Deputy O'Donnell was in possession and has four minutes remaining.
Confidence in Government: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government.
— (The Taoiseach).
I spoke earlier of the impossibility of extracting accountability from this Minister for maladministration in the prison service over the past two years. Earlier this year I became aware of serious abuses taking place in our prison system. These were allegations I deemed to be of a very serious nature and because I did not have any opportunity of establishing their veracity I wrote to the Minister for Justice privately on 6 September setting out the facts as I knew them, asking her to inquire if they were true and to revert to me. Time passed. I did not receive a reply, not even an acknowledgement. Like others I sent a reminder to the Minister on 25 September. Eventually, by letter dated 8 October — almost five weeks after my first letter — I was graced with a reply in which the Minister accepted the substance of the allegations made and indicated that preventative measures were being put in place to remedy the position in the prisons.
I wonder if that is to be the end of the matter. The Minister did not give any indication in her reply that she accepted the gravity of these allegations or the seriousness of the abuse concerned. She has failed so far to make any public statement on this most important matter and I now invite her to do so. Clearly the Attorney General and Judge Lynch are not alone in having difficulty getting a quick response, or even an acknowledgement, to letters on serious matters.
During the past two years we have seen bungling and incompetence in virtually every area within the administrative ambit of the Department of Justice. The Minister for Justice has political responsibility in the areas of extradition, immigration and the prison service. I am one of the proposers of the no confidence motion put down in the Minister. That is not a personal attack on Minister Owen. It is a gender neutral motion of no confidence in a Minister who lacks the authority required as Minister.
The Government's confidence motion is, on the other hand, a loyalty motion tinged with brazenness. It seeks to change the goal posts about ministerial responsibility because it suits present circumstances. It offers measures which this Government has recently voted down to distract attention from its discomfort.
The Taoiseach promised measures to improve accountability at all levels but he failed to mention inaction and his own U-turn on Cabinet confidentiality. He failed to mention also the reason the compellability Bill is disabled in Committee, possibly fatally, because holders of high office continue to have fundamental objections, which they have voiced, to being accountable to Dáil committees.
The Taoiseach introduced a spurious concept of lawyer-client relationship as between the Government and his Attorney General. He failed to acknowledge the independent role of the Attorney General as guardian of the public interest and public protector of constitutional rights. This is a role independent of the Government. Is it not a constitutional right for a citizen to be brought before a properly constituted Special Criminal Court?
We are talking about the Office of the Attorney General which, in 1992, independently injuncted a 14 year old girl leaving the jurisdiction for an abortion with the view of vindicating the rights of the unborn. The independent role of the Attorney General has been upheld by the courts. This is the office which could act to preserve the confidentiality of Government decisions without consulting the Government.
The Taoiseach has promised a tracking system for ministerial correspondence. Any tracking of this Minister's record, quite apart from her correspondence, reveals a litany of errors and a permanent flight from her responsibilities as Minister. She is a Minister who does not have authority in her own Department, does not see her urgent post, operates on a need to know basis with disastrous consequences, makes a virtue out of her own ignorance of events crucial to her ministry and to the public interest, and presides over a situation where blunder is synonymous now with justice and where bluster and brazenness replace the honourable course open to her. This is a Minister in whom confidence has been gradually eroded by her own failures. The Minister for Justice is in the last chance saloon and, ironically, her ultimate fate now lies in the hands of the courts. So much for the separation of powers.
This debate is not about play acting. It is about a breach of duty by the Minister to manage her Department, to know what is happening in her Department and to carry through the implementation of a Government decision. She has failed manifestly in these personal, non-delegable duties and I urge Deputies to ignore the Government's confidence motion which is based on bluster and a limpet tendency to hang together come what may.
Conditional confidence has been voiced, publicly and privately, by some Government Deputies. They say they want to wait and see what happens in the courts but that if a person charged with serious offences is released because of this blunder, their positions would be different. I urge the House not to support the Government's motion of confidence.
I had intended to share my time with Deputy Boylan but he has not yet arrived.
If Deputy Boylan arrives I am sure that is agreeable to the House.
If he does not arrive I am happy to take the full 20 minutes. When I come into this House to make a contribution I normally have a prepared script but in essence this is a debate about nothing other than naked politics. As a politician, therefore, I do not have any difficulty in dealing with this debate or in asserting that it is founded in the opportunism of Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil has not got over the shock of what happened two years ago. The party is stuck in a time warp and if anyone really believed the collapse of the last Fianna Fáil Coalition Government was the fault of official A, official B, the Duggan case or letters in isolation, they need only read the transcripts of the court case currently taking place in London. The vitriol shown towards and accusations made against senior Labour Party advisers show the level to which relationships were not only ruptured but were dysfunctional.
On a point of order, there are proceedings pending and a jury retired in that court. It is not appropriate to comment on proceedings when the jury has retired to consider a verdict.
The statement — an outrageous attack on Mr. Finlay — made by legal counsel is something Mr. Finlay has invited people to repeat outside the court. Anyone who wants to know why that Government broke up in late 1994 should read the transcript. That is my comment and my case and they are in order.
There is an obsession with letters and with who said what and when. The Minister for Justice deserves the unqualified and unconditional support of this House and her colleagues. I am proud to be a member of a Cabinet serving with her. I say, without reservation, that she has conducted herself with admirable dignity although she has been totally and unfairly scapegoated. She has shown very high standards in public office despite all the unjustified attacks against her. Everyone knows — people are saying it in every pub and workplace — that she is winning the fight against crime.
The Minister does not know about pubs.
On the television, one can see people being arrested in our ports every weekend with boatloads of cocaine, heroin and other illegal substances. One sees increasing arrests and the discomfiture of drug barons who are being subjected to the full rigours of the law. A new Garda Commissioner has been appointed and a package of criminal justice reforms implemented. The Criminal Assets Bureau has been set up in a unified way with the Garda, customs and other authorities to ensure the godfathers of crime are tackled. The Minister's record speaks for itself.
Fianna Fáil seems to have discovered crime in Opposition. What did it do between 1989 and 1994? It provided a measly 57 extra prison places. The Minister will have provided, by January 1997, an extra 404 prison spaces with the necessary decisions taken to create a further 400 spaces in Wheatfield. She has given new technology and extra personnel to the Garda and reformed the courts system, with the assistance of the Denham group. Her record speaks for itself and it is because she was winning the war that the Opposition grasped what was a failure in the administrative system to deal with correspondence and other matters.
This side of the House is happy to allow the inquiry to find the truth and provide the detailed answers. Yet again, the Opposition has jumped in to be judge and jury without any inquiry and has found the Minister guilty before the inquiry has even started.
This debate, and the Fianna Fáil approach, arise because that party is unnerved at the total cohesion of Fine Gael, Democratic Left and the Labour Party in Government. We operate on the basis of a professional relationship, mutual loyalty, respect and a sincere desire to do the best for the country and implement our programme for Government. This debate shows the solidarity of this Government despite the tidal wave of criticism of the Minister, the Attorney General and the Taoiseach. This Government is standing rock solid and the people know, notwithstanding the naked politics that is taking place, that we are determined to get on with the job.
That job has never been more important. The Taoiseach, and other speakers, have outlined the economic progress we are making, the net 50,000 extra jobs, the decline in the tax take and the real growth in spending. I have heard glib remarks from speaker after speaker about this being the latest debacle, about blood and beef, etc.
I am proud of my record for the past two years. I defy anyone to go to Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom or the Continent and see the devastation of the beef industry. We are the largest exporter of beef in the northern hemisphere. I have secured £140 million in extra compensation from Brussels. That is on top of a special exclusive deal for Irish sheep farmers last year and the deseasonalisation premium. I have radically reformed the TB eradication scheme, more than occurred in its 40-year history and it is working well. I have extended and expanded the disadvantaged areas to help small farmers in greatest need. I have radically overhauled the milk quota system to introduce clawbacks to stop cheque book farmers taking up milk from small holders. When I was appointed Minister there were only 350 participants in the REP scheme. There are now more than 22,000. This year, I got an extra £84 million for my gross estimate. The list is endless: an extra £16 million for CFP grants, etc.
Fianna Fáil is all too quick to point to its record on the economy and say that this Administration is only reaping the benefit of what it did. What about Fianna Fáil's record on the extra cases of BSE, on the hepatitis C scandal and the equality payments? We inherited those problems from the so-called brilliant Fianna Fáil administration. The EU beef fines took up much of my time earlier this year when negotiating a mitigation. I have put in place, and will research, further, the most stringent BSE eradication plan here. It was unacceptable to me that the meat from depopulated herds was available for human consumption and that the cohorts and progeny were not being taken out. The acid test of my record in handling the BSE crisis is that, in 1996, the consumption of beef in Europe will be at a historic low — it has never been lower in the history of the European Union. In 1996, we will have slaughtered, processed and sold more steer beef than ever before. Considering the calamity we faced, that is a remarkable achievement. I look forward to increased prices, to the payment of further compensation and the restoration of supports. I assure people that as far as agriculture is concerned, notwithstanding that this was the worst disaster to hit European farmers in the past 30 years, we have managed it competently and professionally.
I understand the frustrations of the Opposition. They have thrown the kitchen sink at the Minister for Justice, but she has come through. All Ministers are only passing through and no one holds tenure forever. In five or ten years, it will be shown that the record of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, in the Department of Justice was historic and radical. It will also be shown that she, with distinction, turned the tide against the criminals in favour of the victims with the changes in the bail laws and other measures relating to the courts, prisons and the Garda Síochána. The House will assert confidence in the Government tonight with solidarity between the three parties which are operating well. I have no doubt we will get a mandate to continue that work after the next election.
I welcome the opportunity and am proud and privileged to support the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen. If we had had Ministers like her in the past, crime would not be as rampant as it was when she was appointed and gangsters and criminals would not have had free rein to accumulate massive amounts of ill-gotten goods, property and investments. Listening to the Opposition parties one would think crime began two years ago when this Government come to office. It was brought to public notice when the Government took over and the drug barons were brought to heel. As a fine person with a good political background the Minister for Justice has my full support, and she has the trust of the people which is important in the ministry she holds.
The contributions of the Progressive Democrats Deputies, and particularly of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, deserve to be treated with the contempt with which thousands attending the film "Michael Collins" viewed Fianna Fáil's advertisement to the effect that Fianna Fáil, the so-called republican party, would deal with drugs when they get back into power. That advertisement is a joke. Fianna Fáil is climbing on the back of a great statesman while at the same time stabbing in the back his grandniece who is dealing with crime.
This is a real B movie.
If it were not so serious, it would be hilarious. It is unbelievable, but it does not surprise me. Fianna Fáil will stop at nothing to drive a wedge between the three parties in Government.
The Odeon in Cootehill must have been packed.
The Deputy was in Cootehill and got the message loud and clear. Deputy Owen will deal with the criminals.
I am saddened and sickened by the posturing of some Fianna Fáil Deputies, of the do-gooders, of the fat cat lawyers running to the Supreme Court and claiming constitutional rights for hardened criminals, who gave not a moment's thought to others and who did not stop to give Detective Sergeant Jerry McCabe a fair chance but shot him in cold blood while he sat in his car. Did they allow him to open the door of his car to make a bid for freedom in a fair fight? They did not have the courage to do that. These are the people the fat cat lawyers, the do-gooders and some members of the Fianna Fáil party want to see free on our streets this weekend. They have no support for that. Did the people who shot Veronica Guerin in cold blood give her an opportunity to say a final prayer before she went to her eternal reward? The perpetrators of that crime — some of them are behind bars — would seek to have their constitutional rights defended. It sickens me and it sickens decent people. It is time we woke up to what is happening.
Members should be somewhat careful about commenting on matters that are before the court.
I stand over what I say. This is a serious debate.
I must caution Members to be careful about what is said in this privileged Chamber.
I have never made a statement in this House that I could not repeat outside. I am saying what honest decent people are saying — 95 per cent of our population. It is time crime was dealt with. It is time for all of us to support the person who is dealing with it the Minister for Justice, Deputy Nora Owen. She has the confidence of the people.
There are tremendous crime problems which I would liken to a nest of wild bees in rural Ireland on a summer's afternoon. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats walked by and did not stir them so they would not get stung. Deputy Owen did not walk by the criminals. She has taken the honey from them, the money they took from young people as they peddled their evil wares. She is dealing with them. They are scattered all over the world. They are running out of the country. Their empires are being brought down and peace, honesty and dignity will return to the country under the leadership of the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, and under the stewardship of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Nora Owen.
I have some regard for some of the members of the Progressive Democrats, and I have a high regard for their Leader, Deputy Mary Harney, particularly in the context of her attitude to the IRA. She never failed to condemn the IRA outright and I admire her for that. However, her contribution yesterday, in which she tried to crawl on the graves of decent women who lost their lives tragically to make political points, was beneath contempt. She tried to vilify the Minister's concern. Both Ministers, Deputies Michael Noonan and Nora Owen are decent people who would not cause hurt to anybody and they are dealing with the problems as they should.
As to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, to whom I am closer and for whom I have the highest regard, I did not mind in the least Deputy Harney's swipe at the Russian deal — at least we are dealing with the animal world and we can take that. However, as in the case of her previous statement, what she said was untrue. The measures that were put in place were in place before the Russian deal, and that deal was done to protect the market. Farmers know that. The Opposition spokesperson, Deputy Brian Cowen, knows that. He got that message loud and clear in Cootehill.
That was a Fianna Fáil convention.
I hear there was a riot in Wexford.
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, has the full support of the farmers and is doing a marvellous job. The contribution of the Progressive Democrats should be treated in the same way as the offal which caused a problem in agriculture. It should be consigned to the inferno and burned, because it was not worth listening to. We have major problems, and we hope the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, will remain in office for a further full term to address them. The people are depending on her to do that. It is unfair that people with ill-gotten gains should be able to buy freedom, to acquire the best legal brains to defend them and perhaps get off because of a loophole in the law. That is not acceptable. If it means amending our laws to deal with the matter, that must be done. The Minister will have the people's support in doing that, just as the referendum on bail will have unanimous support, and new laws will go some way towards protecting decent people so that they will not be afraid to stay in their homes and leave their doors unlocked as was traditional among old people so that a neighbour could drop in and have a chat. As things are, they have to have locks, chains and bars to protect themselves because nobody was prepared to deal with crime. Judges seem to think their hands are tied. I do not accept that. Judges have sufficient laws to put people behind bars on remand. Criminals thought they might as well hang for a sheep as a lamb when charged with a crime and set free on bail for anything from three to 18 months under the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Administration. The people on remand continued to plunder and to beat up old people. When they came to trial all counts would be taken into account and they would receive one sentence. That should no longer be the case. Each felony should be dealt with and penalised and the appropriate term of imprisonment served. That is what the people want.
I fully support the Minister for Justice. I wish her all the best in the future and look forward to great successes for her in the Justice ministry.
I am enthralled to listen to Deputy Boylan. I am sure he will be delighted to hear that we on this side of the House share his desire to see the full suppression of crime in the State. Earlier this year I was glad to see our spokesman, Deputy O'Donoghue, pilot a fine measure through this House to deal with the honey-pots to which Deputy Boylan referred.
I propose to share time with Deputy Brian Cowen.
The Minister will be glad to hear what I have to say.
The motion of confidence was tabled after the two parties in Opposition tabled a motion relating to the conduct of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General. Last Friday the Taoiseach was reported to have said that even if the Minister offered her resignation he would refuse to accept it. That is a fine testament of loyalty on the part of the Taoiseach.
Charlie Haughey did not get it.
Loyalty is a Roman virtue and I have never condemned it. However, it left the Opposition with no option but to table a motion of no confidence.
It is clear the independent inquiry established had nothing to do with the conduct of the Minister and everything to do with locating a public servant who might be deemed responsible for the events that occurred. There is little point waiting to hear the outcome of an independent inquiry if the Taoiseach announces in advance that the political head of the Department being inquired into is not on the line as far as the matters under investigation are concerned. That is why we had to bring this matter before the House.
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, said a few moments ago that Fianna Fáil was trying to act as judge and jury before the independent inquiry came to a conclusion. However, the Taoiseach acted as judge and jury because, according to reports, he indicated last Friday that in no circumstances would he accept the resignation of the Minister, even if she offered it.
It was understandable but improper of the Association of Higher Civil Servants to issue such a deplorable statement last Friday. I was disappointed that not once did the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice or the Minister of State with responsibility for the strategic management initiative and the evolution of our public services, Deputy Doyle, repudiate it. The statement was a departure from the norm that is supposed to obtain in the administration of public business in this State, that the Civil Service does not intervene in partisan politics. The independence and impartiality of the Civil Service is a valued asset in the administration of the State, yet the statement issued by the Association of Higher Civil Servants, in effect, supported the Minister.
That was a sinister development. It was even more sinister that the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for the public service neglected to deal with it in their statements. We talk about the right to silence in our discussions on judicature and law reform. If we were to draw an inference from the silence of the Government on this statement, we would have to say that the Government was guilty in some way, although I am not suggesting it, and that a civil servant was approached to support the Minister. I am not making that allegation.
I should hope not.
However, I was disappointed that no Minister disowned that behaviour or outlined what steps will be taken by the Government to avoid a repetition of it.
It had nothing to do with us.
It is improper for an association of civil servants to issue a political statement of that nature. Perhaps the motivation for the statement was the fact that the Taoiseach made it clear before a motion was tabled in the Dáil that he would not accept the resignation of the Minister. It was only natural to assume that the purpose of the inquiry was to isolate one of the civil servants in the Department as the culprit in this matter.
The Taoiseach made extensive reference to the proposed Public Service Management Bill. Let us look at the context in which the Bill is being introduced. The Taoiseach said that judgment of the Minister for Justice must be made in the context of the impending legislation. The Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, also dealt with the Bill in great detail. However, the provisions of the Bill do not deal with the circumstances which arose in the Office of the Minister for Justice which have given rise to this controversy.
