Vol. 471 No. 5
1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach whether he has satisfied himself that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions operates efficiently; and his views on whether any new measures are necessary to assist its operation. [20953/96]
I would refer the Deputy to my reply to Deputy O'Dea's Question No. 18 of 16 October 1996, about the transaction of business in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In that reply I indicated that I had been assured by the Director that business in his Office is transacted expeditiously and that this had been borne out in two independent studies.
The preliminary draft of the Department of Finance Report to which I referred did point to the scope for some improvements of the type which have been suggested for most Departments in the context of the Strategic Management Initiative, notably in regard to training and more extensive use of information technology. There has been ongoing consultation between the Department of Finance and the Office of the Director on the preliminary report as well as consultation with the Department of Justice and the Chief State Solicitor's office on aspects of it. The final report is expected to be completed shortly.
I would also like to remind the Deputy that in my reply to the earlier parliamentary question I stated that the various reports on the State legal offices were under consideration by a group with a view to ensuring that the optimum organisation structure and working arrangements for the State prosecution service and the legal offices generally are put in place.
Is the Taoiseach concerned at the sequence of events outlined by the Minister for Justice on 7 November last in that there seemed to be much passing of the buck between the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Attorney General. According to the Minister's statement, personnel in both offices answer questions by suggesting that the matter in question comes properly within the remit of the other office. Given that since 1974 it is the Director of Public Prosecutions who prosecutes many cases on behalf of the State, does the Taoiseach believe that not only has the Attorney General failed in his duty to citizens by not taking action when the problem in the Special Criminal Court came to light, but that the Director of Public Prosecutions should also have been aware that he was prosecuting cases before an invalidly constituted court? Is the Taoiseach not concerned about that?
I dealt with the substance of that in my speech during the debate yesterday. I made the point then that the implementation of the decision in regard to changes in the Special Criminal Court was a matter for the Department of Justice, the proposing Department, and that any other necessary action flowing from that decision is also, under Cabinet procedure instructions, a matter for the promoting Department. The inquiry which is currently under way will establish how the problem arose. That is the fairest way to proceed. It is best, in the interests of all concerned, that the facts, those already in documentary form and information that may be obtained orally from people giving evidence at the inquiry, should be drawn together in the inquiry and a comprehensive statement made on the matter. That statement will be available next Monday and the Minister for Justice has indicated that not only will she make it available to the House but she will also be willing to answer questions on it.
We now know that the Director of Public Prosecutions contacted the Department at 4.30 p.m. last Thursday, almost six hours before the Minister was contacted. What were the circumstances leading to the Director of Public Prosecutions contacting the Department at 4.30 p.m. last Wednesday?
This matter will be dealt with in the inquiry. I will give the best information available to me at present; it may not turn out to be all the information there will subsequently be. It is my understanding that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions became aware of the problem at 4.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 6 November on receipt of a call from the Chief State's Solicitor's Office. Subsequent to that, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions contacted the Department of Justice. Following confirmation of the situation from the Department of Justice the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions took certain steps in regard to the matter.
The question that will obviously be in the Deputy's mind is what prompted the Chief State Solicitor's office to make this call. I am not in a position to give a definitive answer. I can only assume that there may have been contact between the registrar of the court and the Chief State Solicitor's office, because we know already the registrar of the court had contacted the Department of Justice on the previous Tuesday evening about the matter. My assumption — I emphasise that it is just an assumption — is that when doing so the registrar of the court also contacted the Chief State Solicitor's office which, in turn, contacted the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That matter is not one I can confirm beyond all doubt. If I need to alter or add in any respect to what I said, I will be happy to do so at the appropriate time.
I did not understand from anything that was said yesterday or from anything that the Minister said last Thursday that the inquiry by Mr. Cromien and Dr. Eddie Molloy would examine either the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Office of the Attorney General. The Taoiseach now says that these matters will be dealt with in the report and that there will be reference to their involvement or non-involvement in these matters. If I have misunderstood the Taoiseach in that regard perhaps he would correct me, but that is what he said.
The terms of reference of the inquiry invite Mr. Cromien and Dr. Molloy to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the failure to communicate the Government decision to Judge Lynch and to consider what procedural, administrative or other changes should be made in light of the outcome of the inquiry. The inquiry arises from the statement of responsibility in the matter which is contained in Government procedure instructions which require the proposing Department not only to implement the decision but also to carry out any other necessary action. Other necessary action is the responsibility of the promoting Department. Obviously the matter concerned, in a secondary sense, also involves the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the event of the inquiry not adequately covering that matter, it will be immediately inquired into.
