any member of this body from any of the 50 countries since it came into existence in 1990, notwithstanding that some of the independent legal experts are former ministers and former parliamentarians and changes of government may have occurred in those countries in the meantime. None of the 50 countries, however, has interrupted the service during term of the relevant legal experts because they are considered, once appointed, to be acting in an independent capacity.
Was this man's continuation on this committee part of the settlement deal negotiated with Mr. Russell?
I understand the matter was mentioned during the negotiations but it was not part of the deal. It was mentioned at the time by lawyers representing the person in question.
The Taoiseach told the House on 30 May 1995 "We got a clear admission of error on Mr. Russell's behalf". When I first became aware of this matter from a journalist with the Sunday Independent I felt it was very offensive and highly inappropriate that this person, who got £138,000 in a lump sum and £35,000 in an annual pension from this State should continue to represent this State in any official capacity, as I believe he is doing. Since the Government nominated him, the Government can remove him. Is the Taoiseach prepared to do that?
I would be concerned about any reflection on the character and integrity of someone outside the House who has no opportunity to defend himself against accusations made against him here.
I am quoting what the Taoiseach told this House on 30 May 1995.
I do not believe his service should be interrupted, for the reasons I have given. He is appointed as an independent legal expert. Many of those involved in this body are former politicians and none of the 50 countries, despite the fact that changes in Government have occurred in virtually all of them since 1990, has removed its independent legal expert in mid-term. We were specifically requested by the Council of Europe not to do so. While there are and were concerns at the way in which the Attorney General's office was administered, there has not been a questioning of the legal competence of the person in question. The issue has been fully debated here and judgements have been made on all sides of this House about the individual in question that he would not welcome. They were made nonetheless. No great service is performed by further pursuit of this matter in view of the fact that the person is receiving no payment for this work, merely travel and subsistence expenses for work which is independent of his previous service.
In view of that statement, has the Taoiseach any comment on the remarks of the Tánaiste's special adviser and his public indignation about this matter?
This is new matter.
I presume the Deputy is referring to an unnamed source in a newspaper story. I cannot speculate as to who that source may have been. I know the person is described as "senior". That is the only clue. I would not want to be any more specific than that. I take only one Sunday newspaper. I have no comment on that.
He has a beard and an alliterative name.
He drinks a lot of coffee and has a word processor.
This is the usual moral outrage.
When the Taoiseach replied to Deputy Harney, he stated he had correspondence from officials in the Council of Europe recommending that this person be retained in his present position. Does the Taoiseach accept that may be part of the old boys' network, or wheels within wheels? Does he accept that this was an arranged correspondence?
I doubt very much if a body of the repute of the Council of Europe would allow any correspondence to go out in its name that did not represent the considered opinion of the relevant body concerned. There is a letter addressed to our Ambassador dated 7 July, which specifically makes this reference.
These things can be arranged.
Exactly.
The reference made by Deputy O'Rourke to matters being arranged is casting an unintended aspersion on the integrity of the people concerned.
No. It is an intended aspersion.
If it is an intended aspersion on the Council of Europe, it is unworthy of the Deputy.
How many reports have we received from the European Commission for Democracy through Law and what exactly do they report on? What work is involved in it? Knowing the incidents in this House, democracy was not enhanced by some of the advice from law officers of the State.
I do not want to be partisan but one of my predecessors, Deputy Haughey, appointed the man in question to the body in 1990. Another of my predecessors, Deputy Reynolds, reappointed him. These two predecessors both belong to the Deputy's party and both had sufficient belief in the man in question to nominate him on the advice of the Attorney General. It is not appropriate, for reasons already given, that his term of office be interrupted in mid-term. He has been appointed as an independent expert and, once appointed, serves the interests of Europe as a whole rather than Ireland's interests. His responsibility is to the Council of Europe through the European Commission for Democracy through Law. He does not have a reporting relationship to the Irish Government while on this body.
I cannot give the Deputy a detailed outline of the work of the European Commission for Democracy through Law at present but if a separate question is put, the information can be obtained. This body was established because of the need for expert assistance at a time when democracy under law was being extended in eastern Europe in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was felt that the Council of Europe, expanding its membership to include eastern European countries, should provide assistance on legal and parliamentary systems to those countries. This body was established as a small but important part of the overall work of the Council of Europe in promoting democracy through law in eastern Europe.
Does the Taoiseach not accept, in the interests of accountability and as a gesture to the victims of Fr. Brendan Smyth who got nothing for what they suffered, that this man should not continue to represent Ireland in any capacity at home or abroad?
As I have explained to the Deputy, this man does not represent Ireland or the Irish Government. He is on this body as an independent legal expert. The only role the Irish Government has in this matter is that of nominating him.
The Taoiseach can remove him.
He was nominated by my predecessor, Deputy Haughey, in a Government of which the Deputy's party was part. That was in 1990. He was renominated by my immediate predecessor, Deputy Reynolds. Both of them obviously felt he had the relevant legal competence.
There is little to be gained from the pursuit engaged in by the Deputy. The person is no longer in the public service.
With very good reason.
He no longer works in the Attorney General's office and no longer has any influence on the work of that office. I am glad that the difficulties that existed in the Attorney General's office have been resolved.
It is a sad day for Europe.
This question has been adequately dealt with.