The Bill does not propose to devolve the appointment of judges under the Constitution or their assigning to the Special Criminal Court to somebody else. If their appointment will not be devolved to somebody else, one can take it that the courtesy of informing judges of their appointments will also not be delegated to another civil servant. Therefore, the main intellectual justification advanced by the Taoiseach, as distinct from the vulgar laughter and abuse of the Fianna Fáil benches in which he engaged yesterday, has no application to the facts of this case. It is not proposed, I take it, to set up an executive agency to write to judges informing them of their appointments to different judicial offices. It will remain the personal responsibility of the Minister for Justice to ensure such notifications take place after the enactment of the proposed Bill
Reference was also made to an extensive reshuffling of responsibilities regarding prisons and the courts. However, it is not suggested that the new courts service will advise judges of their appointments. If they do there will be another letter in the chain of correspondence when a judge is appointed to a court.
I am probably out of line with the views of many Deputies in sounding a note of caution about the number of bodies we are establishing to which we are developing functions which should be administered by Departments of State. At present there is a guarantee to the citizens of the State that the Minister for Justice is accountable to the House, at least notionally, for the administration of prisons, the operations of the Garda Síochána and the staffing arrangements of the courts. I am not sure that the proposed changes, which involve the shuttling of responsibilities to various boards, will maintain the degree of control the citizen can exercise through this House. I am not saying that in a contentious sense.
Mrs. Justice Denham thought it was a good idea.
She may have but she is not a Member of this House. She is an eminent member of the Supreme Court which has a different function under the Constitution. Its function is to adjudicate disputes before it, not deal with staffing arrangements. One of the reasons such staffing arrangements were made the responsibility of the Minister for Justice at the foundation of the State was that it was an administrative service in which the citizen should have confidence.
The Taoiseach referred to the prisons board, the courts service and the Freedom of Information Bill. The latter leads me to the Attorney General and his advice. I welcome the fact that the Minister laid the correspondence before the House. The Taoiseach now has the opportunity to lay the correspondence of the Attorney General before the House. Two letters are involved and it would assist us in the conduct of the debate if we were given sight of them.
It is clear, as the Taoiseach pointed out yesterday, that the Attorney General, strictly speaking, had no function in this matter. In no sense is the Minister for Justice a client of the Attorney General. The Attorney General took it upon himself to give advice in this matter. I am not sure whether that can be described as the exercise of a guardianship of the public interest or as an excess of duty. The Attorney General had no strict function in the matter. He imposed himself as a legal adviser. If I can be so disrespectful to suggest, he constituted or sought out his client. He was not selected by his client for advice on this occasion; he decided to give a potential client advice, if we are to follow the lawyer-client metaphor which the Taoiseach adopted yesterday. The Attorney General took it upon himself to look for business, so to speak.
That is something the Deputy would never do.
According to the Taoiseach, the Attorney General has 112 written communications with Ministers and senior civil servants in any month, in addition to consideration of 150 files. In the course of much of that business the Attorney General would deal with an officer who is assigned to a particular file. The number of occasions on which the Attorney General would have direct correspondence with a Minister would be few. There are 15 Ministers in the Cabinet. Taking the Taoiseach's figure of 112 written communications and restricting our calculations to the number of communications with Ministers, it does not amount to a substantial amount of correspondence. The point has been made in the debate but it is incredible that this correspondence was not drawn to the attention of the Minister. The public has been asked to believe that and we have to apply some presumptions in relation to honesty. It is a strange state of affairs that that was the case. It appears from Question Time today that the second letter from the Attorney General contained advices. In my experience, advices are not given unless requested. I would like to know why the word "advice" was used by the Taoiseach in relation to the second letter from the Attorney General.
One other matter, about which I am confused is the whole question of Judge Haugh. As the Minister pointed out last night, on 6 September the warrant appointing Judge Haugh to the Special Criminal Court was sent to the Dublin County Registrar but it does not appear from the statement when Judge Haugh was advised of his appointment. I ask whether there was a similar lapse of time in relation to that issue as in relation to the advice given in respect of Judge Lynch. This matter is not clarified in the Minister's statement.
On the general question of confidence in the Government, the Taoiseach gave a stirring defence of his general guardianship of the nation's affairs last night. I was disappointed that throughout that defence the greatest legacy he received from the previous Administration was not mentioned, the peace process in Northern Ireland. I found that the most telling aspect of his speech.
In regard to the most recent débâcle of the Minister for Justice it was great to hear the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, defend the Minister for Justice by praising himself in 95 per cent of his speech. Some things never change. I welcome also the new film critic of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party, Deputy Boylan, who gave a critical appraisal of the film "Michael Collins" which I saw on Saturday night, it is an excellent film. I suggest there is some supreme irony involved in that the Minister was viewing the premier of her illustrious relative — a man who was able to break down the domination of Dublin Castle by getting spies to infiltrate and making sure he knew what was going on. Perhaps the Minister should employ a similar tactic in her Department and get a few people to tell her what is going on in her Department. That would be a major advance in terms of the information technology expert who is trying to find out how to put a date on a letter. I would not have thought an information technology expert would be required for what is obviously a complicated task in the Department of Justice.
The response of the Government to the prisoners débâcle last week would be astonishing if it were not for the fact that it forms part of a consistent pattern of incompetence, inconsistency, arrogance and evasiveness which have come to characterise the performance of the Government. The trail of chaos which preceded the last debacle is worth recording. First, the Minister for Health, having refused to establish a tribunal of inquiry into the blood transfusion scandal, was ultimately shamed into setting up a full inquiry but only after he had scandalously abused the memory of the dead victim of his own Department's incompetence for which he subsequently and properly apologised.
Second, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry boasted of doing hard deals at Dublin Airport while he was in a licensed premises in Enniscorthy in his constituency. Third, the Office of the Minister for Defence was bandied around the Four Courts in the context of who said what and who drank how much at a reception in Cyprus. Neither should we forget the Walter Mitty type hallucinations last year of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications or the circumstances which necessitated the resignation of Fine Gael's first choice as Minister for Defence and also of its junior Minister at the Department of Finance.
Now we have the débâcle of the Minister for Justice who has admitted that there was maladministration in her Department; that 16 persons remanded in custody in connection with very serious crimes had to be released and rearrested, five of whom have successfully applied to the High Court for an investigation into whether they are in lawful custody; that she was present at a Cabinet meeting when a judge of the Special Criminal Court was delisted but never told with the result that the legality of the Special Criminal Court was voided for several months; and that her civil servants' view of her standing in her Department was such that she was left in the dark, according to herself.
Last week the Minister for Justice failed to disclose to the House that not only had the Attorney General twice written to her in vain attempts to highlight the unlawful composition of the highly sensitive Special Criminal Court but that Judge Lynch had written to her asking for clarification of the position. She said she did not disclose the contents of this letter because it was undated. She said she did not understand where it fitted into the sequence of events or whether it was relevant. We can only charitably assume that her explanation was concocted by her or by the officials in her Department, into whose conduct she has now established an inquiry.
The content of the letter from Judge Lynch spoke for itself. In the context of her statement to the House last week it was clear the letter had to be relevant. A person with any modicum of intelligence would have known that. The question of when the letter was sent was obviously relevant and of political and administrative significance. That it was relevant was transparently clear.
The Minister has not admitted everything. As demonstrated yesterday in the High Court, there are still question marks surrounding the legality of the detention of the 16 prisoners. The legal experts would appear to agree that had the Minister arranged for the prisoners to be released through the gates of Portlaoise Prison, as the original detention was on foot of an admitted maladministration in her Department, they could have been lawfully rearrested and recharged. Even that could not have been properly organised by the Minister. On the basis, presumably that she could not be confident that she could organise the arrest of 16 people emerging, one by one, at a time and place of her choice, she arranged that they would be arrested while they were still within the walls of the prison.
On a point of order, I have no role in the re-arrest of prisoners; that is a role for the DPP. Lest there be confusion, my role was in their release. The Deputy is a lawyer and he should understand that.
My comment is in relation to the manner of their release. As these people were never released from the precincts of Portlaoise Prison they are now arguing that their unlawful detention never ceased and that their current detention is tainted with illegality. That this is an arguable proposition has already been demonstrated by the decision of the High Court to grant conditional orders of habeas corpus to five of them. It is well established that where persons are placed in unlawful custody due to technical errors, while they may have to be released, their release need only be technical and they need not be set at liberty in any meaningful way. They do not have to be given what is called a head start. It is equally well established that where persons are unlawfully detained, as part of a deliberate and conscious violation of their rights, they are entitled to be released in a meaningful way and be given such a head start. No doubt it will be argued that although she knew the detention of these men was unlawful, the Minister elected never to release them from Portlaoise Prison——
I did not.
——but deliberately and consciously decided they would be rearrested while still in unlawful custody.
I have no role in that.
Whether there is merit in that argument will be for the courts to decide. That the argument is being advanced is a further damning indictment of the Minister's performance. The position of some of the Government parties seems to be that the Minister does not have to resign yet but that if any of the prisoners ultimately end up being released she will have to go. So far the response of the Government has been that if the Minister makes a complete hames of running her Department she will not be removed but most of her Department will be closed down. It is ludicrous that she is being left to run what is left of her Department while we await the outcome of proceedings in the High Court, brought about by her ministerial incompetence.
What about the role of the Attorney General? We all appreciate he is a very busy man having to run not only his own office of State but also having to play the role of political babysitter for the Taoiseach. Nevertheless, it is astonishing that a lawyer as eminent as the Attorney General would regard the fact that the Special Criminal Court was not properly constituted as a matter to be dealt with in a letter. The failure to reply to it caused no surprise for more than a month. He had received no reply to such an important letter for a month and what did the Attorney do? Did he lift the telephone to speak with his ministerial and party colleague, the Minister for Justice? Did he not think of saying something to her on one of the many occasions on which they must have met during that month? Why did he not simply lift the telephone and speak to her in the first place? Why did not the Minister for Justice lift the telephone to speak to Judge Lynch last week and ascertain the date of his letter instead of coming into the House and suppressing its existence?
It is difficult to believe that an eminent lawyer is not familiar with the potential of a telephone as a means of communication. The people are entitled to expect of the Attorney General at least the same degree of service that would be afforded by him to his private clients when in practise at the Bar.
In this respect, the Attorney General is not answerable to this House but to the people of Ireland. The Taoiseach is answerable in this House. It is widely believed that the Taoiseach's unexpected survival is entirely due to the political babysitting skills of the present Attorney General. The survival of the Taoiseach is too large a price to pay if the security of the State is endangered because the Attorney General is unable to find time to do his own job.
What about the ultimate arbiter of all that is right and proper in this land of ours? What about Mr. Openness, Mr. Accountability and Mr. Transparency — the Tánaiste? He will finish the debate and make sure nobody can come in and argue against him.
He is rock solid.
During the past week it appears that Messrs. Openness, Transparency and Accountability have been replaced by Messrs. Excuse, Ignore and Equivocate. It is not that the Tánaiste and the Labour Party have any great stomach for voting with Fine Gael but rather that they are determined, like most sensible turkeys, to vote to postpone Christmas for as long as possible.
A few good lines for the Sunday Independent.
That is for sure.
The issue which gave rise to this debate is the institutional failure of which the current incident is the latest, and potentially most serious, manifestation. Drastic system failures do not occur suddenly, they are the product of a long build-up. This is why it is nonsense to blame the current Minister.
It is acknowledged by everyone that there are serious problems in the Department of Justice. Deputy Owen has been in charge of that Department for less than two years. These problems predate her tenure in office. They have now come to light in dramatic fashion but it must be said that while this is the most serious, it is not the first administrative system failure in the Department.
Deputy Owen inherited rather than created these problems. The Opposition is keen to see parallels between what is happening now and the events of two years ago. There are some similarities but there is one essential difference — this is an embarrassing and unacceptable system failure which is openly acknowledged by the Minister and the Government and which is being thoroughly investigated and will be remedied. Two years ago we witnessed a system failure which the parties did not acknowledge the existence of and tried to cover up when all else failed.
A report on the current problem will be published next week in full and without the sort of selective editing and advance briefing which Fianna Fail indulged in two years ago when the beef tribunal report was issued. The Minister will answer questions fully and comprehensively in the Dáil. There will be no attempt to exclude, cover up or put a spin on anything. This Government and this Minister have nothing to hide — we recognise the failure and we intend to ensure it does not happen again.
I am greatly impressed by the number of times the Opposition have had to rely on quotations from the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, to make their point.
The Minister of State cannot blame us.
Deputies Ahern and Harney, apparently, are unable to put their own words on the necessary standards to be applied in Government. It is heartening that they have accepted that the Tánaiste is the authority on which they must rely. I can only hope that they have genuinely taken his standards to heart and will apply them if they are ever in Government again.
In my short time as a Minister of State in the Department of Justice, with limited responsibilities, I have found the officials in the Department, like other public servants, to be in general decent and honourable individuals. Again, as in other walks of life, some are outstanding, some are average and some are inefficient and do not provide the quality of service to which the public is entitled. In this respect the Department is no different from other Government Departments or institutions. Department of Justice officials, however, operate under a considerable disadvantage — they are often overwhelmed by the institutional culture which they have inherited.
I know and acknowledge that many Department of Justice officials are deeply upset and embarrassed by what has happened. The criticisms I will mention in my speech today have been heard already by those officials. My contribution is made in a spirit of constructive criticism and out of a genuine wish for reform. I know that many officials will welcome the changes we are proposing and I realise that these changes will require negotiation and planning. I do not doubt the capacity of officials to implement these changes. The fact that the Justice culture has not been tackled before is largely the responsibility, not of officials but of successive Governments.
No serious attempt was made prior to 1992 to address the structural problems in the Department of Justice. It is an utter nonsense for the Opposition to suggest that previous Ministers for Justice were in command and control of their officials to a degree that the present Minister is not.
Successive Ministers for Justice have not tackled the problem whereby too much power rests with officials who are not accountable. That such power has remained in the Department of Justice since the foundation of the State is the responsibility of all Ministers of Justice.
It has been argued that the changes announced by the Taoiseach yesterday are a cynical response to a crisis. This is unfair. These commitments were explicity outlined in the programme, A Government of Renewal. A number of measures have already been introduced to remove some of the functions of the Department of Justice and to place them in other agencies. It is true that dramatic events tend to galvanise people into action with more urgency than might otherwise be the case. This does not just apply to politicians and public servants but to many sections of the community. Institutions are inherently resistant to change; crises sometimes have the necessary cathartic effects. This crisis provides us with an opportunity to take the further measures to change the way we run our criminal justice system.
By setting up independent authorities to look after the courts and the prisons we are continuing a trend of replacing direct departmental control over important matters with independent bodies. In another Department, for example, we have already devolved planning appeals to an independent authority. We have also devolved the question of constituency boundaries and we are proposing to devolve responsibilities to local education boards.
The Labour and Fianna Fáil Government of 1992 made the first move to change the Department of Justice when responsibility for civil law reform was transferred to the new Department of Equality and Law Reform. The quality and quantity of the major programme of law reform undertaken by that Department in the past four years is a testament to the improvements which can be made when institutional gridlock is removed.
The Refugee Act, which I steered through the Oireachtas earlier this year, involves the removal of the current functions of the Department in this area to an independent Refugee Commissioner. Again, this will mean that the process of dealing with asylum seekers will not only be independent but will be seen to be so.
The Taoiseach has already announced the Government's intention to establish an independent courts service and an independent prisons board. I welcome these. I also want to see an independent Garda authority in addition to the proposal in the Government's programme to designate the Garda Commissioner as the accounting officer for the force. I also believe that the area of criminal law reform should be transferred to the Department of Equality and Law Reform. Furthermore, I want to let light shine on our obscure immigration rules and our dealings with non-nationals who are not refugees.
What we are proposing here is not just reform — it would more appropriately be described as creating new systems rather than simply reforming old ones. The creation of a new system for administering the courts is not particularly difficult. I acknowledge that the creation of a new system for the prisons is much more difficult.
The Whitaker report on the Penal System described how "the detailed administration of prisons has moved to an excessive degree into the Department of Justice, to the detriment of discretion and responsibility, and therefore of good management". The "fundamental malaise" which the committee recognised as existing in the relationship between management and staff in the prison system has not improved.
Over the years, officials in the Department have effectively been allowed to exercise power without responsibility. This has to end. The new board will have the power, but also the responsibility. As with the Courts Service, that responsibility is to the community and not just to any one section of it. The new prisons board will have a difficult task. If it is properly structured and has suitable personnel in charge, it should be able to greatly improve the running of our prisons. Its establishment is a recognition that the considerations which apply to the running of the prison system are not exclusively security ones. A proper parole system needs to be introduced and it is appropriate that this be done independently of the Department, as stipulated in the Government's programme. Similarly, entitlement to temporary release should be determined independently.
Access to the courts is one of the most basic civil rights of citizens. Speedy trials are an essential element of justice. The present arrangements are not satisfactory. The new courts service must exist for the benefit of all citizens, the entire community. This will require a strong consumer input into the structures and procedures. While judges must make decisions on legal matters and on matters affecting people's rights, judges and lawyers are not necessarily the best people to decide on administration, which is the function of professional management with appropriate training and experience. There is a perception that the courts are run by lawyers for lawyers and if this is the case it has to be brought to an end.
The Refugee Act is widely acknowledged as progressive and humane and we are in the process of setting up the offices of the commissioner and appeals board. I expect this work to be accelerated as the process of change takes root in the Department.
The question of our dealings with non-nationals needs to be addressed, the relevant legislation needs to be updated and a clear and transparent immigration policy set out. The application system for visas is a mystery even to the initiated. This is unacceptable in a modern democracy. People who apply for visas or residence permits do not necessarily have a right to get what they are seeking but they have a right to natural justice and proper procedures and to have their applications assessed in accordance with clearly known criteria. The perception that this is not the case at present cannot be easily rebutted because of the shroud of secrecy which surrounds the entire process. This is why I referred to the culture inherited by the Department since its foundation.
The absence of openness and transparency in this area not only goes against the principles of open government but it also means that an inordinate amount of official time is spent trying to explain actions in the courts. A new system is required for practical reasons as well as reasons of principle. The new systems must be staffed at a senior level by people with a public service ethos and management abilities. They must be prepared to take personal responsibility for the operation of the systems and not be subject to the corrosive effects of permanence. Effective democratic government requires the responsible exercise of power, which must reside clearly and explicity in certain people who are accountable for their actions.