The terms of reference invite the inquiry to make recommendations on all procedural issues that stem from this, whether they are directly within the Department of Justice or on a wider canvas. In the event of that aspect not being covered adequately it, too, will be inquired into. It is clear there was a serious failure in this area and I do not wish anything I have said to take from that. It is my hope and intention that the inquiry will be comprehensive, but if a remaining problem is not fully investigated it will be investigated immediately.
This is useful information for the House in regard to the remainder of the debate today. It was not in the public domain that the Offices of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions would be questioned and investigated as part of the inquiry. Clearly they are involved.
I said yesterday that those conducting the inquiry are free to talk to anybody inside or outside the public service in pursuit of their inquiries. The terms of reference include considering what procedural, administrative or other changes should be made in light of the outcome of the inquiry. That is not limited, in terms of the procedures and administrative or other changes, to any one Department or office. It will be a matter for the inquiry to decide to whom they wish to talk in pursuit of their remit. It is not for me to tell them to talk to anybody in particular, nor would I attempt to suggest that there is anybody to whom they should not talk. They will be free to make that decision in light of the terms of reference that have been published. If any further relevant matter that ought to be inquired into is not inquired into by the inquiry, it will be inquired into later.
For the sake of clarity and to avoid the Taoiseach being misunderstood for want of my asking the relevant question, he appears to be making it clear that Mr. Cromien and Dr. Molloy are free to investigate procedures in the Offices of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Both offices were directly involved in last week's débâcle; both were involved in replying to letters and communicating with each other or with others. It would be impossible to have an investigation that can conclusively deal with this problem or make any suggestions without the inquiry engaging in discussions with the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Taoiseach disagrees with that he should make it clear.
The inquiry will not investigate why the Attorney General did not follow up on the letter of 1 November and why it took him a month to follow up on the reply because those matters were in the domain of the Attorney General and had nothing to do with the courts officer in the Department of Justice, the Private Secretary in the Department or the Minister. They were the responsibility of the Office of the Attorney General. This is the first time it has been made clear to me and my colleagues that the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions will be examined by the inquiry.
Does the Taoiseach know if there were any communications between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions on this matter? If not, does he think the Attorney General should have contacted the Director of Public Prosecutions to alert him to the fact that cases being prosecuted by the State were being heard by an invalidly constituted court? The jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court includes various schedule offences. The court has extraordinary powers and functions.
The question is becoming too long.
Is the Taoiseach aware of such communications? As he is answerable for the Office of the Attorney General, does he not agree that it would have been correct for the Attorney General, in the context of this important matter, to have communicated directly with the Director of Public Prosecutions either by letter or, in view of the seriousness of the offences concerned, by dealing directly with the Director of Public Prosecutions?
It is not the function of the Attorney General to deal with the administration of the courts or the implementation of decisions regarding the appointment or allocation of judges. That is a matter for the Minister and the Department of Justice. Second, the Attorney General communicated his query about the matter in October and subsequently in November to the appropriate sponsoring Minister.
With regard to the inquiry, the terms of reference of the inquiry contain two elements: (1), to investigate the circumstances surrounding the failure to communicate the Government decision and, (2), to consider what procedural, administrative or other changes should be made in light of the outcome of the inquiry. It will be a matter for the inquiry to decide whether it needs to speak to the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions or any other officer. I made it clear yesterday that, as far as I was concerned, Mr. Cromien and Dr. Molloy were free to speak to anybody to whom they believed they ought to speak to complete their inquiry satisfactorily in accordance with their terms of reference. I am not saying anything new today but simply reiterating my comments in response to the Deputy's questions.
With regard to communications with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the appropriate communication with regard to the position and appointment of judges by the Attorney General is with the responsible Department, the Department of Justice. The Attorney General did that. I am not aware of any communication between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions on that matter. The appropriate line of communication about a concern in regard to the appointment of judges by the Attorney General or anybody else is with the Department of Justice which is responsible for the courts system. Regarding individual prosecutorial decisions by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the handling of particular cases, the Director is independent of the Attorney General in his decision making in that area.
There are a number of Deputies offering, I am calling Deputy Mary Harney. I am concerned that we have dwelt for some 20 minutes on this one question especially having regard to the fact that questions to the Taoiseach must conclude at 3.15 p.m. I appreciate the importance of the question but all questions on the Order Paper are of equal importance to the Chair.
