——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——