These changes mean that the Department of Justice will be essentially a home affairs Department with policy making responsibilities. Given its heavy operational workload, the Department has not been able to develop its policy making role to any serious extent. The changes we are making will allow for more concentration on policy issues rather than on the need to respond to the demands of the moment. The demands on officials are very severe.
The Department will continue to have a significant involvement in matters relating to Northern Ireland and to the justice and home affairs pillar of the EU. The Government's continuing efforts to bring about a settlement in Northern Ireland require continued involvement by the Department of Justice at the most senior level. While the Secretary of the Department and an assistant secretary in Belfast are involved in this work, a second secretary or deputy secretary should be appointed to look after the administration of the Department. This is particularly important in order to oversee the transfer of functions to the new agencies. We are indebted to these officials for their work in this area.
The justice and home affairs pillar of the EU is a morass of impenetrable bureaucracy which has been created by the 15 member states. There is a plethora of working groups, steering groups, committees of experts and a committee of senior officials. There are 28 groups dealing with various aspects of the justice and home affairs pillar. When I was being briefed by my officials I had to ask them to draw a diagram as I could not understand the complicated structures. The activities of this pillar should either be transferred to the first pillar or abolished. The work being carried out by the Department of Justice in these groups and committees is not based on any stated policy and it is very difficult for anyone to find out what exactly is being discussed. There is no public input into the process. When our Presidency is over we must take a hard look at our involvement in this area, open it up to public scrutiny and question whether we should be as deeply involved as we are at present. This is pertinent to the ongoing Intergovernmental Conference process. While there is a lively public debate on issues relating to common foreign and security policy, social policy — for example, hours of work and the social chapter — agricultural policy etc. the areas of justice and home affairs are not being opened up to public scrutiny. I would like to see changes in this area.
The respective roles of the officials and the Minister in policy making need to be clearly designated. We all know the theory but putting it into practice is not so easy. There are areas of policy which are never scrutinised by Ministers. This applies to many Departments. Many policies put forward, particularly at EU level, have never been the subject of a Government decision because they come from the sub-committee structure of officials. Members who have been Ministers and been involved in European Union affairs will understand this point.
When problems arise it is normal to say there is a need for more resources. There is always a need for more resources, but I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I do not believe the essential problem in the Department of Justice is one of resources. It would be entirely wrong and possibly disastrous if the problem was addressed simply by allocating more resources to the Department. Real reform and new systems are required and some of this may necessitate additional resources at some stage. The introduction of reform is difficult and throwing money at it is not the way to go.
I have confidence in the Government and all its Ministers. I am proud of the Government's record in the areas of education and equality, the improvements in social services and the measures taken to deal with crime and the drugs menace. During the Minister's tenure of office extraordinary legislation has been enacted, for example, the legislation setting up the criminal assets bureau and the other structures to fight the problem of drugs and crime. The Government's policy on the arts has been particularly effective. I am proud of my record which has seen major increases in overseas development assistance, a leadership role in peacemaking, a significant involvement in disarmament, particularly the movement to eliminate landmines, and major reform of our refugee laws. I was proud to represent Ireland on the Troika which recently visited the Great Lakes region.
This matter is important but so are the lives of many people currently at risk. The legislative record of this Government is second to none; its management of the economy, its development of services, its inclusive commitment to the social and economic rights of all people cannot be matched.
Reform is necessary and the officials and staff who work in the Department of Justice are more than capable of implementing the reforms required. I assure the Opposition that this is a long playing record which has a full year of good music still to play and the studios are booked for the subsequent five years. Nostalgia may be a potent force in the music business but it is not suitable for politics. The hymns this Government sings are for now and for the future.
Followed by a singer.
I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Hanlon.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is often said that justice is blind. The Minister and her Department appear to have taken this literally. The Minister appears to know little or nothing of what goes on in her Department concerning the important issues of the day and the Department appears to be determined to keep it that way. Since the Minister took office she has repeatedly come into this House to stand over one blunder after another by persons in respect of whom she had direct responsibility. The excuse is always the same: that she did not know, was not informed or is awaiting the outcome of an inquiry.
I want to make it clear that my comments are political and directed to the Minister for Justice, the Attorney General, the Taoiseach and the Government. The comments are not personal. I know the Minister personally and respect her. In fact, the Minister, Deputy Owen, and I worked together on many issues related to Africa. However, as Mr. Fergus Finlay said in his book The Cruel Trade, politics is a cruel trade. These comments are made as one politician to another. Perhaps the conclusion might be that they put Deputy Owen in the wrong ministry.
Does the Deputy want to make Deputy Owen Taoiseach?
As regards not knowing what is going on, we will now give the Minister the facts. We had the Duncan extradition affair when an extradition warrant was shredded by a member of the Garda Síochána. According to the Minister, she was unable to ascertain what happened and remained in ignorance for over a month. How does it take five weeks for the Minister for Justice to find out that a member of the Garda Síochána shredded the warrant when this was known within days by the garda's superiors? The Minister claims she was not told and was not able to find out.
The Minister commended the Garda Síochána for its part in the so-called Urlingford drugs seizure but it subsequently transpired that the drugs at Urlingford had been put there by the Garda Síochána in the first place. This massive drugs haul, supposedly made by the Garda Síochána, was the subject of huge media coverage. Why was the Minister unaware that the drugs had been placed there by the Garda Síochána? Why, when the seizure became public knowledge, was the Minister not informed of the true circumstances? The public relations exercise for the Minister and her Department backfired.
It now seems that a personal letter from the Attorney General to the Minister, addressed to her private office, is not to be seen. How long has this system been in operation? Who put these procedures in place, and was the Minister aware that this system operated in her private office? If so, why did she allow it to continue? If she was not aware of the systems and procedures within her office, why not?
The Department of Justice operates with little or no input from the Minister. As the country looked with growing unease at the rise of the drug barons and their apparent immunity to the legal process, the Minister and her Department stood idly by, gangland feuds and contract killings escalated, the drug barons continued to amass vast fortunes and it fell to Fianna Fáil in Opposition to present the Minister with a Bill providing for the seizure of criminal assets.
The latest fiasco beggars belief. The Government relieved Judge Lynch of his duties as a judge of the Special Criminal Court — a post in the most sensitive court in the State — whose members are placed at increased risk of attack from subversives and serious criminals. The Minister was present at the Cabinet meeting when the decision was made to relieve Judge Lynch of his duties and replace him on the court with Judge Haugh. It is up to the Minister and her Department to implement the Government's decision but it was not conveyed to Judge Lynch. The response of the Minister to this débâcle is to simply say it had nothing to do with her and that she did not know. However, if the Minister had not allowed her Department to effectively run out of control this would never had happened.
If the Minister did not know until 4 November, then this situation was brought about by her failure to ensure that proper procedures were put in place in her private office. Is the Minister telling us that she has no responsibility for the systems operated in her private office? This is ludicrous because it is her office and it is up to her to order how it conducts its business. The Minister is responsible for it.
The Minister claims she cannot be expected to be aware of every scrap of paper that arrives on her desk but surely any letter from a judge or the Attorney General in relation to the Special Criminal Court cannot be described as a scrap of paper.
The Minister is not alone, however, in failing to grasp the significance of the matter under debate. It seems that in early October the Attorney General was made aware of an impression among the Judiciary that Judge Lynch was still a member of the Special Criminal Court. What did the Attorney General, as the Government's legal adviser and guardian of the public interest, do when informed of this impression? Did he contact Judge Lynch to find out if he has been informed of the fact that he has been removed from the Special Criminal Court? Did he contact the president of the court to establish whether he was informed of Judge Lynch's removal? Did he make any attempt to establish the facts? The answer is no on all counts. He merely conveyed this impression to the Minister by way of a letter.
When he did not receive an acknowledgement of this letter and no apparent action was taken, the Attorney General did nothing further. It was only when he apparently read in a newspaper that Judge Lynch continued to sit on the Special Criminal Court that he took further action. What further action did the Government's legal adviser and guardian of the public interest take? Did he seek a meeting with the Minister for Justice or the Taoiseach to apprise them of the situation? Did it occur to him to telephone either the Minister for Justice or the Taoiseach directly and discuss the matter with them? Again, on all counts the answer is no. Instead, the Attorney General decided to write a second letter to the Minister stating that this situation could cause legal difficulties.
Presumably the release of 16 high security prisoners is regarded by the Attorney General as nothing more than a potential legal difficulty. A number of days passed and still no apparent action was taken on foot of the Attorney General's second letter. It seems that the Attorney General was reluctant to contact the Minister for Justice or the Taoiseach personally or directly.
This is extraordinary. It seems that the man who was hailed as a legal whiz kid, the man who would drag the Attorney General's office into the late 20th century, the man who would oversee the computerisation of the Attorney General's office and the introduction of state-of-the-art technology into the functioning of that office, did not think about using a simple old fashioned telephone to call either the Minister for Justice or the Taoiseach. Instead he decided to write vague and ineffectual letters to the Minister while keeping the Taoiseach in the dark.
Surely the Attorney General as governmental legal adviser and guardian of the public interest had a duty to bring the significance of this matter to the attention of the Taoiseach as soon as he became aware of a potential problem. Surely he was under a duty to bring to the attention of the Taoiseach the fact that the most sensitive court in the State was unlawfully constituted, and have the situation rectified immediately. That was his duty but he failed to carry it out.
He either did not appreciate the legal significance of the problem or, more likely, he was prepared to simply sit back and wait to see what the Minister might eventually get around to doing. I call on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice to publish the correspondence from the Attorney General which is crucial and central to this debate. Members are entitled to see that correspondence. By refusing to disclose these letters the Minister is involved in a blatant coverup.
I am not refusing.
The Minister's clever political footwork in having a parallel inquiry, the results of which will not be available until next Monday, will fool nobody.
Why does the Deputy not wait for the report?
Mr. Kitt
The Taoiseach's defence of the Attorney General in claiming that he had to deal with 112 such written communications during October with Ministers and senior civil servants is pathetic. It is difficult to accept that the other 111 issues were of the same crucial importance when one considers that as a result of the Attorney General's incompetence and negligence on this particular matter, 16 high security prisoners had to be released and rearrested.
The Government parties are prepared to stand over the mishandling of this matter by the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General. It seems that Democratic Left and the Labour Party can think of no grounds upon which to criticise the Minister or the Attorney General for their handling of this fiasco. Does anyone seriously believe for one moment that if the Tánaiste or the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, were sitting on the Opposition benches, they would be condoning the conduct of the Minister for Justice or of the Attorney General?
The Minister should have burnt the letter.
Is that what Fianna Fáil does with letters it finds embarrassing?
I suppose the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, will also condone the conduct of the Minister and the Attorney General. We could also quote some of his juicy statements.
The Tánaiste's utterances on accountability in November 1994 have already been referred to. Those fine words and sentiments now ring hollow in the public ear. Where is the concern for accountability now? Where is the concern for the doctrine of ministerial responsibility? Where is the bloody and invisible hand of the Tánaiste's adviser? It appears the sacrificial knife is to remain firmly in its scabbard. The Tánaiste's high standards have slipped significantly since going into the present Coalition. He and his party are prepared to tolerate any dereliction of duty on the part of any Minister to avoid a confrontation or a dispute within the Coalition. The Tánaiste's volte-face on this issue is explicable only by one thing, fear. He and the Labour Party are afraid to face the electorate. The Government is afraid of the electorate, but the electorate is watching and waiting. Voters are not as naive as the Tánaiste believes and sooner or later they will have their say.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy should remember that.
The Tánaiste can run, but he cannot hide. His hypocrisy is patent, he stands exposed as the Minister of double standards. He applied so-called standards when he and Mr. Finlay wanted to get out of the last Government. The same standards will not be applied now because he has nowhere to go. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, claim this Government is different from the last Fianna Fáil-Labour Government in that its members trust each other. It is now patently obvious they trust each other so much they will cover up for each other no matter what conflict or crisis emerges. The Government has talked much about accountability, but from the day it took office it failed to practice what it preached. How can the Government parties stand over the Minister's handling of this affair?
I have often heard it said that God does not answer letters. It now appears that neither does the Minister. Is she trying to tell us something? The Taoiseach claims the Minister is the best Minister for Justice we have had for years.
What about the Duncan extradition affair, the supposed Urlingford drugs seizure, the escalating gangland feuds and contract killings and the fiasco concerning the Special Criminal Court? Is it not time the Taoiseach woke up and smelled the coffee?
For some time I have been concerned about the Taoiseach's grasp of reality. His response to the latest scandal in which the Minister is embroiled gives me further cause for concern. Is the Taoiseach aware of the Minister's record? Does he read the newspapers? I considered writing a letter to him appraising him of the record of his Minister for Justice, but given what we have learned so far about the workings of the present Administration there would be little point in doing so.
I thank Deputy Kitt for sharing time with me. This has been an interesting and extraordinary debate. The Taoiseach divided his speech into three parts. In the first part he went to great lengths to point out that, irrespective of any lapse in Government activities, one could exonerate himself, his Ministers and the Attorney General. He claimed they were not responsible. He even quoted Professor David Gwynn-Morgan to enable him blame the civil servants. He stated that it is unrealistic and dogmatic to expect a Minister's head to roll because some routine act of administration is badly executed by one of his or her civil servants.
In the next part of his speech he stripped the Minister of half her functions. This was a knee-jerk reaction.
That is not true. This is what I wanted. The officials of my Department and I are delighted.
Some of the Government's best decisions have been knee-jerk reactions. He concluded by claiming that everything good in the country is the work of the Government. In his view the Government can do nothing wrong.
Does anybody who sat at the Cabinet table on 1 August have responsibility? The decision to relieve Judge Lynch of his responsibilities in the Special Criminal Court might not have been the most important decision on the agenda that day, but failure to implement the decision could have serious consequences for the State. When the minutes of that meeting were read at the following Cabinet meeting, did any member ask about the decision? I was talking to a constituent last night who wondered why this did not happen. This is what happens when serious issues are dealt with at meetings of all small organisations and committees. Did the Taoiseach or the Minister not ask about the matter?
The Deputy has been there.
Did the Attorney General not whisper to somebody that he or she should ask about it? Did the leaders of Democratic Left and the Labour Party not ask about it? With their knowledge of everything that happens, one would have expected one of them to ask about the decision. There is a lack of public confidence in the Government, something the Taoiseach did not appreciate when making his contribution yesterday.
This matter is being misrepresented — I am not saying purposely — to the public, some of whom believe that, even though a letter was sent to the Department of Justice, the Minister was not informed of it and nothing was done for five weeks. The Minister and the Government sat around the Cabinet table on 1 August and made this decision. It is important that people are aware that every member of the Government was aware of the decision.
There was reference to what has happened in the Department of Justice in the past two years. The Minister, through no fault of her own, got off to a bad start when she was not given money to build a prison in Castlerea. Deputy O'Donoghue, our spokesperson on Justice, introduced a number of Bills, made a number of statements and tabled parliamentary questions calling for the introduction of legislation, but the Government refused to listen. It was only after the murder of Veronica Guerin and Detective Garda Jerry McCabe that legislation was introduced. Some of the Government's best decisions have been knee-jerk reactions. It is unfortunate that such legislation was not introduced until two people were murdered.
The Taoiseach said the Attorney General did not have responsibility in the implementation of Government decisions. He is the upholder of statutes, the defender of the Constitution and the defender of the public interest. It is interesting to note the reference to that in the programme for Government. The Attorney General failed in this responsibility. Why did he not inform the Taoiseach of his concern about legal difficulties in this regard? Why did he not communicate directly with the Minister? Deputy Kitt referred to 112 letters. Surely that letter must have stood out when he knew the implications of not implementing the decision.
The fact that yesterday the Labour Party and Democratic Left, including the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Rabbitte, did not applaud the Taoiseach at the end of his speech spoke volumes. I will not quote what the Leaders of those two parties said during a similar situation in 1994, but it makes interesting reading in the context of what is happening today. The Leader of Democratic Left has given his full backing to the Minister for Justice. He blamed nobody for this mess in the first half of his statement yesterday but the second half suggested that if someone must be blamed, it should be the civil servants. No blame is attached to the Government. I read in today's newspaper that yesterday he stated in court that he had burned his papers of 30 years. That is a tragedy because they would have made interesting reading for the public and for officials in the National Archives.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Sheehan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
All our lives have been greatly brightened in recent years by the emergence of a sparkling new talent on the comedy scene——
The Minister should not talk about himself.
——in the form of Fr. Dougal. Having had the pleasure of listening to his father, I can see where he got his talent for comedy and deadpan comment.
He only looks like me; he behaves like his mother.
The Deputy did not become a priest.
The same quizzical look was on Deputy O'Hanlon's face when he sought to make points which were funny as distinct from being serious. That typifies this debate which has been a damp squib. If the Opposition, which has been baying for this debate, cannot rise to the occasion, it is difficult to expect the rest of us to muster any enthusiasm.
We will not have a big performance from the Minister.
The division in tactics between the two Opposition parties is worth recording. Fianna Fáil, fixated on the Office of the Attorney General, wanted to keep the jamboree going all this week and then put down a motion of no confidence next week. The Progressive Democrats, red in tooth and claw, could not contain themselves and proceeded to put down a motion of no confidence this week. Fianna Fáil was left with little choice, as is often the case these days, but to follow on as Mary's little lambs.
Who writes this stuff?
The Minister of State as opposed to the Deputy's five or six script writers.
The Minister of State promised he would not read a script, but that he would do his own thing.
There should be no interruptions.
Deputy Cowen has come into the House especially for this occasion. I remind him of Deputy Harney's "I want to be Bertie's Tánaiste" scenario. If the two Opposition parties cannot work out how they will oppose a Government, how will they agree to form a Government?
It did not stop the Minister of State.
It has been a desultory, uninspired and almost perfunctory performance by the Opposition which has lacked purpose or conviction. How can Deputy Harney justify her claim of yesterday that the Taoiseach is running away from responsibility? The only running yesterday, as the day wore on, was Deputy O'Donoghue's mascara. The House will know of my regard for Deputy O'Donoghue. He is an intelligent man and an authentic representative of his constituents. However, it is sad to see this previously unadorned spokesman for his people reduced to a film extra by the Fianna Fáil makeup department. Whatever will they think in Cahirciveen when the word leaks out that Deputy O'Donoghue is now only permitted to come into this House heavily coifed and plastered in makeup? Deputy O'Donoghue is in danger of becoming a caricature of himself.