Will the Taoiseach accept that, despite the Minister for Justice receiving the second letter from the Attorney General between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Tuesday, nothing was done to address the problem until the Director of Public Prosecutions contacted the Department of Justice at 4.30 p.m. on Wednesday?
This matter has been dealt with and is the subject of the inquiry but it has also been dealt with yesterday. I hesitate to be drawn into any attempt at speculating about the findings of the inquiry in that regard. My understanding is that the matter was already being dealt with in the Department of Justice on foot of the Attorney's second letter, approximately 24 hours before the DPP contacted the Department of Justice. While the DPP did contact the Department of Justice after 4.30 p.m. on Wednesday, the Department of Justice had already been instituting action to remedy the situation from the previous day, Tuesday, the day it received the second letter from the Attorney General. I think the inference in the Deputy's question is not correct.
Will the Taoiseach agree to make available the letters between the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, his correspondence and any relevant correspondence between the DPP's Office and the Attorney General in this matter? I accept what the Taoiseach has said about the DPP being independent. Maybe he cannot answer for that office but he is responsible for the Attorney General's office. We have Justice Lynch's correspondence. While it seems the Taoiseach does not want me to bring the DPP's office into the matter, it was the DPP's office who contacted the Department of Justice. A large part of the Minister's statement on 7 November related to the toing and froing, or buck passing, between the DPP's office and the secretary's office. I contend that the DPP was involved in the various matters dealing with the courts. The DPP's office has those extraordinary powers of deciding what goes to the Special Criminal Court and what does not go to the Special Criminal Court. Certainly the DPP's office is engaged in this matter and will be engaged in it from now on with the various cases. Will the Taoiseach, as the person responsible for the Attorney General's office, make available today the correspondence between the Attorney General's office and the Minister for Justice and any correspondence between the Attorney General's office and anyone else, but particularly the DPP's office, on this matter from the period 1 August to 7 November?
The full text of the correspondence by the Attorney General will be made available to those conducting the inquiry. There are two letters from the Attorney General. One contains legal advice, the other simply conveys a concern or passes on a query to the Department of Justice. There is a difficulty — and I have considered this matter — of establishing any precedent for the publication of the advice of the Attorney General to his client, which is the Government. Never has any Government published the advice of the Attorney General to it. I understand there are difficulties with that. I have not, however, concluded my consideration of the matter and if I am persuaded that there are reasons of an overriding character which would require the publication of the full text of the letters that can be done. I have already indicated, as has the Minister for Justice, the content of those letters as to their substance. The letters will be made available to the inquiry so that it can complete its work.
On that point——
The Chair takes the view that we have spent sufficient time, 25 minutes, on this one question. I want to bring it to a conclusion and try to dispose of some other questions also. Let us bring it to finality. Brief questions, please.
Perhaps it would be helpful to you, Sir, if I state that the questions in my name, immediately after this question, are for answer by a Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell. He asked me yesterday if he could be paired in order to attend the European Parliament. Those questions would not come up until next week. Of all the questions this is the main one.
There are other Deputies in the House. Deputy Harney has a question tabled.
Deputy Harney wants to raise these questions too.
I am dealing now with Question No. 1. I cannot remember for a long time having dwelt so long on one question. Having regard to——
A judge of the Special Criminal Court.
The Taoiseach has invited me to help him to be persuaded on the matter of the release of the correspondence.
I have not.
I know of no precedent where a judge of the Special Criminal Court has not been informed that he was delisted or the new judge informed of his position. Perhaps that would be valid grounds for the correspondence to be made available. Since 1974 it is the DPP who prosecutes many cases on behalf of the State. Does the Taoiseach not believe the Attorney General failed in his duty to Irish citizens, from the time he wrote his first letter on 1 November, to communicate directly with the person who would be engaged in the prosecutions, the DPP? The Taoiseach has not stated there is no correspondence, he has said he is not aware of it. I ask the Taoiseach to check if there has been correspondence or any contact. If so, will he make it known to the House? It may be all right to say that the members of the inquiry, Mr. Cromien and Dr. Molloy, will see this correspondence. We in this House are engaged in a confidence motion and the correspondence is relevant to this debate and should be produced in the democratically elected assembly, not merely to the two good gentlemen who are doing their best. This correspondence should be here.