We are supposed to be debating major affairs of State.
However, Deputy O'Donoghue's colourful hyperbole and his over-the-top misrepresentations are still recognisable but they increasingly invite ridicule.
There has been a communication failure in the Department of Justice, which is difficult to understand and should not have happened. Immediately on learning of the implications of the non-communication of the Cabinet decision of 1 August, the Minister for Justice moved to set up an independent inquiry which will report within days. I hope the puzzlement we all feel will be cleared up by that independent inquiry. However, the Opposition parties have jumped the gun and decided not to await the findings of the inquiry.
Deputy Eric Byrne also jumped the gun.
They have further chosen to ignore or slide over certain facts that are already established.
We know the Minister for Justice has made herself fully accountable to this House and that there was no effort to conceal any matter relevant to this affair. We also know she has authored the most radical programme of reform for the modernisation of the Department of Justice this century. There is mutual trust and respect between the three parties in Government which, after examination of the facts as adduced before this House, have expressed their full confidence in the Minister for Justice.
Before any examination.
The attempt to find parallels between this event and the events of 1994 must be deemed superficial. Accountability had to be extracted over a long period in 1994. We have had recent testimony to the conviction that there was a calculated effort to conceal vital information. Whether or not that was the case, the events were taking place in a climate where trust had completely broken down.
Comparisons between letters from Attorneys General in 1994 and 1996 are even more facile. For example, it is important to record that, according to recent testimony, if a letter from the Attorney General in 1994 was not passed to the Taoiseach of the day, it was only because it was in the hands of the present Leader of the main Opposition party. The only inferences capable of being drawn from that recent testimony are that Deputy Bertie Ahern withheld the letter or he did not understand its contents. I do not draw either inference; I will leave that to the historians. However, neither inference can be drawn in the case of any Minister in this Government.
The attempt to implicate the Attorney General in a matter outside his formal responsibilities is symptomatic of Fianna Fáil's obsessive preoccupation with the affairs of 1994. It is entirely human to grieve for a period following the loss of someone or something near or dear and there is nothing so dear to Fianna Fáil as power.
Ask Tomás MacGiolla.
However, it becomes a bit tiresome after a while.
That correspondence was in the bottom of a bin in Finglas.
Fianna Fáil should realise it is out of power and that this is a strong reforming cohesive Government and is widely recognised as such.
The measures announced yesterday by the Taoiseach concerning the prisons board and the courts service are the most far reaching reforms in these critical areas since the foundation of the State. It is a widely held view that the courts have not been functioning to optimum efficiency nor has the management of the courts been responsive to the pace of change and demands of modern day business and living. An independent board will now manage a unified court system headed up by a chief executive recruited through open competition. In the programme, A Government of Renewal the three parties committed themselves to "a fundamental reform of the courts system". Mrs. Justice Denham's working group was established and duly submitted two reports and yesterday's announcement by the Taoiseach confirms this major reform. On page 77 of the programme, A Government of Renewal, there is a commitment to "Examination of the establishment of a Prison Board to manage the day-to-day running of prisons." This decision was taken last May and yesterday's confirmation that responsibility for the prison service will be transferred from the Department of Justice to an independent statutory board will give this major reform further impetus.
Neither step would ever have been contemplated by Fianna Fáil despite all its years in office. The attempt to portray these radical measures as a fire brigade response to recent developments is spurious. There is no need for the Government to send for the fire brigade to put out this particular fire because a wet towel will do the job sufficiently.
A small wet towel.
Send for the Minister, Deputy De Rossa. He is good at putting out fires.
Let us not have any interruptions.
The leader of the Opposition, Deputy Bertie Ahern, criticises my colleague the Minister for Justice because she is not "a hands-on Minister". Maybe he has a point certainly there will be no front page stories about the Minister, Deputy Owen, trundling across St. Stephen's Green clutching a bundle of Irish passports and making a personal hands-on delivery to foreign businessmen waiting in the Shelbourne. I can live with that and the fact that the Minister for Justice will never be able and will never want to take such a hands-on approach.
Speaking of passports, I remind Deputies opposite of the last time the Department of Justice found itself in the eye of a storm. I do not wish to retrace the painful history of the passports affair but merely to point out the contrast between Fianna Fáil in office and Fianna Fáil out of office. Its current quest for a ministerial head contrasts oddly with its furtive silence in the face of that decision, taken personally by the then Minister for Justice, which had beneficial business implications for the family of one of her colleagues. There was no inquiry and no resignation.
The Tánaiste inquired. Ask him about it.
Let us not have any interruptions.
They are half truths. The Minister of State is the best purveyor of the half truth.
It is a little like the document that rocked the foundations of the State.
We are having too many interruptions. Let us hear the Minister of State without interruption.
Did the Minister of State burn Das Kapital, personally autographed by the man himself, “From Karl with love”?
Deputy Cowen, please desist.
The Government acceded to an Opposition request to allow two days for this confidence debate. Deputy Bertie Ahern presented this as a major achievement for the Opposition. The provision of a second day has only drawn attention to the bankruptcy and lack of conviction of the Opposition. Following his lack lustre performance yesterday, Deputy Ahern should be more concerned about the telephone calls to Boston being made behind his back to the Arianna Stassinopoulos of Connemara, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn.
She is not here today.
It seems that too many more of those aborted parliamentary set pieces will do more damage to Deputy Ahern than to the very resilient Minister for Justice.
The Minister of State seems to know a good deal about our party but very little about his own. He was not in the picture taken outside the Four Courts. He and Liz were the only two missing. Talk about a power struggle.
Deputy Cowen, please desist. This level of interruption is unacceptable.
Deputies opposite know as well as I do that direct personal accountability by Ministers for every missing paper clip in their Departments, as envisaged in the anachronistic Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, is nothing more than an impracticable fiction.
That is a boy scout song.
It is for this reason the Government remains committed to reforming the Act so as to allow for the delegated exercise of power and responsibility and the separation of policy and executive functions — a reform which has long since been undertaken in other European jurisdictions.
A boy scout song.
The Government decision to establish an independent courts service and an independent prisons board marks a watershed in the development of our justice system, which I can personally testify was long advocated by the Minister for Justice and supported by her colleagues, the officials in her Department.
The Minister of State would say that, would he not?
Both these initiatives, which have long been central to the programme for Government and flagged in paragraph 119, were part of the programme as negotiated between the three parties.
I remind Deputies that the proposals for an independent prisons board first surfaced in the Whitaker report over a decade ago. That report was buried by successive Fianna Fáil administrations, which preferred to maintain the status quo rather than confront the shortcomings in the broader legal system head on.
For years Fianna Fáil was content to preside over a growing crisis in our prisons, a crisis which militated against society and against individual prisoners and which substituted simple containment for rehabilitation. The establishment of an independent prisons board is the first step towards developing a modern, effective and accountable penal system. The establishment of a courts service, as recommended by the Working Groups on the Courts chaired by Mrs. Justice Denham is equally important and I look forward to the early implementation of the working group's other recommendations.
This is a major programme of reform and my party has every confidence in the ability and commitment of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, to see it through to implementation.
What a performance.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, for sharing his time with me.
What purpose does this so-called vote of confidence serve?
None.
It has resulted in the waste of two days' precious time which could have been devoted to more useful purposes in this House than the razzmatazz we have experienced since 4 p.m. yesterday evening.
I have come into this House for the Order of Business almost every morning since the Government was formed almost two years ago. Every morning Members opposite clamour for more time to discuss Bills and introduce more legislation. How can a Taoiseach introduce legislation when the Opposition is trying to wreek the workings of this Dáil? It is doing nothing more. Its actions this week have resulted in its members being the laughing stock of this nation.
It is evident that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are hell bent on trying, by every means, to undermine the credibility of this highly successful Government. Every action they have taken has sought to belittle the Government that has shown accountability and transparency not known in this House since I became a Member 15 years ago.
This is one of the best Governments since the foundation of the State. I can assure members of the Opposition that they have embarked on a mission impossible if they believe they will undermine the work of this Government.
The Deputy is the Tom Cruise of Fine Gael.
The Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, comes from a family that has served this nation with distinction.
We are into the film business this week.
Was it not her granduncle, the late General Michael Collins, who obtained the freedom that Deputies opposite and I enjoy?
West Cork abú. Remember Skibbereen.
He was one of the greatest Irishmen ever born and we are proud he was a West Cork man.
I knew that was coming.
We are proud of that. History tells the tale.
He always dated his letters.
Seventy-three years after his untimely death at Beal na Bláth his name is internationally acclaimed while others who lived in the same period have long since been forgotten. The audacity of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to direct this barrage of criticism at the Minister for Justice, a grandniece of that great man, is an insult to every law abiding citizen in this country. She did not create these problems, she inherited them from previous Administrations.
This Government is working as a team, a winning team. Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left are an excellent combination and the country is proud of their achievements. During the past two years they have performed in an excellent fashion. The Government has an outstanding record in every Department for which our Ministers are responsible.
The Minister for Justice had the courage to come into Dáil Éireann last Thursday evening and told the truth. She again explained the full facts of the matter here yesterday. Did she shred the documents as Fianna Fáil did in office to hide its shortcomings? She did not, rather she told the truth which, at times, is bitter.
Deputy O'Hanlon stated that the Taoiseach has taken away some of the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. That is untrue. Fianna Fáil criticises the changes to be made in that Department as they will bring to an end its philosophy of jobs for the boys. For the past two years there has been accountability, openness and transparency. That is what the country needs. Alas, the Deputies opposite do not understand the meaning of those three words.
Neither does anyone else.
We inherited the BSE and the hepatitis C problems. What did the Deputies' party do to nip the BSE crisis in the bud? When it was brought to its attention ten years ago it sat idly by and did nothing about it. It introduced a Mickey Mouse ban on meat and bone meal in the case of some animals but allowed it to be mixed in the farmyard and fed to others.
If the Deputies wish to be constructive, they should row in behind the Government which is doing its best to ensure fair play for every citizen. It will survive for its full term and be given a major vote of confidence when it goes to the country.
The rainbow coalition is a secretive, arrogant and incompetent Government clinging to power because it is afraid to go to the electorate. It came to office on a promise of openness and transparency in all its actions and the provision of information to the public. It claimed for itself the highest standards of accountability. It was to be a whiter than white Government with Deputy John Bruton as Taoiseach, Deputy Dick Spring as Tánaiste and Deputy Proinsias De Rossa as Minister for Social Welfare.
Let us look at the reality. Having ring-fenced itself with an expensive army of unelected spin-doctors, media specialists and political advisers some of whom seemed to believe they are the real Government, the rainbow coalition is the most arrogant, incompetent and secretive Government the State has seen.
Nonsense.
It is stumbling from one disaster to another. Its days are numbered. The most recent débâcle shows that its members are not even talking to each other. Despite its best efforts to remain glued together, it is beginning to fall apart.
Because of the failure of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General to act collectively, a distinguished judge of the Special Criminal Court has been embarrassed and 16 prisoners in our top security prison were released. On 2 October the Attorney General wrote to the Minister for Justice asking her to establish whether the Government's decision to delist Judge Dominic Lynch at his request had been conveyed to him and the President of the court. Why did the Attorney General not ring the alarm bells? He subsequently met, almost daily, the Minister for Justice and, frequently, the Taoiseach. He sat with the full Cabinet each week. The media covered the major events and decisions of the Special Criminal Court. Yet, a clear Government decision, in which all Ministers participated, was not implemented and a senior judge was allowed to make judgements in an unlawfully constituted court.
The outcome of this débâcle was disastrous and undermines confidence in the Government and the legal system. Because of the lack of attention paid by the Government to important business, the Special Criminal Court was not properly constituted when it sat in October. Its every act, therefore, was unlawful. Those remanded and held in unlawful custody may sue the State for damages for false imprisonment. If any of the prisoners had been tried and convicted, the ability of the Director of Public Prosecutions to successfully try them again for the same crime would be in doubt.
The failure of the Government to notify a judge of the Special Criminal Court that he was no longer empowered to sit in that court is not a minor administrative matter. It was a crucial decision in the administration of justice for which the Minister for Justice and the Government are responsible. At a Government meeting the Minister asked for and got a formal decision but nobody told the judge concerned. Anyone familiar with the justice system should be aware of the possible disastrous consequences of a court sitting with a judge presiding who, for whatever reason, is not properly appointed.
The Special Criminal Court is the only court to which the Government can appoint judges and then withdraw them. In every other case judges are nominated and appointed to the Bench with full power to preside until they resign or retire. When the Government decides, therefore, to withdraw a judge from the Special Criminal Court and replace him with another, it is making a decision which, at the very least, is unusual and not a part of every day office procedure in the Department of Justice. It is a decision of considerable weight and import and not often made.
It is fundamental and of great importance to ensure that the person being withdrawn is told immediately. To fail in this regard is a major blunder with disastrous consequences. In attempting to diminish the seriousness of such a blunder the Minister for Justice, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have shown they do not fully grasp the significance of the Cabinet's decision.
Even if it was a case of administrative absent-mindedness as the Minister for Justice, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste would have us believe, the matter does not end there. It is the function of the Minister, the Attorney General and all members of the Government to ride shotgun with the Civil Service to ensure administrative errors, be they big or small, do not develop into major disasters. We are entitled to expect that when the Attorney General heard on 2 October that the Judiciary did not know that Judge Dominic Lynch had been withdrawn at his own request from the Special Criminal Court two months before on 1 August he would instantly see the potential for disaster. It is not too much to expect that he would keep his eyes open and his wits about him. He should see the problems, be they acts or omissions, and deal with them before they develop into disasters.
The Attorney General had the good fortune to discover in time, albeit by accident on 2 October, that the message of Judge Lynch's withdrawal had not got through. In many ways, it was a stroke of good luck and should have enabled him to solve the problem. Yet, all he did was write a letter to the Minister for Justice. Every alarm bell in his office should have rung as disaster beckoned. He should have telephoned or spoken to the Minister. Yet, nothing other than a perfunctory letter was sent. This is incomprehensible and unacceptable.
As a constitutional officer obliged to protect the public interests and legal adviser to the Government, why did the Attorney General not inform the Government of the legal problems which could arise for the highest security court in the land? Did he raise the matter with the Taoiseach who relies on him heavily for advice? Worse was to follow. On 2 October the Attorney General had no reason to know Judge Lynch was sitting. He had every reason to fear, however, that he would sit unwittingly and without lawful authority. Judge Lynch sat during October when numerous cases were dealt with. They were, as are all Special Criminal Court matters, very high profile cases, which were widely reported, yet throughout October while the court sat unlawfully nothing was done by the Attorney General. Are we to believe then that he does not read the papers, watch television or listen to the radio? The word that comes to mind yet again is "incomprehensible".
Even worse was to follow. The Attorney General discovered from the newspapers on 1 November that Judge Lynch was sitting in the Special Criminal Court. An awful reality should have dawned on him then, but instead of raising the roof he merely wrote another letter. Five more days followed before action was taken. In the end it was not the Minister or the Attorney General but some person unconnected with the relevant section in the Department who finally made things happen. The initial mistake was bad enough but failure on the part of the Minister and the Attorney General to act when they got an early warning is utterly bizarre. The Government may be able to find some unfortunate official to carry the can for the Minister's failure to notify Judge Lynch of his release from the Special Criminal Court, but the Minister and the Attorney General cannot evade responsibility for the sorry mess that developed after the matter was brought to the Attorney General's attention on 2 October.
Eight deadly errors appear to have been made. The Minister responsible may be able to find a scapegoat for the first, failure to inform the judge of his release, but there is no excuse for the other seven errors: failure of the Attorney General to act effectively when he discovered on 2 October that the judge was still considered to be a judge in the court and to immediately avert a disaster; failure of the Minister to organise her office in such a way that letters addressed to her from the Attorney General are automatically brought to her attention; failure of the Attorney General to follow through on his letter of 2 October; failure of the Attorney General to inform the Taoiseach of the serious situation that had been brought to his attention; failure of the Attorney General to keep an eye on the position after 2 October so that he could immediately react; the Attorney General and the Minister allowed the position to remain for more than five weeks while high profile cases were dealt with in the court and failure of the Attorney General to act instantly and effectively when he discovered on 1 November from reading the papers that Judge Lynch was still sitting in the Special Criminal Court, allowing a disastrous situation to continue. The finger points clearly and directly at the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General. The consequences of this are not yet fully apparent.
The latest revelation of the letter the Minister received has been dealt with comprehensively here. It is particularly sad the Minister did not tell the House last week that she had received that letter. The self-serving interpretation of the rainbow Coalition of ministerial responsibility for a decision which emanated from the Cabinet is that the Minister is responsible but not to blame. The Government has chosen that interpretation because those who are to blame are fired. A great deal more can be said about this case, but I wish to share my time with Deputy Kenneally.
I will conclude by referring, as others have done, to the comments only two short years ago, on 16 November 1994, of the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, when he stressed very strongly the importance of responsibility and culpability and that they cannot be separated. The references are clearly on the record for everyone to see. Accountability and culpability for actions or omissions are just as important now as they were two years ago. If we accept the double standard of accountability now put forward by the Government, the double standard outlined to this House by the Minister for Justice, we will debase politics and deepen even further public cynicism. If the Labour Party turns on its head the high-flowing principle of openness and accountability trumpeted by it two years ago it will drag into the gutter those principles of honesty and consistency that are essential to the conduct of public affairs. There is no place for such breathtaking hypocrisy. Members of this House and the public are entitled to better. The Labour Party cannot have it both ways, either it stands up for the principles of accountability and openness expounded by it two years ago or the Tánaiste stands indicted for double standards and gross hypocrisy in public affairs. Tonight's vote will tell the tale.
The rainbow Coalition told us in the course of this debate that if they trust one another and stick together, accountability does not matter. That is what was stated repeatedly by Ministers. They will find a sacrificial Civil Service lamb to slaughter on the alter of political expediency, but that will not work. The Government will be held accountable and responsible and I look forward to that day.
I thank Deputy Woods for sharing his time with me. Rarely have I risen in this House more angry than I am at present and rarely have I endured such hypocrisy, effrontery, blind political posturing and naked desire to hang onto power as I have heard and seen during the course of this debate. Never have I heard such feeble arguments and rarely have I heard such equivocation, deviousness and waffle as I heard from Government speakers in the past two days. I am pleased to add my voice to the chorus of protests which rang out from many quarters about the misuse of power and abuse of a Government majority which keeps a clearly incompetent Minister in charge of one of the most sensitive portfolios in Government. Never have I seen such a U-turn on the part of any political party as is evident from the Labour Party on this issue as it wriggles to get off the opportunist hook on which it impaled itself two years ago.
I recognise that the Labour Party is caught in a cleft stick on this issue and that its credibility as a party of honour is at stake. On the one hand it will not be seen to bring down another Government, which would be the third from which it exited when the going got rough — the fourth if you count the one in which their present chairman gave the famous kiss of death to Dr. Garret FitzGerald. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and the Labour Party gets out. Neither should it be seen to support a Government which cannot pay the going rate for incompetency or misleading of this House. To be consistent, it should send its troops to demand a head, with a script similar to its now famous, or infamous, Albert and Harry sketch.
It is clear to everyone, with the exception of the Minister and the Taoiseach, that a blunder of catastrophic proportions has been made on this occasion, of which the full effects may not yet be known. Yet speaker after speaker on the Government side tried to tell us that nothing is wrong, that what happened is a matter of no import and that the Minister can continue as heretofore. Whose confidence does she retain? Perhaps she has the confidence of the Taoiseach who still believes that she is the best Minister for Justice in recent history. What history is he reading? What Cabinet meetings does he attend? What television reports does he watch? I wonder is he on the same planet as the rest of us.
If the Taoiseach has any understanding of the importance of the Cabinet decision taken last August and the failure on successive occasions to act upon it, he is living in a world of his own if he thinks such negligence is not deserving of sanction. Suspected criminals who have been charged with the most serious crimes, some in conjunction with the two worst crimes this year, maybe even this decade, have had to be released because of the incompetence of the Minister and her departmental staff. In any other democracy the Minister would have read the reports of such events in the evening papers as she rode home on the DART as a private citizen.
It ill behoves the Government, with its grandiose claims about openness and transparency — perhaps for some members of the Government, glasnost and perestroika might be more appropriate — to have the unmitigated nerve to tell us that in the Department of Justice it is business as usual. That is not good enough. The Minister is on trial for her political life. The Taoiseach's political judgment is equally at stake as is the Attorney General's understanding of the responsibilities of his office.
The sheer cheek of this Government is breathtaking. If the Minister for Justice has confidence voted in her tonight, and the political arithmetic suggests she may well survive, what members of the public can view her with any confidence? How can somebody with as many blunders, political mistakes and black marks beside her preside over an effective police force, prison service and courts system? Two elements of those services already have been taken from her which hardly amounts to a vote of confidence.
Gardaí risked their lives, and continue to do so daily, to bring suspected criminals and subversives to justice. They have had the sickening experience of seeing the work they did and the risks they took thrown to the winds by the Minister for Justice last Thursday morning. That must have been a bitter sight. How can they have confidence in a Minister who has required the gates of our prisons to be thrown open to accommodate her negligence?
What if the business of the Special Criminal Court, with a discharged Judge Dominick Lynch still sitting, had been to sentence the killers of Garda Gerry McCabe or Veronica Guerin on conviction rather than remand prisoners who had only been charged with offences? Upon release there would have been no opportunity to rearrest them on the same charges and they would have walked free on a technicality. Would the Taoiseach still consider the Minister Deputy Owen the best Minister for Justice in recent history? Would the Tánaiste and the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, be happy to continue to support her at the Cabinet table and in public? I doubt it. Even they cannot be that naive or foolish or think the public that foolish either.
How can the Minister look the Garda Commissioner in the eye and assure him that everything is rosy and it is business as usual? Everything is not rosy and we cannot have business as usual. The trust is broken, confidence is gone and it is time for the Minister to go too. If there was a Department of boobs, leaks and blunders in this Government, Deputy Owen would be at its head.
There was a time when it was felt the Tánaiste was the only one to drop the ball when the pressure was on, but the Minister for Justice can hardly keep the ball in her hands these days. The Government defence is under strain and it appears the role of the Labour Party and Democratic Left is to be two props holding up the scrum which is about to collapse at any moment. While the political accountability for this disaster rests with the Minister alone, the responsibility for what happened goes far wider than that.
I know a Government Minister cannot and will not see every letter that comes into her Department. Even the public, remote from the administrative centre, understands that. What the Minister would see, however, are the important letters and those that come to her marked "personal". The letters from the Attorney General must surely fall into the "important" category and come through the administrative system. On the other hand, letters which are not date stamped must fall into the "personal" category. That is the reason I consider it most likely the undated, unstamped letter from Judge Lynch was addressed to the Minister personally. Good civil servants did not open and date stamp it but handed it to the Minister. The civil servants in the Minister's Departments have little to be proud of in regard to the statements they have issued.
I regret time constraints prevent me from going into further detail on this issue. Suffice to say that the public will not be fooled. They know, even if the Government does not, what is the proper and honourable course in this instance. If this House is not in a position to apply the proper sanctions, I have no doubt the electorate will in due course.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Ring.
That is satisfactory.
I listened to most of the contributions by Fianna Fáil Members over the past number of hours and I am disappointed at their quality. The range of adjectives is neither as good nor as vicious as it used to be in the old days when confidence motions were debated in this House.
They have softened.
In boxing terms, few Members on the Opposition side of the House have laid a glove on this Government; I am not sure if any of them can do so between now and 8.30 p.m. I am surprised at their inability to stand behind their own motion.
I have known the Minister since she was first elected to this House. She shared an office with me in those early years and since that time I know her to be a person of honesty and credibility, a caring individual who has the interest of everything she does in public life at heart. I am happy to support her in this motion of confidence tabled by the Government of which I am proud to have been a member for almost two years.
It is probably fair to say Fianna Fáil Deputies are suffering from over anxiety. They have not prepared properly for this fight and have chosen the wrong pitch on which to fight it. An opportunity will present itself in 1997 when we will see their ability on the political playing field. Much to their disappointment, and to their awe in some cases, this partnership Government has set new standards in reforming many areas of life and has introduced much new and effective legislation. In addition, it has been in a position to introduce much needed reform of the legislative process in the Oireachtas. The establishment of additional Dáil committees has helped to speed the passage of legislation through the Houses with the minimum of delay.
The results of prudent management of the economy and careful political decisions are clear. We have a booming economy, a low inflation rate and unacceptably high levels of unemployment are on a downward spiral. Careful management of the economy has made us one of the top three economies set to meet the demanding Maastricht criteria for entry to economic and monetary union on 1 January 1999. That has made us the envy of many other countries in Europe, something we would have thought utterly impossible a few years ago.
The Government also has a proud record in the reform of social legislation. Last week the necessary legislation which allows divorce for couples whose marriages have irretrievably broken down passed through the Seanad. Third level education has been made more freely available to all and there have been major reforms in the social welfare system.
Nowhere has there been more obvious reforms than in the Department of Justice. Credit must go initially to the Minister Deputy Owen who, as the Taoiseach already pointed out, has shown herself to be the best and most effective Minister in this post in recent years.
Fianna Fáil is very wide of the mark when it suggests the Department of Justice is being stripped of half its responsibilities. Nothing could be further from the truth. It should be pointed out to Opposition Members that the Minister for Justice and the Government will remain responsible for formulating policy for the new agencies that will administer both the courts and the prisons. It is unfair to suggest new agencies can trump up new policies overnight. The policies will be those of the Minister and the Government and they will be administered by the agencies.
It is wrong to suggest the far reaching reforms of the criminal justice system announced yesterday are a fire brigade response by the Government. No Minister has ever been more active in this area than Deputy Owen. From the time she was appointed Minister for Justice she has advocated reforms of both the courts and the prisons. Not only has she been a champion of these reforms, she has also formulated the policy on how to deal with them.
It is convenient for the Opposition to forget the publication of the first report on management and financing of the courts which was approved by the Government on 21 May this year. The Government also approved in principle the primary recommendation of that report that an independent body be established to manage a unified courts system. That is precisely what the Taoiseach announced and what the Government approved in principle.
It is generally agreed by civil servants, politicians and members of the media that the arrival of Deputy Owen in St. Stephen's Green introduced an air of openness to a previously largely secretive Government Department. As Minister of State Deputy Rabbitte pointed out, there are no more instances of Ministers for Justice trundling across St. Stephen's Green with passports falling out of every pocket. Within the natural security restraints which must exist, the Minister has tried valiantly to open up the Department of Justice and make it a thoroughly modern organisation ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The innovative measure announced by the Taoiseach will further that process.
I do not propose to go into detail on the issue of Mr. Justice Dominic Lynch and whether the Minister did or did not see his letters. I was struck, however, by what Deputy Kenneally said. He seemed to imply that this undated letter was handed to the Minister by what he termed a good civil servant and was then clipped to a file. His allegation is that the Minister received, opened and read the letter, climbed up two flights of stairs and clipped it to a file which is now being examined as part of the independent and open inquiry which the Minister announced. What nonsence. All these events have been repeatedly analysed in this House during the past 26 hours.
I would like to make a few comments on the Minister, a party and ministerial colleague with whom I have worked since she became a Member. Before she entered politics she was an active member of a number of voluntary organisations which have had a major impact in her native area of Malahide. Since entering the Dáil in 1981 she has shown herself to be a dedicated public representative. This culminated in her appointment as deputy leader of Fine Gael in March 1993. Her skills and abilities were rewarded when the Taoiseach appointed her to the Justice portfolio. She was faced with a number of challenges which threatened the roots of our society, notably the drugs epidemic and organised crime. Through initiatives and legislation, these twin evils are being met by the Government and many of the crime bosses have felt the heat so badly they have gone into hiding in other countries. They are not safe there, thanks to new directives agreed with our European partners which mean that wanted criminals are no longer safe in traditional hideouts like Amsterdam and Spain. The establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau will probably go down in history as the singular critical measure which thwarted the nefarious activities of the Irish underworld, especially the Dublin one.
That was a Fianna Fáil measure.
The result of these measures, which have been painstakingly examined to ensure they do not interfere with the natural rights of our citizens, has begun to appear. In the months ahead, as more measures are implemented and the fight against crime intensifies, we can expect to see the dividends of these measures yield one hundredfold. As a result of the Minister's direct actions, there are now more prison places and more judges in the courts than before and the most efficient procedures are in place for tackling serious crime. More gardaí have been recruited and better trained to cope with the demands of modern society.
More crime.
More back-up facilities for the Garda, including air support, have been provided. The latest technology has been made available to the force.
It is against this background that we must investigate the controversial issues of the past week. It was while watching the film about her famous granduncle that the Minister first heard about the potential legal difficulties arising from the administrative failure to inform Mr. Justice Lynch that his request to be removed from the Special Criminal Court had been granted. Even before the film was over, the Minister had already taken immediate action by ordering that a number of prisoners be released from Portlaoise Prison and rearrested. At all times the security of the State and the proper administration of justice were her top priorities. The due process of law is being applied to these 16 prisoners and we must await the final outcome of these hearings. Given the limited amount of information available to her at the time, the Minister is to be commended on her swift action to protect the interests of the State. No Minister from any party could have acted more responsibly. The Minister then followed up her investigations by appointing an independent inquiry of two very distinguished people who have total freedom to prepare their report. That will be presented by the Minister at next week's Government meeting. No Minister could have acted more swiftly. Furthermore, the Minister has promised to publish that report and to come into this House and answer any questions which Members may wish to ask.
This action by the Minister contrasts sharply with that of previous Fianna Fáil Governments who achieved something of an international reputation for attempting to conceal the facts. I need only point to the infamous beef tribunal where the chairman, Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton, commented that, if there had been a full revelation of all the facts to the Dáil, there would have been no need for an inquiry which cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Fianna Fáil's tradition has consistently been to tell only on a need-to-know basis.
The Minister has learnt well.
Where and whenever possible, the information should be kept well hidden under lock and key. Deputy Dempsey knows when he was Government Whip and I was in Opposition as Fine Gael Chief Whip the compromises which had to be made and the opportunities we had to give him to contact Ministers in San Francisco or elsewhere to enable the business of the House to be done.
That was as a result of Deputy Rabbitte's wild allegation which had no foundation.
Deputy Dempsey knows that well. It is a tradition his party is finding it difficult to rid itself of and which has caused it to fail in any coalition Government of which it has been a part. The empire is gone and Fianna Fáil can no longer hope to be in the position where it can rule the roost on its own. If it does not learn to play ball with other parties and with other politicians——
That is rich coming from Fine Gael. What happened to the last Fine Gael coalition?
Deputy Dempsey will have his chance shortly.
——it cannot aspire to what it had for too long. It is precisely because of this failure that it is now in Opposition and not in Government. It failed to build up any trust with the Progressive Democrats, although that is being attempted now, and the attempted coalition with the Labour Party ended in downright disaster, principally because of a lack of trust and integrity.
More recently, the Minister for Justice proposed a major reform of our bail laws which will make it more difficult for regular offenders to be granted bail. The referendum on this will take place shortly. Polls have shown that in proposing this measure the Minister and the Government have the support of the majority of the people.
The success of the Minister and her Government colleagues in the northern talks process has been of enormous benefit to me as Minister for Tourism and Trade. Our trade figures are at record levels — £30 billion in exports. Thanks to the continuing co-operation and goodwill of my counterpart in Northern Ireland, Baroness Denton, I had the privilege this week of launching a new all-Ireland £30 million investment in tourism which will promote this island as a single destination. Yesterday, for the first time ever, at the second largest travel trade fair in the world in Earl's Court, London, the Ireland stand was a single stand for the benefit of the people and economy of this island, north and south. There is everything to gain from the promotion of the island as a single entity and that is what we are doing. Before we can do that, a level of trust, integrity and co-operation must be demonstrated and that is in place.
Few Ministers have worked harder than the Minister for Justice in promoting her case at Cabinet and in encouraging Government to respond to the difficulties of crime. Fianna Fáil seem to have a fixation about Attorneys General. To bring the Attorney General, Mr. Gleeson, into this, a man of the utmost integrity and absolute commitment to the State and Constitution, is nothing short of disgraceful. It is difficult to take on trust a party which has a history of involvement in Government with a number of parties. Its fixation with Attorneys General goes back a couple of years to a well-documented occasion when an Attorney General appointed by the Fianna Fáil Government was brought into these environs at 2 a.m. with an overcoat over his pyjamas. That level of trust and activity is something which cannot be condoned. For Fianna Fáil to attempt to bring the Attorney General, Mr. Gleeson, into this row, when he had nothing to do with it, is irrelevant.
The former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, spoke previously about temporary little arrangements. The strength of this Government is the openness and accountability which is displayed between the leaders of the parties and the discussion of the issues of Government. In this case the Minister has responded swiftly, immediately and for the good of everybody by sorting this business out. I am sure that when she comes into the House with her report next week she will answer any questions comprehensively. I commend the motion to the House.
I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, Deputy Enda Kenny, who was 21 years in the Dáil this month. I look forward to returning with him after the next election along with Deputy Higgins.
In the past few hours I have noted a subtle change in the speeches of Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats. This change has taken place because the people, particularly women, are reacting to the attack on the Minister. Any woman who wants to survive in this House has to be three times as good as a man.
That is a sexist remark.
Deputy Owen is one of the best Ministers for Justice ever, and women are reacting to the attacks by the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil on her.
Over the weekend while this was unravelling one could see the pep in the step of the Fianna Fáil Deputies. They could see the mercs and the perks; they thought they were back in power again. When Commissioner Padraig Flynn was in Mayo he used to talk about "the car with the star". Members of Fianna Fáil will have to wait a long time for the cars with the stars. We have a star in this Government, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, and she will be with us for a long time to come. She has done nothing wrong and everybody in the country knows that. Fianna Fáil are jumping on the bandwagon in the belief that they will be back in Government in a few weeks time. I have news for them. The people of this country are satisfied with the performance of this Government. They have had enough of Fianna Fáil. I remember when a car with a star was overturned in Tralee. The Tánaiste, who is from Tralee will not want to remind the House of that, but I will say it for him. I remember when those cars contained machine guns down in Kerry.
Nothing like that happened when Deputy Owen became Minister for Justice. When she came into office she was landed with problem after problem, problems she inherited from Fianna Fáil. Coming from the film "Michael Collins" last Sunday night a Fianna Fáil supporter told me that with Fianna Fáil backers with plenty of money they would make a Fianna Fáil version of it, but Deputy Owen is there for the long haul and no attack by Fianna Fáil will damage her because she is a woman of quality, a woman of compassion and, most important, a woman of ability. She has proved that.
The first item she identified on coming into Government was the problem with the bail laws. I am glad that, in spite of their attacks on the Minister, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will be supporting the Minister in the next month to get the referendum passed. They recognise the Minister's quality and that she was right when she identified these problems.
The Deputy's time is up.
I am disappointed because I had much more to say about this Minister. I am pleased to support her and the Government because we are a Government for the long road.
I hope Members, male or female, did not take exception to Deputy Ring's sexist remarks. When I see a Minister it does not matter to me whether that person is a man or a woman. If he or she is doing a good job I will not complain. We are having this debate not because the Minister is a woman but because she is incompetent and has failed to do her duty.
It is ironic that two years ago the Minister sat on this side of the House shouting across at the then Taoiseach and Government about a whole series of issues, particularly the fact that there was a seven month delay in dealing with a matter in the Attorney General's office. Deputy Owen could not believe that a file could be left unattended for seven months in the Attorney General's office. According to Deputy Owen, and her colleagues in Fine Gael and Democratic Left, it was a conspiracy, a cover-up, a sinister plot by the Attorney General, by the Government, by the Taoiseach, by the Church, by everybody. At that time Deputy Owen expected someone to be held politically responsible for the fact that a file was left lying in an office for seven months. She expected the Attorney General to pay for that mistake but she also expected somebody to pay politically. Ultimately a Taoiseach paid the price, even though he had less knowledge about that file than had the Attorney General.