There are three precedents which I quoted yesterday of judges who were appointed by Ministers of the Deputy's party. In one case the preparation for the appointment of the judge was so badly done that he had to draw his pay for five and a half years without being able to perform his work. The then Minister did not do the necessary preparatory work before appointing the judge in question. I gave two other examples of that, all of which were cases where the Minister was a member of the Deputy's party. The then Opposition did not table a motion of no confidence in the Minister on that occasion. There was no inquiry and no disclosure on those occasions. The Deputy is wrong in making the statement that there are no precedents. The precedents that occurred when the Deputy's party was in office——
Not the Special Criminal Court, it is completely different.
——were more serious and displayed a great deal of negligence on the part of the Minister from the Deputy's party. Obviously Deputy Bertie Ahern does not view omissions by members of his party in the way he would those of other parties. There are precedents.
Second, as regards the matter raised concerning the Attorney General, this question is not about the Attorney General but the Director of Public Prosecutions. As regards the first letter of the Attorney General in early October, I have made it clear that at that time the Attorney General did not believe anything was amiss. He believed Mr. Justice Harvey Kenny, who spoke to him about the matter, had not been told of a change that had already been made. The Attorney General assumed it had already been made and the difficulty was one of communication within the court. It would not have been appropriate for him to communicate with the Director of Public Prosecutions because he was not directly involved. He communicated with the Department of Justice, who were directly involved.
I am not aware of any contacts between the Attorney General's office and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Consultations between the DPP and the Attorney General are never made public. There is a precise provision in legislation for such consultations which are only undertaken on the basis of that legislation and in conditions of absolute confidentiality. The reason for this legal provision is that the DPP is entirely independent in the performance of his duties. This is an important consideration.
The inquiry will not be constrained by me if it decides to consult any of the parties concerned, including the DPP and the Attorney General, to fulfil its terms of reference.
I have already indicated the position regarding the publication of the letters. The full content of the letters has been made known to the House. There is a question about the publication of any letter containing advice, not because the advice in this instance is of any particular moment——
Publish them if they are innocuous.
——but because, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a precedent for the publication of the Attorney General's advice to any Government. There is no particular difficulty, other than the one I have identified, about making these letters available. There is nothing in these letters that would be of concern to anybody but publication would establish a precedent regarding the publication of advice between lawyer and client, in the case of the Attorney General and Government.
Is the DPP, through the Chief State Solicitor's office, the prosecutor in the 16 cases an issue as a result of this débâcle? It is strange that the DPP's office from August onwards apparently was not aware of the delisting of Mr. Justice Lynch. When the Attorney General contacted the Minister for Justice on 2 October, should he not have contacted the DPP's office? The Attorney General has a function under the Constitution and under statute to uphold the proper administration of the courts as regards public interest. The Attorney General should have contacted the DPP's office when he first received notice on this matter and he failed in that duty.
The first part of the Deputy's question is valid. As we know, the delisting of Mr. Justice Lynch was published in Irish Oifigiúil and in one national newspaper. Obviously there are questions as regards whether these publications are read when relevant. If that matter is not adequately covered in the inquiry, I will be happy to make necessary inquiries to establish what did or did not happen and what ought to happen.
I have already answered the second part of the Deputy's question, on whether the Attorney General ought to have contacted the DPP in October when he first raised the matter with the Department of Justice. As I have already explained, when the Attorney General wrote the first letter, he did not believe anything was amiss in terms of substance. He was working on the assumption that the judge to whom he had been speaking, and with whom he had a comparatively casual conversation as far as this issue is concerned, had not been told of a change that had been made. It would not be reasonable to expect the Attorney General to contact the DPP on this matter. It would be reasonable for him to contact the people responsible for the failure to implement the Government decision — the Department of Justice.
The primary question now is why did the Department not act on the original Government decision. Second, why did it not act on the first letter from the Attorney General, which drew its attention to the issue? These are matters which the House will discuss next week when the inquiry is completed. If there are any other ancillary questions which need to be asked, I will have no problem in implementing the necessary inquiries and will report to the House on the matter.
If I understand the Taoiseach correctly, something is seriously wrong. Can he confirm I am correct in assuming that the first letter was an inquiry and the second letter contained advice? Does this not indicate that the Attorney General was aware of a serious problem in the Special Criminal Court? If he was obliged to give advice, somebody may have asked him for it. It is extremely unlikely, given that the second letter was one of advice that the Attorney General would not have consulted the Minister for Justice prior to writing it. If the second letter contained advice, then it betrayed a knowledge on the part of the Attorney General. If the first letter contained advice that also betrayed knowledge on the part of the Attorney General. The second letter——
The Deputy is asking many questions.
——was not only a letter of reminder.
I will answer those questions as well as I can. The Deputy asked about ten questions in a concise presentation.
There is only one real one.
They are all good questions. First, the letter which contained advice was the second letter which was received on Tuesday, 5 November. There was no advice in the first letter in early October, which was simply an inquiry on foot of a conversation.
So it can be published?
The reason the Attorney General sent the second letter — this has already been made public — is that he noticed cases had been heard by Mr. Justice Lynch, he was concerned he had not received a reply to his previous query and that there might be grounds for concern. At that point he was not aware of the substance of the concern but his concern was greater at that point than it had been at the time of the initial letter. This is why he offered advice in the second letter about the potential implications, of which we were subsequently made aware.
The Deputy asked if the Attorney General offered advice in the second letter because he had been asked for it. I can state categorically that that was not the reason; he offered the advice because he felt, on the basis of information available to him from published sources, there were sufficient grounds for concern. He decided on his own initiative and without any request being made to him to advise the Minister for Justice of the matter.
The Deputy also asked if, given the nature of the second letter sent by the Attorney General to the Minister for Justice, there should have been oral communication on the matter. That issue has been dealt with substantially in the debate. The Attorney General takes the appropriate view that the most reliable and confirmable form of communication is a letter. Given his concern about the potential seriousness of the matter — this transpired to be the case — he chose the most appropriate method of communication, a letter which was sent to the Department of Justice which has responsibility.
Was it sent to the Minister for Justice or to her Department?
This form of communication is the most appropriate when dealing with matters of any seriousness. The Attorney General can be seen to have acted promptly and responsibly in terms of both his first and second letters in the matter.
The time for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach is almost exhausted. I am very concerned that we have disposed of only one of the 13 questions tabled to the Taoiseach. If this is the way the House wishes to proceed so be it, but as Ceann Comhairle I cannot feel proud of it. We have made no progress in respect of other questions and I hope this is not a precedent which will be followed by anyone. The question is very important but is it so important that it should exclude all the other questions on the Order Paper? It is unprecedented that we should devote so much time to one question.
It is an extremely important question. Does the Taoiseach accept that the Attorney General was aware of the very serious problem in the Special Criminal Court when compiling the advice for the Minister as he would not have gone to the trouble of preparing it if there was no need for it? In those circumstances, will he accept that no reasonable person——
I expect brevity at this late stage of our proceedings.
——would believe that the Minister for Justice was not aware of the problem in the Special Criminal Court prior to the Attorney General's letter of 1 November last?
The Deputy effectively said in the latter part of his question that the Minister for Justice told an untruth, and I utterly reject that suggestion. The Minister for Justice has outlined when she first became aware of the problem. She told the truth and it is inappropriate for Deputy O'Donoghue to suggest that she did otherwise. I ask him to withdraw what he said.
She was economical with the letters.
Regardless of how gently and quietly he toned his voice, it is disorderly of the Deputy to make the outrageous suggestion that the Minister for Justice told an untruth. I ask the Deputy to withdraw what he said as it is unworthy of him.
In the first part of his question the Deputy seemed to suggest that the Attorney General knew more than he stated he knew at the time he sent the second letter. He suggested that because the Attorney General had to "compile the advice" he, therefore, had to know much more than he said he knew. That is not true.
Give us the facts.
The second letter from the Attorney General contained three or four paragraphs, one of which had a sentence involving legal advice. No formal legal advice was compiled in the normal understanding of the term.
The Minister used it in her speech.
There should be no problem, therefore, in publishing the two letters.
Deputy O'Donoghue's suggestion that that was the case is not true and, therefore, the inference he draws from it is not true either. My concern is that the publication of any communication containing legal advice would create a precedent which could give rise to a difficulty. Apart from that concern, I do not have the slightest difficulty with the nature of the legal advice being made known. It is obvious from what we know about the circumstances of the matter what the nature of that advice would be. The Attorney General's role in this matter is exactly as I outlined it yesterday and any attempt by Deputy O'Donoghue to suggest that the Attorney General knew more than he said he did ought to be withdrawn as it is an imputation of untruth on the part of the Attorney General, which is as unworthy as the direct imputation of untruth on the part of the Minister for Justice which Deputy O'Donoghue made and which I again invite him to withdraw.