Deputy Owen, who was present at a Cabinet meeting which agreed to delist Judge Lynch — and she was personally charged with responsibility for so doing — is pleading ignorance of the fact that the judge and the courts were not informed. A decision which she knew about, which she had responsibility to discharge, sat in her Department for three months and she did nothing about it.
I do not expect the Minister for Justice to know every judge sitting in all the courts, but I do expect her to know a little bit more about the judges sitting in the most sensitive court in this land. The Minister's explanation for not discharging her duty is that she did not see the letter from the Attorney General, that she did not see the letter or letters from the judge. I am told that the Protocol in this House is that, in the absence of direct evidence to the contrary, one must accept that the Minister is telling the truth when she makes statements in the House. I accept that Protocol, but there are thousands of people outside this House who are under no such constraint and I know what they believe and, if the Deputies opposite are listening to what is being said, they know what people believe.
If we accept what the Minister said, it means that a situation exists within the Department of Justice and within the Minister's own private office whereby she is not allowed to read her own mail, mail which is marked for her attention, mail which is marked personal. Does the Minister honestly expect anyone outside this House to believe that a letter from the Attorney General's office or from a judge is not shown to the Minister when it arrives in her private office? Could anyone outside this House believe that a judge in the most sensitive court in this land could write a letter to the Minister and that the Minister would not see it? Can any person imagine the Attorney General and a judge writing to the Minister and someone in the Minister's office deciding that these letters are not important enough to bring to the Minister's attention? It beggars belief. Whose correspondence does the Minister read? Obviously not that of a senior judge or the Attorney General. In this scenario it is possible to believe the Minister does not read correspondence from the Garda Commissioner, the Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor, and that letters and files in her office are collecting dust because she does not read them.
It is plausible that there is a letter from the Taoiseach which has lain in her office for some time and which outlines his regret that because of the Allied-Brink's débâcle, the delay in providing extra prison spaces, the upset caused to Deputy Spring and Deputy De Rossa when the Minister announced a bail referendum prematurely, the shredding of the Duncan extradition document and other matters, he was reluctantly requesting her resignation. It is possible that such a letter, marked "Personal", is lying in the Minister's office and she has not seen it. It is possible because apparently the members of the Government have so much trust in each other that they do not even talk to each other.
That might sound implausible or even cynical but it is no more implausible than some of the comments from the Government in the last few days. Is it more implausible than the fact that the Minister for Justice saw none of the letters to which we have referred or that the Minister, having been alerted to the Attorney General's letter on 5 November, went home and did nothing about it until the following day or that the Minister went to the cinema when the crisis was developing and returned to the film when the scale of the problem was known or that the Minister went from the cinema to a party in Dublin Castle while 16 prisoners were released and rearrested? Is it more implausible than the fact that the Minister told the House last Thursday that she would present full information even though she decided prior to speaking that she would not mention a second letter from Judge Lynch? At a minimum, the Minister should have told the House she had the letter but was not sure of its date. She knew she had the letter before she came to the House and when she was questioned about this matter, but she withheld that information for the spurious reason that it might confuse us or somebody who was involved in the inquiry.
The Minister told the Dáil two years ago that the truth should not be drip fed but that is precisely what she has done in recent days. There were many words and hypocrisy from the Minister two years ago and we are getting the same now. Yesterday the Taoiseach defended the role of the Attorney General in this affair. It was clear he intended to exonerate Mr. Gleeson from blame. It is difficult to reconcile the Government's approach with the approach taken by the same Deputies to the former Attorney General, Mr. Whelehan. Deputy O'Donoghue put it aptly last night when he said: "Harry Whelehan did not know and did nothing, Dermot Gleeson did know and did nothing. Who is more culpable?"
The Taoiseach spoke about the Government's success and claimed credit for everything. However, there was not a word in his speech about the Northern Ireland peace process. We know what the Taoiseach thinks of the process from the remarks he made in Cork. It is obvious he still does not think much of it. He spoke about the function of the Attorney General and likened it to advising a client. He stated: "Clients, once advised, are normally responsible for action to be taken on foot of advice given by a professional adviser". Later he said that clients are expected to take responsibility for implementing advice received. It is clear from the Taoiseach's remarks that if the Attorney General is not responsible the responsibility lies with his client, the Minister for Justice.
Another interesting part of the Taoiseach's speech dealt with the inquiry that has been established. I have not seen its terms of reference but I understand from the Taoiseach's remarks during Question Time that the members of the inquiry will be able to seek explanations from anybody inside or outside the public service who can throw light on anything in the file or the issues surrounding it. Does that mean the inquiry can ask the Minister the serious and pertinent questions it must ask? It is necessary to ask what procedures the Minister has in place to ensure letters of an urgent nature are brought to her attention. She also must be asked what procedures were put in place to ensure that letters marked "Personal" are brought to her attention immediately.
These questions are vital to the inquiry and must be answered. If the Minister has no such procedures she cannot hold a civil servant responsible for this debacle, as Government speakers continually tried to do today. The Minister must shoulder responsibility for what happened because it is her duty to give leadership and direction to her Department. She has singularly failed to do that.
The Taoiseach outlined Deputy Owen's achievements last night. He omitted the most important one. After more than a decade, this Government has devised a response to GUBU. It is called NORA. When this Government is in trouble it shouts NORA, not our responsibility anyway.
From its first days this Government has shown signs of being out of touch with the needs of the nation. It was abundantly clear that a coalition of three parties which represented the extremes in Irish political life was bound to result in a major lack of focus and direction in policy formulation. It was also clear that the only unifying force was the desire to obtain power and retain it at all costs. However, the most cynical observer could not have anticipated how wrong the rainbow coalition could have gone in so short a time.
The anticipated lack of clarity and direction in policy has become a reality in practically all arms of Government. Aside from the scandals and conflicts which have dogged this Administration, there is a list of issues which have either been put on the long finger or shelved. What happened to the urgent need to deal with Cabinet confidentiality? Does anybody hear any more talk about the third banking force? What is the Government's policy on consolidation of our vital agriculture based industries? How are the serious problems of social deprivation and inequality to be tackled? How can we make serious inroads in the battle against crime and particularly against the alarming development of a drugs culture?
At this stage it is a waste of time to expect an indication of decisive action from the Government on these issues. Its track record is there for everybody to see and it is one of which one cannot be proud. The Government's brief history has been littered with scandals and mistakes which are depressing to recall. In the midst of this shambles even the most cynical person would expect that the core issues affecting Irish society would be protected from the rot which set in so early in many aspects of Government.
We confidently expected our system of justice would be in safe hands irrespective of the other disasters that regularly occur. Unfortunately we had ominous early indications that the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, was finding it impossible to come to terms with her brief. The lack of legislative proposals from the Minister was hidden to some degree by the excellent work of Opposition spokespersons Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy O'Donnell. On many occasions the Minister refused to meet these Deputies halfway in a constructive manner. Instead, she adopted a negative approach and mindlessly opposed many excellent proposals from those Deputies, particularly in the criminal law area. When the Minister eventually woke up to the fact that crime was getting out of control, in the absence of legislation she lamely adopted Fianna Fáil Bills as a last resort.
The Minister's record in the management of operational issues has been equally disastrous. For example, her lack of information on the Brinks Allied raid and the Urlingford drugs fiasco was alarming to say the least. This did not deter her from availing of photo opportunities whenever possible. Her abject failure to deal decisively with the divisions in the Garda representative bodies has also been damaging. The only two areas where the Minister made an attempt to influence the course of events were in relation to the bail laws and the crisis in prison accommodation. Were it not so important her management of the bail laws would be laughable.
Early last year she told the nation on the "Farrell" television programme she would be organising the necessary referendum in the near future. Her public statement, obviously, was made without prior consultation with her Cabinet colleagues. Consequently, colleagues such as the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, who at that stage were attempting to cling to some remnants of their liberal agenda, were quick to put her firmly in her place. In the midst of all this bungling many law abiding citizens had to pay the price for the shambles in Government since they became victims of crime carried out by hardened criminals released on bail. If this was not enough the Minister was equally unsuccessful in tackling one of the main reasons which has led to the liberal interpretation of our bail laws by the courts, the serious shortage of prison spaces throughout the country. At a time when the Minister for Finance is only too happy to tell all and sundry about the surplus of cash in the national coffers, the Minister has failed in her attempt to obtain meaningful support for her extremely modest development programme. Thus, the events of last week come against a background of total ineffectiveness on the part of the Minister combined with a widespread failure on the part of the Government to carry out its duties to the nation.
The examples of standards and failures on the part of this Government are too numerous to mention. We do not have to go back far to recall the bi-location of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, the hepatitis C scandal, the totally insensitive handling of illegal immigrants and ministerial resignations. The net effect of these events has been to undermine the very structures which the Government is contracted to protect and the general weakening in the quality of political life and debate in this House. When any Government puts aside the key principle of accountability there is only one path open, a path downwards. Even at the 23rd hour the Taoiseach must act decisively if he is to retain even the smallest amount of credibility and respect.
The facts relating to the Special Criminal Court debacle are clear. The Government made a decision in early August to transfer Judge Lynch, at his request, from the court and the Minister failed to take the necessary steps to ensure this decision was implemented immediately. I am tired of observing the drip feed of information on this matter when a four year old child could readily assess the situation. Clearly, the Minister did not take the trouble to pursue the decision as is her solemn duty. One wonders whether she has applied the same level of efficiency to implement the other Cabinet decisions over the past two years.
It is clear the Attorney General was aware of the non-implementation of the decision at an early stage. Clearly, he did not rate the matter as being sufficiently important to either telephone or fax the Minister or raise the matter at one of their, presumably, regular meetings.
Perhaps the Deputy would now please bring his speech to a close.
These acts of omission are disgraceful and amount to a total dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister and the Attorney General. In the circumstances one would expect no less than an immediate, full and unreserved apology on the part of both individuals followed by an honourable resignation. If such apologies had been forthcoming at an early stage in the fiasco there might be some hope that every effort would be made to avoid major blunders in the future.
The time has come to call another speaker.
Instead, over the past two days we have been treated to a combination of brazen denials.
I must now call another speaker.
Are we now hearing the Labour Party requesting accountability——
Deputy Wallace, you heard the Chair, please resume your seat.
I am about to conclude.
No, I gave the Deputy ample warning.
Others went over their time and you were not that impartial.
I gave you fair warning and you refused to obey me.
With your permission, Sir, I wish to share my time with my colleague, Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald.
That is in order.
I have no doubt that the House is right to reaffirm its confidence in the Government, the members of which, individually and collectively, have been working hard for the past two years as a united and cohesive team, dedicated to serving the public interest.
The Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, and the Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson, have been two dedicated and outstanding Cabinet colleagues who have my full and unqualified support and that of all members of the Government.
It is not necessary on an occasion such as this for me to outline the many achievements of my colleagues and the progress made in my Department in the past two years. Those achievements are facts which stand on their own merits. The Opposition cannot credibly dispute those achievements. Instead, it seeks to argue that the House should withdraw its confidence in the Government as a result of the handling of the delisting of Judge Lynch. This is an entirely fatuous and opportunistic argument for a number of reasons.
It is said the Minister for Justice should resign because of errors made within her Department of which she did not have knowledge. Frankly, this is a ludicrous argument. Is the fate of every Minister in every Government of every political persuasion to be held hostage to termination at random, because of some action or inaction of which the Minister had no knowledge? That would be a most unjust and unwise policy and I totally reject it.
The Minister has accepted that errors did occur. She has accepted the gravity of the mistakes made. She has accepted political responsibility for what happened in her Department. She cannot reasonably be asked to resign over something about which she had no knowledge whatever. A distinction must be drawn between constitutional, legal and political responsibility for actions of officials, on the one hand, and personal or moral responsibility on the other. The Minister has constitutional, legal and political responsibility for what happens in her Department but she could only credibly be asked to resign if she had a personal involvement in the action taken — in other words, if she had a personal or moral responsibility or, to use a term referred to yesterday, if she had culpability. This was obviously not the case.
It is also said the Minister should resign for not having had sufficient control over the actions within her Department. I do not accept that suggestion. A Minister is entitled to assume, unless there is reason to believe the contrary, that instructions given will be carried out, that Government decisions made will be implemented and that any actions consequential on ministerial directions will be taken. If it were shown that a Minister approved some departure from this practice the position would be different. That is not the case in the Minister's situation.
It is also said the Minister should resign because she did not inform the House of the existence of the second letter from Judge Lynch when she addressed the House last week. Clearly, the steam has been taken out of this argument by the publication of the actual text of the letter itself yesterday. The letter is, to say the least, innocuous. Its contents do not exactly cry out for attention. It is easy to envisage how the Minister could have concluded, in the brief time available to her, that her state of knowledge as to the letter did not warrant her departing from her speech in order to mention it specially. It was undated by the sender, it was not date stamped. She ordered that the letter form part of the inquiry.
The suggestion is made that the Minister is in some way being punished for this incident or, as it is put, denuded of her powers. This suggestion is totally misconceived. The Government decided, on the Minister's proposal, to establish new structures to improve the management of the courts and prisons. I believe those structures are long overdue and it is a credit to the Minister, Deputy Owen, that she is the one to introduce them. This is not a question of removing powers from the Minister for Justice. It is a question of separating the policy role, which remains with the Minister, from the role of administration, which is to be devolved to the new authorities. It is worth noting that prior to recent events, the Government had already agreed to the setting up of a courts service and work was already progressing on the setting up of a prisons agency.
I particularly welcome the decision to set up an authority to manage the prison service. This was a recommendation of the Committee on the Penal System chaired by Dr. T. K. Whitaker in 1985. When, in his previous capacity as a Member of the other House, my colleague Deputy Costello moved a Bill in the other House to implement the Whitaker Report during the lifetime of the 1989-92 Government, the parties opposite would not facilitate leave to allow the Bill even to be published. The subject of prison reform has at times been neglected over the years and I pay tribute to Deputy Costello for his work in keeping it on the agenda. I look forward to the early enactment of the new legislation. I hope we can also look forward to consideration of inclusion of structures for parole and for long sentence review in this legislation.
The Opposition has also chosen to raise the role of the Attorney General in this affair and, by implication, the Taoiseach as the member of Government politically answerable for the Attorney General's office. The criticisms of the Attorney have no foundation whatsoever. Deputy O'Donoghue makes great play of what he calls the Attorney's constitutional role as guardian of the public interest and considers that this role should have required the Attorney to take action in the matter. This argument is presented with almost breathtaking effrontery by the Deputy and contains more misconceptions than I have time to deal with in this contribution.
The Attorney's primary constitutional role is as legal adviser to the Government. His public interest role exists on the legal, not the constitutional, level and is by no means a general roving licence to do good in any and all matters, public and private. It is not in particular a licence to do the work of Ministers. The Attorney did more than enough in writing letters which he was not obliged to write, which he had every right to assume would be acted upon, and which in any case he had no obligation to follow up.
The speeches from Members opposite commit a serious logical and legal error in confusing the roles of legal adviser — a role which the present occupant of the office of Attorney General occupies with tremendous skill, helpfulness, and ability — and the role of Minister, with the responsibility to account for decisions taken or not taken.
There has also been reference to officials. I make no comment on this aspect because I do not wish to prejudge the results of the inquiry. However, I do not think we should automatically seek to hang officials for any and every error made by them. Despite the fact that the mistake made in not implementing the Government decision was extremely serious, we should be open to hearing explanations if and when they are forthcoming. None of us is more than human and not every offence is, or should be, either a sacking offence or unforgivable.
All the facts have yet to emerge and clearly there are many lessons for the future. One obvious lesson is that Government decisions affecting the legal position of third parties should not take effect on the day they are made, unless there is a guarantee of immediate communication of such decisions.
I await the inquiry with great interest. However, in the meantime, I have no hesitation in urging the House to reaffirm its confidence in this Government.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and affirm my confidence in the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General.
That the Government decision of 1 August was not communicated to Mr. Justice Lynch with due speed, and the consequences of that, is a very serious matter. None of us denies this. Deficient systems and procedures must be rectified without any delay to ensure the situation is never repeated. To maintain public trust in our democracy, our systems of public administration must always be capable of administering Government decisions with due speed and efficiency. Where reforms are necessary to achieve this, the issues must be tackled head on and necessary improvements made. That is both the lesson of recent events and what people rightly expect.
There is a need to reform the public service. I served as a civil servant 25 years ago. In many ways the systems in place today have evolved little in that time. I have great respect for the dedicated work of individual civil servants and the ethos of public service they bring to their job. There is a need to reform systems within the public service and to devise new management tools to prioritise work and ensure proper procedures are in place. I believe the major reform task until the turn of the century will be that of ensuring the Public Service delivers quality service to this House, the Government and the public it serves.
The Minister for Justice and I were both elected to Dublin County Council on the same day in June 1979. I have known Deputy Owen since that time as a woman of great ability, integrity, ideas, imagination, hard work and commitment. We have been on opposite sides of the table on various occasions. I have had my differences with her at council level but have always found her direct, straightforward, keen to get the job done and above all, a woman of great integrity. Recent events have demonstrated these qualities.
It was a major mistake to fail to implement a Government decision in the Department of Justice. However, as soon as the Minister was belatedly told of the nature of the mistake, she immediately acted to rectify, as far as possible, what had happened. She released those who had been unlawfully detained and established an independent inquiry with no holds barred. This will be conducted by two eminent people, Mr. Seán Cromien, who has a profound knowledge of the public service and Dr. Ed Molloy, a respected consultant. They will examine the files, talk to those involved and discover what went wrong and what can be put right. There is a strong commitment to put any systems deficiency right. That report will be before the House next week and will be publicly debated. The Minister will answer questions and be accountable to the House.
A lame duck.
There was no attempt made in recent days to fudge, hide, mislead or pretend that nothing serious had happened. We acknowledge on this side of the House that the matter is extremely serious. As the Taoiseach indicated yesterday, there will be an accelerated programme of renewal and reform in the administration of justice. I welcome the establishment of a unified, independent and permanent courts service and an independent board, separate from the Department, to run the prisons and probation service on a daily basis. These reforms are overdue and I am delighted to see them being implemented.
It is a cover-up for incompetence.
In addition to my respect for the current holder of the post of Minister for Justice, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the previous holder, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, who was an excellent Minister for Justice. I welcomed her work as regards violence against women and the establishment of a special Garda unit.
The present Minister for Justice inherited the administrative systems and procedures in the Department of Justice from her predecessors, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn and Deputy Burke. The number of prison places and certain systems in the Department were there as the Minister found them. I attach no blame to her predecessor, who was a good Minister for Justice.
She has an impeccable record.
It is important that when defects are found in a system they are acted on and rectified without delay. I welcome the introduction of these reforms which I hope will bring an end to the culture of secrecy which has surrounded the Department of Justice for too long.
The Government is doing the job it was mandated to do in December 1994 on the basis of an agreed programme and in a spirit of co-operation and trust, with due respect for each party's genuine concerns, traditions and sensitivities. We need look no further than its economic record to have confidence in the Government. We have the fastest growing economy in Europe. When I attend meetings in Europe my colleagues ask me how we managed to achieve record growth in the economy and reduce the number of unemployed. Over the past two years 93,000 new jobs have been created and these have been translated into a reduction in unemployment and the availability of more jobs for school leavers, women who wish to return to the workforce and returned emigrants. The record low level of inflation has helped to maintain fixed incomes and the incomes of pensioners, while low interest rates, which are of particular benefit to people with mortgages, have encouraged investment by businesses. Investors and consumers have confidence in the economy and prudent management of the public finances by the Government has ensured that we are well within the Maastricht criteria. The Government's performance in regard to the economy has been excellent.
Will there be a lunch before next year's budget?
The Government has reduced not only the overall level of unemployment but also the number of long-term unemployed. The 1995 Labour Force Survey shows that the number of long-term unemployed fell by 25,000 and that there was a greater decrease in the number of long-term unemployed than in the number of short-term unemployed. The focus on long-term unemployment, an issue dear to Deputy O'Rourke's heart, is beginning to pay off. However, more needs to be done in this area and we must not forget the need for special policies. The rising tide does not lift all boats. The Government's focus on long-term unemployment is beginning to pay off and this is a source of satisfaction. The Government is working in a cohesive way and will complete the tasks it set for itself on its formation.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Joe Walsh.
That is satisfactory.
The Dáil is debating the political accountability and culpability of the Minister for Justice. Mr. Seán Cromien is undertaking the administrative inquiry while we are holding the political inquiry. It is important to mark that distinction. Initially the Minister and the Government sought to have the entire fiasco dealt with by way of the administrative inquiry and valiant efforts were made by Government spokespersons to have the debate postponed. Before I deal with this political mismanagement saga, I wish to state clearly that I am not laying a personal charge against the Minister for Justice; rather I am making a charge of incompetency and mishandling by a Minister in charge of an extremely important Government portfolio.
The Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, is personable and hard working but endless activity and amiability must be accompanied by a clear edged authority by those in charge of a Department of State. There is a marked lack of authority and incoherence in all the mishaps which have befallen the Minister. Previous Opposition speakers catalogued the list of earlier catastrophes and I do not intend to revisit that terrain. However, I intend dealing with the present debacle which began when the Minister brought to Cabinet her memoranda regarding the delisting of Judge Dominic Lynch.
Presumably there was a discussion at the Cabinet table, with the sponsoring Minister endorsing her view. There was a clear and unequivocal political responsibility on the Minister to ensure that the Government decision was acted upon and subsequently implemented. This action has three distinct phases, all of which are political: (1) preparation and supervision of the memorandum for Cabinet; (2) discussion and endorsement by Cabinet of that memorandum and (3) ensuring the implementation of the decision within the Department. Actions (1) and (2) were carried through but the crucial action of ensuring implementation was casually neglected. The beaches beckoned and blithe Nora went off.
The months of August and September went by in a haze of inactivity on this issue. On 2 October the Attorney General disturbed himself on foot of legal rumblings and wrote to the Minister for Justice inquiring about the position of Judge Lynch. When he received no reply to that letter he wrote a second letter a month later. Leisurely letters written one month apart is the stuff of an old fashioned, bygone Victorian era.
I lay a political charge clearly at the door of the Attorney General who has a definite remit as custodian of the public good. Despite the convoluted explanation given yesterday about the Attorney General and his clients, the facts are clear. Mr. Dermot Gleeson knew the precise implications of the non-implementation by the Minister for Justice of the Government decision to stand down Judge Lynch. He took no action, apart, of course, from writing leisurely letters. This is political culpability of the gravest kind which, to put it in its simplest form, could threaten the security of the State. We are not dealing with petty crime or minor traffic offences but with issues which could fundamentally affect the lives and safety of citizens who should be the primary concern of the Attorney General.
What do the letters contain? The Taoiseach gave alarming answers to questions today about those letters and undoubtedly there will be more developments in this area. The programme for Government states that people in high office should make themselves available for scrutiny by Dáil committees. Given the mystery surrounding his role, the Attorney General should submit himself to scrutiny by the appropriate committee. I ask the Tánaiste to deal with this issue in his reply.
The Minister for Justice did not, unbelievably, give instructions in her office for letters from such an eminent colleague as the Attorney General to be brought to her attention. The second letter from Mr. Dermot Gleeson was posted on Friday, 1 November and read by the Minister the following Tuesday. It is mind boggling urgency and I do not blame An Post for that delay. More ineptitude by the Minister now emerges cloaked in words like "intervention" and "initiative" when she speaks in the Dáil.
The Minister finally read the Attorney General's second letter on Tuesday, 5 November. What was her dramatic intervention then? She telephoned a principal officer in her Department and then went off without taking any further action. She went to Belfast on Wednesday and returned to see the film on Wednesday night. Thirty hours after she read the Attorney General's letter, she had to be called out from the film to take action. She then went back to the film and on to a party. Endless activity and amiability but no control of her Department.
That 30 hour gap shows so strongly the Minister's lack of focus, political perception and sense of authority. The moment the Minister finally read the Attorney General's letter on Tuesday, 5 November alarm bells should have rung. She should then have acted decisively as the political head of that Department, holding an immediate meeting with her senior officials to devise an urgent strategy. She should have perused the files and contacted the Taoiseach.
It is even stranger how it was only as she was preparing for the Dáil debate on Thursday afternoon that Judge Lynch's letter was brought to her attention. This sequence is quite unbelievable. It is further compounded given that the Minister came into the Dáil yet did not disclose the existence of the letter. Later, we were treated to a flimsy excuse but the fact remains that the Minister knew of the letter but did not tell us. It is obvious that knives are being sharpened for a junior official in the Department of Justice while the Minister quite brazenly wraps herself in the surreal frenzied plaudits of her rainbow colleagues.
Turning to a more general point, the Government is laden down with programme managers, advisers and press officers. Is the work of a private secretary and the Minister's private office often diluted by or perhaps merged with the mission of her programme manager? It is a question worth probing in the context of this debate and I would like to hear Mr. Cromien speaking about this matter next week. I hope we will hear him.
The word "trust" if often abused. The Taoiseach said last night the difference between 1994 and 1996 was that trust exists between the three rainbow partners. This much vaunted trust is based on desperation. As Johnson said, we either hang together or we hang separately.
There is no danger of that.
The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the leader of Democratic Left should know there is another much more important trust — the trust of the citizens. The electors are far away from cosy rainbow alliances, waiting for an opportunity to cast their votes. Arrogance, ineptitude, evasions and mismanagement are the hallmarks of this Government. They endorse one another, cling together and hope for a new dawn but justice will be meted out to this Government when the general election occurs. We eagerly await that day.
I thank Deputy O'Rourke for sharing her time with me. The core issue is how the rainbow arrangement turned into what can only be described as the most farcical Government this State has had to endure since its foundation. Any expression of confidence in this Government can only be interpreted as the most cynical and self-serving of gestures, and totally unworthy of any self respecting politician.
As the Taoiseach and his droll band stumble from disaster to catastrophe, it is only too easy for those of us in Opposition to resort to opportunistic comment and point scoring. However, I do not intend to follow that route since the matter at hand is far too serious. It would not be going too far to say the abject performance of key figures within the Government is threatening to undermine public confidence in our democratic institutions to an unprecedented degree. Consequently, unless the current sequence of mistake followed by gross mistake is firmly brought to an end we will all be losers, ultimately.
It gives me some satisfaction to see and hear those who have adopted the high moral ground for some time, and who have pointed the finger at Fianna Fáil so often, having to come into this House and blatantly try to justify something which is unjustifiable. There is a trend in all their speeches. They start off by conceding that this is a serious matter in a sensitive area but nobody will accept ministerial responsibility for it. They will give us independent bodies, dismantle the Department and set up any kind of quasi-State apparatus rather than apportion responsibility for this. That is a change for some people. When we had the last serious problem in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry we got an independent food monitoring authority and now we have another independent body.
How has the current unbelievable situation occurred where the Taoiseach and his Cabinet colleagues indulge in the most cynical of verbal gymnastics simply to hang on to Government? The root of the problem goes back to the formation of this rainbow Coalition. As is now only too evident, a mixture of perceived political expediency and weak leadership under pressure resulted in the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, deliberately destroying an excellent Government two years ago. Bad as this act was in terms of betrayal of trust and political responsibility, the matter was seriously compounded when Deputy Spring and his colleagues attempted to wrap themselves in a blanket of moral superiority while at the same time maligning their Government colleagues without the slightest sense of fair play or honour.
You have been abandoned.
In what were without doubt among the most vile and unjustified contributions ever made to this House — I had occasion to go through the speeches that were made two years ago and they were vile and unjustified — senior figures from Fine Gael and Democratic Left joined in the malice. As a result, the integrity of parliamentary debate along with the essential underlying respect between politicians of all parties was dealt a serious blow. Then we wonder why the currency of politicians, including Members of this House, is so low.
From those benches, Deputy Rabbitte, who is now a Minister of State, asserted he had information that would rock the foundations of this State.
A liar.
Of course, there was not a scintilla of truth in that, either then or now, but that was done to provide an hysterical backdrop to remove the Government from office.
Will these fellows back him now?
In such an atmosphere it is perhaps not surprising that the rainbow coalition had only one uniting objective, the desire to gain power and to hang onto it at all costs for as long as possible.
You are like doormats.
Thus the cement of a series of common goals which are so essential for cohesive and effective Government was totally absent in the current Government from its earliest days.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Walsh's colleagues should allow him to continue uninterrupted.
If at this stage this Government has any genuine interest in what is best for our democratic process, there is only one honourable option available to the Taoiseach and his colleagues. They should immediately resign from Government. By taking such a course of action they will responsibly admit the core deficiency of any moral centre to their Administration. Taking into account the wildly differing agendas of Labour, Fine Gael and Democratic Left, this simple reality is only too evident even to the most inexperienced bystander. By resigning, the Government will firmly place the initiative back in the hands of the electorate who will then be in a position to give their verdict on the matter. The electorate are hard taskmasters, however, and it is not so easy to face them, particularly when one has gone from blunder to disaster.
It is fine to come into this House and say we have a great economy. We have many great things but there is no honourable acceptance that the inheritance of a good economic situation was the result of post-1987 economic restructuring and the restoration of the national finances. Unfortunately, from the comments of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice, there is no sign of a sense of responsibility or contrition for the appalling mess they have created. Rather, we have had a series of depressing, shallow and shameless speeches which show no sensitivity to the stark reality that the credibility of their Administration has been well and truly blown apart. In what can only be described as the ultimate folly, we had the bizarre spectacle yesterday of the Taoiseach expressing total confidence in his Minister for Justice while at the same time using the scalpel to dismantle her Department. I have never seen such a daft performance in my political life. If the Taoiseach were captain of a stricken ship, I have no doubt he would confidently blow air bubbles into the hold as it slipped under water.
As it appears another major scandal will be necessary before this incoherent and fatally damaged Administration is finally forced to leave office, it is necessary to recall its brief history. The first hiccup came within weeks of it assuming office. Having regard to the Coalition's unique and comical working definition of the lofty aspirations of openness, transparency and accountability, it is not surprising that the first problem involved the advance leaking of sensitive budget information. Faced with the fearsome wrath of the Labour Party perched on the high moral ground, the head of the then Minister, Deputy Hogan, had to be sacrificed irrespective of the fact that he had no personal involvement in leaking that information. The whistle was blown and when the Tánaiste blows the whistle, one has to get out.
Many people thought the leaking affair would be a once off matter and that the rainbow Coalition would avoid further scandals during its remaining time in office. It was felt that the lack of meaningful policy potential between the far left, the centre and far right political parties would at least free the Administration to concentrate its energies on self-preservation and self-promotion, while basking in the reflected achievements of the Government that preceded it. Unfortunately, life is not that simple and Deputy Hogan had barely reached the dugout when the referee — the Tánaiste — was again furiously tooting his whistle. This time it was a Cork Minister's head that was at stake, that of poor Deputy Coveney
He is not poor.
Cork is the poorer because of that decision.
He was shown the red card for behaviour which was incompatible with ministerial office.
In this case pressure was put on civil servants in the Department of Justice to bail out the Minister. I have been a Member of the House for 20 years, have taken a keen interest in Government matters since the foundation of the State and, even in the troubled times, when taking over from the British, or during various Administration changes since then, I have not known any segment of the Civil Service to take political sides. Unfortunately, this has led to the break-up of that organisation, to conflicting statements from it and to an undermining of its integrity and neutrality. It is a shame the political heads in the Department of Justice put such pressure on civil servants.
I wish to share time with Deputies Finucane, Crawford and Frances Fitzgerald.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I support a good Minister who has done a good job in difficult circumstances. The Minister for Justice cannot be blamed for a major administrative error. She did not do anything wrong. She performed her duties correctly. I hope the inquiry will discover who made the mistake and I expect such a poor administrative performance will not go unpunished.
The efforts by Fianna Fáil to implicate the Attorney General is irresponsible and irrational. If the Attorney General had not notified the Department of Justice when he did, I am sure Fianna Fáil would now be pointing out the errors of his ways. Members of Fianna Fáil must believe the electorate has a collective short memory. They would be better employed having consultations with Dr. Anthony Clare rather than with Terry Prone in Carr Communications. It is obvious they need deep psychological counselling to overcome the trauma of what happened to them two years ago. Fianna Fáil will need time to get over the mess it created in Government this time two years ago and if the mood of the electorate is anything to go by, it will be given every opportunity to rehabilitate on the Opposition benches during the next five years.
Is the Deputy flying on one wing?
Deputy O'Keeffe should not worry, he will get his answer in time.
The Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fail have tried to divide the Government on this issue. They have not succeeded and will not succeed because there is a genuine trust and confidence between the parties in this Government. Fianna Fáil genuinely believes every party in power acts like itself. It will turn inwards and choke whatever party goes to bed with it. This Government is staying together because of trust and openness between its members.
The Deputy is suffering from a loss of memory.
They respect each other, something Fianna Fáil found difficult to do with any Government party. There are sharp differences between the parties in Government, but we agreed on a programme for Government and we will stick to it.
The Progressive Democrats are on a sticky wicket. For years Deputies O'Malley and Harney believed Fianna Fáil had horns, but when it is politically advantageous to get into bed with those demons, they are prepared to cast aside their infamous principles. They will do anything to get into a State car.
The Deputy lost his car.
The Minister for Justice has performed well. The Government decision to take responsibility for the prison system from the Department is long overdue. There will be such a shake-up in this section in the next couple of years that the current prison regime will be unrecognisable in the future.
The Government has shaken its foundations.
People at the lowest possible level should be made responsible for their actions. We should reward good practices and punish poor practice. How could a Minister for Justice be responsible for a prisoner being transported from one prison to another in the company of three or four prison officers and gardaí?
She is a lame duck.
What could a Minister do about that? Similarly, what could a Minister do if a prisoner, deemed by medical professionals to be fit for imprisonment in an open prison, decides to go outside the prison walls for an hour or two? That is why reform of the prison system is extremely urgent.
The decision taken yesterday by this Government will have far reaching, advantageous effects on the prison system. The efforts of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to drive a wedge between the parties in Government will not work. It will be seen by the public for what it is, a charade. They will have to make some other effort to destabilise the Government.
The Deputy should go down to the Four Courts, to hear the Minister, Deputy De Rossa.
I am surprised at Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats moving a motion of confidence in the Government. They should have waited until the inquiry is completed. When we could have a constructive discussion on the matter. Today's debate has been pointless. The debate could have concluded last night and, as the Taoiseach stated, we could have got back to work.
This issue is different from what happened in November 1994. It should be a tragic reminder to Fianna Fáil of what happened then when, in the full glare of the Dáil, the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, sat here for four and a half hours flanked by Deputy Bertie Ahern. That Deputy did not pass that one crucial letter from the Attorney General's office to Deputy Reynolds. The Leader of Fianna Fáil would not want to be reminded of what happened then. That situation was different from the present one. I welcome the speedy investigation initiated by the Minister and I trust that proper systems will be put in place so that a similar situation does not occur in the future.
What is happening in the High Court in London will act as a reminder to people who are inclined to forget why the previous Government fell.
What is happening in the Four Courts?
Deputy Reynolds told the jury he had not received a letter from the then new Attorney General, Mr. Eoghan Fitzsimons, concerning the Duggan case until after he had made his crucial speech to the Dáil about the handling of Fr. Brendan Smyth's extradition. He subsequently found the letter had been sent to the Dáil by staff in the Attorney General's office and had been passed through a number of hands before arriving in his ministerial colleague's bundles of files. He claimed it never reached him. When asked by Lord Williams who his ministerial colleague was, he replied it was Deputy Bertie Ahern. Lord Williams expressed surprise at the fact that Deputy Reynold's successor did not pass it to him.
To what is the Deputy referring?
This happened in the High Court in London, although I am sure the Deputy is not following it closely.
On a point of order, could the Deputy tell us to what document he is referring?
Deputy Reynolds said he hit the ceiling when he found the letter on his desk that evening.
Was it a low ceiling?
What motivated Deputy Bertie Ahern not to pass on that letter to Deputy Reynolds? Did he foresee a situation where Deputy Reynolds would step down as Leader of Fianna Fáil and he would, perhaps, be appointed?
Did Lord Williams say which official in the Attorney General's office had that letter?