The Chair is not clear as to the extent of the personal remark made against the Minister——
The Deputy should withdraw it.
——but if the Deputy attributed a deliberate or conscious untruth to the Minister then I am sure he would wish to withdraw it.
I made a political charge.
It was not a political charge.
I am entitled to draw any conclusion I wish from the replies to queries I make of the Taoiseach about matters of legitimate public concern. I do not believe I have anything to withdraw.
The Deputy suggested that the Minister for Justice did not tell the truth in the House yesterday.
That is the Taoiseach's interpretation of what he said.
Must one qualify everything one says?
The Deputy should withdraw that suggestion.
She knowingly withheld information on the letter.
She withheld the letters last week.
She decided to withhold the letters.
Even though she was asked questions by Deputy McDowell last week she withheld the letter and refused——
I accept a debate is taking place on a motion of confidence in the Government but Deputies should be careful not to allege that someone told a deliberate untruth. This is something the House has never condoned, and I hope it shall never do so. If Deputy O'Donoghue made such an accusation against the Minister for Justice it should be withdrawn. The Chair has always taken the view that such accusations must be withdrawn.
Not if it is a political charge.
I differentiate between a political charge and a personal charge. If the charge made is a political one that is fair enough having regard to the debate taking place, but if the charge is personal it must be withdrawn.
Deputy O'Donoghue should do the decent thing and withdraw it.
The charge I made was a political one. I said I did not believe anyone would believe that the Minister for Justice did not know about the problem in the Special Criminal Court on 1 November.
Does the Deputy withdraw any personal imputation?
I withdraw any personal imputation but I stand over the political charge.
The Minister said in the House that she did not know about the problem and in suggesting that she did Deputy O'Donoghue is saying she told an untruth. He ought to withdraw what he said.
I have stated my opinion of the inference which people will draw from the set of circumstances as revealed by the Taoiseach. I am entitled to express that political opinion and I do not think the Taoiseach should seek to muzzle me in that fashion.
I am not seeking to muzzle the Deputy.
Or to disrupt.
I am seeking to maintain the normal conventions of this House where Members do not impute deliberate untruth to other Members. Deputy O'Donoghue's remarks related to the state of knowledge of the Minister for Justice in regard to the general matter of the problem of the Special Criminal Court. It does not relate to the second letter from Mr. Justice Lynch, which is a separate issue. The Minister explained at some length yesterday, as I did, why she did not wish to give partial information in regard to an undated letter because she did not know whether the letter, because of the absence of a date, was relevant or not to the issue under consideration.
We are trying to wheedle the truth out.
That has already been dealt with exhaustively. Deputy O'Donoghue suggested that the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, knew there was a problem in the Special Criminal Court before she said so in the House.
We are getting the facts by instalments. It is not good enough.
In so doing he is suggesting the Minister for Justice told an untruth. I ask the Deputy again to withdraw what he said.
That is what the Taoiseach is suggesting that Deputy O'Donoghue is suggesting.
On a point of order, will the Taoiseach give us his view on the situation where the Minister for Justice had a letter, came into the House, was queried about an obvious change in the first page of the draft of her speech of last Thursday and refused to answer Deputy McDowell?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): That is not a point of order.
I did so at length yesterday. I dealt with that matter fully, as did the Minister for Justice.
Not to our satisfaction.
I take it that Deputy O'Donoghue has withdrawn any personal imputation against the Minister that she deliberately misled this House by way of an untruth. Is that not so, Deputy O'Donoghue?
He has not withdrawn it.
Do it.
Do not tell me what to do, Deputy.
Do it properly.
I have no personal disagreement whatsoever with the Minister for Justice, and never have had. I made a political charge.
Can I take it that the Deputy will withdraw the charge?
I am not withdrawing the political charge.
The political charge is a charge of untruth in the House on the part of the Minister, and the Deputy should withdraw it. He knows he should withdraw it but pride prevents him from doing so.
The Taoiseach is not good at withdrawing false allegations.
The Chair has clarified this matter to the best of his ability and it should meet with the satisfaction of the House. We have gone beyond the time available to us for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach, which was 3.15 p.m. We have overstepped our time in relation to Priority Questions. The Chair has been placed in quite a difficulty today and it is not an episode of Question Time that he can ever be proud of.
We got a lot of information that we did not have until now.
We are getting it in instalments.