If Deputy Noel Treacy was following the case in London, he would be familiar with those facts.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Treacy, we had an orderly debate until you arrived. I ask you to control yourself, please.
He came in looking for snakes.
I support the Minister for Justice. This has been a successful and united Government through all the problems it inherited from its predecessors. We all remember how that Government fell.
Victims of crime should be more important than the criminal and the bail laws should be more important than political games, which is what this debate has been about for the past two days.
Be sincere.
Drug-related crime is not only important in Dublin but in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan.
Angel dust.
New prison places are being provided. We had nothing but promises of prison places for the previous eight and a half years.
The Deputy will not be here after the next election. He is a one trip man.
This Minister is taking action and 800 places will be provided during her three years in office.
Lock them all up.
Others should be locked up too. The Minister has restructured the Garda Síochána. There are now five new Garda regions and 400 extra gardaí will be appointed. Additional court sittings will be provided and 15 new judges will be appointed.
The Deputy's party did not forget to notify them.
Acting Chairman
I ask Deputy O'Keeffe to restrain himself.
We heard in the past two days about the three great Ministers for Justice in the previous Government, but their successor had to introduce ten new Bills in as many months.
The last Government fell because of a series of events, including the beef tribunal and the passport scandal when the then Taoiseach said he did not know his wife and family had received over £1 million. We all know that if someone wins £10 in the national lottery it will be talked about at the breakfast table, yet the then Taoiseach said he knew nothing about it, although a number of his Ministers made sure they received it.
Who introduced the scheme?
We must improve the structures in every Department.
The Government is on one wing.
I am glad I never had to go to court but I have visited the Land Registry. I hope the Minister will get time to improve the structures in that office so that people can do their business properly. I look forward to her being in office for many more years.
I welcome the opportunity to express confidence in the work of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Social Welfare and, in particular, the Minister for Justice. Instead of attacking the Minister, members of Fianna Fáil should express regret at the state in which they left the criminal justice system, which was stretched to breaking point after eight years. We should focus on the extraordinary reforming zeal, energy, commitment and persistence which the Minister has shown in dealing with her brief. The beneficial effects of her reforming zeal will be felt in our criminal justice system for a long time.
Many demands are made on the Department of Justice on a daily basis and many decisions must be made. What is important is how people behave in a crisis. Let us look at how the Minister has behaved in this crisis. As soon as she realised what was happening, she initiated an inquiry. Natural justice demands that we await the results of that inquiry before we make a judgment or condemn individuals involved in this situation. The Minister came into the Dáil and answered questions and she will be here again when the results of that inquiry are known next week.
It is important to look at the Minister's record in the Department of Justice. People have talked about bail reform for many years, yet nobody except this Minister has asked the people to vote in a bail referendum. There has been much talk about what needs to be done but she has taken action in many important areas. People have talked about the need to reform our courts system but nothing was done for the past eight years. Before the announcement was made yesterday, the Minister had already asked Mrs. Justice Susan Denham to head up a commission of inquiry and had given a commitment to implement its recommendations. People talked about the lack of prison spaces and the revolving door syndrome in our prisons yet this issue was not tackled. This Government has taken a more proactive approach than any Government to this issue.
The Minister has initiated reform in many other areas. She has provided more Garda resources in Dublin and throughout the country. She has set in place a reorganisation of the Garda force and placed much more emphasis on the victims of crime, a much neglected area for many years. Last week she received a report on violence against women and is determined to act on that. For many years people talked about the seizure of criminal assets, but who took action? No one. Yet within two years the Minister for Justice took action and established the National Bureau of Fraud Investigation.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but the time has come to call on the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign to conclude the debate.
I understand I am to wind up this debate and I am proud to support the motion before the House.
To wind it up?
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy's party failed to wind it up for the past two days.
This is a motion of confidence in the Government. This Government came to office in difficult and unusual circumstances and I will deal with that in more detail later. Despite that, the Government has presided over the most successful economic period in the history of the State. It has created more jobs in a two year period than in any comparable period in our history. It has repaired the damage to the social and economic fabric of our community that was inflicted on it during the period of three years when the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil were in Government. It has and is presiding over some of the most complex negotiations in the recent history of Europe and is doing so in a manner that has attracted high praise throughout Europe.
The Government has reversed the shameful cuts in health, housing, education, welfare, aid to the developing world and a range of other areas that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats had so savagely implemented in their time in a disastrous Government. It has introduced free third level education for the first time in our history and an entire programme of far reaching reform in the education area. It has also introduced reforming legislation in the area of family law that had been sought for well over 25 years.
The Government has taken on the battle against an epidemic of crime and drugs that had been building up for many years. It has introduced wide-ranging reforms in this area and is totally committed to taking on the drug barons in every area of their activity.
Is é an Rialtas seo a rinne mórbheart chun saol cultúrtha an phobail a athbheochan, comh maith lenár gcultúr agus ár dteanga arsa dúchais a caomhnú agus a leathnú. Ní amháin gur thaispeáin mór-éachtaí ealaíona ár scríbhneoirí, aisteoirí, rinnceoirí, filí agus amhránaithe go bhfuil mór-éileamh sa tír seo ar ár n-Oidhreacht, ach ini ainneoin na sceiptigh, cuireadh tús craolta le Telefís na Gaeilge le déanaí. Tá an obair a rinne an Rialtas i leith an ábhair seo as an nua go h-iomlán agus mairfidh sé do no glúine atá le teacht.
The Government has sought to build on the work of peacemaking started by its two predecessors. It has set out the parameters——
The paralysis.
——of a lasting solution in Northern Ireland, in agreement with the British Government.
It has succeeded in getting a fixed date for all-party talks and their commencement. It has agreed the procedures and ground rules for those talks in intensive negotiations and discussions. The Government works night and day to try to rebuild the process of inclusion that was shattered by the Canary Wharf bomb. In short, the House is being asked to vote confidence in a Government born in turbulent circumstances, that has been in office for almost two years and can already account for historic achievements in the economy, job creation, Europe, social policy, family law reform, the battle against crime and in the painstaking struggle to further the cause of reconciliation and inclusion in Northern Ireland.
And in political hypocrisy.
In the time left to the Government, its further commitments are many and varied and they will be honoured.
Of course, I am proud to support this motion. When I review the record and bear in mind the work still to be done, how could it be otherwise? I am also proud to say that I support the Minister for Justice and I reject the mean-spirited attacks that have been made on her.
Since 1977, Fianna Fáil Ministers have been in political control of the Department of Justice for some 13 years.
The Tánaiste spent a while there.
Those who have sought to blame the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, for the problems that undoubtedly exist in that Department might do well to reflect on that fact. It was Fianna Fáil Ministers, some of whom have taken part in this debate, who allowed a culture of obsessive secrecy to be built up in that Department. They failed to implement the Whitaker report, allowed the management of the courts to get into such a state that they have been in crisis for years and allowed the free legal aid service to run down to a point where battered wives and their children had to be turned away from the centres.
I have worked closely with the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, during the past two years as she has spearheaded the fight against crime and introduced the legal and management reforms necessary in that area.
I have also worked with her in relation to Northern Ireland at intergovernment level and in the all-party talks. In all those areas she has been an excellent colleague and contributor and has carried a huge workload with energy and commitment.
I have also worked with the Attorney General in the same areas and have relied heavily on his advice in others. One of the more unwarranted attacks in this spurious debate must surely be the attacks on him. What is the allegation against the Attorney General?
Harry Whelehan.
A general election two years ago. At least he knew about it.
The allegation is not that he did not do his job. His job is that of legal adviser to the Government. In his correspondence with the Minister, he raised the issue of fact with possible legal implications. He is criticised not for this, but because he did not follow up the queries himself and take the necessary action. He is criticised, in other words, for not doing an administrative job within the Department of Justice.
For not telling the Taoiseach or the DPP.
Constant interruptions must cease.
Double standards.
Deputy Treacy, please desist.
That is very much the case. Members opposite should enjoy power while they have it.
If Deputy Treacy wants to be introduced to Pandora, I will follow through on that.
The Tánaiste might fall into the box.
The Deputy would not stand on a box because he would fall off it. He would not attempt to get up on a pedestal.
(Interruptions.)
The Tánaiste might fall into it.
I must ask Deputy Treacy to desist from making constant interruptions. If the Deputy feels he cannot listen to the Member in possession, he has a remedy. There are many exists from this Chamber.
It is even suggested by some distinguished commentators who should know better that if the Attorney General had done nothing he would have been blameless, but that when he took the step of proffering advice he had a duty to follow it through and ensure it was followed. This is absolute nonsense. The Attorney is adviser to the Government as a whole and its 15 individual Ministers.
He does not advise them.
Surely the Deputy hears the Chair. I am close enough to him.
Deputy Ahern has the habit of backing the wrong horses.
I always back the right one.
He backed the wrong one the last time.
I did not.
He advises them on a huge range of issues from constitutional law, to administrative law, to public international law, to criminal law, to commercial and contract law — every branch of the law and every issue with which a Government becomes involved which has a legal dimension which, in modern society, means virtually every issue.
Is it seriously suggested that on top of all of this, on top of doing his work as Attorney General and giving legal advice, he is supposed to ensure that his advice is implemented and acted upon? In my experience a lawyer must advise his client, but it is not his responsibility to ensure that his client acts on that advice.
That is the logic of the Opposition attack on Dermot Gleeson. He is criticised for neglecting his job, even though he did it and did it very well. He is also criticised for not doing the administrative work of the Department of Justice. The criticism is patently unjust. I refer to the equally spurious charge that we have, in some way, removed key responsibilities from the Minister for Justice. Did the Minister for Finance cease to carry responsibility for the national debt when the NTMA was set up? Was the Minister for Communications deprived of power when Telecom Éireann and An Post were established? As Deputies are aware, the answer is no.
He should have been.
We are implementing reforms which the Minister for Justice supports and which, in some cases, have been demanded by all sides of the House for years. The independent and permanent body to manage a unified courts system is something we pressed for in our negotiations, first with Fianna Fáil, then with Fine Gael and Democratic Left. It forms an integral part of the programme, A Government of Renewal. The Minister for Justice's commitment to it stands up well to examination by comparison with that of her predecessor.
Yesterday not one but both leaders of the parties in Opposition referred with obvious approval to a speech I made in the House on 16 November 1994.
Where are they tonight?
They have run away.
They have had enough hypocrisy and double standards.
(Interruptions.)
The interruptions from both sides of the House must cease.
I do not recall Deputy Ahern receiving that speech with such approval at the time it was delivered but, clearly, it has grown on him in the intervening period. Selective quotation of speeches is not always a great idea. It seems Deputies Ahern and Harney agree absolutely with the principle of accountability as I tried to define it then, the notion that a Minister is accountable to the Dáil even in respect of a situation in which he or she is not directly culpable. As they see it, accountability means that one is fired or resigns.
Deputies Ahern and Harney should perhaps have read that speech a little further. I went on to set out what it was the Labour Party was trying to achieve at that time. Three or four paragraphs after the section Deputies Ahern and Harney quote with such approval I put it simply and clearly: "What the Labour Party wants is an accounting, a true and fair accounting, and nothing more than that".
Instead of concentrating on what is important, the serious problems that must be addressed and resolved, this House is being invited to compare what has happened on this occasion with what happened in 1994. I am happy to do so.
In 1994 we had a Government that had set out with high hopes two years earlier to bring about change and peace on this island. Throughout that year it struggled to deal with issues of trust brought about, in every single instance, by actions not of the Labour Party's making.
We all know about the accumulation of incidents throughout 1994 and the breaches of trust involved. We all know about the attempts to implement Government decisions as faits accomplis. I notice that my absence from Ireland on EU and Presidency business has been a source of great complaint by some of the Fianna Fáil speakers in this debate, even though, in their usual two-faced way, they never tire of demanding that I sort out any problem with an international dimension from Russia to the Great Lakes region.
What about the great lakes of Kerry?
They never used to complain in the days when they tried to use my absence on Government business to ram decisions through the Cabinet. In November 1994 we had a major issue which demanded public accountability, a serious scandal which caused outrage among decent people everywhere.
The Labour Party was looking for a way out.
We demanded that accountability in writing at the Cabinet table. Those letters have been published. We demanded it from the law officer who had overall responsibility for a debacle that should never have happened. We demanded that there should be accountability before that law officer was promoted to the second highest judicial office in the land because real accountability would not be possible after his promotion but we did not get it. The Dáil was denied it. Instead we got a Cabinet meeting which rejected the Attorney General's explanations for the fiasco and then went on to promote him to a post where he was immune from further questioning.
The Taoiseach who rammed that decision through on a Friday tried to pressurise the same person into resigning the following Monday, went on to defend him and all his actions on the Tuesday and excoriated him on the Wednesday.
At the Tánaiste's request.
The same information — the Duggan case — was used to pressurise Mr. Whelehan in secret on the Monday, concealed from this House on the Tuesday and then revealed with great fanfare on the Wednesday. Does anyone in their right mind and without an axe to grind really believe that that situation is comparable to the difficulties we now face?
Yes, and the Tánaiste will live to regret it.
If the Deputy had delivered the letters we would have no problem.
At least we did not have a bonfire.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, did not come into the House last Thursday seeking to evade responsibility or to justify the promotion of anyone to a position where they were immune from accountability. She did not receive advice from the Attorney General and then tell him it was not going to be used. She had no note in front of her which said, "if pressed, keep repeating the above". Instead, she came into the House and offered a true and fair accounting, exactly what we looked for in 1994. Even before she came into the House she had begun an investigation. This did not happen in 1994 when the explanations had been rejected and the decision made anyway.
The situation at the heart of this controversy is a grave and serious one but it is being treated with seriousness and honesty. On this occasion the investigation will be conducted independently and its outcome published. The ramifications and implications of that investigation will be followed wherever they lead.
On a point of order, will the Attorney General's letters be published?
Deputies
Sit down.
Will the Tánaiste give way?
That is enough, Deputy.
The attempts to compare this situation with what happened in 1994 are spurious. Members of Fianna Fáil were no innocent bystanders, they were actively engaged, some with more understanding than others of what was involved, in seeking to deprive this House of the explanations to which it was entitled. It almost worked.
This is disgraceful. Classic Finlay.
If I had not discovered the truth, I would have voted confidence in that Government that day. I would not have checked information I got with the then Attorney General and got his precise, firm and simple explanations.
On a point of order——
Deputies
Sit down.
The Deputy should please allow the Tánaiste to conclude. There is no point of order.
I request the writer of this rubbish to come into the House and face the people instead of acting as a ventriloquist's dummy.
(Interruptions.)
As it always does, the truth would have come out eventually. Despite that, to this day, not one Fianna Fáil person has ever said, "we got it wrong in 1994, we should have insisted that Albert Reynolds went into the Dáil and told the whole truth before Harry was promoted". As even the most cursory reading of Sean Duignan's book will reveal, there were some at least who knew they were sacrificing a Government of solid achievement to the whims of their leader and they were afraid to lift a finger.
The Tánaiste was responsible for wrecking that Government.
That is what really hurts Fianna Fáil. They were done in by the truth, nothing more, nothing less. They cannot bear it now when they see a Government Minister facing up to a difficult situation truthfully and honestly, coming into the House and offering the accountability it requires and deserves.
This three-party coalition under the Taoiseach's leadership has been a good Government. It is a Government that is prepared to account for mistakes, tell the truth to the House and face the consequences. It is also a Government that has much work to do. By the time it faces the electorate it will have added yet more achievement to its record. It is our intention to continue the work of reform, growth, dynamism and peace. It will be for the people ultimately to decide who understands and is committed to the principle of accountability.
I accept fully that the issue of accountability must remain at the heart of our political life. In addition to the reforms and measures we have already announced, I would like to believe that the belated but welcome conversion of Fianna Fáil would guarantee support for a package of measures that could be finalised quickly and which would make certain that accountability would become, in the phrase of a former Fianna Fáil Minister, a core value of Irish politics.
The Tánaiste votes them all down.
Such a package would challenge every party in the House to accept a new wording for a referendum on Cabinet confidentiality on which the Taoiseach has commissioned further work. There is no reason such a referendum could not take place either before or alongside next year's general election. I know Fianna Fáil would welcome this.
Is the Taoiseach listening?
It would also include rapid processing through the Oireachtas of the Freedom of Information Bill, the heads of which have already been published, debated and accepted by a Dáil committee, together with a thorough review of the Official Secrets Act and secrecy provisions in other legislation——
Is the Tánaiste serious? We cannot get answers to parliamentary questions or access to files.
Deputy Martin should restrain himself.
——the speedy enactment on an all-party basis of the Public Service Management Bill; the rapid processing through Committee of the Privilege and Compellability of Witnesses Bill, a measure I am sure Fianna Fáil will be anxious to support; acceptance of a Bill to amend the Ombudsman Act and to extend his powers and remit to act on behalf of the citizen — I know how supportive Fianna Fáil has been of the Ombudsman in the past and an administrative procedures Bill which would give citizens a range of new rights in relation to decision-making in the public service.
What about TDs? We cannot even see the files.
(Interruptions.)
The man who attacked Jimmy Tully is still here. If the attitude of Fianna Fáil to accountability is as genuine and sincere as the temper of this debate would suggest, there is no reason to believe that a detailed accountability package along these lines could not be enacted into law within the next 12 months of this Government. A great deal of the necessary background work on these measures is almost complete.
The Tánaiste voted down every Dáil reform proposal put before the House recently. There were 11 votes against the reforms.
Sincerity is not a concept one would readily associate with Fianna Fáil, but I am offering that party an opportunity to work with us to enhance the whole spirit and reality of accountability. No doubt when the clamour of point-scoring has died down, it will be able to reflect on how valuable a high degree of accountability will be on any future occasion it manages to get into office.
We will, in any event, carry on the work of reform and change. The Government has a long way to go before its work is done. It will not be deflected by the attitude of Fianna Fáil or the Progressive Democrats. We will remain solid and united——
Tell Eric that.
——working together on a basis of trust and determined always to account to this House when that is necessary. Of course, as is human, we will make mistakes, but unlike some of the people opposite, when we do there will be no fudging, evasion, misleading or pretence. This is an honest Government with an outstanding track record and a vision of change. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 70.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick West).
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and O'Donnell.
Question declared carried.